The Shilling

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Why is everyone focusing on Linkin Park selling out, and not that their music is complete shit post Meteora? Used to be my favorite band, but one can only take so much.

I honestly don't know how I feel about Linkin park any more, the music they create isn't in a genre of music that I personally don't like so I feel that I can't really complain about them in their new direction. Though I personally didn't mind most of Minutes to Midnight.

As for Nickelback, for me they suffer from being played way too much by radio stations. When they first came out I thought they were pretty good, then every single radio station played nothing but How you remind me and Photograph and I just grew a mental intolerance for his voice. Now I can tolerate about half of a song before I have to change to something else.

Hilarious comic! Love the "money as hankerchief" detail :D

But I will probably never understand why Nickelback became the big punching bag of the internet. Their music is much better than the crap that tries to rape my brain everytime I turn on the "popular music" radio channels, yet these "artists" goes unpunished for their destruction of the population's ability to understand music with 4 or more notes playing.

Every song nickelback made after "you remind me" might just be another version of it, but these songs still require some talent to perform. Also most are catchy as hell. Credit is where credit is due.

Bands, game creators, and other producers of media can all be sell outs and deserve to be despised for it. Sadly there is little you can do to someone who sells out without breaking the law.

Some people here seem to misunderstand what it's about entirely. It's not about being "indie" so much as giving up ideals and stabbing a fan base in the back. Basically bands, writers, game creators, are fine when they create a decent product, typically doing what they want to do, and make a decent profit doing it. Things change when someone notices that this creator (of any sort) is doing pretty well but figures with a lot of changes they can make a lot more money. A "sell out" happens in music when some new agent or big music company comes along and tells an artist they can make unheard of tons of money by changing around what they are doing and using their moderate success as a springboard. Usually the deal is the artist does what the agent tells them, and then they wind up splitting the profits. As a result the artist with their name out there gives up what they had been producing to do mainstream stuff, changing most of the stuff that made them great to their initial fans, and makes tons and tons of money. The idea being that even if everyone eventually wins up hating them, it doesn't matter because they have tons of cash.

The thing is that most bands that are accused of selling out aren't usually obscure. They are known, which is why they have the option to begin with. This is why a lot of indie music fans fear bands being recognized on a large scale due to that being when they inevitably receive (and take) the offer to sell out, which amounts to them making everything they do palatable for the widest group of people possible, and removing anything from their act that pushes the envelop outside of accepted parameters.

There is the endless question here as to whether bands, or other producers of media (which have tgheir own versions of things) owe their fans anything. Typically a sell out will say "no", but in reality they do. See, without the support of the fan base they betray in these cases they never would have become popular enough to be in the position to sell out to begin with. All those guys who bent over backwards to attend a show when a band due to what it did, and what it stood for, so it could succeed and stay in business are justified in feeling betrayed when a band basically takes a leak all over them.

Some people here are pretty honest though, saying that they would gladly sell out for "F@ck You" money, and that in of itself is the problem, most people will.

When it comes to video games, you see it in terms of a game developer that builds fame and fortune as a developer of single player RPGs, selling out to make shooters, or social games, becuse that's where the money is. Without the support of the RPG players they never would have been in a position to even consider such a transition, and refusing to cater to the people that made them, especially when they started up, is a betrayal.

It's important to understand something here. People usually don't start screaming "sell out" when someone changes to genuinely survive. It's when it happens to maximize profits. When a band is called a "sell out" they are usually making pretty good money, enough to definatly support themselves, it's when they decide they want 10s of millions of dollars that there is a problem. The same applies to gaming (which I bring up as a parallel so often here because this is a games sight) when a company say decides to chase apps or the casual bandwagon, because it's done to maximize growth and profit, not out of nessecity. Epic length single player RPGs will support a company just fine, but you don't see many of them because there is a lot more potential profit to be made by grinding out casual software like apps, social games, and similar. Likewise you see MMOs like "The Secret World" and "The Old Republic" being touted as failures, and pointed to as the whole type of game being unworthy not because they aren't making money and won't generate a long term profit, but because more money can be made faster by designing smaller, free to play games from the outset.

At any rate Linkin Park is a huge sell out here (though I'd argue they sold out long before now, but that's another discussion) because getting in bed with a big company for an "of the moment" shooter game is exactly the kind of thing they were not supposed to do, it's the opposite of everything they said they stood for both in person, and in their music. Linkin Park is making decent money, it doesn't need these revenues to survive or anything (and in their case they should be willing to die before they'd take money for this), it's all about lining their pockets with more millions.

That said, I like a lot of what Linkin Park did, and have always admitted that. I've never been fond of Nickelback though, and could never figure out why anyone bothers to either love or hate them, they seem kind of mediocre overall. I guess that might be the point though, they seemed like they were a product to begin with and were never their own people to sell out to begin with, a product intended to be mainstream through and through, the "edgy" nature of their work when they try to put it in, being "edgy" in the way that isn't going to get anyone in trouble or be all that contreversial. In comparison Linkin Park has been calle depressing and skirted contreversy in the past, with people trying to tie them to teen suicides and such if I remember. I missed it if it happened, probably from not caring, but I don't think Nickelback has ever raised many eyebrows or gotten any kind of attention despite the kind of music they are trying to play.... which pretty much makes them more of a product than a band that later becomes a product.

Why is everyone focusing on Linkin Park selling out, and not that their music is complete shit post Meteora? Used to be my favorite band, but one can only take so much.

Because whether you liked their more recent stuff or not Linkin Park at least seemingly held up to it's professed ideals. I personally think they sold out a while before this, but it wasn't quite as overt as what we're seeing here.

They are pretty much the perfect definition of "sell out" too because they were well known, successful, and making pretty damn good money. A contract like this is all about more money beyond the piles they already have, putting that beyond anything else when they don't have to.

Linkin Park was never my favorite band, but I liked a few things they did.

The quality of Linkin Park's music is going to be subjective given their enduring popularity, but this huge sell out move is undeniable and doesn't involve much in the way of opinion because it's right there, clear as day.

For anyone reading this or my last post this far, I will say I can play Devil's Advocate to an extent:

If a certain war game is ripping off "Special Ops. The Line" and getting involved in a ton of left wing anti-war/anti-US garbage given current sentiments, Linkin Park and it's style might actually superficially be a fitting choice. The reason being that a lot of those 'Nam movies and such tend to use generally depressing works from a lot of anti-war types in with the footage. "Paint It Black", and pretty much anything involving Jimi Hendrix are pretty stereotypical for 'nam era pieces. Linkin Park's songs about futility and despair are more modern for the generation playing this game, and can cover a lot of the same ground. Especially seeing as a lot of those iconic "period pieces" are pretty expensive to liscence nowadays because they work so well in so many movies going for a specific message. It's probably cheaper to buy Linkin Park outright than it would be to liscence some of the other music they might want to use.

That's all a guess, in that case you might argue that Linkin Park might not be selling out to quite the extent it first appears. It's still pretty bad though.

You could probably use "In The End" interchangably with "Paint It Black" for the same kind of scenes for example, very differant songs, but they kind of wind up with the same basic mood.

Nickleback has acouple ok songs and I like half of Liken parks.I even like some Metallica songs :P

I was sure in panel 3 he was going to say "but in the end it doesn't even matter" rather then burst into tears.


Why don't we all take a leaf out of the Hipster Bible and find a band no one's ever heard of to hate. ;)

Ask and you shall receive.

EDIT: Bonus video

But... I've heard of those.

As for selling out; is it really selling out if the song used was already out and not specifically made for whatever it's used for?
And, as people have pointed out already, if the artist actually likes whatever they make the music for? The fact that someone made a song for a movie you don't like doesn't mean the artist doesn't like the movie and is therefore a sellout.

I don't hate Nickelback.

I'm not a fan, but I could pick out 3 or so songs out of their entire repertoire that I actually enjoy.

Heck, I have a few on my MP3 player.

They aren't awful, but I'm not going to sing their praises.

They're okay.

Gonna echo this. Some Nickelback I like. Some I don't like. Most I don't give two shiates about and I live somewhere that radio stations are legally mandated to play Canadian Content on the radio, so I hear Nickelback every frakking day by Canadian Law. The hate people have for Nickelback is more of a sad reflection on the haters than any sort of judgement of Nickelback. These people are going to find something to hate (see: Linkin Park, Metallica, [Insert Popular Entertainment Here]) and the Internet is here to let them spread their hate far and wide, with the only repercussions being people laughing at the haters. (It's the only reaction that the hate deserves, and my post on this subject can be considered the equivalent of me laughing at the Nickelback haters since I can't be bothered to upload an audio file of me laughing derisively and storing somewhere online where I can link to it when I need to have a derisive laugh.)

Grey gets to pick the low hanging fruit whenever Grey wants to. We get to call Grey on taking the easy target even if Grey does acknowledge that Nickelback is far more wealthy than 99.99% of any internet forumite will ever be, and that Kroeger has a smokin' hot wife/fiance. (I'm assuming the girl is supposed to be Avril Lavigne, Kroeger's wife/fiance, don't know if they're actually married or just engaged and don't care enough to google it. Or even how to spell his name correctly.)

I do not know any of this band's works. Are they really that bad? I mean, I only know Nickleback as a punchline, but I've heard Lady Gaga and, honestly, I can't imagine anything being worse than that. Except possibly Ke$ha.

Linkin Park used to be good, before they sold ou-

Sorry, what I meant to say, and seriously mean, is that they used to be good before they completely changed the type of music they created from being emotional and lyrical to being, well, boring. I can still pop in any of their older albums and enjoy them, but I just can't do it for newer songs.

I can tell when I hear a Linkin Park song whether or not it was created before they turned to shit, because their latest music is just so bland and predictable and meaningless. The newer songs, even if they have a hint of emotion (most do not), don't move me the same way as their older songs.

"Breaking the Habit" is still one of my favorite songs of all time, and is still my go-to song whenever I'm feeling down and want to let it all out.

On the subject of selling out, I wish more bands could sell out. I wish more writers and directors could sell out. Selling out means they get money. Selling out means they get exposure. I want more of the bands I like to sell out because I want them to be successful. I want them to be rewarded for all their hard work.

Ideally, I want them to get so successful that they can call their own shots. I would love for the entertainers I like to have the freedom to do what it is they want to do, to take their time in crafting their entertainment so that it's what they want to provide to their fans, rather than merely something they have to get out in order to make enough money to pay the rent for a while longer. I don't want my favourite entertainers breaking up because they had to take day jobs in order to survive.

If that means that some go through phases where they're pleasing some sort of corporate boss, or they're producing schlock for things I don't like, fine. I don't have to like, or agree with, everything my favourite entertainers do. Maybe not even most of it.

Reanimation < Meteora < Minutes <= Hybrid < Living < Thousand

I'm really liking the rhymesmithing Shinoda is up to in the recent albums.

I listened to living things after playing spec ops: the line all the way through and.... yeah.

Funny how we agree on the top album, and two just above you agreed that Thousand Suns was great as well, it really was a home run.

Why is everyone focusing on Linkin Park selling out, and not that their music is complete shit post Meteora? Used to be my favorite band, but one can only take so much.

Because opinions. No, wait... are yours... the only right ones? Sorry Excludos, one can only take so much, indeed - so much of the same sound before the band thankfully hired Rubin and evolved, before they got stale. If the new sounds (there are several) aren't your style, that's understandable, it gets a bit avant-garde - but they're definitely not just plain shit.

As Mike recorded in 1999:
this is dedicated to those tired of the same old same, dedicated to the people advancing the game

*Post edited several times for grammar etc.*

To sell out, doesn't one need to have principles?


Linkin Park
Metallica post Black Album

It gets old.

There may be a reason for that, though.

Besides, Metallica always sucked.

I'm not really sure where I stand on this. I never really liked Linkin Park and I think Nickleback are hit and miss.

However, I'm really starting to dislike this issue of 'selling out'. How do we quantify when an artist, of whatever denomination, has 'sold out'? Do those words even mean anything anymore? Did they ever mean anything? To be honest, I think the only person who gets to decide what material is made, for who, and why, is the artist(s) themselves, and while fans are perfectly entitled to dislike what is created, I don't see how any of them have the kind of insight to claim that their dislike is a result of the artist(s) 'selling out'. It just strikes me as another one of those 'I don't like this, but I don't feel secure in just saying I don't like it, so instead I'm going to accuse the people that made it of being soulless corporate shills without any insight into their creative process because it will make me sound more indie.' kind of arguments.

I define "selling out" as the undermining or full-out degredation of artistic integrity for the sake of corporate interest.
But when I think of bands I'm forced to hear at my job, Nickelback included, and the phrase "artistic integrity"...


To be perfectly honest, Linken Park deserves a lot of their bile, but not for the reasons people say. "Blah Blah Blah Selloutsellout" who cares? Here's something I find much more applicable:

In almost every single song they've written, LP has some kind of drum beat going. But last I looked, they don't have a drummer. -_- It's that they are just a lazy fucking band, letting computers do half the work while reaping 100% of the benefits. People shouldn't pay others for music that they can just as easily make themselves at home with a decent computer and some shitty software.

They do have a drummer, they've had one since they first started.

Also, I don't get why making music with a computer is seen as "bad" or "lazy". The fact that you're using a computer doesn't make writing music any easier. You still have to have good composition skills to make a good song, not to mention have enough practice with the software you're using.

Definitely laughed at the comic, despite being a fan, yes more than just not minding their stuff, I'm an actual fan of it. The thing is, at the end of the day, their songs are good drinking songs and I do enjoy drinking.

i have to say, ive never run into that particular hair style before but it looks good on her

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here