the concept of selling out often seems seriously under-specified, and thus, like many things in our society, it becomes a tool for one set of people to improve their own status by attacking another set of people.
It is in the end a moral stance on what are the proper aesthetics, which is the kind of thing that manages to make both morality and aesthetics extremely suspect.
That's a very different situation. An individual "anchoring their identity" to a brand isn't doing so to earn money, which is why bands "sell out". It's just a choice they make about who they are, and I have to agree with GP that that seems tragically uncool.
This comment feels like it's from the early 90's when people were being critical of bands for selling out.
Reminds me of Tool's reaction to that trend, "Hooker with a Penis"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooker_with_a_Penis
AKA the good old times when it wasn't as culturally accepted to be openly evil if it made money.
Is there something wrong with being critical of bands for selling out, though?
the concept of selling out often seems seriously under-specified, and thus, like many things in our society, it becomes a tool for one set of people to improve their own status by attacking another set of people.
It is in the end a moral stance on what are the proper aesthetics, which is the kind of thing that manages to make both morality and aesthetics extremely suspect.
That's a very different situation. An individual "anchoring their identity" to a brand isn't doing so to earn money, which is why bands "sell out". It's just a choice they make about who they are, and I have to agree with GP that that seems tragically uncool.
Except this is being critical of the popularity and fans, not the band.