Implying that famous and successful musicains are popular for any reason other than some corporate businessman pushing...

>implying that famous and successful musicains are popular for any reason other than some corporate businessman pushing a button
popularity has nothing to do with talent or creativity. the only thing that matters is having the right connections and being willing to sign your soul away. it's all a game and you dumb assholes are some greasy record label executive's pawns. i'm looking at you grimesfags

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20150301192441/http://actuallygrimes.tumblr.com/post/42421887682/something-i-want-to-say
pitchfork.com/news/44967-grimes-signs-to-4ad-listen-to-new-track-genesis-from-visions/
mosesavalon.com/what-are-the-vegas-odds-of-success-on-todays-major-label-record-deal/
youtube.com/watch?v=s7rM67NPhZ8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

That's a genuinely unnerving story

it's from this book, which i found to be a pretty interesting read. i'd recommend it if you're interested in sonic youth, or 80s/90s indie rock in general.

but i agree. it's pretty disgusting that the music industry has come to this. not to mention that was more than 30 years ago. i can only imagine the state of things now.

bump

can we talk about this Sup Forums?

>i'm looking at you grimesfags
This doesn't apply to Grimes. You don't know her. Stop spreading lies.

web.archive.org/web/20150301192441/http://actuallygrimes.tumblr.com/post/42421887682/something-i-want-to-say

I just don’t understand.

I mean, I do understand. I have my own issues with ‘the industry,’ I have issues with how it’s hard to compete with a bunch of people with great connections, and that a lot of real artists get lost along the way because they dont have an ‘in.’ and that women feel pressured to act like strippers and its ok to make rape threats but its not ok to say your a feminist. However, I don’t see why we have to hate something just because it’s successful, or assume that because it is successful it has no substance.

it's not about hating something because its successful. its hating the idea that lame and uncreative music can get huge for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual quality of the music. the system is what's fucked up. the shitty music that it churns out is the result of the faults of the system

>I don’t see why we have to hate something just because it’s successful
God, she's a narrow-minded dunce.

The music business was ruthless in utero mate, it's always been that way. If you think stories like this or like Motown stars being held down by their label at a whim are bad, imagine how bad it was when it was even more buttoned up and the only possible way you could be heard was begging an exec to thumbs-up the pressing of your record

again grimes shows how much of an Idiot she is. gosh its really hard to love her music but hate her personality
glad she deleted it

Grimes blew up mostly because tastemakers in the fashion circuit liked her, it's cool for the indie bourgeoisie to praise major indie label artists. I'd still say that's a bit more subversive way to get to the top, at least it's somewhat defined by people liking her released music first instead of a major branding a trademark symbol on her ass when she was 12 like the Disney stars.

that's true...

and... ??

Sonic Youth are NOT ones to talk.

They signed a much bigger deal than Grimes has, and possibly even will. She's on 4AD. You telling me Warner was smaller? The most damning indictment against major indies like 4AD is they work closely with larger corporations like Warner on distribution (or they used to, when physical distribution was a more insurmountable obstacle for indies). But SY signed directly to Warner.


There is no justification to place SY in some higher moral category to judge other artists who sold out actually much less than SY and their members (bear in mind Kim was also doing modeling- any money source Grimes has taken, SY took as much or more- which is exactly why SY is so widely known today). It's not that they have no right to talk about industry corruption- major label sellout acts like SY, Radiohead and Rage were some of the harshest critics of capitalism in the rock world, just as Grimes is more of a revolutionary minded capitalist critic than all but a few indie rockers today. Indie bands then and now largely avoided endorsing or working for systematic social change, instead content to till their little furrow of bourgeois DIY capitalism. Pop acts tend to be more radical. But everyone's a sellout until the system changes.

To quote one of Claire Boucher's favorite philosophers:

"and if I'm the Man
well you're the Man
and he's the Man as well
so you can point that fucking finger up your ass"

yeah i guess that's true. i'd like to think that the state of things has improved with decreased dependence on the industry, but i feel like people are still too desperate to be famous to care about any ethical issues involved.

read the archived tumblr post. she was defending other musicians she loves against the accusation their pop success proves they suck. she isn't self involved enough to defend herself like that. but with someone saying that about her, it was equally relevant in that context.

first of all, i never said SY was in some higher moral category, so that entire post is completely pointless.

second of all, idk where you're getting your info about them signing to warner, because that never even happened. the biggest label that they signed to was matador and that wasn't even until 2009, which was almost 30 years into their career. before that they were signed to some of the best and most reputable indie labels like sst, blast first, and even glenn branca's neutral records. get outta here with your disinfo.

also there's the fact that SY's music is infinitely more creative and impressive than grimes'

i don't think he was commenting on her self-involvement. i'm pretty sure he was talking about how she totally misunderstood the issue that people have with the industry. saying
>people only hate it because it's popular
shows a complete lack of critical thought regarding the subject, yet she still felt compelled to write a whole page about it

>see interesting thread in catalog
>it turns into grimes pretty much instantly
fucking kill me

we can still keep the thread on topic user. do you think conditions in the industry have gotten worse or better since this incident with SY? i'm convinced, they've taken this time to perfect that "star-making" button so everything is even more streamlined. pop stars these days seem to appear out of thin air, and then all of the sudden everyone is talking about them. i think it's a matter of having complete control over the media and advertisements

I'm sure star-making is pretty much down to a science nowadays, but as said I think overall things are much better off. companies may have greater control over media and advertising as a whole, but thankfully they don't have almost full control over what can be heard like they used to.

>op finds out that the "alternative" music scene is just as contrived as the mainstream
tune in next week when he finds out that pitchfork scores actually matter. (and not for the reasons you think)

>companies may have greater control over media and advertising as a whole, but thankfully they don't have almost full control over what can be heard like they used to.
that's true. at least now we have the option to dig through independent music, rather only being able to hear monopolized industry music. i never really thought about how different everything was before recording music became easier.

i think the internet is doing wonders for music. sure, for every good independent internet artist you have thousands of shitty soundcloud producers, but it's still nice having the option to find more obscure talent, and conversely being able to distribute your own music without being signed.

op here, i've known this for a while now. i was posting it to help inform other people on this board.

i'm curious about what you have to say about p4k scores though if you're willing to drop the whole condescension thing

You're too ignorant to bother having a discussion if you read a whole book about SY, know all their music and managed to come away with the idea they were not a major label act. They were, bitch. Right from Daydream Nation all the way up to Rather Ripped. The Eternal was on Matador, true. And Matador had even more major label connects than 4AD. SY released ten fucking albums on a major label, and the only one they released after that (besides a greatest hits comp they made for fucking Starbucks label, to be sold in its stores) was on the biggest and most corporate-connected indie. SY are even responsible for normalizing the narrative that an independent band with post punk roots could sign to one of the big three/four/five corporate labels without compromising their ethics.

Whether that narrative is a lie or not, it was what directly inspired REM and then fucking Nirvana to do that- if it was ok for SY, Kurt was ok with it. See how that worked out. After Nirvana, the deluge. The death of Kurt might be unfair to pin on SY, even though it was their decision to engage with the corporate machine that inspired Kurt's psychologically devastating and deadly involvement with an industry that sucked the soul and liberating countercultural force out of all the sounds he loved and made him feel responsible for breaking punk. But even if you don't blame them for the personal tragedy you have to see their responsibility for a decade of mainstream alt rock bands who signed to majors because Kurt had said it was ok and who, themselves, continued to advance this narrative, that it's okay to sell out as long as your music is not the same as what's already at the top of the charts- the exact same narrative that continues to justify selling out to this day.

SY is responsible- they are responsible for the fact "selling out" is no longer considered a legit critique. They are responsible for how big corporations scavenged and destroyed punk. They were responsible even for the fact that if Grimes or any other morally respected indie artist today DID sign with a major record label, criticism would be muted, because SY normalized the idea that moving to a corporate label doesn't entail moral compromise. Radiohead and Rage actually were much more honest about that. Their music is all about how selling out is selling your soul, and how corporations suck.

SY's songs are occasionally about that, but more often they are complacent with regard to capitalism, more about identity politics and projecting cool and doing what is expected of them (SY rarely dared to take musical risks on their major label albums, good as they are) to keep the money flowing- these are exactly the things Grimes has been falsely criticized for by those who peddle the sellout narrative.

Grimes blew up because people were impressed by her music and told to their friends. Word of mouth. She also playes lots of shows and gained lots of fans in meantime.

fuck off. you're hyperbolizing even more than the average grimesfag.

they didn't get popular because they signed to a major label, they signed to a major label because they got popular. there's a huge difference there. if you read the book, you would know that label executives were begging them to sign with them. they only signed when they had assurance that they could maintain complete artistic control. that's why they continued making good, creative music, even after they signed to bigger labels.

the only reason why sonic youth became popular in the first place was because they worked their asses off for like ten years in the new york underground making some of the most revolutionary and ground-breaking rock music in history. they made quite a few critically acclaimed albums before they started signing to bigger labels. once they did have the opportunity to sign to bigger labels it was because they had become world renowned for the music that they were making independently.

>Grimes blew up because people were impressed by her music and told to their friends. Word of mouth. She also playes lots of shows and gained lots of fans in meantime.
holy fucking shit dude

That's my SY CD btw. They're one of my favorite bands, and I have legally purchased usually new copies of almost all their albums between the early '80s and 2004 (later on- was just a kid in their heyday). I think the idea of attacking artists for selling out is stupid, as my prev post hopefully made clear, but there is a strong case to be made that normalizing the idea of supposedly anti-establishment punk bands working within the establishment has been equally problematic as the notorious sellout of hip hop old school heads still talk about, and if we are going to accuse any "indie" (or pseudo indie) artists of helping to destroy the ability of artists today to be taken seriously if they resist, we need to not randomly accuse the innocent and lionize the guilty.

If selling out even exists, SY are sellouts. Grimes is not... yet anyway.

dude selling out does not mean sign with a big label, it means follow the money, sacrifice everything you stood up for to get some money. that is not the case for Sonic youth because they still kept the creative control and they werent changing their sound. And kurt cobain has always been a little bitch who wanted to get famous and feel superior to the phonies he perceived the rest of the alternative musicians to be, in fact if you see montage of heck you see how much of a fucking crybaby he was

>tfw British
>literally every nobody act happened to go to public school and then BIMM school or similar and have a rich father

anyone here listen to this yet? is it any good?

thurston has been rocking the 60's haircut for like 40 years

>tfw you will never have beautiful hair like thurston

bump

you may have missed the part where a self styled SY expert was trying to set up a thread on the corruption of the industry in which SY would stand for the honorable refusal to sign to a major and Grimes would stand for selling out, despite the user being laughably ignorant of Grimes' largely independent status versus SY's two-decade-long major label tenure and various other collaborations with multinational and American corporations.

>in which SY would stand for the honorable refusal to sign to a major
op here. the point of this thread was merely to prove the fact that this "star-making" button exists. and that's how popular musicians get famous in the industry

i never intended it to have anything to do with sonic youth. it just so happens that the proof i had was within the context of a sonic youth book.

Moral of the story - always thoroughly vet your sources when trying to set up a complex argument. Otherwise you just might find yourself proving someone else's point.

>popularity has nothing to do with talent or creativity.
In a pre-internet era (such as what's described in the OP's image) perhaps. But in this day and age the possible streams for the distribution of music are virtually endless, and trying to make some sort of overarching point about a new media musician like Grimes using old media business metrics is literally pointless.

We live in a new market for the distribution of music - most of the metrics of which are uncharted territory.

Well, you were wrong about a really, really important detail of the argument you were trying to make, and in a really really obvious way. I was also wrong, Geffen was part of MCA not Warner. But that doesn't matter, they are both among the major three or four labels. I think it was a good faith error on your part not to be aware of Sonic Youth's history, but it's pretty revealing of how biased that book must be, to somehow avoid the topic.

Geffen even created a special branded pseudo indie subsidiary for them called "DGC" to obscure the connection to David Geffen Company, because such a renowned band in the American underground punk scene had never gone to a major before and there was fear it would destroy their cred (and doom future attempts by majors to monetize the emerging alternative/college radio market in the late '80s). Geffen handled it surprisingly well, and many were apparently unaware Daydream Nation was a major label debut (it's not purely down to the album's quality that it was many people's first time hearing Sonic Youth). Thanks to Kurt following SY's example, DGC then became Nirvana's label for Nevermind and onward, and with the windfall from Nirvana, they began signing other alternative rock acts, such as Beck. Later on, Beck was releasing his records on Interscope, which was also a subsidiary of the same MCA Universal Def Jam mega media corporation. Creating "DGC" was a surprisingly simple and effective (pre Internet) way for SY to prevent a sellout backlash. At the time, that accusation still held water and SY/Geffen's collab in creating "DGC" (hey kinda sounds like SST) was a brilliant branding move, preceding decades of music industry astroturfing.

As a fan of SY I think it's perfectly fine they did this and succeeded, but it's disgusting that people ignorant about alternative rock history are condemning one of the best most uncompromised indie artists today for compromises she never made, but that your "indie" faves did for fucking decades.

sonic youth isn't a sell-out either way you dumbass. like this user said
signing to bigger labels=/=selling out. they always stayed true to the artistic vision that they had, and hardly ever compromised experimentation for marketability. look at the syr recordings ffs

>also there's the fact that SY's music is infinitely more creative and impressive than grimes'
Lmao. That shit abrasive and tuneless crap can't compare with Grimes. They only have few decent songs, one of them being Teen Age Riot.

Why are you so surprised? Are you 10?

>That shit abrasive and tuneless crap can't compare with Grimes
maybe you should familiarize yourself with modern classical before you go spouting plebeian opinions like this. the dissonance and unique harmonic/melodic aspects of their music is one of the main reasons why it's genius.

It's funny that people picked Grimes as a target when she's one of the few REAL independent artists, one that makes everything (except mixing, mastering and distribution) in her music. She's a one woman band. SY are corporate rock compared to her DIY modus operandi.

They couldn't write a decent song to save their lives. JAMC and Pixies were far superior. Maybe I'm pleb for not enjoying dissonant shit.

grimes always stayed true to her artistic vision too. and if anything, SY changed their style far more after signing to a major label than Grimes. SY made some very commercially minded albums for DGC like Dirty, whereas there was no trace of anything so poppy in their pre-Daydream Nation work (no, not even Sister). You can say they just enjoyed a poppier sound, but where is the evidence in their pre-major label work? That's a classic "sellout"- changing their art (even just a little) to appeal to the corporate desire.

Grimes on the other hand, made the quite poppy electronic EP Darkbloom- her third release- before she had any idea even major indie labels (she was then on a tiny one) would be watching her. Pitchfork and other large music reviewing sites had never mentioned Grimes even once, until the release of Darkbloom. She was virtually unknown outside Montreal. Before she had any interest expressed by major labels, or even major press, she personally decided, without any way to know how many people would be listening, that she enjoyed performing poppy dance music live more than ambient music, so she recorded an album with a few dance pop songs, Darkbloom. She also spoke at the time about her love of pop. That was before she'd been offered any deals with successful labels like 4AD, let alone taken them. Are there interviews where SY speaks about their love of commercial radio rock before making their DGC albums? I don't think so. They may have remained true to themselves in a sense, but they also made more changes as a result of corporate interference than Claire Boucher.

if by decent song, you mean conventional pop song, then maybe. but even then, their later albums like goo and dirty had plenty of verse-chorus style songs.

>sonic youth isn't a sell-out either way
Which is fine either way imo. My only point is that it's very important to know enough about the underlying details of the things one chooses to illustrate a point - otherwise you run the risk of someone with true knowledge of the matter coming along and dismantling what otherwise might be a decent argument.

Good post.

Also worth mentioning - I'm not one hundred percent on the timeline of Grimes career back in 2011 (still collating data, as they say) but I'm fairly certain from some interviews I read recently that she finished recording Visions BEFORE being approached by (let alone signing with) 4AD, which - if true (again, still not entirely certain of this) would add a whole additional level problems to any sort of sellout narrative regarding her career trajectory.

>psy is a genius and i dont think its so terrible that hes been recognized for this. It also doesn’t make him evil. His art is creating a generation of kids that will grow up seeing asian culture as being as valid as western culture which they currently don’t
Gangnam Style is just a fucking meme though. His art is creating a generation of kids that will grow up seeing asian culture as being "so weird and wacky xD".

Baby steps, user. It wasn't all too long ago that Grimes was little more than a meme, and look at what's happening on that front - even as we speak?

Popularity does have something to do with talent for singers. Many radio singers have great voices with fantastic ranges no matter what you think of the songs they sing. There are some mediocre singers on the radio too like Selena Gomez and Taylor Swift, but there are artists like Jessie J (whose music I hate), Demi Lovato (ditto), Beyonce, Adele, Sia, Mariah Carey, and Ariana Grande who can fucking sing. They didn't get famous for nothing.

You're right: pitchfork.com/news/44967-grimes-signs-to-4ad-listen-to-new-track-genesis-from-visions/

Montreal electro-pop artist Grimes (aka Claire Boucher) posted on her Twitter yesterday that she's signed to 4AD. "just want 2 say i am so honoured to be releasing my next album with 4AD - a record label I have admired since I was 13 and first heard the cocteau twins and realized girls can make music, and goth is sick," she wrote.

Grimes' new album Visions, which was originally scheduled for release through the small Canadian label Arbutus on January 31, will be released on February 21 in North America and elsewhere on March 12. It's still scheduled for release through Arbutus in Canada.

Basically Visions was ready and originally scheduled to be released on her small label Arbutus before she signed the deal with 4AD. I think she signed it in her own terms.

>goth is sick
when will the cringe end...

Boredoms is a good example of a band who never sold out even though they got signed to a major label.

You taking yourself too seriously to appreciate her saying "goth is sick" is more cringe

You guys are all fucking moronic.

Any artist the sells their craft is a sellout. As soon as they stick a price tag on whatever work they made, that's all it can be valued at. It goes from an emotional type of worth to a monetized type of worth that can easily be calculated. Name-your-price isn't any better, because it still puts a dollar value on the music. The only way to be a true artist is to release your music completely independently for free and play shows for free. To be a musical artist any other way is to sell out.

>They are responsible for how big corporations scavenged and destroyed punk.
i'm sorry, but that happened in fucking 1977. crass wrote 'punk is dead' in 1978 and they were stating the obvious. it was already making more money for teen magazine publishers than it ever had for the musicians that played it.
"selling out" in the 80's and 90's was an artist's only available path to any remuneration at all beyond basic survival. nobody who came of age in this era of dirt cheap and high quality options for recording, promoting, and selling your own music can begin to imagine how expensive and difficult it used to be, and how much control the old industry gatekeepers really had. nothing that anyone did in the 80's and 90's can possibly be a valid excuse for something someone does today.

here's your (you)

I could have swore I saw an interview where she said she had a release date before the album was done and she had to hide away just so she could finish visions in time. I can try and find the video, ifbthis thread isn't dead.

yeah, a release date for arbutus, not for 4AD

Exactly. Arbutus put pressure on her to make Visions very quickly. Great that she signed to 4AD, she would be a nobody if Arbutus kept "promoting" her.

>state of things now

Ke$ha was raped by her producer and he wont let her create any music and no one can help her
Most pop stars are literally just raped and used and get very little of the multi millions their crap produces

I like this thread. There's many more stories to tell about the strings controlling the puppets these sheep worship. But the good news is; you have to know what it is you're after from the jump. Many people rush into big contracts, then let these businessmen invest so much into them they have no choice but to do exactly as their told so Mr. businessman can see returns in his investment. And in a creative field, living by anybody elses rhythm but your own is a NIGHTMARE.

Remember: busness is BUSINESS. It's about numbers, results. If you're under the impression a company cares about you, it's because they've spent millions to make it look that way.

This last paragraph is to commend the artists wh were strong enough to stick to nobody elses guns but their own: Kanye, Prince, Frank and Jai Paul.

Nevermind, deleting my post. Thread got way too autistic the further I scrolled down.

Autistic how? Because who know their shit are actually discussing music? This board would be would be way better off if there were more threads like this instead of a bunch of morons reposting generic threads about meme albums/artists.

I had real insight to offer. As in lived, not read about. But then I seen arguments based off of third-person speculation and had to ask myself what the fuck I'm even doing here.

shame that someone with actual insight for a change would chose not to enlighten us

I'm a signed artist to 2 major labels (publishing and recording), with 4 options and recording rights relinquished for perpetuity. As to why I chose to sign a major label deal and not an indie one:

mosesavalon.com/what-are-the-vegas-odds-of-success-on-todays-major-label-record-deal/

The advances indie labels offer are a tiny fraction of what majors offer, not to mention committed (recording, tour support, other funds) and uncommitted (marketing) spending. In short: if you're in a band with more than 3-4 members, and have to pay management, legal, indie press etc., you can't afford to live on an Indie deal anymore - indies have been crashed by streaming. And this isn't about 6 figures, this is about having an average income after all the deductions and corporate cramps. If the issue is creative control, if you can't guarantee that contractually (as many have), then maybe your vision isn't powerful enough.

Majors and big indies aren't that different; they all want to sell records. The former happens to be more efficient to do so; if you're willing to compromise, and realise that regardless of your moral sensibilities the world is run by capitalism, then you better side with the devil (another misconception: people working for majors are some of the bggest music lovers i've met. the people sitting on the board aren't, but they are not the ones who will roll your music out, or who do your A&R).

This. Consider too that - in the case of someone like Grimes - she is a literal solo artist with virtually no overhead (whose primary reason for becoming a live musician in the first place was in order to pay her rent...) Most traditionally outfitted musical setups can't take that route, so yeah - this whole sellout thing is much more nuanced than many music industry bystanders tend to believe (believe it or not, for professional musicians music IS ACTUALLY a business.)

op here. glad to see that almost nobody understood the point of this thread.

ffs you guys i wasn't trying to discuss the the ethics of selling out vs staying on an indie label. i wasn't trying to talk about who has sold out and who hasn't. i wasn't trying to talk about selling out at all. read my fucking post. i wasn't even trying to talk about sonic youth.

the whole point of this thread was to show definitive proof that the industry manufactures pop stars by pushing a metaphorical button, and that being famous has nothing to do with talent. all you need is a marketable image and some connections.

the only reason why i chose to mention grimes is because grimesfags always fall back on the argument that she's famous so she must be good. i didn't realize it would provoke them into an autistic frenzy that would derail the entire thread. s m h

the big 3 have power but they can't literally manufacture. they sign say 30 artists a year, spend equal amounts of money on all (~1m), only 7-8 make a second album. that should be proof enough

This is why when people say jews control the world, it's not all memeing. They control the banks and companies. They give each other loans at rates that goy will never dream of. You either have to be one or marry into it. Nepotism.

source on these statistics? sure the industry can't definitively know the way that the public will react to someone, but they're pretty damn good at predicting that, and pandering to them in every way possible in order to make that person famous. if your stats are true, then 7-8 pop stars a year from three different labels is still insane

I'm , in the industry so spoken to people high up I work with about it. of the 7-8 that make a second album, not all are what you would say are popstars. only 2 people made platinum this year for example. and yes, 2 out of 100 is statistically probable, its not manufactured

even though that's nowhere near legitimate proof, and i have no reason to believe you, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. but how do you explain the story in the op?

thats the same shit they were telling us before we signed. 'i have a red button that I can press that will put your faces everywhere' etc etc. its strategies that entice you to sign with them. and are partly true; they can amass a 400k spending for marketing on an album - no indie can do that. and if the album works, you -will- become huge. whether it sticks or not is unpredictable. for every success story there's 20 flops, and being a signed artist means you have to fight to be the former and not the latter.

its easy to adhere to black and white mythmaking when you see all the money involved in the business, but as someone who rubs shoulders everyday with the 'devil', its a much more mundane, risky and vanilla venture capitalism business than you think. but the A&Rs genuinely love good music - they wouldnt hav ethis job otherwise

this

>raped
yeah just like all other pop starts who sold themselves for fame aight?

>this
... Is a perfect example of the kind of music fan who actually (apparently) thinks that musicians are immortal and don't need to eat food. Nothing more.

we understood you perfectly.

you were saying

A. sonic youth were offered the chance to sign a deal with the devil with a major corporation that could "push a button" to make them famous (within their genre at least) and assure their lifelong financial success. sonic youth were disgusted and walked away without signing a deal, because they are honorable indie dudes.

B. grimes, in contrast, is the ultimate example of today's manufactured pop star, the person who has no talent or actual appeal to listeners, but becomes a globally successful top 40 hitmaker only because she has no moral principles like sonic youth, and unlike them, when she went into that meeting and the devil said suck my cock, she said "sure thing!"

ALL of the above was proven to be bullshit by people with more knowledge, therefore your thread is a joke.

*Sonic Youth actually did suck the devil's cock in that meeting.

*They agreed to a major label deal that "pushed the magic button" and got them into magazines, onto rock radio, made them famous rock stars, paved the way for a corporate takeover of large parts of the (American!! we're not talking about '70s UK punk) alternative and indie scene, and left them very financially successful and secure (pre-streaming- wealthy in a way today's label signed acts probably can't be).

*They released ten major label albums, which include 95% of the music by this band that ever gets talked about on moo or elsewhere (not that it's justified to ignore Evol, Sister, Bad Moon etc, but people mostly do).

*Sonic Youth were not fans of mainstream rock, but they changed their musical style to resemble it, in order to make more money and/or please their label handlers.

*Grimes, today's most brilliant and risk taking artist, makes exactly the music she wants, and found a large and committed cult fanbase on her own, without the aid of any "magic button." She makes perfect pop but has zero top 40 hits, because she refuses to suck the devil's cock.

they need to suffer and die sow e can remember how pure and based they were

if people today don't and dident sell out its back to working at macdonalds and putting stuff on bandcamp for free

muscians today have little choice
whats the alternative?

why macdonalds?
A lot of great free bandcampers are probably college guys who will have pretty normal jobs, and don't sacrifie artistry (not that I think that, by signing to a label or putting a price, you're selling your soul)

i just use that as an example it could be any job for that matter but still what is the alternative?

pretty much its music as a hobby and do the best you can do and keep a day job.

my point was that there is no alternative if you want a steady income, everyone is a sellout in some way, but SY helped ensure that the world today would be like that. in their time, bands could've actually survived without a major label deal, and instead they wanted to be big rock stars. you know, that's fine. i don't object to that. i think it's cool there was a band like SY on the corporate radio from time to time and introducing a generation to alt rock. what disgusts me is that these great corporate sellouts Sonic Youth were used by the OP to attack Grimes and her fans by comparison, when Sonic Youth "sold out" in hundreds of times (dollars) more ways than her. To say SY are more morally virtuous than Grimes when they sucked more devil cock every minute than she has in her lifetime is just so laughably ignorant about SY's own history, i would've left it alone, but it demanded some kind of response when OP added that she's a hack whose music and aesthetics is worthless and who only got super popular in the mainstream (which she isn't even- SY has many more charting hits on Billboard) because of her alleged sellout.

IF we are going to use these stupid sellout narratives, let's acknowledge who the real sellouts are. Grimes refused even her indie record label's ideas to advertise her album with fake street art and other corporate type publicity like Arcade Fire uses, and SY in their day. That's why Art Angels sold an embarrassingly low 11,000 in its first week and peaked at #36.

Oh yeah, it must be bait because I think that artists should devalue their art by giving it a price that it needs to be paid for. Use critical thinking you dipshit.
Name a single great artist or writer of the past who didn't die penniless.

We all die penniless in the end, user - you can't take it with you.

>the whole point of this thread was to show definitive proof that the industry manufactures pop stars by pushing a metaphorical button
And you picked the wrong artist: Grimes. She started playing in front of very few people in a damn warehouse: youtube.com/watch?v=s7rM67NPhZ8

She is and always was indie. There wasn't any label magic involved to make her a popstar. She's a self made artist.

>Name a single great artist or writer of the past who didn't die penniless.
First objectively define 'penniless' and 'great' - then we can see about answering you're question.

Good post. The OP tried to hide his intentions and you exposed him clearly. BTFO.

>OP makes a mildly interesting post about the music industry
>mentions grimes
>triggered grimesfags defend their waifu
>thread instantly goes to shit
I seriously thought you guys were just being ironic with the grimes thing
It's unfathomable how fucking retarded and pathetic these people are

Exactly. The OP is totally misinformed regarding Grimes. Later he tried backpedalling like a coward, after people calling him out on his bullshit.

>i'm looking at you grimesfags
Sure, look as much as you want. That will not make your point any valid.

>OP makes a mildly interesting post about the music industry
>mentions grimes as the villain
>people proved he's wrong
Stop being a sperging retard. Leave your Grimes hate aside for a moment and fucking think. Use your shitty brain for once.

>Grimes, today's most brilliant and risk taking artist, makes exactly the music she wants, and found a large and committed cult fanbase on her own, without the aid of any "magic button." She makes perfect pop but has zero top 40 hits, because she refuses to suck the devil's cock.
wew lad
If you seriously believe this I suggest suicide
Flesh Without Blood was a huge song and Grimes does nothing new or innovative, she's just boring

So... do you talk like a retard ironically or do you seriously have an illness?