So it's okay to profit off of other people's illnesses and accidents, but not off of their desire to have something to listen to in the car? Interesting philosophy.

If you want money, go be a lawyer, music is an art form. How about that?

Having more money does not make music better.

Art can be an occupation. A lot of people make music for money, but they're not sell-outs, they don't have some sort of 'error in judgment', it's just a viable source of income.

Neither does having less money. What's your point?

why get all bent over it?

just enjoy the music or don't---could give a **** about the intentions or the money

what's so noble about most of these "sell out" musicians anyway?

I don't know if the first part is true but the second part is wrong. If by 'underground community' you mean late-80s punk, well, Green Day was not respected by any underground community that I knew of. They were just another punk band who dyed their hair and sang in a fake vaguely Brit accent. The punks I knew at the time all hated Green Day - every last one. The band was a joke. I am a little surprised they ended up getting paid (cuz the music is so awfully trite and boring) but they certainly didn't sell out any worthwhile underground community

Yeah but, by definition, jobs suck so who cares. But if my job was to be in a famous band playing music that I write myself then I swear to you that I would play whatever I wanted without any thought about the financial reward. Then again, I probably wouldn't make much (or be famous in the first place)

I can see where you're coming from and I don't think it's wrong. But wouldn't you love your art / profession more if you could create whatever you wanted and be paid the same amount for it as by making stuff that other people tell you to make?

But that's beside the point because commercial artists are not sell-outs they are artists who make money by satisfying the needs of other people who have money to spend.

Musicians who begin by making whatever music they want but then are put in a position where they are expected to reach certain budget numbers by making music they don't want to make (or 'changing it a little bit') end up shooting themselves in the head and I can see why

I'm not disputing whether they were loved or hated, the underground punk scene in California is where they came from. Playing at a load of small clubs making records on the cheap. I myself am not bothered about when bands go big. I know someone who has actually admitted he dislikes bands if their fanbase gets too big. He's too fucking Indie for his own good. I don't care about popularity, unless the band gets it by changing their style of music. I'm not saying Green Day sold out as such, because if they didn't, they wouldn't have made Dookie which I think is a good album. (Even if it's not proper Punk) I'm just saying that signing to a major label after saying they wouldn't could be perceived as selling out.

I thought you were trying to say that more money is better for music but now I understand what you said.

Sure. But I'm perfectly happy to simply have an occupation that I not only enjoy but I feel is "my calling" in a way.

I see your point, but I think adapting to your audience has been a part of all forms of art since people first started making art. Michelangelo knew that when he was painting the Sistine Chapel. James Brown knew it when he was making music to move butts. This notion that artists should make "pure" art, isolated from the influence of their audience is a pretty recent invention and is kind of at odds with the role of art over the millennia of human history.