The Black Keys refuse to admit they’ve sold out

People like the Hipster Jew never cease to frustrate me. Many of my closest friends-in general we all listen to music and appreciate other media not in the “mainstream”-commit themselves, without thinking things through all the way to their logical end, to the same tired, redundant dogma (in this case that of the “sellout,” something all music fans are familiar with). The problem is is that the term “sellout” is used so often and thrown at nearly all bands/musicians at some point, regardless of an actual level-headed consideration of a reality-based reality.

Without question, there have been, are, and always will be sellouts. But what does the term “sellout” actually reveal about the music in question, specifically? I’ve come to find that almost always the term is thrown at bands that have achieved, finally, some sort of public recognition. The accusation never comes from “haters” (another ready-made term that reduces the vernacular and cultural discourse to a meaningless volley of prefabricated buzzwords) as one may expect, but from longtime, diehard fans who in true reactionary form, thoughtlessly level the term at those they worship in response to a nervous fear. As is typically the case, these fans are paranoid that their beloved band is going to sacrifice their sound in a cynical bid to appeal to a larger market. And this does happen. But the term “sellout” is not a statement or critique of the music. It says absolutely nothing of the music. It is used so often to such little end that it has removed the burden of actually having any legitimate justification in using it.

If a band suddenly breaks out with an unexpected hit and thereafter changes their sound in a noticeable way in order to maximize their appeal, then one could make a good case. Or if the music changes after a band signs to a major label, one could reasonably draw the conclusion that the band has “sold out.”

But the problem is, it’s all so dogmatic. People that are perpetually preoccupied with whether their bands are selling out confuses the whole point. It’s the music that we actually consume. The musicians, at the end of the day, aren’t even important. So long as the music remains of high-quality, the charges of “sellout” are nothing more than dogmatic, the fan being concerned with incidental periphery and not the actual point, which is the music. Thus, you’re allegiance isn’t to the music, it’s to an idea.

Considering all this, the Black Keys have not “sold out.” They’re playing bigger shows, selling their music to more people, licensing their music and getting dough, as all “working” musicians hope to do. The point: they’re music has not suffered in the least. Not only is the Keys’ music meeting the same standards of quality of their earlier, “independent” LPs, but it’s also evolving-something only great artists manage to do over their careers. They’re live shows crisper and more soulful then every before. When one breaks it all down, calling a band who plays gospel, soul and blues as a two-piece and records they’re music in basements and junked-out lots in a time when the five biggest stars in the past fifteen-years have all come from “The Mickey Mouse Club”, a “sellout” truly sounds absurd. They’re artists. They don’t earn they’re living by wrangling carts in a Wal-Mart parking lot. They’re working musicians.

To say the Black Keys have sold out is cynical. There’s no evidence to support such a claim. What’s more cynical about people who are so willing to call bands “sellouts” is that they themselves-out of an immense selfishness-begrudge the rest of the world of great music. Presumably anyone who loves a band enough to be devastated over their having allegedly “sold out” considers their music exceptional. Why then would one want such music to go unheard? Especially during an era when our culture is so saturated with unchallenging, tepid and inane art, in every medium? Only a cynical, selfish, insecure pansy would wish against both their favorite artists’ success and the enlightenment of many others.

Not to mention (hipsters always fashion themselves as being on the outskirts of culture or perhaps outside or above the capitalist combine that everyone else is so unfashionably trapped in) the need to keep a band just to oneself or in the confines of an exclusive, elite subculture is in itself the sickness of ownership, practiced by those beholden to a corporate state. It is commodity obsessed. And hipsters ceaselessly concerned with bands having “sold out” only view art, musicians et al. as commodities.

Notice how every point you make in service of your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the actual music: the songwriting, the sound, the musicianship, the music’s evolution, in what context it is and where it fits into the band’s canon/how it enhances or augments their discography etc. The evidence you submit in service of your argument is just a list of shows they’ve played and soundtrack licensing agreements the band has made. It makes no qualitative statement on the music or their most recent album itself. You DO NOT make point that the MUSIC has SUFFERED in any way as a result of their recent success.

Another thing I can’t stand is the obsession with “indie.” Not for nothing, but the term “indie” is of corporate design, if not coined by some Executive then certainly hi-jacked and turned around on an unsuspecting class of media lovers. This proves true across the spectrum of all art, most abhorrently in the film industry where “indie films” are marketed as such (titles like “Juno,” “Pulp Fiction,”). The world of “indie” is just another market, one aimed at people who consider themselves “subversive” or “hip” or in “good taste.” You’ve swallowed the kool-aid only because you’re so narcissistic and self-consciously un-self-conscious. Things marketed as “indie” pass through the same Corporate digestive tract: “indie labels” and “indie production companies” are just labels that are tailor made to reach a specific market. We live in a culture where people think a film with a $50 mil. budget starring Harvey Keitel, Bruce Willis, and John Travolta is “independent,” as if it were a John Cassavetes picture- you know, a film that was actually financed by the people involved for a few thousand bucks that was scavenged with the lint from their own pockets, bank accounts and maxed-out credit cards. The music industry functions in the same way (though there are a few more legitimate “indie” operations than there are in other industries.) You are a true dilettante if there ever was one! The term “indie” is at this point in history, exhausted and arbitrary.

What’s curious about this whole “exclusivity” seen in the media/art world is that it’s almost entirely relegated to the arts. No where else, in no other form of discourse, would it be acceptable for people to wish for the maintenance of an elite subculture. Could one imagine those who follow the sciences branding Einstein or Darwin or Sagan (perhaps he’s the most appropriate example considering that it was his hope and job specifically to spread and make mainstream the sciences to as many people as possible) as a “sellout” for having published their discoveries not just in elite science journals, but in popular magazines and newspapers for widespread consumption. Not only would such actions be childish but those involved would be reprehensible in their withholding of something of great if not necessary importance to the public good. Could you imagine the theory of relativity only being known by those “rightfully who deserved to know.” No where else, in no other field, in no other discourse would this kind of sanctimonious behavior be accepted or deemed as sane. But it is allowable and fashionable at that(!) in the world of the arts.

If the Black Keys had started writing show tunes, maybe you’d be justified. But remember, even Link Wray wrote the theme for the original Batman series in the ’60s. And it was a nasty, guttural beast of a theme song at that. Remove your chains.

P.S. I always make this obvious, logic-based argument to the Guardians of Artistic Purity whenever the conversation comes up: if one had to choose between hearing the same banal, sentimental tunes that currently occupy the background noise during most commercials, or have those commercials scored with the music of the Black Keys, would anyone who is being intellectually honest, prefer the former? When I hear a moody Dylan song, or a slanky Keys song on television, I’m happy. Why, you may ask? Because I’m listening to good music.

Also, the Keys reaching a larger audience has made things so much easier on me as a longtime fan! I walk into a room and am greeted by people who are listening to them! Conversations begin! I no longer have the burden of having to shake people and demand they listen to this or that! That’s the point of art, you pious fundamentalist. It leads to communication: transcendent self-expression amongst friends and total strangers; a platform for disparate people to come together and share in something; a stage for ideas and thoughts and feelings to be exchanged. And that many more people now have access to the Black Keys’ music-by way of a Nissan commercial or a mainstream music festival-has made being a Keys fan that more exciting and rewarding. Now, instead of sitting in the corner and having a closed-off conversation about the band’s latest single with a lone friend, I can join in on a rhapsody at the beer pong table as their music blasts in the background, accompanied by the chorus of an entire household full of people.

Haha, what a douuuuche.

The black keys are a fad band. You get a black guy to dance in one of your videos and suddenly “the black keys are my brothers”. What an annoying song that is anyways. People who like the black keys do so just because everyone else does. Gotta be friends’ with mike holuj and omar itani! lol, fags.