not sure I agree. we seem to subject musicians to a different set of rules and we seem to forget that it is their job and they are out there to make money. being a musician is not like your run-of-the-mill job. how many of us have spent the first few years of their careers working but not making any money? how many jobs are out there where you are only as good as your last performance? how many of us are protected by a slew of legislation - from long service leave to unfair dismissal? how many musicians have pensions and IRAs? would any of us be "accused" of selling out if we took a job for higher pay? or a job with a global company? nearly all of them can be accused of some unsavory, or worse, behaviour. Shell and Saro-wiwa, BHP in PNG, Enron, Apple and HP and Foxconn. yet for us, this is a no brainer.

there seem of be a culture of entitlement which is prevalent amongst fans. as some of you may know, I am a huge Neil Young fan. he has just started touring and as if on queue, the "ticket prices" debate on the list reared its ugly head. "he is charging more than the Stones and when Springsteen played here last month he charged less". he can charge what he pleases and I can decide whether to go or not and we don't owe each other anything.

yes - there are some extreme cases like the Oils who seem to exhibit more "moral fiber" than other contemporaries. but I would argue that most, if not, all of their decisions were done based on what is best for them rather than following some set of noble ideas. the fact that their decision and our view of nobility was often the same is great. but should not distract us from the fact that they knew the consequences and did what they thought was the best for the band.

so the concept of a musician who sold out, is IMO, more often than not, our own fabrication. they are just like everybody else. how howzat for stating the obvious? :)
Miron