[justinsingh]

I'll admit that I don't know too much about Lucas as a person, but this assessment strikes me as a pattern I see amongst artists and their followings. Long time fans who feel a special attachment to the works of an artist always like to say how the artist "sells out" rather than choose to say they succeeded.

Artist makes something awesome -> people get attached -> artist starts making moves against -original- fan base's interest for the sake of larger financial success -> -original- fans get mad at their success.

This happens in the music industry. An artist will sign to a label where they lose control over their lyrics or thematics and their original following will feel betrayed. But that sense of betrayal can make fans overlook how it was for the betterment of the artist. They attained the success that every artist dreams of! Maybe they made sacrifices to the 'integrity' (however you define it) of their craft, but they reached an extent of financial security and wealth that they always wanted for doing what they love.

"Artists deserve to make good money!!" "Wait no.. artists should feel ashamed of reaching success because it hurts my feelings!!"

I understand where the fans are coming from, but I think it's just as reasonable to view "selling out" as "reaching success"- which makes me happy for the artist.

[Chris2048]

> artist starts making moves against -original- fan base's interest for the sake of larger financial success

Much like hollywood white-washing. Why not complain about this kind of thing? Framing it as "original- fans get mad at their success" is not correct - fans are mad that the product changed; They are mad the artist chose not to fight for the integrity of the product, and just took the money straight away.

You equate success with watering down the product, but it doesn't have to be that way. Plenty of artist have fought before.

[justinsingh]

As I said, I understand where the fans are coming from in this type of situation. So, they of course have a right to complain. But the answer of why they did it is right in front of them- they wanted quick financial success.

> They are mad the artist chose not to fight for the integrity of the product, and just took the money straight away.

That product's time is over because the artist says so. No consumer of art is promised a qualitatively consistent stream of content. Don't like it? Then don't buy into it. Just because fans have an emotional attachment to an expired product does not mean it should continue to be created if the artist doesn't want it to be. Why should it? If their new product is not worth the price it goes for, then it will fail.

> You equate success with watering down the product, but it doesn't have to be that way. Plenty of artist have fought before.

And I'm sure plenty have fought and failed as well. If the artist wants to pick the quickest route to financial success, however they define that wealth, then it does have to be that way.

Not every artist wants to go through the "fight" that you mention. And that's fine- they reached the success they wanted because of their hard work that led up to that point.

[Chris2048]

I don't know what you are arguing here. You say you understand the fans viewpoint, but then why frame it differently?

Sure, artists have the right to sell out. And fans have the right to criticise them for it, and their reputation with the original fan base damaged. What else are you arguing?

[justinsingh]

Understanding something does not mean agreeing with something.

I disagree with the idea that artists should be shamed for selling out.

[ArkyBeagle]

There's always a lot more to it than that. I still look on in horror at the "Billie Joe Must Die" phenomenon, or the "Metallica sold out when they did the Black Album" thing.

Artists often have to pivot. ZZTop is one; they can be divided into the pre/post beard eras. You can only push the envelope of boogie for so long and then you have to cartoon yourself or otherwise get weird.