But,

I do have a special respect for artists who just can’t bring themselves to allow their creations to be associated with images and products that they find to be inconsistent with their art, or who turn down a lot of money to retain artistic control of their output. People like Neil Young, Pearl Jam, Sleater-Kinney, Sonic Youth, and Fugazi have done this for years.

I guess The Beatles sold out when they put on the Brian Epstein suits.
Or when Marie Osmond got pierced ears. Oh wait, you’re all too young to remember that!!

For what it’s worth, Gordon Gano (the guy who wrote the lyrics) has denied that theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blister_in_the_Sun

True or not, the song still rocks, as does the rest of the album.

Again, I say The Who’s songs served their original “artistic” purpose long ago, and nobody’s changing them or altering them for a new purpose — they’re just using them, in a way that will cement their reputations as great songs. A “standard” is a song that just goes on and on.

I would also add that it’s a question of very little consequence. It’s just a fun part of hipster posturing. For people to whom individualism is a high virtue, conformity is a vice.

D.: I don’t think there’s a single artist in the world who didn’t try to sell their work to an audience, starting with the Greek playwrights.

The point isn’t what they do with their work once it’s done. It’s why they make it the way they do. Calling an artist a sellout is accusing them of changing from making their art according to their own unique aesthetic sensibilities to making their art to conform to a marketable aesthetic that is not their own.

You certainly can change your mind or change your aesthetic sensibilities without being a sellout. Those of us who like to call people sellouts are presuming that we know what’s going on inside the heads of those that we are accusing.