Oh, yes. I didn't mean to suggest the disdain was consistent or even defensible - in fact it did amount to what could be called snobbishness at times. On the prog side Pink Floyd, The Nice & Jethro Tull had singles, to name but a few. And several of the 'heavy rock' giants - whose fans often showed the same disdain - did, too; with bands like Deep Purple clearly having no objection to 'commercial' success.
There seems to be this contradictory motivation among many pop musicians (which rubs off on their fans): to achieve the maximum "success" (ie. commercial success) with audiences, while not themselves being "commercial" (like that awful group _____________ - fill in as necessary - who can therefore be sneered at as sellouts even though their music may be very little different). When I used to read papers like the NME in the 70s and early 80s they'd be full of this kind of thing.
I believe that every musician/composer/songwriter wants his music to be heard by as many people as possible -- indeed, I would suspect one who claimed otherwise as either lying or having a fragile grasp on sanity. Surely
nobody will create something which they want people to hear, while simultaneously hoping that very few people will listen to it?
And by definition, if you create something (to sell) that a lot of people listen to, you are a commercial success.
But "selling out", in terms of pop music, specifically referrs to compromising your artistic vision with the sole intent of commercial success.
If Richard Barrett writes a three-minute piece of music in his acustomed style, Ian Pace records it, and by some miracle (I mean that in the nicest possible way
) it sells millions and becomes a top 10 single, have either of them "sold out" artistically? No.
But if Richard Barrett sits at his desk one day and says, "I'm going to write the most radio-friendly music I can in order to get a top 10 single," gets the Arctic Monkeys to record it, and makes a fortune, he's pretty solidly "sold-out".
So Pink Floyd, The Nice, Deep Purple, all had hit singles, but they had them by writing the kind of music they wanted to write (and have always written) and then hoping it would appeal to a lot of people. In a few cases it did. Their fans generally respect them for it.
There's a quote from Deep Purple's Roger Glover, which I can't find so I'll paraphrase: "We have never been in fashion or or out of fashion. It just so happens that there have been times in our history when what we do has been the fashion at the time."
(Aside: while googling for the quote, I found this instead, which I quite like: 'I have never been in fashion, so I can never be out of fashion. This is not a witticism, it is a stoic truth' - Malcolm Arnold.)
There
have been times when rock bands have "compromised" themselves in pursuit of commercial success, radically changing their usual style in order to produce a hit single. These hits, though they may sell millions, are often derided by those who call themselves fans of the band (and have taken it upon themselves to decide what does and doesn't fall within the band's "usual style"). This, if you like, is blatant snobbery: "I will follow you as long as you meet the high ideals I have ascribed to you. If there is a hint that people with lesser musical appreciation than me also like you, I will deny you."
Also, the "real fans" will see the "new fans" who have only bought the hit single as an inferior class of fan. Unbelieveable snobbery: "My appreciation of this band is greater than your appreciation of this band, as I listen to their less-popular music while you, like sheep, only listen to what is in the charts."
Dare I say that this latter attitude can also be seen from some classical music fans, directed towards people who only listen to the "popular bits" of a symphony?
