This whole "sellout" thing is so problematic that I generally ignore it these days.
Gary, even if we use your definition, you would need to clarify "artistic integrity". How can you prove that the STones have lost artistic integrity? What criteria would you use?
Did the Grateful Dead lose "artistic integrity" when they started to play large stadiums and had a fairly pre-defined set structure to their performances. How can you prove it? And who cares, really?
As for the Stones, they still put on a great show and they sound really good live. They could play "Gimme Shelter" ad nauseaum and it wouldn't be often enough for me :-)

Michael,
yeah you are right. The issue is not posed very well.

'Sellout' and 'artistic integrity' is the wrong approach to commercialism as rock music is an industry. There is nothing wrong with Showbiz or playing big stadiums, nostalgic acts or Rock Inc. There a lots of niches in the market and fans do want many different kinds of music delivered in many ways.

What is problematic about the Grateful Dead is the artistic decline during the 1980s---there was not much new material being written and what was written wasn't that good. So they--particularly Jerry Garcia--were basically doing material written a decade ago.

Moreover, Garcia's more interesting musical experiments and innovative explorations were going on outside the band .eg., Jerry Garcia and David Grisman's jazzy So What.

As for the Stones--the band's post-1972 work, ie., after Exile on Main Street, is not that good. That long held judgement of mine, based on hearing bits and pieces of the post -1972 work, was confirmed after listening to 40 Licks. The second disc is not that good. Maybe 'Some Girls' is an exception to that judgement. The recent albums seem to be more promotions for a world tour than attempts at creatiing good music.

Maybe another way of coming at it is to say that:

'mythology was a more bankable asset than music: stoke the myth and millions will turn up to see you live, regardless of how shoddy your recent work is.'

Maybe A Bigger Bang says otherwise?

The song "Start Me Up" was on the radio over the weekend - when it was over, the DJ said, "And that was the theme to Windows 95."

Dave,
good example of selling out. And all for $13 million.It's not as if they need the money is it?

That forgetfulness is the corrosive effects of commercialism.

"A Bigger Bang" was a great return to form for the Stones. I'd lost track of them after 1983's "Undercover" (which I quite like).

I agree with Michael and defend the Stones in that they still put on a great live show from what I gather.

As an AC/DC fan I feel that they lads have become complacent album wise in their dotage. However they are still one of the best live acts around.

As long as the Stones and AC/DC still cut it live, which a band can't fake even by trading in on their legend, I'm happy.

Shaun,
I cannot make the judgement about the Stones being a one of the best live acts around.

I've haven't seen them recently, nor have I listened to their live recordings, nor seen the early concert films, nor the latter ones such as Four Flicks. I did see them perform at the big US baseball gig--Superbowl---and I thought they looked and sounded pretty ordinary. The music was acceptable but uninspired.

I did listen to a Bigger Bang on the internet in Canberra last year. I enjoyed the rough style, thought that some tracks were good whilst some were mundane, and judged that it did not break any new ground.

BABYLONIAN BONUS! ROCK TRIVIA!
Name a longtime rock band who continue to tour, despite their advanced age? Here's a hint: the lead singer has giant lips and a huge mouth and is known for his lusty character. Here's another hint: the lead guitarist is known for his laid-back cool, as well as his artistic differences with the lead singer. Here's another hint: their music has been sold to giant corporations. Sure, it could be the Stones, but it's really Aerosmith, who appear to be done.

I not worried if the Stones break any new ground. A solid rock'n'roll album still puts them ahead of most whippersnappers. I think re-invention is way past them.

I've heard a few boots from the recent US tour and they still sound great. The Superbowl is not the best judge of any act. It is a very artificial environment.

Garageband is allowing some of us mid-30s folks to rediscover our teenage inner-city pop sound; The Super Happy Motivated Rock Band :)

Stones. Bah. HuSi runs Music Fun Challenge (MFC) contests. These are producing mp3s of amazing quality and diversity. It is these types of bands which are on high rotation on my nanopod/ipod.

Shaun,
Okay, the Stones music does not break new ground, the music is not just commercialism, their performances are great and not excercises in nostalgia, and they are seen in mythological excesssive terms by the rock world..

...then I reckon the perfomance of their music embodies a remythologozing the world for their fans through the echoes of the past.

A universe without myth--and the rejection of the need for myths in modernity---is a world reduced to a nothingness of things.The Stones gives us something to believe in that is embodied in the performance. The myths they create in the excessive performance enable us to cope with our suffering in the chaos.