There is no greater insult to an artist’s integrity than the label of “sellout.” Lately, it seems that this shameful title has been applied to every artist that manages to break out of the underground scene and find mainstream success. Many of the music enthusiasts among us feel the need to distance themselves from anyone who sells too many records. As a result, it has become distinctly un-hip to embrace the popular artists of our time. The question: Is it fair to condemn an artist simply for becoming popular? Is it acceptable to explore a new musical style that may or may not result in more record sales? Are there still artists who make their names in popular music without conforming to the pressures of the business? Indeed, it may be time for all of us music freaks step back and reassess what constitutes a sellout.

Take, for example, the case of Green Day. Prior to 2004, the trio built a solid reputation for playing simple, standardized punk rock with an above-average sense of songcraft. Enter American Idiot. It was an ambitious concept album that explored post-9/11 America in the “rock opera” format first popularized by The Who. It was not a pure punk rock record, nor did it pretend to be. The new Green Day emerged as an energetic, intelligent pop-rock band with plenty to say about the world around them. While the general public ate it up, making American Idiot the band’s fastest-selling record ever, many punk purists went into mourning. The record was simply too catchy, too cleanly produced, and too popular for many fans of their established style. What’s worse, singles like “American Idiot” and “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” were abusively overplayed by radio and MTV until even the most loyal fans began to cringe. Before long, the name “Green Day” became synonymous with “sellout” for cynical listeners everywhere. What’s easiest to forget is that American Idiot is excellent on its own terms. The songs are as original as they are anthematic, both lyrically and sonically. And the supporting tour that followed was an electrifying and engaging spectacle of rock and roll. Take in the whole picture, and you’ll start to see a band that unfairly became a victim of its own success.

Green Day, of course, had the distinct misfortune of being not only a popular band, but a popular “punk” band. Hardcore fans of punk rock have an exceptionally low tolerance for those who dare sell too many records. The banishment of popular punk bands from their own community is not a new practice. Punk icons Bad Religion, for example, took heat for mixing punk energy with mainstream hooks in the late 80s. Even the legendary Clash angered many purists in the late 70s, when they began to polish their production and incorporate pop, reggae, and arena rock into their sound. It seems that the most devoted punk fans have always wanted to preserve their beloved style as it was conceived, without interference from the world of popular music. And anyone with the nerve to venture outside the boundaries of punk and explore that world can only be called a traitor.

Punk rock is not the only genre in which popularity is a taboo. Last year, the Decemberists expanded on their indie-folk sound to incorporate 70s-style rock, angering loyal indie fans. In 1991, fans of hardcore thrash-metal couldn’t choke down Metallica’s mainstream-infused “Black Album.” Even back in 1965, Bob Dylan’s switch from acoustic folk to electric blues-rock was greeted with violent rage from the folk community. And what do all these famous “sellouts” have in common? They all crossed genre lines into more widely popular styles, and paid the price with their original fan bases. It seems most likely that if these artists had played in the more popular style from the beginning, they never would have heard the cries of, “sellout!” After all, who ever thought of calling The Beatles “sellouts” for playing their melodic pop-rock? In their case, nothing else was ever expected because popular music was their indisputable core.

So, fellow music geeks, I ask you this question: when we judge an artist’s newest release, should we expect it to sound like the artist’s older work? Or should we take every album on its own terms, regardless of what came before it or how many copies it sells? Next time you open your mouth to call an artist a “sellout,” think twice about whether the title is fair. Unless you’re talking about Rod Stewart. Then it’s ok.