David Guetta rants on selling out: “I am not trying to be credible, I am trying to be incredible”

It’s no secret that the convergence of dance music on the pop landscape has bubbling up to a boiling point for some time now. Even recently we’ve seen heavyweight dance music producers from all fields court the mainstream with artists like Tiesto, Steve Angello, Rusko and Boys Noize get into bed with some of the biggest pop stars in the game, with none other than French house big gun David Guetta leaving the charge into the charts.

But whilst these manoeuvres towards pop have generally been met with disdain from the clubbing community – and with the varying results of these collaborations it’s no wonder – as feeling kinda soulless, Guetta himself has come out swinging in defense of the trend, knocking back biters guilty with tall poppy syndrome.

“Dance music is the only genre, until now, where being successful is a bad thing,” Guetta told The Guardian in a recent interview about his success in crossing-over to the American pop market thanks to his radio-friendly, star-studded collaborative tracks. “It puts someone on top and then slaughters them.”

Continuing to vent his spleen about the combative dance music culture, Guetta offered a pearler of a line, declaring “I have said this many times; I am not trying to be credible, I am trying to be incredible”, a comment which Guetta’s detractors would surely revel in.

“There is always going to be an underground scene and it’s really exciting. But what makes us strong is that there is some big names, some underground names, and the fact that we are all together makes the whole thing big,” Guetta acknowledged of the scene, before detailing how dance music is making inroads onto US radio. ”[Before] dance music was for kids on drugs or gay guys. With the high tempo it was not the right format for radio and they said it would never work…[Now] American artists, they’re good … They are going to make dance music their own, and then they are going to see it with a different perspective.”