Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
Depends on whether or not an artist is capable of making that change successfully. If you make ****ty music to begin with, then I recommend trying new things out because you obviously don't understand how to make good music in your current style, at least not yet. There is the potential to alienate fans and fade into obscurity, but making an artistic leap that you're ready to share with the world is something that is never risk free and subsequently shouldn't be based off of marketing and pandering to your fans. Then we have the other end of the spectrum where an artist will sacrifice their vision to hop onto trendier styles from an outsider and generally lifeless perspective.
So ja, it's a case by case thing. If they can pull it off, then by all means, go for it. If not, stick to your schtick.
|
Good point. I personally am less interested in hearing about the 'trend jumpers' that largely define mainstream popular music, and always have.
I suppose, without getting too subjective, the bigger question I'm getting at is the idea of "artist" vs. "entertainer." I'm curious as to whether we have reached a point, at least within the fragmented abyss that is mainstream culture, where we value entertainers over artists. I suppose the definition of artist is somewhat subjective, but for the sake of this discussion, an artist is someone with the vision, musical means or talent, and ambition to explore new musical territories rather than treading over old ground.
We could start throwing specific artists/bands into the mix to discuss it more specifically (which is probably inevitable in this thread), but that could get heated.