Should Artists Change?

oscillate · 02-28-2016, 11:08 PM

I'm sure this topic has been raised in some context before, but I would be interested in getting a more recent take from MB users.

With Bowie's recent passing, many have praised, or gawked, at the chameleonic nature of his music, image, and artistic sensibility. To some he was a genius, to others bizarre. I spent a fair amount of time reading archived articles, interviews, and reviews and his artistic need to change, mature, and progress as an artist was not always well-received.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have bands like AC/DC that have an established sound and don't really change it much at all. Every record largely follows a similar formula and you know what you're going to get and a lot of people like that.

The Internet and mediums such as this forum have allowed fans to be much more vocal when it comes to responding to an artist's music and creative direction. Many bands choose to focus on tried-and-true methods and formulas, and interestingly, that seems to be more and more accepted in certain genres today. Whether that's a conscious effort to please fans or simply the furthest that band or artist can go, no one can really know.

Is the role of an artist to challenge listeners? Or is it to purely be an entertainer? Is it genre specific? Do artists reach a certain level of popularity, success, or age where they can no longer change? What do you think?

**Frownland** · 02-28-2016, 11:16 PM

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.

oscillate · 02-28-2016, 11:25 PM

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.

**Frownland** · 02-28-2016, 11:39 PM

Well, the way that I see it, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. Morton Feldman once said something along the lines of "who cares if they listen?" while you have artists who accomplish their artistry while simultaneously being appealing as an entertainment form (ie The Residents) and then there are those who have their audience as the main driver behind their music. That last one is difficult to pull off without being labelled as a sell out or simply pandering in the name of money *cough* U2 *cough*.

New ground is a very fluid term, too. The White Stripes were labelled as groundbreakers when in actuality they were simply retreading old ideas (not to say I don't like them). I also think that the "we" is as fragmented as you suggest mainstream culture is, which allows for a lot of diversity in the artistic realm. I really think it comes down to whether you can change styles and still make good music. David Bowie is a great example of that, as is someone like Tom Waits. I'd name some others on the opposite end of the spectrum, but all I can think of is Van Halen, but that was more just a change in vocals and I think that they sucked to begin with.

grindy · 02-28-2016, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscillate

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.

I think this is a false dichotomy.
Art is entertainment.
And "someone with the vision, musical means or talent, and ambition to explore new musical territories rather than treading over old ground" entertains me the most.

oscillate · 02-29-2016, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grindy

I think this is a false dichotomy.
Art is entertainment.
And "someone with the vision, musical means or talent, and ambition to explore new musical territories rather than treading over old ground" entertains me the most.

I'd disagree. Art can be entertainment. It's all subjective, right?

A lot of people are clearly very entertained by Taylor Swift. Obviously music you like that you consider art is hopefully entertaining, otherwise you're some sort of masochist.

It seems like, for the purpose of this thread, we have to define art and entertainment, which in itself is a discussion.

So, art, hopefully, is entertaining. Good art, at least. But entertainment is not always art. You could argue that anything - even reality TV shows - is a form of art. You wouldn't be wrong.

But, in the case of music, we could use the general definition that art differs from entertainment in that it has longevity - an album's ability to be timeless. Bowie or the Beatles created art. Does it have a lasting cultural impact? I don't know that the Backstreet Boys fit that criteria.

Thoughts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

New ground is a very fluid term, too. The White Stripes were labelled as groundbreakers when in actuality they were simply retreading old ideas (not to say I don't like them). I also think that the "we" is as fragmented as you suggest mainstream culture is, which allows for a lot of diversity in the artistic realm. I really think it comes down to whether you can change styles and still make good music. David Bowie is a great example of that, as is someone like Tom Waits. I'd name some others on the opposite end of the spectrum, but all I can think of is Van Halen, but that was more just a change in vocals and I think that they sucked to begin with.

I agree with you. What constitutes "we" anymore? The "we" as it is still referred to in the media would be the traditional music industry, media, etc. Does the Billboard Top 40 represent modern mainstream music? In terms of sales, I suppose it does, seeing as they allegedly incorporate streaming data now. Sales/streams still indicate people are listening, correct?

grindy · 02-29-2016, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscillate

I'd disagree. Art can be entertainment. It's all subjective, right?

A lot of people are clearly very entertained by Taylor Swift. Obviously music you like that you consider art is hopefully entertaining, otherwise you're some sort of masochist.

It seems like, for the purpose of this thread, we have to define art and entertainment, which in itself is a discussion.

So, art, hopefully, is entertaining. Good art, at least. But entertainment is not always art. You could argue that anything - even reality TV shows - is a form of art. You wouldn't be wrong.

But, in the case of music, we could use the general definition that art differs from entertainment in that it has longevity - an album's ability to be timeless. Bowie or the Beatles created art. Does it have a lasting cultural impact? I don't know that the Backstreet Boys fit that criteria.

Thoughts?

I agree with you. What constitutes "we" anymore? The "we" as it is still referred to in the media would be the traditional music industry, media, etc. Does the Billboard Top 40 represent modern mainstream music? In terms of sales, I suppose it does, seeing as they allegedly incorporate streaming data now. Sales/streams still indicate people are listening, correct?

For me all art is entertainment.
To define what art is would be one hell of a venture though.
But I really don't think longetivity and "timelessness" has anything to do with it. People tend to use the word "art" when they mean "high art", whatever they see as such. I don't use the word that way. For me The Backstreet Boys' music is as much art as Mozart's is.

**Frownland** · 02-29-2016, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oscillate

I'd disagree. Art can be entertainment. It's all subjective, right?

A lot of people are clearly very entertained by Taylor Swift. Obviously music you like that you consider art is hopefully entertaining, otherwise you're some sort of masochist.

It seems like, for the purpose of this thread, we have to define art and entertainment, which in itself is a discussion.

So, art, hopefully, is entertaining. Good art, at least. But entertainment is not always art. You could argue that anything - even reality TV shows - is a form of art. You wouldn't be wrong.

But, in the case of music, we could use the general definition that art differs from entertainment in that it has longevity - an album's ability to be timeless. Bowie or the Beatles created art. Does it have a lasting cultural impact? I don't know that the Backstreet Boys fit that criteria.

Thoughts?

“What I have in mind is that art may be bad, good or indifferent, but, whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion.” - Marcel Duchamp

Norg · 03-01-2016, 11:58 AM

yes

why do the same thing over and over again its just boring

Key · 03-01-2016, 12:02 PM

Some bands have done well with changing. Anathema for instance. They changed their sound pretty dramatically when they released Weather Systems and the album after it sounded a lot like the album I mentioned. I like that stuff a lot more than their Alternative 4 etc days because it's a lot smoother and it works for them. It's all based on a personal perspective I think. If you think a band is better when they change that it's a good thing, if you don't like it, than the band may still be doing a good thing, it just isn't your cup of tea.

02-28-2016, 11:08 PM	#1 (permalink)
oscillate Groupie Join Date: Jan 2016 Posts: 27	Should Artists Change? I'm sure this topic has been raised in some context before, but I would be interested in getting a more recent take from MB users. With Bowie's recent passing, many have praised, or gawked, at the chameleonic nature of his music, image, and artistic sensibility. To some he was a genius, to others bizarre. I spent a fair amount of time reading archived articles, interviews, and reviews and his artistic need to change, mature, and progress as an artist was not always well-received. On the other end of the spectrum, you have bands like AC/DC that have an established sound and don't really change it much at all. Every record largely follows a similar formula and you know what you're going to get and a lot of people like that. The Internet and mediums such as this forum have allowed fans to be much more vocal when it comes to responding to an artist's music and creative direction. Many bands choose to focus on tried-and-true methods and formulas, and interestingly, that seems to be more and more accepted in certain genres today. Whether that's a conscious effort to please fans or simply the furthest that band or artist can go, no one can really know. Is the role of an artist to challenge listeners? Or is it to purely be an entertainer? Is it genre specific? Do artists reach a certain level of popularity, success, or age where they can no longer change? What do you think?

02-28-2016, 11:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	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. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.* d e a f b o x

02-28-2016, 11:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	Well, the way that I see it, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive. Morton Feldman once said something along the lines of "who cares if they listen?" while you have artists who accomplish their artistry while simultaneously being appealing as an entertainment form (ie The Residents) and then there are those who have their audience as the main driver behind their music. That last one is difficult to pull off without being labelled as a sell out or simply pandering in the name of money cough U2 cough. New ground is a very fluid term, too. The White Stripes were labelled as groundbreakers when in actuality they were simply retreading old ideas (not to say I don't like them). I also think that the "we" is as fragmented as you suggest mainstream culture is, which allows for a lot of diversity in the artistic realm. I really think it comes down to whether you can change styles and still make good music. David Bowie is a great example of that, as is someone like Tom Waits. I'd name some others on the opposite end of the spectrum, but all I can think of is Van Halen, but that was more just a change in vocals and I think that they sucked to begin with. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

03-01-2016, 11:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
Norg Music Addict Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,358	yes why do the same thing over and over again its just boring

03-01-2016, 12:02 PM	#10 (permalink)
Key . Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 13,153	Some bands have done well with changing. Anathema for instance. They changed their sound pretty dramatically when they released Weather Systems and the album after it sounded a lot like the album I mentioned. I like that stuff a lot more than their Alternative 4 etc days because it's a lot smoother and it works for them. It's all based on a personal perspective I think. If you think a band is better when they change that it's a good thing, if you don't like it, than the band may still be doing a good thing, it just isn't your cup of tea.