An argument I have heard against a lot of artist is that "I don't really like [insert name]'s songs - they/he/she always sounds the same to me". When an artist writes a song don't they intend for the song to sound similar to the previous one? I mean they are looking for a particular audience and if they start singing in a completely different style the lose members of the audience right? For example, if Lady Gaga released an album with Bad Romance as the first track, and then on the second track there was Gaga yodelling to a Dutch windpipe trio backing the members of her audience would probably throw the C.D. in the rubbish bin. Constraints of each genre exist, so why would somebody expect two songs by the same artist to sound completely different? If there is an artist who's songs never sound the same twice, and a consensus can be made about that fact then please, tell me an artist who doesn't always the same. Yeah.
Whilst it is true that artists are trying to appeal to certain audiences, sounding the same all the time isn't a good thing, your audience will get bored. Taking your example of Lady Gaga for instance, people have already started to become bored with how her music is. Changing things up and evolving is a natural development of music both in itself and as part of a band/artist. I think that an artist who still tries to cling to the same thing they were doing forever ago is going to find themselves losing part of their audience much faster than an artist/band who try different things and allow their music to expand and develop. Of course there will be songs that sound similar, thats pretty much a guarantee, but using the genre they belong to as an excuse is pretty pathetic, that would just be lazyness.
What about the newly world famous artists? I have heard this argument for Owl City, and yet he is not clinging to the same thing he was doing forever ago because he has only been around for three years. Surely a newly famous artist can't change styles too dramaticly or else people won't find the artist consitant enough to become famous in the first place. If an older artist became more distant from their known genre as they slowly changed in order to have an appeal, the expectations of the artist would hinder the attraction to the new audience the artist is trying to extend themselves towards and also repel people who enjoyed the fans. Change is necessary for the music industry, sure but why should an allready famous artist change their style independtly in order to help the industry move forward when in history it is the new artists which have made the bigger differences e.g. Elvis.
By your logic then, why should artists even try to stick around longer than their first album when new artists will just come along and replace them so easily? Change isn't neccessaily just for the music industry, in fact I think the current music industry is holding music back more than anything, change is just a natural evolution that happens as the band/artists develops.
There have been examples in the past where artists have changed their styles and due to their popularity have helped changed music like The Beatles - their style did change and they lasted a very long time. About the point following my logic, I believe that if things continue to follow the current trend of artists not changing much in the modern world that the only way music can move forward is some brand new artist being so different that it music moves very fast. My example of Elvis is a good one, as he took a leap from where music was at the time. Before the whole Elvis era movement there was jazz and blues - and the rate of that changing was comparable to nowdays so if history is correct, yes we do need some brand new artist who blows the top off the inustry. However this doesn't mean that artists should release one album and quit. Elvis would have been influenced by jazz and blues in his lifetime and then he helped rock with its first few steps. If what you say about the current music industry holding music back is true, which I think is, then can you provide an example from history where a artist that had been around for ages change music when other artists were effectively halting music? At the end of musical eras there is always a slowing down of new pieces of music and it has always (to my knowledge) been led into a new era by a new entrepreneur who was influenced by the old era.
Sorry, at the risk of sounding like an idiot, I really don't understand what your post is saying? I've read it 5 times now but I can't make sense of what you're trying to say. You're contradicting yourself I think, because firstly you were arguing that of course artists will sound the same and it is normal, and now you are arguing that music can't move forward unless they change or something new happens? You've lost me
Hokay that's understandable for you to not understand... I've overcomplicated things in my mind and its made everything fall to pieces in terms of continuity. I see eras to follow a basic trend of this: new artist makes a piece of mind blowing music other artists put their spin on it genre changes a bit all artists get stuck in their own style rinse and repeat we are at stage four, and at the stage it is normal for people to have songs that all sound the same. My first post was talking about solely this stage and how at this stage the constraights of the genre (and the sub-constraints of the artist's own style). we then started discussing the whole topic of change in the music industry so I got a bit lost because of these steps and then you got lost because of my lostness. Does this help? I feel dizzy now :bangbang::sweat::/D=::dead:
This is subjective as it would appear to depend on what qualities you believe would make an artist and his/her own music sound "the same". Musical genres have constraints, yes, but within these boundaries artists are free to develop their own sorts of techniques, especially with the current musical resources on hand. If this is the basic formula of musical evolution then it is not simply jazz and blues or the current mainstream musical genres as had been previously stated that are/were at such a "slow rate of change" but every single musical genre, logically.
Yes, I just used the jazz and blues and current mainstream eras as a good example, which is safer than talking about the transition between the classical and romantic eras as the knowledge around them is less recent.
To be honest, I think that the music industry is greatly affecting how music is being conceived. We are allowing anyone to record whatever they want, just for money, yet many labels fail to see good artists that create music out of love for the art. I've been enjoying a lot of more low-key stuff, and no, I'm not biased towards it, but it feels more dedicated than some current artists. I love how some artists compose for themselves, and how they can create these pieces without adulteration of their works. Or have these amazing voices that can convey such power. I love Beyonce's voice, it's so strong, and powerful, so you know she's not just a has-been that can't stand on her own. On the other hand, we have Lady GaGa, who's voice is quite nice and amazing, though not as potent as Beyonce's yet, she's so skilled at composing, and at playing, you can tell she's no Auto-tune creation. My point being, artists sound the same sometimes because of their composers. Sometimes they get multiple composers for different songs, and some happen to sound similar. As for the genre as a whole, it's more a thing of not wanting to have any effort, or real musicians taking charge of the industry.
