Dec 24, 2023, 04:54 AM
In a general sense, I think change and evolution is seen as a good thing because we want a sense of variety in music. And artists individually often want to change and evolve their sound without repeating themselves. We hear a lot about artists that change whether it be David Bowie, Prince, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, Björk, etc.
But I'm also curious about the other direction; can an artist stay relatively "the same" while still being artistically satisfying to their audiences and to themselves? It can often seem like "being the same" is a pejorative.
I know this is a tricky balance and spectrum: I'm not saying that the artist should repeat their formula over and over. But how far can they take and refine an existing style while still remaining visibly that style?
I suppose that overall: artists have to navigate that tightrope of "If you change too much, you alienate a part of your fanbase (sometimes it's worth it, not saying it's wrong). If you don't change enough, people get bored."
But I'm also curious about the other direction; can an artist stay relatively "the same" while still being artistically satisfying to their audiences and to themselves? It can often seem like "being the same" is a pejorative.
I know this is a tricky balance and spectrum: I'm not saying that the artist should repeat their formula over and over. But how far can they take and refine an existing style while still remaining visibly that style?
I suppose that overall: artists have to navigate that tightrope of "If you change too much, you alienate a part of your fanbase (sometimes it's worth it, not saying it's wrong). If you don't change enough, people get bored."