JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Should artists cater to their fans?

Open for discussion - should artists cater to their own fans?

My take - as a fan, I hate it when an artist I like stops doing music that I like - when they spin off in a new direction and start writing songs I don't like. It's almost like your best friend changing his personality overnight. But if artists aren't allowed to pursue their own artistic desires, they won't grow. They'll stagnate. Nonetheless, plenty of artists have seen their career dry up and die because they moved into a direction and their fans didn't follow. Styx, anyone?

As a fan, I'd like artists to cater to their fans. As an artist, I wish I HAD fans to begin with and then I'd deal with the question. Personally... I'd probably cater to them. But what if they all loved what I considered my worst style/song? Then maybe I wouldn't.

This is another issue where both sides are easy to see... but what's the answer? Yes or no?

Hi Richard:

Unfortunately, artists must always cater to their fans. Otherwise, there would be no fans. IMHO, when an artist is just beginning to develop a style and a presence, more liberty is available for experimentation. As those two components coincide, the die is more or less cast... depending on the genre involved.

As I said on your other thread... thank Heaven I don't have that problem. Being an unknown songwriter has its benefits... and its periods of deep melancholy.

You are precisely correct... before one really becomes an artist... there must be a fan base.

You can do it. Don't ever give up. Nobody ever said it would be easy... at least not somebody that really knows what he/she is taling about regarding the music world.

All my best,

Dave Rice

Artists don't need to cater to all their fans, only ones they want to keep.

The first thing that came to mind when I read your question was Bob Dylan going electric at Newport. I read that Pete Seger was so outraged that he tried to cut the wires but was held back.(could be a rumor). The rest is history.
The Beatles constantly changed their appearence and music at or around Rubber Soul and on. Instead of the Beatles changing with the times it seemed that the times were changing with the Beatles. The rest is also history.
Micheal Jackson decided that he didn't want to be black anymore and had himself disfigured. I wasn't a fan but the Jackson Five's music didn't bother me at all.It is nostalgic but I wouldn't pay a cent for anything from 80' on.
In the 70's Pink Floyd didn't play old songs at concerts, they only played their current album and rarely did an encore. That is also history. Ben

http://benwillismusic.com

Ben,
That's sort of what I meant when I said that artists need to have room to grow. But Mike's quote is great! Only the ones they want to keep. Ha ha ha! I think there's some truth to that.

Then you've got Madonna, who reinvented herself on almost every album and tried almost everything (in one genre.) But in her case, I don't think it was growing as an artist - I think it was calculated to keep her in the news and on the radio. Got to give her marketing props if nothing else. I liked her first album, I admit it. I also thought she'd flop with her second. Thought she was a fad. BOY was I wrong.

Dancing Machine by the Jackson 5 was my first 45 record. I still like that song. Young Michael was a hell of a singer.

Artists can change and grow and evolve, but they risk losing their fan base. Their record company can also refuse to release their new album if it's too far out there, I guess. But in the future, more and more artists will bypass record labels...

Well, there are some things to consider about this. Fans are those who know you and hold some admiration for you. They are not necessarily the same people who are sitting in a club listening to you, although you would like them to be.

If they are fans, then they do have certain expectations of you, including the chance to hear what it was that made them a fan in the first place. If they are a bar patron who has never heard you before, they have no specific expectations, unless they have heard of you from someone else, then their expectations have been filtered by the third party.

You also have to consider what the club owner or manager expects from you, as well. I am fortunate to live in the Chicago area where there are many, many venues with many different scenes to tap into. I seek the scenes that allow for singer/songwriters and there are quite a few places to do that. If there is nothing like that in your area, you could help to promote something like it by finding like-minded musicians in your area and seeking out a club or venue that is willing to allow someone to come in and organize around a songwriter's theme. That is how many of those have popped up here in the Chicago area. I know this is not easy to do in small communities, and much easier in larger communities, but even in a small community it could be possible. Seek out a place that may not be the biggest dog on the block, but is hungry to increase its clientele. Sell the manager or owner on your approach and promote, promote, promote. Encourage other musicians to come out and be part of the scene. If it takes off, the new patrons will initially be the other musicians and the handful of people they bring in with them. If anyone comes out to see them, then they are potential fans for other singer/songwriters assuming they really came out for the music and not simply because they came only to see their friend. You will know soon enough once the performer finishes his set. If he/she and their friends leave as soon as they finish, then don't have him/her back if you can control it. That behavior tends to create a negative image that you do not want to encourage, when the rest of the audience sees a bloc of people leave after a particular performer.

Promoting yourself as a singer/songwriter can help to set expectations and doing select cover songs can help a listening audience get a better handle on how they mentally categorize your music. The cover songs help to show your influences in music. Every great singer/songwriter will do some covers from time to time because there is so much good music out there and it helps to keep mixing it up so that your music remains fresh.

If you were on tour promoting an album for a major label, the label would probably want you to do all the songs from that album, and if you had previous albums they might want some of the old and some of the new, but they probably would not want you to do more than one or two cover songs, unless they were from your recordings, and therefore part of the material they want to promote. The problem with this is the sets are strictly organized and can burn you out on your own stuff.
Doing some cover songs mixed in with your material definitely helps to keep things more interesting to yourself.

At least this is how it works for me.

Isn't "fan" short for fanatic?? If they're not armed, ignore them and they will go away. If they have guns, be prepared to kiss butt.

I think that fans are the reason you do this stuff. If you lose fans because of a morph in your music, they probably werem't good fans. Good fans will be there for you as you should be there for them.

P.S. All my fans are armed...

Like I keep on saying if you want respect and admiration and a following which includes buying your music you have to keep everybody happy. Sometimes you have to do gigs you do not want to do and play music you do not want to play. It goes with the territory. It is no big deal for the potential rewards. I do not see what the fuss is all about. Every job has it's downside. Smile and take the rough with the smooth.

I think it's pretty simple. It was the mass public agreement that got the star up to the celebrity status. Once the star is in a power position, he can reinvent himself as many times as he wishes, but all the while monitoring the public response. If the public protests, you reinvent yourself again. But, an artist is an artist because he creates art from within. The minute he stops THAT successful action which breathed the life into his art in the first place, he is dead as an artist and becomes a trick pony. It is that dance between "show" and "business" that is the hardest.

Doesn't it depend on the artist's perception of how their fans treat them?

That is, coming to the live shows, buying the records, showing support through whatever means are made available?

If I were going to a concert of someone I admired, I would like to hear some of the songs that led me to admire them in the first place, followed by new songs or with new songs peppered with the old favorites.

hey rick heenan,

funny reply but true. if they are a great fan they will not leave an artist dry.
at first i thougth the abbey road of the beatles was their first album, i was born 1969, and i loved that album, almost worshiped it, then i discovered there were pre-abbey road albums too and it was totally different from the abbey road album, in short i didnt liked it that much but, im still a fan. so when their number 1 cd came up i still bought it coz im a fan, regardless.
what will happen if willy nelson suddenly turned into rap or yo-yo ma took the guitar and droped the cello. will there be fans?

jjlanuza.

Should? NO rule as I know. Seems it's open for the artist's reasons to play music, and at what level they are at, and want to be at. Bar bands? Label signed bands? Stars? Street performers? Hobbiest who want to find fans on music sites? Depends on what each of the above wants, and to what degree they are willing to take chances for their own art, and/or business decisions, and the talent level for any progression. Many answers, and for each, right for them. (at least the time of their decisions).

Do they want a sure thing to continue, or to take chances?

Or, to have the best chance at gaining fans? Or to gain even more fans?

Or, to be happy with playing their own style of music, when and how they please, and deal with the fate of that?

For any changes an artist may take, (if with a big label, maybe are allowed to take), they may gain around the same number of fans they would lose if not catering to the current fans. Maybe gaining more or less. No shoulds as I see it. Except for what the artists must do for any number of reasons. Then deal with what comes, adjusting or not.

Talent "could possibly" keep old fans despite changes.

That's about as wishy-washing as I could come up with!

Experimentation is critical for any artist to develop or grow.

New CD’s or song releases should be reflective of where the artist is now and where they want to take you, however, with a concert/gig it’s another animal. People have paid to see/hear you based on what’s already out there. Surprise or tease them with new stuff, but you better sure as hell be ready to play what the fans came (and paid) to hear. Why would you even think about disappointing them?

Just my thoughts. I really don't have this problem.

Concerts....yeah, good point. Usually will go with an album release, and not enough time for the fans to really fall in love with the new songs as much as they will love to hear the classics, if the artist has them,,,for those fans anyway.

In my opinion, an artist's fans give him/her the freedom to change and to grow. The question is whether the artist has been true from the start.
If our art is honest, then when we grow, we will follow the same sun that has shone on us to this point. As the fans mature, so must the art they appreciate. Sure I still like listening to Steve Miller from time to time, but let's face it, I'm not 16 anymore, and my taste for art has become more sophisticated.

The artist, therefore has an obligation to grow - to continue to evolve and reach for more distant stars and to bring our fans along with us on our forrays into human nature and philosophy.

Of course, that's just my opinion....

Very Interesting Question!

As I get Older..don't we All?..I spend more & more time watchin' concerts on PBS..rather'n shelling out $50-to-Obscene Amounts for Live Concerts..these days.

Interestingly, there are MANY-an-Artist on these concerts who were One-Hit-Wonders...who absolutely KILL. (Percy Sledge comes to mind.) Others..like The Zombies..had a Couple Hits..then faded away. But the few I remember I'll ALWAYS remember..& enjoy.

Change is inevitable. (Unless Your Favorite Artist does nothing but "Covers" of Previous Hits.) It's sometimes the artist's MANAGEMENT you can blame, rather than The Artist..for that "New Direction" you don't like.

I don't think a "Yes-or-No" Answer's gonna suffice.. Sometimes a Band loses their Lead Singer..Van Halen anyone?..and of-necessity The Sound IS Changed..but The Band Plays On.

Fans change too...remember "Disco Sux?"...Elvis fading as the British Invasion gained momentum..Rap's arrival..& Rock's blending into Modern-day "Country"...

I think if you're Just Starting Out..& your fans LOVED a Song you absolutely Hated..you'd be a fool NOT to do that one on a Regular Basis UNTIL you'd had a Hit with Something BETTER..which Hopefully, you'd LIKE better.

I'm pretty sure a LOT of those Artists on the PBS Concerts have come to Hate their One-Shot-at-Stardom-Songs...BUT they'll always
Eat Regularly..AND keep their fans Happy..ever-after..THANKS to those Songs they've come to hate a bit.

Just a Hunch...

Good Luck with The Career
Stan

Artists can do what they like. They are not interested in fame fortune or reputation. They are not interested in entertaining audiences and giving them what they want. They are only interested in their own self indulgance.
Us real musicians in the real world will work when we do not want to. We play songs, like covers and requests, that we do not want to play and keep the audiences happy by giving them what they want. ENTERTAINMENT. In return we can pay bills and get a buzz out of making folk happy.

What about changing genres of music.Like country,it changes every so often,seeking out new fans but leaving old fans with a sour taste in their mouths.There are many country fan that don't even listen to "country" radio any more,because they don't like the music or songs that are passing them selves off as country.Sure,they may pick up new fans but they lose their old fans,so where is the gain.

Country music now days is aimed at women,18-35.
It is a fact that chicks spend more on music etc than most of us guys do.
For a new writer to get past the gate keepers in Nashville the songs can't be bashing women or make the singer look bad.I've heard this directly from the Nashville know it all's.
Check out the audiences at country concerts.
Loads of ladies!
There are exceptions to the Nashville rules.
Johnny Cash was ignored or snubbed by Nashville for the last decade of his life but he continued to pick up lots of younger fans thanks to Rick Rueben recognizing John's talent and getting John to record again.
I admire the "outlaws" that broke the rules and succeeded in their on way in spite of the Nashville rejection.
A lot of the music on radio makes me want to grab a barf bag while it makes others reach for their wallets.
Go figure!
No answers just observations!

I had a job like that once, for about a year. I quit.

I went on to a job where I could use my creative talents and still make folks happy.

If this is how you truly feel about the music you play I am sad for you..You do not feel your own original music is good enough? that you could not make folks happy? That your own music has no value?
That is sad.
I guess folks like Dylan and Kristoferson should not have wasted their time writing songs.

Hey guys and gals:

This thread really seems to have struck deeply at the heart of those among us who perform. I don't, thank goodness, so I can stand on the sidelines and enjoy the banter. If I had the talent or inclination to perform... and I don't... I suspect I'd end up being an artist and not a craftsman. I like to do what I like to do... after spending a lifetime of dancing to someone else's beat, its time for me to live what is left of life... my way.

Those of you who perform to make a living and realize that your options are controlled by your fans are brave souls and I admire your ability to slog it out for just one more set. But isn't there a tiny voice somewhere inside you that says, "set me free!, let me do only the songs I enjoy?"

Either way is cool 'cause we all just have to do what we have to do. In the end, I suspect that none of us are ever entirely free. My space ends where yours begins.

I have really enjoyed all the opinions posted so far. I respect each and every one of you and wish I had your talent.

All my best,

Dave Rice

I see it as a two-way street. The fans and I both set expectations for each other.

I have played both in cover bands and all-original projects. Both have their good and bad, but I'll choose to perform original music any day over covers. It is far more satisfying and lucrative (money) and fans stick around longer. In my experience people respect original material more than covers.

And sure, fans want to hear the hits, and if you're messing around with a winning formula you're taking a risk. But you can't grow without some calculated risk.

I love to look at classic rock as an example. One of the reasons why Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, the Who and others were so popular was not because they played the same style of stuff over and over. It was because they were different. They were interesting!

Compare that to some artists who just make the same record over and over because they're afraid of irritating fans. That's dumb. If you don't have a few haters, you're doing something wrong.

For me, it's an obvious choice. I may not pack 'em in like a cover band, but that's just an easy way to make a buck. At the end of the night, you've contributed nothing to the world except a good time. It's like a one-night stand: all sex, no relationship, and forgotten by next week.

It can go either way... AC/DC is an example of a band that's been unwavering in staying the course stylewise. RUSH, on the other hand has constantly changed and evolved in their musical direction. Both bands have been around about the same amount of time, and both still have huge, loyal fan bases. In fact they're 2 of the only bands of their genre who still sell out arenas and have never been reduced to playing clubs or the "has been" circuit.

Bob, those are great examples. Rush takes lots of risks and they sometimes flop -- remember that horrible rapping on "Roll The Bones?" But then they also incorporated some Police-style reggae on earlier albums and it worked like magic.

AC/DC have always been consistent. I love their hits, both from the Bon Scott and Brian Johnson eras, but I'm not a huge fan because, well, they always sound the same!

You can lose fans by changing, and you can lose fans by not changing. There's no magic formula here, it's all calculated risk. Rush has the luxury of messing around with their style because their fans expect them to do so. AC/DC can't do that, for better or for worse.

Metallica changed their sound with "Load" and "Reload" and fans more or less hated it, but they're still a top act because the fans still believe.

Some good comments in this thread. Also some strong opinions. Personally, I think people should state their opinion, make their case for it, and there go - people sometimes get their minds changed, or maybe they don't. I don't think it's a positive thing to do the whole finger pointing "what you do is not valid" deal. But I dislike conflict.

Rush is an interesting band. I was a huge Rush fan up to Moving Pictures and then they lost me. I haven't liked a Rush album since. They just went in a direction that I chose not to follow. Part of me was resentful, but I respect them greatly still. Obvioulsy it's their decision. My brother in law still loves them. So there you go. Me, I still listen to 2112.

I seem to be sensing a blurring of the lines in this thread. The question was
"Should Artists Cater to Their Fans"
it was not
Should Working Musicians Play Songs They Aren't Fond Of.
Of course! If you want to make a living as a live performer, you will have no choice other than to perform the songs that appeal to the people that are paying to see you. The number of times I've had to sing Just a Giggolo is absolutely painful. It gave the song a new meaning to me. But sing it, I did. That's what working musicians do.
An Artist, on the other hand (which, as I recall was the topic of this thread), is one, who, by definition, professes and practices an imaginative art. Blurring these lines is like confusing a congressman for a cop. One ponders human nature and creates. The other brings the creation to the street.
Without one, the other is useless, but not all cops have the insight to create laws, and not all congressmen have what it takes to make it on the street.

I did not plan to weigh in here because I am currently not playing live, but I have done my share of live shows.I don't know where this Artist/Musician difference came up but I always thought they were the same. I do not tell people that I am an artist, I tell them that I am a musician. I agree with Big Jim that the point of a performance is to give the audience a good time and to have fun yourself. If it is too far beneath you to play a simple request(that is if you know it) than you are obviously not having enough fun at that moment and as Jim said the audience can read it. Pack it up and go home and play your own music to someone who cares. If you want to showcase your music there are plenty of coffee shops and bars that have songwriter nights along with open mike nights. Also,every venue has an owner or manager who expects for you to draw a crowd. Try telling them that you don't do covers or that you don't play requests. As Big Jim said, a real musician will play and have fun. Don't take your"Art" so seriously. Ben

Thanks, Ben.
You put more eloquently than I the difference between one who performs for an audience, and one who performs for himself while in front of others.
I guess I was focusing too much on the difference between making money and making a statement.

I too, consider myself a performer, not an artist.
Which raises the next question: Why does the music industry refer to performers as Recording Artists?

I have a small group of people (30) or so who come to every show to see what i'll do next. My shows are unpredictable at best, and it keeps them paying to get in the door. I try to keep the scene shook up with no ballads on fridays, nothing faster than 120 bpm on saturdays, (and of course no love wendsdays where either you can't sing a song with the word love in it, or you have to exchange the word love with something else.

I am a fan of bands that can put out a whole albulms that are worth listening to. i don't see it very much anymore. now adays all i get is one or two decent songs, and a bunch of crap. (for the most part)

i guess what i am saying, is that bands that keep their fans guessing will never have "sold out". if there is no box to put you in...you don't have to step outside it to dosomething new.

cool thread
-steve

Scott..LOVED the example of the rapping on "Roll the Bones"..That was when RUSH {temporarily}lost me! You're right, they went through a period where they channelled the Police quite nicely. And yes, really if you own one AC/DC album, you pretty much own them all, {ecxept the older ones are better!}

Argh, me maties! The thread be steerin' off course! Hard to port!

What I meant in the original post was referring to recorded music, NOT live performances.

In a live performance, I like it when artists play what people are paying to hear, ie their hits. What performers MOSTLY do in live shows is pimp their new album. If you love the new album, there's no problem. If you prefer their old stuff, then it's not so much fun. I saw Lyle Lovett tour for his most recent album and he played the best four songs from it, and the rest was his classic material. It was an awesome show! On the other hand, I'm seeing Jonatha Brooke later this year and I have not liked her past two CD's much, so I'm sorta bummed a little. But I'm still going because I'm a fan.

How about this?

Should artists ignore their fans?

Sure seems like that's what many of them like to do...

If you're not making more money than someone else, then they just can't imagine being anywhere close to you.....
At least that's how most Americans see life.

The fans support the artist as well as the record label, so why not cater to them a little bit?

Bob Dylan and Neil Young are 2 examples of artists who seem to do whatever they want, WHEN they want, and you're either with them or not.

Peter Gabriel is like that too.

Short answer - No...

As fans we come to expect a certain sound from our favorites, but do they owe us that? Should they be stuck churning out stuff to please the fans or please themselves as artists? I find myself following the people who have always kind followed their own vision.

Have I always been happy with what has come out from my favorites? Well I guess I need to 'jump' over to the 'jump the shark' thread....

Steve V

It would seem that finding a balance between keeping the older material around for the fans to sing along with at the live shows, and creating new material to keep from going stale.....is the eternal issue for most, if not all bands.

To reinvent oneself is indeed a positive thing, and being able to do that and still keep a consistent fan base is a very big achievement.......

Think Talking Heads...

Uhhh-- well, both, I think.

Interesting thread. I think an artist can cater to fans by performing beloved songs and occasionally writing songs in that old style. But an artist does need to follow their muse or they will stagnate and lose enthusiasm.

Another twist to the question.........Should fans cater to their chosen artist.....that is, how should the fans conduct themselves in and out of the company of their favorite band?

This means like the Dead fans would follow the band around to all of the shows, but would create their own little world that related to the band itself, but the creation of which was also entirely the work of the fans.....Stickers, tie-dye shirts, bootleg records...

This same unique devotion to the music of a particular band could apply to virtually anyone, but how are the fans expected to promote their aritist?

Well, this really gets into the whole illegal file copying deal. Technology sure has changed things.

In the olden days...

Friend 1 - Hey man, you gotta check out this new album called 2112 by Rush. I made you a cassette copy.
Friend 2 - Listens to cassette... three days later goes to the mall and buys the record because he wants the real thing, ie the record has the artwork and liner notes AND sounds way better than the cassette

In that scenario, everyone wins.

NOWADAYS...

Friend 1 - Hey man, you gotta check out this new Crowded House CD. I burned you a copy.
Friend 2 - Thanks, man. End of story.

Now, one can argue that perhaps the guy who got the burned CD might go to the music store and buy an OLD Crowded House CD... but if his friend has the older ones, more than likely he'll ask his friend to burn him copies. One could argue that friend 2 might go to a Crowded House show because he dug the album, but it's not like they're planning to tour every city. The bottom line really is that the band just lost a sale and will sell fewer CDs and make less money. Perhaps they'll compensate by touring more. I don't know.

If fans have a responsibility to the artist, it might include NOT illegally burning that copy to begin with, but the vast majority of people I talk to don't feel that way at all.

Ironically, if a local artist is playing a gig and the two friends are there, and they both want a CD, there's a very good chance they'll both BUY the CD, as opposed to one saying "You buy it and make me a copy." This is because people are giving the money directly to the artist, I think. I also think that people are less likely to illegally duplicate the CD of a local artist. Interesting twist on this topic, I say...

I don't know. I think 'you buy and burn me one' is a likely scenario to continue. Money's tight for most markets and it's so easy to do. How do we get them to see it our way, that I'm trying to make a living selling this and I can't do it if you're giving it away? It's the easy way to 'Love me, do' if I give you something. I'm that nice guy who got you value for free. And it's so cheap and easy.
We really have to go with the consumer-driven condition that downloads are on the increase, CDs decreasing, and if we want to sell, we've got to supply that demand as per consumer preference.
Pop star Madonna's website has a watchdog that, if you try to download illegally, in her voice says, "What the f*** are you doing?"
Anti-duplication could be coded into the tracks, it seems, allowing one non-duplicable download from CD or internet sources to an iPod (other) and prohibiting, even reporting other attempts to duplicate. But the whiz kids take it as a challenge and figure out how to circumvent it as quickly as you do it.

how much do you want what fans bring you? how important are your goals as an artist to you? who do you answer to in the process of making your living? Not many artists do the exact same thing for their whole career, without the creative friction, they wouldn't be much of an artist, if they write. On many levels, fans can be both the source of your career, and the part you despise about the whole thing. Good Question Rich...MJ

I tend to believe that a true artist or true songwriter can't help but remain true to their heart, style, etc. Sure many "singers" feel the need to sing what they are told by their handlers. That often means they are chasing a trend but when the trend passes they are often left with no career. Catering to the fans? Those fans are often flaky and they've moved on to a new trend and someone new to worship.

I don't think icons like Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, Dolly Parton, etc. gave a hoot if their fans were disappointed. They wrote and sang what they wanted at the time; be it country, pop-oriented, Christian, Bluegrass or even Reggae. Can't say I was a fan of all of these different styles for a full album (ala Willie singing 11 songs of reggae at one time) but I remained a fan of their music and have managed to pick up some greatest hits compilations that span all of these styles in a single cd. Dolly for example has a greatest hits package that has 20 songs...a brand new one of 16 (ironically "16 Biggest Hits")for example too I just bought. Out of those 16 selections it's a pretty broad base of styles and quite enjoyable mixed together this way. If she was catering to that initial fan base she would have most certainly missed out on a million others and she never really lost me.

So cater to their fans? No - not in specific style. Be NICE to their fans? ABSOLUTELY.

I already have a HANDLER...I'm married to her...Oh nevermind!

Oh, recorded music. That is a different. In a way, "catering" to our fans should be included by remembering that most listeners want music that "speaks" to them. Music they can relate to. Fans probably already own recordings of their favorite songs or at least can buy the previous albums or singles, so recordings can be used to demonstrate an artist's ongoing development. Several of my favorite artists made albums I wouldn't buy because I didn't like the experimental phase they were going through. When they started creating songs I enjoyed, I bought their albums again. It's a risky business changing styles but that is the artist's perogative. Some fans will have a wait and see attitude but on the other hand, the artist may attract a new fan base with the new material.

Aerosmith turned out several albulms with a lot of the same sounding songs on them . ie Amazing, Crazy, Crying, and the radio played them out, but even hard core Aerosmith fans were like "what the heck is this?" And I like Aerosmith. they catered to their fans by staying with in the box.... completely,

Where as Metallica changed everything and went from themost influential metal band ever to "dude change the channel.. it's Metallica"

it is a hard question to answer. I would suppose that it would depend on whether the band goes completely outside the box or not. and Exactly what their fans expect.

cheers

steve

The Answer Is No,

You answered the question your self if they don't grow
they will stagnate, they will die.

Why should an artist carry on in a style that he has grown tired of?

Unless of course he needs the money,

But why cant fans grow with the Artist, the problem is with most fans they stick with the music tha was prelevant in their teen years, in short they want to stay as teenagers for ever.

You are a performer, why do you not dvelop your own style
then maybe you will get a following, doing covers is okay but a mix of clovers and originals is great providing your material has something, and there is the problem, singers who think they can write , and the material is usualy trite , boring and full of cliches.

Difficult one to answer but I've tried, I've grown as a performer /writer, some of my earlier stuff was crap,
once you realise that, you can then start writing properly.

Matt Stoneham

Aerosmith, under Steeven Tyler have always gone forward in my opinion and most of their fans went forward with them,

Tyler is a song writing genius Entertainer.

Matt

YES, absolutely!