I am constantly bombarded on social media by people dragging artists they like for changing their sound or reinventing themselves. While I find myself falling prey to this thinking sometimes, especially when I prefer an artist's older sound over their current sound, as of recently I have tried a more positive approach to all this hate by putting myself in the shoes of the artist. Clearly, these artists know that by fundamentally changing their sound they are taking a huge risk. So why reinvent at all?
Changing one's sound can prevent boredom when an artist performs, which can therefore reinvigorate their stage presence.
Imagine you're a legacy act like the Red Hot Chili Peppers who have been going on tour after tour for decades. Though the band has always had an electric stage presence, if they never changed their sound from its early days, which was also from a time when the band's members were about thirty years younger, then the band might begin to feel bored with playing the same style of music every tour for decades in a row. This could begin to affect how much energy the band has on stage. Re-invention allows bands to never get bored with playing their music on tours.
As a fan, I would hate pressuring an artist to stick to a certain sound so much that they begin to hate their music. That would be like continuing to pressure Radiohead to perform "Creep", a song that they famously hate. Artists should never feel boxed into performing a certain song or playing a certain style of music just to please fans. Though we are the ones that buy their music and support their songwriting, they are not our slaves, jumping to perform our favorite song or write another album that sounds just like their sound from twenty years ago because we demand it.
When a band finds success with a certain approach to songwriting, they can feel pressure to follow the same formula to success. However, over a period of time this formula isn't sustainable and can creatively drain an artist.
When a band creates enough hits, unsurprisingly this creates incentive to follow the same steps to create the same music. If A plus B equaled $100 million in revenue on the first album, why shouldn't a band follow the same route for the next album? Though in theory this idea sounds perfect, many bands fail to realize a few key things, the first being that a lot of the music business is luck.
Though a band may have earned 50 million streams on their first album, they aren't guaranteed 50 million streams on the next. There are so many factors influencing an album's success, from industry trends to how the economy is doing to what social media platforms are popular at the time. All these conflicting factors mean that bands can't rely on the same musical formula in an ever-changing musical landscape.
Another point that bands fail to realize about formulaic songwriting is sometimes it can hold you back from gaining popularity. Take Taylor Swift as an example.
Though many think that she would have been just as popular if she had stuck to the same cutesy, girl-with-a-guitar schtick as when she started, I think that half the reason she is as successful as she is today is because she has reinvented herself multiple times, elevating herself to bigger heights each time. I am not saying that all artists need to reinvent themselves to increase album sales but they do need to be open to thinking outside of the same rigid formula.
From the perspective of a fan, I think that we sometimes fail to see how creating the same type of music can creatively drain a band over time. Fans will try to pressure a band to keep trying to recapture the magic of their first few albums without realizing how difficult it can be to recapture this magic over and over again. Sometimes, the magic in an album is that it was written in a unique time in a band's life, whether that was on a crazy road trip in the desert or while they were struggling to make ends meet. This means that that magic is almost impossible to recapture sometimes.
This scenario can play out the same way with the film industry. For instance, the show Bates Motel is a TV spin-off of the character Norman Bates from the mega-hit movie Psycho. Psycho 2 wouldn't have been good because the writers would have been forcing themselves to try to recapture the magic of Psycho. Instead, the writers took their creative juices in a different direction and were rewarded with a fresh, new TV show that was widely acclaimed by critics. Just like with Bates Motel, when a band reinvents itself, it can creatively open them up again and prevent writer's block in the future.
While fans will hate on experimental mixtapes or albums that are a break from an artist's sound, these breaks can sometimes breathe life back into a band's music or provide audiences with a taste of a new sound from the artist that they usually wouldn't hear.
An interesting example of a band taking a break from its "normal" sound is The Neighbourhood. While they have been known for their classic indie-rock sound, about five years ago the band decided to create a mixtape, #000000 & #FFFFFF, as a 180-degree switch-up from their usual sound.
The mixtape consisted of collaborations with various hip-hop producers like Don Cannon and rappers such as French Montana and Danny Brown that meshed into a unique low-fi rap experiment with splashes of the band's signature "West Coast" chill. Though many fans trashed the mixtape online, calling for the band to return to its original sound, I saw it as a way for the band to explore their sound and take bits of their experimental mixtape to put a new spin on their old music.
Many of us can relate to this idea of "taking a break as a way to become inspired again". I know that when I am working on a project, sometimes taking a mental break by sleeping or doing a hobby can bring new ideas rushing into my head. Bands can use this same idea by "taking a break" from their usual sound and having fun trying out a new one.
Think about how fundamentally different you are as a person now than you were five years ago, ten years ago, even thirty years ago. Now imagine you're in a band. Shouldn't your music change to reflect how you have changed as a person over the years?
As artists get older, they might outgrow a certain style of music or thematic choice because they're in a different stage of life. Reinvention allows them to explore music that suits who they are in their current stage of life. You can look at any artist whose sound has changed over the years- Eminem, Kendrick Lamar, Coldplay, Mumford and Sons, etc.- and find so much hate online for their change in sound.
In Eminem's case, writers talk about how his new sound feels out-of-touch and irrelevant. What the media might fail to consider, however, is that Eminem is fundamentally different now. He has lived through the changes of the rap scene, unlike newer rappers, and so now, years later, he is using his platform to sit back and comment on the industry. Also, he has accumulated wealth, distanced himself from his dark past, and had a child. All of these deep changes mean that Eminem might not feel the need to continue rapping about how hard his life was growing up.
Change is an inevitable part of life. We shouldn't always fault artists who change their sound when the rest of us are constantly are.