Do you know any artist that changed his/her music just to suit public demand

kevogy

Eg, basshunter used to have good music but more recently he's moved away to more teenage crap music like that "angel in the night" trash.

other say the blizzards did somthing the same

Lolabugs

Pink... used to love her music when she first started.
Even bought her first album when it came out.
Now just think shes crap

GLaDOS

Metallica are the classic example obviously

unreggd

UGH, not this Sell-out malarky again

The music INDUSTRY is a BUSINESS, so unfortunately its primarily about money

the musicians need as much money as they can get, as theres no guarantee of a constant workflow

So, if appealing to a bigger mainstream audience will generate a lot more money, then its highly unlikely they'd turn that down

And about Pink, im the opposite, wasnt a big fan of her earlier "I'm a big butch lesbo, watch me knock this guy out" image / songs

At least she's got a bit more versatility these days

IMO

niallon

I don't get this sell-out business, everybody has to put food on the table and also, if a band changes to another style then stays with it for the rest of a long career then there's more than just money in the equation, musicians have limits.

DazMarz

I agree totally with the above. Bands need to make freakin' money to survive! If they don't make money, they fold. Simple as. But I do know several bands who did:

-Whitesnake (left blues, embraced glam in the late-80's)
-Metallica (left thrash, embraced mainstream in early-90's)
-Megadeth (left thrash, embraced mainstream in early-90's)
-KISS (ditched the make up and so on in early-80's in an attempt to go total stadium/pop metal; PLUS they released a disco album in late-70's)
-Def Leppard (left NWOBHM behind in early-80's and sanitized everything for US market)

But, as I said, these dudes gotta eat too. So by embracing the more mainstream, is it all that bad????

cornbb

Lots of musicians adapt their music to suit changing commercial tastes. U2, Metallica and Madonna spring to mind. They all started off making reasonably innovative music but then ended up following the styles of other "fresher" artists rather than continuing to innovate themselves.

nyarlothothep

imo its bad if they emulate crap music, for example if Metallica, Radiohead or TMV decided to go NME indie that would be it for me and its true that a lot bands imitate whatever is going round though this is no guarantee for success. In fact a secure living can be made from appealing to niche tastes. Music is an art form and then there is the business side of it, all too often suits think they know better as to what sells (you can see this ruining many a film, bladerunner before the directors cut, star trek nemesis, ghostbusters 2, the alternate version of Stop Whispering by Radiohead) but in reality everyone should stick to what they know.

iamhunted

music should be about striving to create, not striving to make as much money as possible. Music is meant to be an art. the point isnt to become a billionaire, its to make music people will cherish. some - for example the church, devo, talking heads, radiohead - manage to do that without creating music for the masses whereas others - U2, oasis (though some argue they were always in it for the money) - seem to have made a switch somewhere along the line, threw out musical responsibility and started churning out the same old same old for the punters.

MelonieHead

It might be easier to name an artist who hasn't changed their style to suit the public.

Changing styles and mixing it up is not a bad thing, if an artist kept releasing the same sound time and again people would get very bored, very quickly (unless said artist is U2 ). How do you differentiate between an evolving style and an attempt at crowd pleasing?

Bubs101

Coldplay, noticably from the second to the thrid album ditched alot of their Britishness in an attempt to become more global and marketable. Became **** in the process

theDOOjustDID

yes the music industry is as all industries,are money driven.:mad:
which is why i was sooooo over joyed:P and happy :)that LILAC BLUES
stood there ground and stood for all musicians (creditable ones that is);)
who will not be pushed around by these type of leech like men and women:mad: who just want to make money of the back of really talented poeple. GOOOO LILAC BLUES.you are my new heros:cool:,thanks for sticking it to the machine.congrats on getting as far as you did in a show thats judged by bums really!! :Dnot a but z celebs.:D
i'm sure you will break through,like all who do stand their ground.
your sound is refreshing and so relaxing that poeple will listen and love your music!
your song mamas and papas (i think thats the name?)which you played to the whole country on sunday 1st of march on irelands talent show is truly a great song,i loved it and hope to hear lots more from LILAC BLUES.:rolleyes:
P.S "alan stop laughing,emmett relax alittle,kat clam down,laura you legend".your signs where brillant and fair play to the makers and all your friends for making so much noise ......:cool::cool:
we need more guys and girls like LILAC BLUES ....
thanks soo much for making me smile:) p.p.s KILA were savage
SLAN.

iamhunted

MelonieHead wrote: »

It might be easier to name an artist who hasn't changed their style to suit the public.

Frank Zappa would be one that springs to mind - though mind you i used to wonder if sometimes he didnt release music just to purposefully piss people off

af_thefragile

The inevitable Green Day mention...

nyarlothothep

AC/DC and Iron Maiden haven't really changed that much over the years, TMV has been willfully unapologetic prog since its inception.

RaverRo808

Coming from a dance angle,the biggest offender for me is the Prodigy,started as a hard-hitting rave hardcore dance act,and after gaining prominance in the industry completely sold out becoming some obsure media/chart friendly clowns of dance music ala firestarter and breathe,which to anyone into proper underground dance music such as the likes the Prodigy use to make is utter sh*te,they have now become a complete joke making unlistenable cr*p that is so far from were they started its scary

Nailz

DazMarz wrote: »

I agree totally with the above. Bands need to make freakin' money to survive! If they don't make money, they fold. Simple as. But I do know several bands who did:

-Whitesnake (left blues, embraced glam in the late-80's)
-Metallica (left thrash, embraced mainstream in early-90's)
-Megadeth (left thrash, embraced mainstream in early-90's)
-KISS (ditched the make up and so on in early-80's in an attempt to go total stadium/pop metal; PLUS they released a disco album in late-70's)
-Def Leppard (left NWOBHM behind in early-80's and sanitized everything for US market)

But, as I said, these dudes gotta eat too. So by embracing the more mainstream, is it all that bad????

I agree with almost all of that there, but where are you Megadeth from? "A Tout Le Monde" you're probably thinking, I'm not saying it's not a more mainstream song than Megadeth would normally, but it's no at total departure - and that's including the whole Youthanasia album. But if you were to say late 90's/early 2000's I'd get you a bit more.

KnifeWRENCH

Whenever an artist/band makes a drastic change to his/her/their music I always give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just wanna try something different. I always love artists experimenting with different sounds and there are very few things that annoy me more than supposed "music lovers" who cry "OMG SELLOUT" any time a band or singer gains a modicum of commercial success.

Kings Of Leon's last two albums were quite different to the first. Nelly Furtdao's Loose was a big change from her first two albums. U2 have changed their sound many times (compare The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop). I don't think any of them did it just to shift more albums.

And tbh, even if they did, I really don't care as long as the music is still good. I'd rather an artist "sell out" and release a good album than "stay true to their art" and release something a crap album.

andyh87

The Blizzards were always sell-outs! When did they ever play anything other than pop-rock with catchy chords and dumbass lyrics? "Bresser" admits that their main aim has always been mainstream success.
IMO, Snow Patrol should win an award for biggest sellouts. Final Straw was a great album. The last two have been sappy crap where every song sounds the same. Gary Lightbody must be the most annoying boyfriend ever, the sap.
Kings of Leon are churning out hits by the bucket load (if you'll excuse the unintentional song title reference). But none of their new stuff has the biting intensity of Youth and Young Manhood, and their great masterpiece Aha Shake Heartbreak .
And to those of you who see no problem with selling out "because music is a business afterall": WTF? Does anyone appreciate music as an art form anymore? Or has it just become background noise to keep us entertained while we nonchalantly go about our pathetically materialistic lives?

EDINBRO

I wouldn't call Kings of Leon sellouts but its Ironic that their worst album to date is the most successful. Oh well.

Kevster

Both Kylie Minogue and Madonna have been doing it for their entire careers. Avril Lavigne also did it to suit the goth/rocker culture.

Another person that comes to mind is Marilyn Manson, who - although he didn't change his music style - recognised that there was a 'nice' to make gothic music and then went out and made it.

Blisterman

Dunno if they did it to suit public demand, but the ultimate music chameleons were the Isley Brothers

Late 50's-Early 60's: Rhythm and Blues
Late 60's : Soul
70's: Funk
80's: Smooth Soul
90's to Present: Hip Hop/RnB

Red Sleeping Beauty

kevogy wrote: »

Eg, basshunter used to have good music but more recently he's moved away to more teenage crap music like that "angel in the night" trash.

other say the blizzards did somthing the same

Nope.
Well, U2 maybe

xOxSinéadxOx

I suppose it's easy to get caught up in the fame and money. but they should just make music because they want to make kick ass music and if they do it for any other reason then it's probably ****. I always thought kings of leon were fairly mainstream for the last 2 years but obviously there's another level to mainstream! when bands go mainstream they normally turn **** but that could be just because we liked them before they changed and they're not necessairly ****

Swain

RaverRo808 wrote: »

Coming from a dance angle,the biggest offender for me is the Prodigy,started as a hard-hitting rave hardcore dance act,and after gaining prominance in the industry completely sold out becoming some obsure media/chart friendly clowns of dance music ala firestarter and breathe,which to anyone into proper underground dance music such as the likes the Prodigy use to make is utter sh*te,they have now become a complete joke making unlistenable cr*p that is so far from were they started its scary

Even though their old stuff was great, there were very few bands still making hardcore rave at that stage so i suppose they just had to try something new. The entire genre was considered burned out by lots of people who moved onto Techno, Jungle etc etc.

UB40 went from making great dub/ragga albums to making complete sellout crap for the rest of their careers, millions more bands did likewise.

Rented Mule

The Goo Goo Dolls spring to mind.