Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t.
On a reasonably similar note to one of the last blogs I wrote about bands changing their appearance/style/genre, I had this thought a little while ago!
Music fans can be so fickle - what is the secret to keeping your fans onside, no matter what directions you take your band/music in? Is it ever possible?
To explain, think of all the times you have ever said, “I liked them (Band X) before they got big” or “I love their old stuff, then they changed - they used to be all about the music, man.”
And then think about the amount of times you have said, “I loved Album X from Band X, but EVERY album since has been a re-hash of that first one! UGH!”
It seems that bands are damned if they change/mature over time and perhaps gain many new followers as a result of the changes made and damned if they keep on doing the same thing that got them fans in the first place. It’s “selling out” to change and it’s “boring” to stay the same.
WHERE’S THE HAPPY MEDIUM?
I guess, as a band, you have to be willing to accept that as your band changes or ages, so will your fan base and their tastes. As a conscious decision to bring on new influences/instruments/sounds into the mix into your band, I guess the thought that some may not like it has to be in the back of your mind. You might even weigh up whether you think you will win over more than you will lose!
I guess one band that comes to mind who have managed changes in their band well is Eskimo Joe. They have come lightyears since their Sweater days. They won over fans in 1998 with their Sweater EP, with the song getting extensive play on Triple J and reaching #33 on the Triple J Hottest 100 of that year and a year later with their self-titled EP, of which 2 of the tracks made the Hottest 100 of 1999. Already, they were having some success! Their first album, Girl, was well received and reached #29 on the ARIA charts. While featuring great tracks, it was not until A Song is a City was released that people on a wider scale began to sit up and take notice - the singles were played by commercial radio stations and youth broadcaster, Triple J alike.
Their most successful (commerically) to date, Black Fingernails, Red Wine, (at least in the opinion of just about everyone I have spoken to and in my humble opinion, though I like individual tracks) attracted a little negative attention in that it “took itself a little too seriously.” While it gained them a lot more fans and more airplay and more everything, there were the fans who had loved everything to date, not really liking the direction they had gone. They hadn’t strayed far, though, so the fallout wasn’t drastic - those fans didn’t become haters.
From first, cursory listens to their new material from their new album, Inshalla, I think that they have grown into a great band - taking on new influences and returning to a little more rock in their music, which is okay by me!
I think it is all about decisions that you are comfortable with as a band and what your goals are. If your goal is to have longevity in your career in the music industry, then drastic, money-grabbing, obviously economically-driven decisions are always going to end in cries of “SELL OUT!” rather than having the desired effect of creating life-long fans.
But hey, I could be wrong about all this.
Look at AC/DC. They pretty much put out the same album 16 times, with different track names and slightly changed chord structures. I’m exaggerating, but what I am saying is that they have never varied wildly from the same formula that sold them from the beginning and are still gaining fans. Surely they are the exception to the rule though? There are not many bands and certainly not bands from this new era of music-making who can get away with this approach?
