is it bad to be a diverse artist/s when it comes to having a stable fan base?

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

what i mean is that a artist or group that has multiple styles tends to draw fans that like them for only one particuler style,so instead of a fanbase that likes the artist/s as a whole they only like certain parts of it.so is it best just to stick to one thing in order to keep one solid fanbase?

[zombie]

I think it's good to experiment and change styles to a degree within one band, as long as you keep something of the original style. If you do keep at least some of what made you popular, as small as that popularity may be, then you could retain some part of your fanbase throughout the changes. Or make the changes gradual, rather than a sudden left turn.

But if members of the band really want to do wild and crazy things and drastically change their style, then go off and form a side-project. It may not be as popular as the main group, but at least you're not alienating a large chunk of fans by remaking the band under the original name.

[Grant]

Beck seems to manage.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

I think it's good to experiment and change styles to a degree within one band, as long as you keep something of the original style. If you do keep at least some of what made you popular, as small as that popularity may be, then you could retain some part of your fanbase throughout the changes. Or make the changes gradual, rather than a sudden left turn.

But if members of the band really want to do wild and crazy things and drastically change their style, then go off and form a side-project. It may not be as popular as the main group, but at least you're not alienating a large chunk of fans by remaking the band under the original name.i'm referring more to the fact the artist/s is already diverse "stylistically".

[blackdragon6]

anytime you get a artist,group,band or what ever with multiple styles your going to get different types of fans that likes you for different reasons.you have to be open minded when buying a album from this type of artists cause their album might come across as a compilation of different styles,and genres performed by the same artist,group or band.but at the same time i think fans should know what their getting into.

i remember when bone thugs-n-harmony camed out,and some people liked them for their hardcore songs,some like the group as a whole,while others liked their slow melodic songs.now 10 years later some people wan't either or.and that would be stupid to drop half of what you are and become one sided to appeal to a fraction of your fan base.

remember zhane? (pronounced jah-nay) had a album that people thought was gonna be filled with laid back R&B club grooves.then they got the album and discovered that half of it was jazz type R&B and people was like WTF!?

[Ilash]

As far as I'm concerned, the only time diversity can be seen as a bad thing for a band/artist is when that band/artist is too limited a talent to really pull off all of these styles. Part of why I am such a huge fan of bands like the Beatles, the Stones and the Who lies in the fact that they were such successful experimentors that we able to move from pop to rock to country to R&B with such ease. Diversity means that it's easier for a band to stay fresh and interesting for longer. As such, listening to an entire Stones album is simply much EASIER and more pleasurable than listening to, say, an entire Simon and Garfunkel album. On the other hand, there are bands that simply aren't cut out for diversity. Lynyrd Skynyrd were so successful because they realized that they were a great boogie rock band - nothing more, nothing less - so we didn't land up with tons of failed experiments from them. Of course there are also bands that are good at some diversification but only to a point. The classic example of this, I think, is Led Zeppelin, a band that could successfully tackle hard rock as easily as folky acoustic stuff as funk rock but when they try their luck with pop, for example, they fall flat on their faces. Because of all this, I do generally consider diversity when it comes to my evaluation of a band/artist. It's not the most important criteria but it definitely plays a part.

Now, as for how fans of band deal with diversity, well, I think it depends. Certain bands/artists are loved for their willingness to experiment so guys like the Beatles, Frank Zappa or David Bowie seemingly had little problem holding onto their fans. Actually, I would say that except in a case where the transformation was from a "higher" to "lower" form of music (eg. prog rock to pop or pure folk to rock), most of the bands/artists to come out of the sixties and early seventies probably had little trouble holding onto their fans. After all, experimentation did seem to be the order of teh day back then. This may well also apply to underground bands these days but I can't say for sure. I do think that with most modern mainstream pop or rock acts that rely so much on the status quo and the safety of whichever sub-genre they're pigeonholed into, would lost tons of fans if they tried new things. Yup, this is a typical "old better than new" argument from me but I challenge anyone to dissagree with me.

[Expletive Deleted]

Beck seems to manage.So does David Bowie.

[ghostrider666]

Well, yes. As far as a fan base goes, it's tough. There's alot that goes into building a fan base, the music, the look, the scene. Once youve established yourself in 1, to try to step out of it, youre leaving, literally, your base behind. You then have to establish a new 1, which, if they know of your past work & being an "outsider" nakes it very, very hard. Its not impossible, there have been a few whove done it, but tis rare.

[Jade69/Legolaslady]

Probably having a huge totally devoted fan base might be tough, but on the other hand you probably have a lot of people who like some of your music, and a lot who like the other style.
I still remember the 2nd time I heard Soulfly :)

[Adam Crocker]

So does David Bowie.

As did Mr. Bungle, switching from genre-to-genre in the middle of their songs.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

i remember when bone thugs-n-harmony camed out,and some people liked them for their hardcore songs,some like the group as a whole,while others liked their slow melodic songs.now 10 years later some people wan't either or.and that would be stupid to drop half of what you are and become one sided to appeal to a fraction of your fan base.

the melodic sound was always there.though i will admit that it didn't become real prelevent till tha crossroads song blew up.i still like the total package though.