Discussion of the Week: What Do You Think About Artists Who Change Their Sound To Reflect The Times?

“It’s the IN Sound; The Sound of the New Generation.” For a millennia and a half, it been a known fact that there’s only one true constant in the music industry; and that's “Change.” Every 5-10 years, the winds blow, the musical landscape shifts, and those can't adapt to the new sound are considered “old-school” or irrelevant. They generally refuse to sacrifice quality for quantity of sales, and continue to put out music that feels right to them. On the other hand, there are certain artists who define success by the amount of records they sell at every turn, and are willing to do anything to stay in that top spot, regardless of the impact that it may have on their legacy or core fan base.

Back in the day it was all about Disco- the genre that was so popular that even older, more established artists wanted to stake their claim in the phenomenon. So what if it meant that their swan song alienated them from the fans that made them popular in the first place. As long as it constituted one last curtain call. I mean, can you really hear Frank Sinatra swinging out a tune at 120 beats per minute? I thought not. This really almost happened. Thank God there were actually some producers like Nile Rodgers with enough integrity to say, “NO, I’m not letting you do that to your legacy.” Otherwise, the result would have reeked of desperation. Going forward into the late 80’s, you had the same thing happen all over again when Hip-Hop and New Jack Swing started taking over the airwaves. All of a sudden you had traditional R&B artists putting out material that relied more on harder, synthesized beats, rather than actual feeling and vocal quality. Earth, Wind, and Fire were told by their record company to get rid of their horn section because it made them sound too dated……

Earth Wind, and Fire?? How do you tell a band that has a section specifically named 'The Phoenix Horns' to update their sound? That’s blasphemy! But at that time, having live instruments in your act (regardless if they helped to define your sound in the first place) made you obsolete by industry standards.

More to the point, even a contemporary artist like Usher…..who has had a solid career of the being the consummate entertainer- following in the footsteps of Jackie Wilson and even MJ himself- has had trouble trying to stay ahead of the curve. After a certain point, he even started using auto-tune, and making music that clearly sounded like an attempt to stay current to the twenty-something year old downloading public. Now it's no secret that Usher is one of the few current artists that can actually SANG, so he never needed the help of auto-tune to enhance his sound. But at this point, he is pushing 40, so I can only imagine that he felt the pressure to either shake things up, or be considered an “old school” act.

So how does an artist stay relevant and successful in a new age of music? Well, I guess it depends on what you define as successful….In terms of selling units, you need to be able to find the right producer(s) who can effortlessly translate your sound to the masses; those that can take the best of the elements that you're known for, and update your sound in a way that’s both relatable and refreshing. But that requires a level of musical and creative vision, which is something that many industry professionals currently lack.

So this week’s discussion topic: What is your take on artists who change their sound to reflect the times? Do you believe this is a good move, or not? Let us know your thoughts on Twitter, or sound off in the comments below….