What You guys think about multi genre artists?
When artist releasing an album he should put all the tracks from same genre?
What if he put one track Techno, second Neurofunk and third Rock?
Do you have experience with something like that?
Is this are things that artist need to avoid? Or there are no boundries? You can do whatever you want?
I mean is audience will be happy with something like this?
Do you was happy when you meet something like this in the past? Or it was more like Oh shit what the fuck. I loved this one track that's why I bought album but now I hear that the rest of the tracks are crap, I don't like those genres.
What is it? Why did you do this to me? LOL

Also is artist can make the whole album one genre and after few years make new album in completly different genre?
Is this will be ok for audience or people who listen previous album will hate the new one?

 

I wouldn't like an album like this. Some variety is great, but what you describe is more like a compilation album, (unmixed). How many of your favorite albums are old Compilation cd's? Probably 0.

 

Please dig this deeper. Where is the edge of the variety?

 

The three specific genres you mentioned have very different loudnesses. Neuro is -3 LUFS, Techno is about -6 and rock is IDK -12 LOL
That would not bode well together.
In addition to that, here's my another criteria: if you can't put two songs in the same public thematic playlist, they don't belong in the same album either.
So the album should have a uniform peak sustained loudness and a general sense of aesthetics across all its songs.

 

So what the multi genre artist should do?
Release every genre under other Alias or create some projects?
And release under 1 album only similar genre/style tracks with consistent loudness?
And what about other albums under same alias? All they should have similar loudness or every album can have different loudness?

 

They usually have multiple aliases for multiple genres in reality.

 

I don't think a musician should make music based on what they think a listener wants to hear.

 

usually i listen to an album when im in a mood to hear a type of thing, so an album with lots of types of things is less likely to be enjoyable. i do listen to a lot of artists who span many genres but they almost always do so in different releases, even if those releases are just a track or two

 

The artist still should see to make the point they intend to make comprehensible. It's a "meet each other half-way" situation, not "one party owes the other".

 

Yeah. I think the key is that artist can do whatever he want but later on the releasing album stage he need to categorize tracks and release similar ones under one alias/project.

For example do you imagine that The Prodigy suddenly releasing Country music or Gospel?
It will be total disaster.
But if Liam Howlett release it under some alias - no problem.
Even some hard Prodigy fans which are only into electronics will try it.
But if this show up under The Prodigy from ass it could be total disaster.
You know what I mean?

 

Love'em.

When artist releasing an album he should do whatever he wants.

I mean that's an unusual sequence of genres, but if done well, why not?

I personally never released an album, so no.

The boundaries are set by your imagination.

Depends entirely on the audience.

That's usually what happened back in the day when you bought albums based on the one hit single that got imprinted on your brain after months of radio play. You realized there were maybe a couple more songs worth listening to, but the rest were just fillers.
Not really a difference of genres though.

An artist can even change mediums if they want.
Some in the audience will like, some not. When Radiohead released Kid A, those who were expecting a new OK Computer hated it. Others thought it was the greatest album they'd heard in their lives.

Why?

History has shown time and again that :
a) whatever point the artist intends to make, there will ALWAYS be people who comprehend something else
b) when an artist makes something intentionally pointless, people will still inject their own meaning

If the public knew what they wanted they'd do it themselves.

 

If the story of album is coherent, slight shift in genres could somehow fit whole narrative, if the artist in question really have own similar signature sound in every track. it's not uncommon to have intro/outro tracks in different genre and bpm, like slower ambient/downbeat leading into more faster dance track.

But if the genres and styles are really all over the place, better release EP instead, tell a shorter and more coherent story, even do another alias for it.

 

On the next album.

 

Excuse me whilst I conform to your expectations.

 

Because it's in your best interest to be heard.
If you want just shout gibberish and wait til people come to you and do what you want - you're not an artist, you're a toddler.
If you don't care about being understood - sure, do whatever the frack you want. Might even get some "fans" anyways - all kinds of narcissists get a following.
If this isn't clear somehow, I'm talking about saying *what you want* in a coherent manner, not about saying *what masses want* to hear. The latter will give you a fleeting social success and nothing else, including no fulfillment from the creative process.

So what? This comes from mass exposure, and it's the same for any kind of communication. Does that mean one should stop trying to communicate?

Nobody's talking about public.

Oh, and also. By being more humane, you make better music.

 

Last edited: Aug 18, 2023

of course not. make music for what they will pay for

 

Artist should have make the tracks first, then decide what artist make to do with them.

Of course if you are abstract enough you could make an album with no tracks or music at all. Silence concept.

 

That's a legit reason, of course.
But it's not the only reason people make art.
Outsider art is just as legit as any other art form.

There's a huge spectrum of reasons, intentions, actions etc. between trying your best to communicate and shouting gibberish waiting for people to come to you and do what you want (what does "do what you want" even mean?).

If an artist has a vision that is so unique that it doesn't refer to anything anyone's familiar with, changing that vision so it will be easier to "sell" would be a commercial decision, not an artistic one.

I'm not saying it devalues the art, lessens the artist's integrity or anything like that. But doing the opposite (not changing your initial vision) does not make you a toddler either.

I don't know of any artist who truly doesn't care about being understood. However I know many who will be content with just a handful of people understanding them -as long as they remain true to themselves. Has nothing to do with following, fandom etc.

I love making atonal, experimental timbral drone stuff. None of my friends dig it, which makes me a little sad but I don't lose sleep either. Every once in a while someone seem to get it, and it gives me great happiness when that happens, but even if I found myself on a different planet, all by myself, with only my synths and DAW, I would still keep doing it, you know?

I do what I do because there's nothing else that gives me the same satisfaction.

I don't know where the narcissism accusation came from.

And I'm not saying you shouldn't aim for that. I'm eternally grateful that so many great artists made the effort to communicate their vision coherently.

But, again, not making that effort is just as legit. If you're taking the risk of never being understood, having any recognition etc. that's a choice too.

No, of course not.
But sometimes artists who face a backlash because they tried something different that didn't resonate with their audience go back to "safe" communication instead of pushing further in a new direction.
I have much more respect for those who dare to say "if you don't like it, fine, but this is where I'm going now, so either get off the bus, or stick with me for the ride".

...then why are we even having this discussion?
Who is the artist supposed to communicate with?

There are so many counter-examples to this, it would take an entire thread to cite them.
I'm not saying character isn't important, or it's okay to be an asshole as long as you make good music etc.
But there's a reason why we say "separate the art from the artist".


Finally, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying your points are invalid. I agree with them, but I think you're leaving a lot of stuff out, so I'm trying to offer a balance.

 

Outsiders aren't like that intentionally, so it's not relevant to discuss them. No judging towards them.

"do what you want them to" :sweat_smile:
I sure did word a few things poorly here.

What about changing the vision so it will try to actually convey the main idea?
If an artist intentionally puts barriers and obstacles in front of the listener - that's just elitism, that's not a legit art. It's not reaching out - it demands obedience. I personally have only one answer to anybody who would demand obedience from me. I would not engage with such "art".

I reckon that you frame your idea coherently in this example, unless you include harsh physically painful tones and transients that can damage one's eardrums for "art" there - tho the idea itself is alien to some, maybe most people. It's their fault - they didn't go that half-way. You did.

That was more like "even if a narcissist can have a following". Another masterful wording by me. Sorry, my English module is unstable today.

They are going halfway and not meeting people there.

A hypothetical listener who's into their ideas. That also includes the artist themselves.

Well, kinda. Going full alien can also result in a better music, but that's not a counterexample, since these two statements have no conflict.

I want to stress it again, that I'm talking about conveying your ideas in ways that don't repulse or outright damage an interested listener, not about following trends or "right" ways to make music.

 

Nutshelled.

We can only do what we can do, we hope it's good enough for other people to like it, or even pay for it, but we can't control it, we just hope the Muse pays us a visit. It's the same with all of the arts.