They betrayed their true fans! D:

Do you think musicians have a duty to please their fans? After all, if it wasn't for the support of their fans buying their albums, then they wouldn't get rich or successful. So does that mean they should create music depending on what their fans want? Or are they free to go in any musical direction they want, even if it annoys and disappoints hundreds (or even thousands) of people?

Also, what do you think makes someone a "true" fan? Is someone who's only bought 1 or 2 albums of an artist considered a fan, or does someone only count as a real fan if they go to concerts and/or buy merchandise as well?

No as a musician I don't think you have any certain duty to your fans. Being a musician is a career choice and like any career choice you should be able to go in the direction you want. It just so happens that unlike most other jobs there are thousands of people who are watching and criticizing what you're doing at all times. I feel like it would be wrong for you to feel like you have to be one way because of what everyone else thinks. If you're a musician who usually plays within the genre of rock and you'd like to change over to hip-hop then you should. Yeah there will be a lot of backlash, but within your new genre you are sure to find new fans. Unless you are absolutely horrible within the new genre.

I don't think you have to be absolutely crazy for a band to be considered a "true fan." If you know a few of their albums and a fair amount of songs along with the general feeling of "I like this band and their music and I am looking forward to their next album" then I would consider you a fan. If you go to every concert, own a lot of their merchandise, and know random details about each member then I'd consider you a fan too. Just a more interested or passionate fan.

Bands should be able to change to go in whichever direction they want, regardless of what the fans want. It would be selling out if they shaped their music to keep their fanbase and sales up.

I don't really have an opinion of what a true fan of a band is, there's just people who listen to the music and people who don't. I guess if I had to draw the line, I would pick the people who actually listen to the albums as opposed to just picking two or three songs that they like, but those people can be fans as well.

For me, the goal of a musician is to please their fans. They should be free to compose/sing whatever songs they want as long as they don't cause some sort of controversy with the fans.

PlatinumDude said:

For me, the goal of a musician is to please their fans. They should be free to compose/sing whatever songs they want as long as they don't cause some sort of controversy with the fans.

Click to expand...

I think some musicians might follow this guideline when they make music, but I don't think it's a duty unless the musician makes it a duty themselves. I wouldn't be writing music for the fans if I ever became semi-famous, I'd be writing music for fun or other reasons. If people like the music I make, then great, they're fans, and if they don't like the music then big deal. For me, if you make music for others that you don't enjoy yourself you're not getting any fun out of being a musician and that's the main reason musicians are musicians. Of course, there are exceptions, but ultimately pleasing fans is only a duty if the musician makes it one.

I think a musician is supposed to please their fans, yeah, but they shouldn't listen to everything the fans say, because if the people liked their previous songs, then they should change anything and I believe they should do what they want with their music.

Eliminator Jr. said:

I think some musicians might follow this guideline when they make music, but I don't think it's a duty unless the musician makes it a duty themselves. I wouldn't be writing music for the fans if I ever became semi-famous, I'd be writing music for fun or other reasons. If people like the music I make, then great, they're fans, and if they don't like the music then big deal. For me, if you make music for others that you don't enjoy yourself you're not getting any fun out of being a musician and that's the main reason musicians are musicians. Of course, there are exceptions, but ultimately pleasing fans is only a duty if the musician makes it one.

Click to expand...

exactly this. it's only strategy for an artist to submit to the fans, i certainly wouldn't call it the artist's natural purpose. the work is entirely the artist's own, and no artist should be pressured to put limitations on their compositions. it kills me when a musician shows evolution in their work- progressive or otherwise- and fans have a cow because they don't want change. 50 Cent said something surprisingly brilliant that pertains to what i'm saying:

It bugs me out to here people say they want old 50 music. Its like asking a painter to paint the same picture over and over.

via

Click to expand...

maybe not the most eloquent guy xD but i'd call it the fan's job to be supportive of the artist they love before i'd call it the artist's job to serve his/her fans.

In light to the question about what makes a person a 'fan'.
I'd say that anyone who listens to and appreciates the music and probably has at least one album is a fan. I think having all the merchandise and concerts and everything is unnecessary when classifying a fan. Some people might not have the money to become equipped with such memorabilia, or maybe they are like me and are ridiculously stingy and appreciate the music as music more than the band specifically.

I think it would be more of a record label thing to worry about pleasing fans, they're the owns who seem to make the most cash out of all involved.
The musicians on their own though, they do what they do for the love of their craft more than anything. Yeah fame and fortune is good and all, but doing what you love to do in life, is a far more important concept to anyone in any industry.

I know alot of people don't like them much anymore, and it's for a few different reasons I would imagine but I'll use Linkin Park as an example.
Their first 2 albums, Hybrid Theory and Meteora, they were the same style of music. Its what the fans wanted, but they felt trapped and like they were unable to follow different musical directions with their albums.
They split. Chester and Mike both had solo albums in that time and reinvented themselves, and when they reformed LP people seemed to be more accepting of the new directions they wanted to take with the band.
Im sure there are some diehard fans who just cant get their head around the fact that their music is different now to what it was then though.

This is another point. I think a true fan, while they might not be overly impressed with directions their favourite band might want to take, or how an album sounds etc, they will still be supportive of the band. Not have a hissyfit and refuse to listen to a new album because it sounds different.
A true fan supports the variation between albums. A true fan would love the band no matter how they sounded.

Thats just my opinion though.