Logo
DiS Needs You: Save our site »
  • Logo_home2
  • Records
  • In Depth
  • In Photos
  • Blog
  • Podcast
  • Search
  • Community
  • Records
  • In Depth
  • Blog
  • Community

THIS SITE HAS BEEN ARCHIVED AND CLOSED.

Please join the conversation over on our new forums »

If you really want to read this, try using The Internet Archive.

Boards

Music Social More…

'Crossover' Records

restlessboy [Edit] [Delete] 12:41, 7 September '07

Just glanced at a review summary for some band I've never heard (it's irrelevant who) and the review's basically saying 'after years of making innaccesible music that was popular with a select audience, this band have now dropped some of the weirdness and made a more commercial record which is miles better'.

My question is WHY is this better? Why is it better to dilute what you've been doing for a long time into a more 'pop' format? irrespective of whether it's a commercial or artistic decision it's, frankly, inevitable that 'more pop' means 'less distinctive'.

So, um, discussion... erm....

Exmaples of good crossover records and bad crossover records?

Records where the band 'went pop' and genuinely didn't lose what made them great to start with?

Explanation of why the media will react positively to a band going 'pop' despite the number of times that the halfway house between originality/accessibility is so unsatisfying that they lose their old fans and gain no new ones?


Drowned in Sound
  • DROWNED IN SOUND
  • HOME
  • SITE MAP
  • NEWS
  • IN DEPTH
  • IN PHOTOS
  • RECORDS
  • RECOMMENDED RECORDS
  • ALBUMS OF THE YEAR
  • FESTIVAL COVERAGE
  • COMMUNITY
  • MUSIC FORUM
  • SOCIAL BOARD
  • REPORT ERRORS
  • CONTACT US
  • JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
  • FOLLOW DiS
  • GOOGLE+
  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • SHUFFLER
  • TUMBLR
  • YOUTUBE
  • RSS FEED
  • RSS EMAIL SUBSCRIBE
  • MISC
  • TERM OF USE
  • PRIVACY
  • ADVERTISING
  • OUR WIKIPEDIA
© 2000-2025 DROWNED IN SOUND