Should an artist be able to step outside of their typical genre and release music that they would not normally be associated with? Paraphrase this sentence and it would sound like I’m asking if artists, particularly musicians, are allowed to possess creative control over their own work. That’s a rather strange question because, of course, the immediate answer is yes, right? So then why do we, as the audience, act like we have a say? 

Why is it that, when famous singers dare to experiment, there is more backlash at the mere notion of crossing genres than there is at the music itself?

Why is it that, when famous singers dare to experiment, there is more backlash at the mere notion of crossing genres than there is at the music itself? Nowadays, the art and the respective artist are becoming inseparable – and, to some degree, that is positive. When you are buying into a musician, or any celebrity for that matter, you are buying into their brand: into who they are as a person, what they have created, and what they stand for. So yes, it is completely within our right to question their choices. However, I do think that, in some cases, it has been taken too far. For example, let us take a look at some of the biggest names in the music industry today. 

Taylor Swift originally wrote country music; this is evident from her eponymous debut album, with songs like ‘Should’ve Said No’ and ‘Our Song’. However, Swift is probably one of the celebrities who received the most backlash for switching genres. This began in 2014, when she was declared to have “abandon[ed] her roots [by] going down the pop route” after the release of her Grammy award winning album 1989. So here, despite her success and talent as a ‘Pop’ singer, she was still criticised for switching categories. Now, more than ten years later, Taylor is lesser known for her country roots and is instead beloved for her contribution to the pop industry with her chart-topping albums like Midnights and Lover.

If Swift had not been brave enough to segue from Country to Pop in the first place, we would not have some of the biggest songs of the last decade

But, of course, when Swift then decided to incorporate brash electropop and rap into more of her songs in Reputation, she was again given backlash for ditching her bright ‘pop princess’ aesthetic. This arguably was encouraged by the enormous levels of hate surrounding her during the album’s release in 2016. But, regardless of that, surely as an artist she should have been able to have creative control? If Swift had not been brave enough to segue from country to pop in the first place, we would not have some of the biggest songs of the last decade. Moreover, if she had not then gone into indie folk music for Folklore and Evermore, we would not have the Grammy award winning Album-of-the-Year in 2021 either. Without any of the genre mixing, the biggest tour of 2024 – The Eras Tour – would not have existed and thus would not have been able to redefine the touring industry. In every one of these scenarios her music was never appropriating, cancelling or ridiculing any of the genres she was entering or leaving, which begs the question: why was she ridiculed to begin with? 

Another artist who has drawn the short straw is Ed Sheeran. One of the biggest appeals of Sheeran is his incredible ability as a diverse songwriter – evident through his credited songs and albums. However, Sheeran has also been criticised for stepping into the rap industry at times through some of his songs and collaborations. But my argument for genre mixing is not about whether the music is good. I am not saying that Swift and Sheeran are incredible rappers; in fact, it is not about their skills as rappers or singers at all. It is about their opportunities.

Sheeran is slightly different though. While his fame skyrocketed heavily with the release of his album Multiply and even more so with Divide, one of his first albums – Plus – has a lot of rap related roots. His songs ‘Grade 8’ and ‘You Need Me, I Don’t Need You’ are reminiscent of the rap genre. So, when Sheeran has clearly been entangled within rap in the beginning to some extent, why should he be criticised when experimenting with songs like ‘Take Me Back to London’ and ‘2step’?

…without the initial desire to defy genres and enter new music, we would have no art to connect with.

While this is partly due to the impatient insanity, unchecked facts, and the ill-advised commentary frequent in cancel culture, the criticism received by artists who dare to experiment is precisely an example of pigeon-holing an artist into the genre that the audience is most comfortable with and thus caging them within those walls. As an audience, it is easier for us to understand an artist for what we best know them for. There is less of a need to know how they started or why they started. From the moment their music is released, and you connect with it, it becomes yours. But without the initial desire to defy genres and enter new music, we would have no art to connect with.

This happens even in the acting industry. Ariana Grande was given so much backlash for being cast as Glinda before the release of Wicked because she wasn’t a Broadway star and avid audience members feared she would not do the role justice. But what was overlooked is that, throughout her career, Grande has expressed an unwavering love for the Wicked production. She has performed songs like ‘The Wizard and I’ and she even began her career on the Broadway show 13. So, while Grande was not entirely immersed in the theatre scene, she had her foot in the door from the very beginning. Theatre was something she continually expressed interest in returning to, so it shouldn’t have come as a shock when she returned to it. Now, of course, Wicked has been a global hit and the anticipation for Wicked: For Good is felt worldwide. Most importantly, while Grande received some backlash for her performance, most reviews were positive and she was even nominated for both an Oscar and Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress. This again becomes another example of how pigeon-holing an artist to suit the audience’s needs is limiting them as opposed to helping them. 

Again, I am not saying these artists did incredible every time they genre-mixed. Instead, I just propose the idea that perhaps it doesn’t matter how well they do. In instances when they are not appropriating, ridiculing, or taking opportunities away from others, then they should be allowed to genre-mix. If Blank Street do picnic baskets and Chanel  do matcha, I am pretty sure Taylor Swift can write indie folk and Ariana Grande can star in an award-winning movie. Worst case scenario is someone else wins ‘Best ___ Album’ and I think we should be able to live with that.

---

If you enjoyed this article, try reading…

Are Celebrity Court Cases the New Reality TV?

When Love Ends: The Fine Line Between Fandom and Obsession in Celebrity Breakups

Feminism, We Have a Problem