Side Point....

That last post brings up something. Why are artists so afraid to be "pigeonholed"? Maybe that, by definition, is part of being an artist; not being predictable lest creativity be lacking. I definitely understand that but I think there's a few things to think about:

1) What if you're simply not that good at other styles?
For instance, you have "So and So" who makes what has been labeled "tech-house", but for fear of being "pigeonholed" decides to try "acid jazz". Would it be such a bad thing to be stuck in the genre you're good at?

2) What if that's just your sound/look/whatever?
Here's an example of two bands in particular who, respectively (and respectfully), have in the past declined being part of the genre they helped create. Depeche Mode, for instance, didn't like being "club" or "dance music", while Massive Attack didn't like being termed "trip-hop". I understand that sometimes the image that the title or associated group creates may not be what you represent but honestly, the description fits. If people had created any other term would they have liked that any better? While I love both (A LOT), I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for creativity and diversifying your sound but at what cost and is it always good?