Should a record company be able to sue an artist for giving them material that's uncharacteristic or inaccessible enough that it won't sell to who they're marketing it to, or is it the company's job to always work around their artists' creative whims?

No. Firstly, that would give the recording companies yet another weapon to beat up artists: who can judge what is "uncharacteristic". Secondly, it would kill artistic development as artists would be terrified to try new ideas lest the company sue them. There is enough boring "same again" music around without making more.

Old question, but I still wanted to answer. No, because acting this way kills art. Real art is the personal vision and expression of the artist. If that vision is stamped down by others, then it is no longer art. If a musician wants to release an album that probably won't sell to "who they're marketing it to", then market it to another group. If the record company thinks it's totally unsellable then they should have the right to discontinue working with that musician, who is then free to find someone else who believes in his vision.

No, they shouldn't be able to sue the artist. That is just ridiculous. That would be like a publisher telling an author what to write. It should not work like that.

duh....get a good attrney

Not usually. But it would really depend on what's written in their contract......

No, they certainly shouldn't! They can tell them that the material probably won't sell (then again, one never really knows if the general public will take a particular song to heart, even if it is unusual)but suing them is just plain ridiculous and oppressive. The record companies get enough money already too.