|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Jul 10, 2010 8:38:41 GMT -5
Recently, a favorite band of mine (pictured in my sig) posted three preview tracks from their forthcoming third full length. Their previous two efforts had established them as a really unique, hard hitting punk band. The new stuff is a lot more laid back, more melodic, and really reliant on lightly distorted guitars and electric organ. Most fans of theirs hate it. Personally, I'm a big fan of when bands progressively allow their music to grow with them, and I love the new material.
Now, bear in mind, I'm not talking about abrupt change. I've been seeing this direction coming from Far From Finished for about 3 years now, between their last album, and a single they put out in between. An example of abrupt change would be Bad Religion's "new wave" direction their took with their pretty much unacknowledged album "Into The Unknown" (which I love as its own entity).
Another good example of this, with a pretty similar type of backlash, would be Green Day. "Warning" progressed pretty well into the next steps they took in their career.
What's your opinion? Should bands maintain a stagnant sound to pander to the fans they picked up early in their career, or should otherwise perfectly talented bands utilize the skills at their disposal to try new things, even if it means a drastically different sound?
|
|
|
|
Post by ztj_wwf on Jul 10, 2010 8:47:59 GMT -5
EVERY band changes their sound at some point in their career, sometimes its good, sometimes not, a main example of it not being good would be Queen who went from Progressive/Operatic Rock and Heavy Metal to Funk, Soul and Disco, and then stayed poppy throughout the 80's. Other bands like Judas Priest, KISS and Metallica went with a lighter sound later on aswell. I think it isn't good to change too drastically, but to have the same sound all the time is just predictable and boring really.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 16, 2024 22:11:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 9:19:30 GMT -5
Oasis changed their style quite a bit for Standing on the Shoulders of giants.
It was alot more instrumental, and just differant. But it still felt like an Oasis albulm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Jul 10, 2010 10:34:36 GMT -5
Yeah the first band I thought of when I read this title is Metallica. I personally don't mind anything that's on Black Album, Load or ReLoad because all those songs are great songs in their own right. When a band is changing styles I look at it as their way of staying relevant by not contininuously making the same music over and over again. Metallica reinvented themselves and subsequently became one of the biggest bands in the world with the Black Album. Megadeth reinvented themselves too and while it wasn't quite as dramatic as going from Thrash Metal to Hard Rock in the course of like 3 albums, Megadeth's not-quite-as-intense songs are among my favorites. Songs off of Cryptic Writings, Youthanasia, Risk, etc are fantastic songs and have kept a band like Megadeth around. Not only for their extensive backcatalog of balls to the wall thrash but also for their more hard rock tunes in the 90's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cult Member BriGuy on Jul 10, 2010 11:11:40 GMT -5
Red Hot Chili Peppers changed.
EDIT: Misread the thread title. I thought you were just looking for examples. I think bands should be able to change their sound. If they want to try something new, so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Almost Like Flacco on Jul 10, 2010 11:10:57 GMT -5
I like it when bands let their music progress as they go along. I mean, listen to the contrast between The Second Stage Turbine Blade and Year of the Black Rainbow by Coheed and Cambria.
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jul 10, 2010 12:25:36 GMT -5
In my case, I suppose it depends on the band. Occasionally, I find that bands change their sound to suit a label or what's popular at the time. I hate that. When it's simply a case of a band evolving, I'll usually support it.
My favorite band, New Found Glory, did that. Most of their die-hard fans will tell you that "Coming Home" is still a great album, I feel that way as well, but it sounds absolutely nothing like their previous work, and album since. All of the guys were getting involved in serious relationships at the time, they were growing up, and they made a fun, love driven pop-rock record. Other than Jordan's unmistakable voice, it really has none of the elements that made New Found Glory what they are.
I was afraid it would be a permanent change, but "Not Without a Fight" went right back to their roots, with maybe a bit more hardcore splashed in then before. It was simply a phase in their life they went through.
As far as bands doing it for, what I feel is the wrong reasons, no one comes to mind quite as quickly as Finger Eleven. I was a huge fan of the band's first three albums, and then Them vs. Me vs. You dropped, led of course by "Paralyzer" and I felt like they had just abandoned everything that made them so unique in the first place. Commercially, it worked, but they became about as uninteresting to me as the majority of modern rock bands out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Jul 10, 2010 12:59:58 GMT -5
In my case, I suppose it depends on the band. Occasionally, I find that bands change their sound to suit a label or what's popular at the time. I hate that. When it's simply a case of a band evolving, I'll usually support it. My favorite band, New Found Glory, did that. Most of their die-hard fans will tell you that "Coming Home" is still a great album, I feel that way as well, but it sounds absolutely nothing like their previous work, and album since. All of the guys were getting involved in serious relationships at the time, they were growing up, and they made a fun, love driven pop-rock record. Other than Jordan's unmistakable voice, it really has none of the elements that made New Found Glory what they are. I was afraid it would be a permanent change, but "Not Without a Fight" went right back to their roots, with maybe a bit more hardcore splashed in then before. It was simply a phase in their life they went through. As far as bands doing it for, what I feel is the wrong reasons, no one comes to mind quite as quickly as Finger Eleven. I was a huge fan of the band's first three albums, and then Them vs. Me vs. You dropped, led of course by "Paralyzer" and I felt like they had just abandoned everything that made them so unique in the first place. Commercially, it worked, but they became about as uninteresting to me as the majority of modern rock bands out there. Hit the nail right on the head, exept for the fact that I hated "Coming Home". It actually turned me off of the band until I someone suggested that it the next album was back to normal. AFI is another band that was awesome. The totally went pop with December Under Ground and have been terrible ever since, in my opinion. In my opinion, The Used is better now than they were before. |
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Jul 10, 2010 14:13:07 GMT -5
The only band I can think of that hasn't ever changed their style would be The Melvins, or the Foo Fighters.
|
|
|
|
Post by BulletV1 on Jul 10, 2010 14:35:39 GMT -5
The only band I can think of that hasn't ever changed their style would be The Melvins, or the Foo Fighters. Motorhead, AC/DC, and Iron Maiden have never really changed their sound. Also I'd like to point the Beatles' "sound" changed more so more times then pretty much any other band. Go listen to something like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" to "Yellow Submarine" to "Revolution" and you will find quite a bit a difference in the sound. |
|
|
|
Post by Oskanowski on Jul 10, 2010 14:52:25 GMT -5
The only band I can think of that hasn't ever changed their style would be The Melvins, or the Foo Fighters. Motorhead, AC/DC, and Iron Maiden have never really changed their sound. Also I'd like to point the Beatles' "sound" changed more so more times then pretty much any other band. Go listen to something like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" to "Yellow Submarine" to "Revolution" and you will find quite a bit a difference in the sound. oh yeah.. I forgot about all those. lol |
|
Yim Yames
Main Eventer
"If you touch me, well i just think ill scream"
Joined on: May 24, 2005 20:17:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,426
|
Post by Yim Yames on Jul 10, 2010 18:29:54 GMT -5
The only band I can think of that hasn't ever changed their style would be The Melvins, or the Foo Fighters. Motorhead, AC/DC, and Iron Maiden have never really changed their sound. Also I'd like to point the Beatles' "sound" changed more so more times then pretty much any other band. Go listen to something like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" to "Yellow Submarine" to "Revolution" and you will find quite a bit a difference in the sound. while i do agree that the beatles sound obviously changed over the course of their existance as a band, a lot of their music sounded so different because they had 2, 3 or sometimes all 4 members that were writing the songs. even though ob-la-di, ob-la-da, while my guitar gently weeps and helter skelter are on the same album, they sound nothing alike |
|
The Stranger
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 21, 2007 1:09:47 GMT -5
Posts: 2,200
|
Post by The Stranger on Jul 10, 2010 18:42:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hollywoodscene on Jul 10, 2010 19:21:30 GMT -5
Its one thing to slowly chnage but still be the same genre. I think major changes would be something like uhhh Vanilla Ice.
|
|
|
|
Post by S on Jul 10, 2010 19:35:27 GMT -5
I like the change in sound my favourite band did (Pink Floyd) because it was gradual and clear... i mean if they did the same stuff for there 30-40 year life, with numerous life events and line-up changes, it would have gotten boring... however if they changed completely after every album, that spark and sound that drew me to them would have been lost.
You need a balance
|
|
|
|
Post by Mole on Jul 10, 2010 19:38:55 GMT -5
It's all taste. As a general rule, I tend to like change, even if it may not be necessary. Typically, if the sound isn't a 100% departure from their last album, then I tend to not get turned off immediately because I can see the connection. For instance, lots of people hated Raditude, but I enjoyed it. A lot of the people who didn't like it, disliked it because of its difference from Weezer's earlier work. However, I liked it because it kept the trend of change that really started with Make Believe and continued on from there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 16, 2024 22:11:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2010 20:02:57 GMT -5
Since they're my favorite, I'll just toss out Pearl Jam. Ten, Vs., and Vitalogy sound different from No Code and Yield, Binaural and Riot Act are each way different from previous albums, Self Titled is a bit more traditional, and Backspacer is something new without being unfamiliar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy on Jul 10, 2010 20:04:01 GMT -5
People gave The Killers so much sh*t for Sam's Town and it really is just mind boggling to me because that album is amazing. Bands should be free to do whatever the  they want, really. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Jul 10, 2010 20:23:30 GMT -5
Oh and Rush is another band that has changed their sound as well and none of it bothered me. The synth heavy era isn't my favorite part of the band's existance but it was a necissary step and still lead to a couple of my favorite songs.
|
|
|
|
Post by †hê Jå§ðñ Wïllïåm§ on Jul 10, 2010 22:11:53 GMT -5
 ? |
|
I dont know good luck 
