Should a band change their sound/musical style?
Discussion
Some snippets of ongoing arguments I've heard concern a change of style by a band not bring appreciated. A good example of this would be Metallica who apparently 'sold out' with the black album, transitioning from thrash metalers to sold rock (and became megastars in the process). To a lesser degree Pendulum suffered similar brickbats when they moved from their original drum and bass style.
On the other hand AC/DC are criticised for releasing the same music across every album since Back in Black
Thoughts?
On the other hand AC/DC are criticised for releasing the same music across every album since Back in Black
Thoughts?
Metallica tried something new with the Black album and I, for one, really liked it. It was a gateway for me to their earlier stuff which now takes precedence over anything they've produced since.
Pink Floyd were very different in their early days, so were The Beatles. They did OK.
The Prodigy have gone from Rave to Technopunk(?) and have lost their appeal to me. I'm also getting old
These days I'm not fussed about a band's catalogue. The days are gone when I'd spend money on a hotly anticipated album only to be disappointed and out of pocket. With streaming services, you can give it a listen, discard quickly and move on to something else.
Pink Floyd were very different in their early days, so were The Beatles. They did OK.
The Prodigy have gone from Rave to Technopunk(?) and have lost their appeal to me. I'm also getting old
These days I'm not fussed about a band's catalogue. The days are gone when I'd spend money on a hotly anticipated album only to be disappointed and out of pocket. With streaming services, you can give it a listen, discard quickly and move on to something else.
When I saw the thread title, I immediately thought of Metallica.
The Black Album was my introduction to them and then I also fell in love with their earlier albums.
Their post Black Album stuff (i.e. Load, Reload, Garage inc) is OK but less enjoyable, and the most recent St Anger & Death Magnetic albums are not appealing to me.
The Black Album was my introduction to them and then I also fell in love with their earlier albums.
Their post Black Album stuff (i.e. Load, Reload, Garage inc) is OK but less enjoyable, and the most recent St Anger & Death Magnetic albums are not appealing to me.
irocfan said:
<snip>
On the other hand AC/DC are criticised for releasing the same music across every albumsince Back in Black
Thoughts?
A slight edit... On the other hand AC/DC are criticised for releasing the same music across every album
Thoughts?
And I love AC/DC for doing so. As Angus once said, "What's the point of changing your music - you always end up going back to square one anyway."On the other side of the argument, constant ch-ch-ch-changes seemed to work OK for David Bowie.
I don't think aband should be forced or feel obliged to change or stay the same.
Music is the biggest art form globally, other than maybe drama through film and TV. There are undoubtedly acts who are wholly a manufactured product to make money and that will never change, however for real bands and artists, it's their chance to do what they want to create, and share it to a wider audience.
Albums like Metallica and the Black Album, or Nirvana releasing InUtero will always attract opinion, and the most respect must always go to acts who answer fans and critics by stating that the new work is simply their best efforts and what they'd chosen to move towards
Music is the biggest art form globally, other than maybe drama through film and TV. There are undoubtedly acts who are wholly a manufactured product to make money and that will never change, however for real bands and artists, it's their chance to do what they want to create, and share it to a wider audience.
Albums like Metallica and the Black Album, or Nirvana releasing InUtero will always attract opinion, and the most respect must always go to acts who answer fans and critics by stating that the new work is simply their best efforts and what they'd chosen to move towards
irocfan said:
Some snippets of ongoing arguments I've heard concern a change of style by a band not bring appreciated. A good example of this would be Metallica who apparently 'sold out' with the black album, transitioning from thrash metalers to sold rock (and became megastars in the process). To a lesser degree Pendulum suffered similar brickbats when they moved from their original drum and bass style.
On the other hand AC/DC are criticised for releasing the same music across every album since Back in Black
Thoughts?
Shouldn't it be down to the band. At the end of the day, they create and play music first and foremost for themselves. If a fan or member of the public doesn't like it, then they can move on and listen to something else.On the other hand AC/DC are criticised for releasing the same music across every album since Back in Black
Thoughts?
BTW - not sure I personally agree with your example for Metallica. While the Black album has a different sound, it is still heavy metal and still very much Metallica.
I would expect bands to evolve, although not all do.
With evolution sometime I prefer how they changed (e.g. Underworld) and sometimes it doesn't work (pendulum).
Don't think it's a big deal personally.
I get bored with artists/bands who don't change, for example Oasis and to be controversial Prince.
With evolution sometime I prefer how they changed (e.g. Underworld) and sometimes it doesn't work (pendulum).
Don't think it's a big deal personally.
I get bored with artists/bands who don't change, for example Oasis and to be controversial Prince.
Fastchas said:
Not that I liked them anyway but I always thought The Manic Street Preachers sold out, making their music more 'popularist'.
They were decent but then s
t!
I remember an early NME interview where they said they would split up in a year and never sell out. Saw them in a tiny back room venue in Coventry around that time and was impressed, but all or at least most bands change over time.They were decent but then s
t!Once The Beatles were stablished they rarely stood still when it came to their create drive, but if they'd carried on touring instead of quitting the road in '66 I think things would have turned out quite differently.
Hobbyist musicians can do whatever you like but popular bands aren’t artists; they’re employees. If you’re an established band and management tells you the direction to take so you all become multi millionaires its not a difficult decision. It’s quite amusing when egotistical artists then can’t differentiate between making music and making money and say they’re being stifled by the management who won’t pander to their experiments - you can sit in your room and make whatever noises you like but don’t expect the same financial reward as you’d get for making radio friendly pop rubbish.
I have a teaching style but if the head says to do something different then I do.
I have a teaching style but if the head says to do something different then I do.
Change worked extremely well for Bowie and although I was critical of him for it in the eighties as an adult I completely respect him for it.
I never bought a Metallica album after And Justice for all and only really liked one or two songs thereafter. Peaked at Puppets IMO, extremely grateful I got to see Cliff.
Motörhead were my fave band as a teenager, stopped purchasing their albums after 1916 and the focus being firmly on the US, bought The Wörld Is Yours when released out of curiosity, found it unremarkable. Bought AC/DC Black Ice on the same day, was on repeat in the car for months.
Twisted Sister were I suppose a glam rock band but Love is for Suckers was complete MTV glamrock and sucked.
So in summary: yes they should but it seems to rarely work!
I never bought a Metallica album after And Justice for all and only really liked one or two songs thereafter. Peaked at Puppets IMO, extremely grateful I got to see Cliff.
Motörhead were my fave band as a teenager, stopped purchasing their albums after 1916 and the focus being firmly on the US, bought The Wörld Is Yours when released out of curiosity, found it unremarkable. Bought AC/DC Black Ice on the same day, was on repeat in the car for months.
Twisted Sister were I suppose a glam rock band but Love is for Suckers was complete MTV glamrock and sucked.
So in summary: yes they should but it seems to rarely work!
Edited by hiccy18 on Thursday 29th October 13:34
mat205125 said:
Nirvana releasing InUtero
Interesting example, to my mind Nirvana had a massive range to what they’d produced simply between “Bleach” and Nevermind, so although In Utero was different again I’d say it fell within the breadth of what they’d already produced perhaps...I suppose people often note the change of direction, *once a band is already popular*. This might overlook output from prior to their breakthrough...
generationx said:
Queen evolved constantly over their career from almost prog style , through rock to disco and then pop. They did ok too!
Queen always encompassed many styles in their early albums but went full on chasing the pop charts from Crazy little thing called love onwards and lost all credibility for me
Few bands / singers have the ability and longevity to change whilst remaining popular.
I don’t think ac/dc have the musical ability to change style tbh.
Blur changed and enjoyed critical acclaim and a career much longer than oasis. Both Gallagher’s are trying to rehash oasis into a slightly more modern format and it doesn’t work.
Bowie changed but that was more because he realised he needed to and employed producers who could cut the mustard. See let’s dance, which is really a chic album with bowie on vocals.
Dylan changed, but I wouldn’t call it successful.
Rod Stewart went through several stylistic periods and found success in each, maybe Tina turner is the female equivalent. Singers seem to have an easier time of it as they don’t have to come up with the songs.
I don’t think ac/dc have the musical ability to change style tbh.
Blur changed and enjoyed critical acclaim and a career much longer than oasis. Both Gallagher’s are trying to rehash oasis into a slightly more modern format and it doesn’t work.
Bowie changed but that was more because he realised he needed to and employed producers who could cut the mustard. See let’s dance, which is really a chic album with bowie on vocals.
Dylan changed, but I wouldn’t call it successful.
Rod Stewart went through several stylistic periods and found success in each, maybe Tina turner is the female equivalent. Singers seem to have an easier time of it as they don’t have to come up with the songs.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff