Ignoring my favorite for now, bands such as Fleetwood Mac, King Crimson who have had longevity sound very different now from when they started. Much of this is due to personnel changes among other things.
Miles Davis changed in style of music regularly with his change of lineups in the jazz field, which alienated some, but he found other followers.
So, do you like your favorites to get "stuck in a groove", even a comfortable one, or do you consider change (sometimes quite drastic), is the correct route for a serious artist(s) to take?
Depends who they are. I wouldn't want to see AC/DC going all Mahavishnu. As Angus once said, 'You don't go to the butcher's for brain surgery.'
I'm all for evolution, but not wilful, smart-@rse stunts like Radiohead pulled after OK Computer. I defy anyone to demonstrate how & why their later stuff is an improvement on Ok & The Bends.
Genesis "evolved" from 'The Knife', 'Supper's Ready', 'In the Cage' and 'Burning Rope' to 'Mama', 'Invisible Touch', 'Throwing It All Away', 'Jesus He Knows Me' and 'Shipwrecked'. I don't call that progress.
Assuming we're allowed solo artists, I think you can look at David Bowie and Beck to see how often and successful you can change your musical styles. Depeche Mode, B.O.F.'s favourites, started off as electro pop but have evolved into a more mature and complex outfit. Unfortunately a lot of the bigger bands like the afore mentioned Fleetwood Mac, have not only reached their peak, but rely too heavily on past glories so that their name is used to draw the crowds, yet when you look at the line up sometimes as little as one face can be recognisable.
Most bands change with time, notable exceptions being Quo and the Stones.
To answer your question regarding 'favourite' bands, Tull have rarely put out two albums running without some kind of style deviation, most for the better but not all. Stackridge with their original line up produced quirky, whimsical, humorous melodic tunes, then with personel changes concentrated on a fuller keyboard driven sound, their new album released in july sees them incorporating elements of their early whimsey with a totally modern instrumental backing, however the key to change is quite simple, good composers and compositions will often sound good no matter what style is adopted.
a simple answer to the question posted is a resounding NO .......... the reason why groups/artists become your favorites are usually based on your musical taste thefore if they deviated away from that style/genre etc they would no longer appeal in the way they did before. however if you use Fleetwood Mac as an example it is usually time that has moved on leaving there creative talent a distant memory they can perform live as the ability to play remains.
Chicago are a prime example of when it goes horribly wrong. Their first three studio albums were excellent and the next one pretty good - pioneering (if slightly overambitious) jazz arrangements combined with R & B and rock chops. So far so good, but when they had that 'Hey guys, let's write some ballads for a change' Road To Damascus moment it led to their creativity going down the toilet at a rapid rate. Once the new sappy pop style was assumed they made more money than ever so they weren't ever going to change it.
1. Upward evolution: where a band raises their game significantly above what you'd think they were capable of based on their early efforts, whilst generally remaining within their original genre. Most half-decent bands will strive for & achieve a degree of this. An example would be the Floyd, who were pretty clueless after Syd left and didn't make a half-decent album until Meddle.
2. Sideways evolution: where an artist deliberately genre-shifts, sometimes via a 'necessary evil' stinker of an album before regaining their form in their new genre. This takes bravery, arrogance or both. Bowie would be an example of this, having done it many times. 'Young Americans', for example, was a horrible album after the sublime 'Diamond Dogs', but without it, the equally sublime 'Station to Station' would not have been possible.
3. Downward evolution, aka 'selling out'. Fairly self-explanatory. Often accompanied by mainstream success and enormous financial gain. See Genesis, Fleetwood Mac, Roxy Music, Metallica.
4. 'What the f@ck was that?' evolution: where a band throws their audience a totally unforeseen curve-ball, alienating and enthralling in equal measure. Not many bands are sufficently disrespectful to try this one. See Radiohead with Kid A.
shakey peg says: a simple answer to the question posted is a resounding NO ..........
Tend to agree. If they're a favourite it's cos' of what they've done. Any change / evolution CAN be distressing. But, sometimes,as Tripmender says, 'sideways development' especially can be a necessary stage to an artist producing their best work.
It depends on who it is - Iron Maiden have changed to a degree but they still continue to sell out arenas and I don't think they will ever change their style completely, Darkthrone on the other hand completely changed their music style twice - the first was Death Metal, then they changed to Black Metal then changed to Punk metal.
Metalica had a change of music and their fans complained that it was uncalled for but before they changed their style the fans were complaining saying all the songs sound the same, so really I think the fans should make up their mind, they either want the same as before or they want change.
I agree with Pink Floyd and I think the change did them good. Jay Z is the selling out that Trip mentioned - his 1st album was hard beats then he sold out and watered it down to get more sales. Generally I think the music changes so does the band because if they stayed the same fans would say they are stuck in the past
there's noting more magical than when a band you quite like suddenly discovers untold climes of genius;
exhibit A - Talk Talk ; from Its my life (decent new rom pop) to colour of spring (pastoral symphonics) to spirit of eden & laughing stock (obsessive, beautiful genius)
what a journey; but few musicians are capable of this kind of progression
To me, Nirvana (US) are an almost perfect study in this context:
Bleach - Raw, rough-and-ready, feedback-drenched, but with enough melody (yes, even on Paper Cuts!) to hint at something original to later emerge.
Nevermind - That something original. In Bloom alone is structured unlike any Hard Rock song to date. Kurt C. was dragging odd melodies out of powerchord structures; his solos were meant to be awful, but they didn't sound awful!
In Utero - A deliberate roughening of the edges (except where Geffen objected). This album had the ragged glory of Bleach, and the songwriting nous of Nevermind. Milk It was Crimson Grunge - a first, m'lud.
(And Incesticide was a very good 'stopgap' album.)
What the 4th album would've sounded like is anyone's guess, of course!
Thanks for your views - I can see both sides of the argument.
Foe gave a brilliant example with Bowie who has continually re-invented himself throughout his career, taking large risks at times. On the other hand bands like AC/DC are stuck in their "riffs" and always will be.
MK - I quite agree with you on Tull who were quite blues based at the start, but produced many varied albums.
I find your categories interesting Tripmender, but isn't "selling out" simply gaining major commercial success which most artist want (fame and money!). Radiohead are one of the British bands that I admire most as they have taken risks and gone their own way. Remember the furore it caused when Dylan went electric, he lost many fans but gained far more!
I see Pink Floyd mentioned a couple of times and agree that they changed considerably, and quite rapidly from their "Piper" days, yet their popularity grew and grew.
Leftin - to be quite honest, I can see very little difference in the style in any of Nirvana's albums, but that is not to say they are bad, indeed I consider Nevermind a classic.
Grey - I agree with you about the Jefferson saga, but give them their due, they did change the name!
To be honest, perhaps it depends on the artist/music concerned, as many do change and either take their audience with them or find a new one. The GD at the end were a far different sounding band from the one that started out 30 years earlier, but they managed to take folks like me along on the trip!
interested in Tripmenders second diagnosise which in Bowies case makes sense if you take the veiw that the artist changed direction/genre to get back on track however would any established act be brave or arrogant enough to change a winning formula by deliberatly producing a stinker. The only artist I CAN THINK maybe to fall into the "I DON'T GIVE A F**K CATEGORY " WOULD BE NEIL YOUNG who probably has more stinkers than great but if Tripmender is right then Neils next album should be quite good
I'm with you on that one Shakey - Neil is one of my all time favorites from Springfield days, but even I could not fork out for Everybody's Rockin', however there is very little else that I would classify as stinkers!
Cornish i'm glad you're a huge fan of old neil but what about Arc - Landing On Water - Are You Passionate - Fork In The Road although i was being over dramatic with the more stinkers than good just to try to emphasise a point. incidently fav Neil disc is Eldorado EP import
King Crimson are a classic case of a band evolving. ITCOTCK is light years away from The Power to Believe. In fact if there was any signs of things settling down Mr Fripp would shake things up by terminating that incarnation of the band. There is however a unique quality to all of Krims output that is so strong that my kids can tell if I am playing a Krim track, even if they have not heard it before. Evolution is necessary for survival!
Even AC/DC have shown signs of evolution in their time. Flick of the Switch is nothing like Ballbreaker except in it's AC/DCness.
Motorhead put out the very musical Another Perfect Day which showed signs of breaking out, no pun intended.
"Motorhead put out the very musical Another Day in the Funny Farm which showed signs of breaking out, no pun intended."
Motorhead (and I do like them) are perhaps more stuck in a groove even than Quo. Their excursions outside are limited to one track at a time/per album, and largely, like Ronseal, they 'do exactly what it says on the tin'.
Lemmy himself has opined that his later work is just as good as his classic days of Overkill, Bomber and Ace of Spades. They may have lost critical acclaim and have less commercial success, but if you take the trouble to actually listen to recent albums I think he's right.
Another Perfect Day is the last Motorhead album, apart from best ofs that I got by Motorhead. I was not fussed by the later stuff, although I am talking at least 10 years ago, so I am in no position to pass comment about Lemmys claim.
They were in Belfast recently and I wish I had gone to see them. I wonder if Matt Sorum has had any noticeable effect on their sound.
Another Perfect Day was a really good album, as good as Bomber etc.... IMHO. Brian Robertson was a nifty guitar player and made a big difference to the band. I wonder what he is at these days. He was due to release a solo album a couple of years ago. Anyone know anything about it?
The Stones tried a spot of evolving here and there, but have decided to stick close to "form" for their last couple of albums. In fact they have changed a lot over the years, jangly pop at the start, darker psycedelia a couple of years later, then a style of rock that set the pattern during the 70's, a spot of disco to end the 70's, funky pop rock at the start of the 80's and then a descent into ?? until they got back to rock with Voodoo Lounge, where they have basically been at since. There has been a definite formula since then, although I think Bigger Bang was superior to Voodoo and Babylon. Infamy is a good "different" track, its not really blues, rock, ballad .......... So even the Stones, often accused of being dinosaurs, have evolved over the years.
I was given 8 cds of outtakes of the Voodoo Lounge sessions, Voodoo Stew and Voodoo Brew, which were amazing in places. Buried amongst the third and fourth versions of songs that eventually ended up on the albums were tracks that were so different to anything I expected of the Stones that I had to check the discs again. They were playing distinctly african and carribean rhythms, folk songs, jazzy stuff and other stuff that was an education to just how good they really are when they are not playing to please a perception of what the public wants. I reckon they leave this stuff out in case they upset their fans.
One of the discs, Voodoo Brew 2, is just Keith in the studio with a tumbler of Jack Daniels, with ice in it, a petrol lighter, the door open and an acoustic guitar. He is just sitting talking to the engineers and playing a load of songs like Cocaine, Salty Dog(not the Procul song), Make no Mistake and so on, which is a stunner. This deserves a release all of its own.
I am starting to sound obsessive......................must go!
Shakey, I'm with you on Arc, I forgot about that one - it's only been played once! As for the other 3, Are You Passionate is the weakest IMO. I've got Eldorado as well as a Japanese issue, although an excellent EP, as far as his rocky side is concerned Weld has to be my favorite.
On Bowie again - surely Earthling (aka the jungle/DnB album) has to count as being one of the best 'let's see how much I can piss off all my old fans who hate all that dance nonsense' moments.
![[Add comment]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/x-locale/communities/reviews/comment._V20569588_.gif){kind=small}
RSS Feed
