A band changes its music style, what's the fuss?

[TailstheHedgehog]

I was perusing my facebook homepage, and I came across a discussion. Two friends were bashing Linkin Park as they thought they were being abhorrently stupid because of their definite change in music style over the years.
It made me think of how many other bands have slowly metamorphasised into something different over the course of their careers, and the usually negative reaction from the root of their fandom.
What's your opinion - and I'm not after a discussion specifically on Linkin Park! Mine is that bands are composed of human beings, and their tastes and lives are obviously in flux - why shouldn't they change? We may not always like it, but there's no need to egg something over it. But there's gotta be a counter to that - personal taste or maybe even a personal connection to the band's music that can cause a change to offend you. Your thoughts?

 

[Spinozaad]

If you change your style, you're a sell-out.
If you 'stay true' to your 'roots', you're a one-trick pony who needs to evolve.

Whatever you do as a musician, haters gonna hate.

 

[MisterM2402]

Well they obviously liked the band when they first heard them based on what they were playing at the time. If a band like Cannibal Corpse started playing jazz-funk - as much as *I* would love that - their old, metal-addicted fanbase wouldn't take too kindly to it: they want music they can scream their throats out to and headbang till their necks snap; they don't want any of this "beatnik, hippy shit".

Just think if Justin Bieber went the road of Industrial Techno - his fans don't want to hear that; they want to hear tween pop.

 

[Calico93]

I like bands changing styles, adds diversity to the group and its good to listen to two completely different albums by the same artist.

 

[DJDarque]

A friend of mine is notorious for bashing bands when they change their style. It's seriously annoying. He suddenly hates them because they're not as hard as they used to be and whatnot.

I will admist that there are times when I've disliked a band after they've evolved their style (Linkin Park included, though I still am a fan of their old stuff), but it's never because they've changed but simply because I don't like the way the music now sounds.

On other occasions I've found myself disliking a band's new material because they didn't change it up enough (Disturbed's Asylum album).

If you change your style, you're a sell-out.
If you 'stay true' to your 'roots', you're a one-trick pony who needs to evolve.

Whatever you do as a musician, haters gonna hate.

Maybe a little crudely stated (no offense intended), but pretty much how alot of people see it.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

I've come across it because of Pendulum and the noted Linkin Park.


And it's not bad for bands to change style because of the fact that music shall always evolve, so the band is evolving with the times.

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

Just think if Justin Bieber went the road of Industrial Techno - his fans don't want to hear that; they want to hear tween pop.

It'd be an improvement though, hey? ;P A Justin Bieber change would be, er, music to my ears

 

[tomtom94]

I usually say a band is entitled to change their style as they see fit.

Unfortunately, the new MCR album is out soon and I'm probably going to change that...

 

[Furious Styles]

It depends on whether its a good change or not, when Talking Heads went from new wave rockers to an afro-beat techno sound everybody was rapturous because it was an improvement (Remain in Light remains one of the great albums of the 80s and, indeed, of all time).

A change in sound can be a great if done well.

And in what way is becoming more generic experimenting and evolving? The Beatles changed their sound, but because they became more avant-garde it was better. if they'd started making more accessible, bland pop they would not be so feted.

 

[savageoblivi0n]

Yeah, I've come across the types.

I don't see the problem, as long as they do it because they want to and not sell out. I can see why fans would be annoyed though: I was incredibly disappointed with Eminem's latest album. If you became a fan of a band because of their style, then they change, it's going to upset people. I don't think the band should be blamed though. I tend to hear it about heavy metal bands the most, as if the fans genuinely expect them to scream into a mic their entire lives.

really? i loved recovery, but with some things going on in my life 'Not Afraid' and 'No Love' kinda became my theme songs for a while..

OT: changing styles doesn't bother me as long as i still can feel the underlying theme to the music. just the natural evolution of every band, nothing can stay stagnant and remain great

 

[TheComedown]

Pretty much sums it up there.

I don't mind a band changing at all, you cant do the same thing record after record you'd get bored of it. It all really depends on how much they have change, and whether or not they kept that one little nugget that is the band. If you can't find that nugget I think the change was a bad one. If the nugget is still there, it's a good change.

 

[Spinozaad]

A friend of mine is notorious for bashing bands when they change their style. It's seriously annoying. He suddenly hates them because they're not as hard as they used to be and whatnot.

I will admist that there are times when I've disliked a band after they've evolved their style (Linkin Park included, though I still am a fan of their old stuff), but it's never because they've changed but simply because I don't like the way the music now sounds.

On other occasions I've found myself disliking a band's new material because they didn't change it up enough (Disturbed's Asylum album).

If you change your style, you're a sell-out.
If you 'stay true' to your 'roots', you're a one-trick pony who needs to evolve.

Whatever you do as a musician, haters gonna hate.

Maybe a little crudely stated (no offense intended), but pretty much how alot of people see it.

None taken. The crudeness was intentional. There are always exceptions to this 'rule' (musicians themselves, and those who are less devoted to subscribing to specific musical sub-cultures), but that's just how it is.

Haters (and fans) gonna hate.

 

[Outright Villainy]

There is a diffrence beetween selling out and changing musical styles.

King Crimson,Ulver change styles Metallica and In Flames sell out.

Thats my opinion, i dont particularly hate In Flames or Metallica for it, but for me what they do feels commercial.

I'd have to agree. I'm not going to bash In Flames or whatever, but really anything post clayman doesn't interest me at all.

OT: Disliking a band simply for changing style is silly. Disliking the style they change to is not. I'm not a fan of the Rock/metal commercial style In flames and Soilwork went in, so I don't like their new music. Pretty simple. I wouldn't go so far as to say selling out, but it is a lot more commercial.

 

[Jesus Phish]

There is a diffrence beetween selling out and changing musical styles.

King Crimson,Ulver change styles Metallica and In Flames sell out.

Thats my opinion, i dont particularly hate In Flames or Metallica for it, but for me what they do feels commercial.

For all the quoting of these bands selling out, I still dont hear them on national radio or see them on non-metal based video music channels.

I think the reason some fans hate change of styles in their band is that they like how the band sounds and change scars them.

I'll give an example. I love Clutch. I love how Clutch sound. If Clutch suddenly went and started introducing a more synth sound to themselves I'd probablye be a little dissapointed. I wouldn't hate them. They've still already given me a brilliant collection of songs already.

On the other hand, I love Killing Joke. And Killing Joke from 1979 and Killing Joke from 2010 sound almost nothing alike musically, but they're still brilliant.

I think as well it might have something to do with, what if you dont like the new sound and you want to go see them live. Will they play your old favourites or will they play new stuff. Is the risk worth the money and time?

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Bands changing their style as time goes by isn't that big of a deal to me, and on some occassions can lead to some pretty kick-ass things. Sometimes it doesn't, but if that's the case I'll just listen to their old stuff again, I won't stop listening to them because of who they are now, as the fact remains that the music from before is still good music. After all, a band has the freedom to do what they want, because it isn't the fans' music, it's their music. This isn't selling-out, it's just a natural occurance (if the band members are the same, it means that this is something they've considered doing since they started)

What I have more of a problem with is when a band changes their style, and not just in simplistic things, but big serious changes, yet they still consider themselves a part of their original genre, as it shows that they aren't actually comfortable with their own change and would rather be seen as the band they once were.

Further, to me selling-out isn't when a band makes a profit (i.e., as certain hipster/indy bands are seen by their peers) or when the band changes style/message, that's just natural occurances. To me selling-out (a band that does so doesn't look good in my eyes) is when a band ridicules or hates their original fanbase in favour of a newer, much larger fanbase. There's nothing wrong with having more fans, but not caring about your original fans, the ones who helped to jumpstart your carreer, that just seems low to me.

 

[TehChef]

I don't mind if a band changes its' style - it's certainly their prerogative as creators of music. What I sort of have an issue with is when a band changes its' lineup, but keeps the same name. I understand that for some bands, there would be five or six different names, but it's more the principle of the matter. For me, if someone new joins the band, or someone leaves; then the chemistry of the band is going to change. Naturally, that should lead to a different sound or style. It won't be the same music as if the previous lineup was writing it.

Or, to think of it in terms of a concert; I pay money to go see Band A that has members X, Y, and Z. Well, if Z leaves and is replaced by J, that's not the same band that I payed money to see. What if I wanted to see Z? It's almost sort of misleading advertising. I know it's nitpicking, but it still bugs me.

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

There is a diffrence beetween selling out and changing musical styles.

King Crimson,Ulver change styles Metallica and In Flames sell out.

Thats my opinion, i dont particularly hate In Flames or Metallica for it, but for me what they do feels commercial.

I'd have to agree. I'm not going to bash In Flames or whatever, but really anything post clayman doesn't interest me at all.

OT: Disliking a band simply for changing style is silly. Disliking the style they change to is not. I'm not a fan of the Rock/metal commercial style In flames and Soilwork went in, so I don't like their new music. Pretty simple. I wouldn't go so far as to say selling out, but it is a lot more commercial.

Seconded, it's just pointless to dislike a change with time, it'd be disliking your hair going grey or your skin wrinkling or sunspots appearing or, or... or never mind? Back on topic and being serious now, disliking something just because it's new is like the upper echelon of 'narrow-mindedness'. If coldplay, whom I love, suddenly released an album along the bars of something like Metrostation I would certainly hate them for it and would get very angry and my hair would turn grey. But what I'd really hate is the hypothetical style, and what my two friends were obviously upset about was indeed the style, which didn't satisfy the specific tastes and cried for a sequel to Breaking The Habit and What I've Done's lovechild.

 

[Polaris19]

I don't understand either. Personally, I think artists like the Beatles and Beck are truly great musicians because they have tried different things, and never really settled on one style of music. Listen to Becks song "Loser". Now listen to "The Information". Okay after that fire up "Gamma Ray". None of his songs from different albums sound alike. He pushes the limits of his musical ability, and it makes him a truly brilliant musician.

Same thing for the Beatles. They pushed the limits of what can be done in music, and they weren't afraid to try something bizarre or out of the ordinary. And that made them better musicians

And on the name changing debate, if it is only one person who leaves, I don't see why the three or four people left in the band, clearly in the majority, should change their name. It is THEIR band, and if one person doesn't want to be part of it fine, the other people still left still want to continue on and play music under that banner. Plus it keeps them from having to reestablish a fan base. It would get confusing if everytime someone left a band, they changed their name. Think about it.

If you want to go see the other guy, then go find HIS new band, but don't make the guys who still want to continue on pay for it something that is often times not in their control.