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

[comadorcrack]

Pretty much gonna follow trend here.
People hate change.
Tis all, they'd rather have the same band producing the same songs over and over again, with a little variation as possible..

Its why AC/DC have done so well ^^

 

[thenumberthirteen]

It can be great. I mean look at the Beatles

I want to Hold Your Hand (1963)

<youtube=MKHFUKZ-IXE>

and

I want you (she's so heavy) (1969)

<youtube=VgxzD5UeW4A>

Radically different, but still brilliant

 

[brunothepig]

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.

"Haters gonna hate" is certainly a problem.
There's also that fans of the band may not like the new change.
I've had a few bands that released an album, or changed their lineup, and I didn't like it. But I never care too much, the old stuff is still there, and I think bands should be allowed to experiment. Never know if they'll be better for it in the next album.

 

[Mr. Google]

Well if you like it this way, then they become another way, then its going to bother you because you like the band for the first way they were not the new way

 

[biGBum333]

have had this kind of debate with way too many people. so what if a band changes style or whatever? who the fuck wants to make the same music for 20 years straight!? it really annoys me when bands change their style and try to evolve, and then you get the leetist fanboys who call them ''sellouts'' for it -_-

 

[Smooth Operator]

The hate is unfounded, they aren't bound to your taste and you aren't bound to their music, if you dislike it then move along, there is plenty of music around.
But a band is more then likely to loose it's old fan base if they go radically different, it is however up to them, bands change and their idea change, and as long as those ideas aren't influenced by the money flow I'm alright with that.

Actually had a discussion with my friend on Linkin Park, we used to be huge fans when they started as they were a bit freaky and hardcore, but then they made a cash in album with some godawful raper, and now they seem to be going towards some romantic pop rock type thing, and it's just not what we like.
Oddly enough it seems alot of girls now love it who would normally not go near their music, hmm... maybe they just give me a reason to like them again

 

[xplosive59]

1.there is a difference between selling out and changing styles: Bands like Paradise Lost and Bathory changed styles because they wanted to and not for money and it sounds just as good as their other stuff whereas bands like slipknot knew that if they lost there grindfunk image (mfkr) they would get a load of fans and money.

2. Improvement as musicians: Band members continueously get better over the many years that they have been playing, one of the biggest examples i can think of is Death, scream bloody gore was a great album and defines the death metal genre but their later works are alot more technical because they have had years of experience.

3. The studio quality: alot of bands when they start off use their own recording equipment because of having little money so it sounds more raw and natural whereas when they do have money for a professional studio it will sound different because it makes everyhing sound clearer and more polished.

4. they run out of ideas for good songs: the band wouldnt want to create an album that is half assed but in the same genre as they are used to so they get the songs that they wrote and sounded good that they have kept secret for years and create an album using these, this however means that because they were not used on earlier albums it may mean that they did not want to include them because it was too different from their style, but now if they made the album using that style it could be critically well recieved.

5. they focus on their most popular songs: its a known fact that if a certain song on the album is selling more or is more popular it is obvious that the band would want to make songs that sound like it because it would make more money.

 

[TriggerUnhappy]

It can be great. I mean look at the Beatles

I want to Hold Your Hand (1963)

<youtube=MKHFUKZ-IXE>

and

I want you (she's so heavy) (1969)

<youtube=VgxzD5UeW4A>

Radically different, but still brilliant

*cough* I think you're missing the most radical example:
<youtube=XXq5VvYAI1Q&feature=related>
<youtube=9Gy94N_mcWs>
<youtube=MzI5N1ufID8&feature=related>
<youtube=slKNd22GGaQ>
But I agree, change can be an awesome thing, keeps things fresh.

 

[TeeBs]

Well its the concept of do you view music as art or a media.

Radiohead back in the 1990s was sleighted to be the band that would save Rawk Rock, OK Computer is still rated among the top 90s albums, but between OK Computer and Kid A they change, some critical reaction to the Kid A album was "This is commercial suicide and that the band is just trying to get off there label" those were the Rawk Rock fans, and then everyone else said this album is fucking fantastic, and Kid A is considered to be by many critics the best album to come out in the 2000s, but it still alienated fans.

Im not sure if I would put Linkin Park in the same tier as Radiohead though, most of there changes just seem lazy and an attempt to become more pop then there previous albums. Though I guess its your opinion.

 

[Xelt]

Apocalyptica have changed in a way, going from doing covers of Metallica, to their own original work with various different singers. Change for the better I believe.

 

[Elementlmage]

I don't mind when a band changes it's style. I mind when a band changes it's style and sucks as a result.

The OPs example of Linkin Park is a little off though. From "Hybrid Theory" to what ever crap they are shoveling out now, there style hasn't changed that much. Most of there music is just as contrived and whiny as it has been from the beginning. Except now they are starting to sound more like Christian Rock...

The exception is the Album "Meteora". I have absolutely no fucking clue how that band made that album, but they did! And, it's amazing! I guess Mike Shinoda must have done most of the writing for that album or something, but I still can't figure it out.

Now, a better example of a band that changed their style and sucked as a result would be Metalica. Now, we could have a whole discussion on why Metalica sucks, but let's just say that "Black", and kicking out Dave Mustane and founding their careers off the leeching of his work are the two big reasons.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

I look at it this way. If AC/DC suddenly started doing R&B, I don't think I would be upset cause they are "selling out" or because I don't like R&B, but more because I like the way they play now and don't want them to change. I'm not saying I don't want them to publish new songs, I just want the songs they do publish to be the same sound that disguishes them from other groups and genres

 

[meowchef]

I try and judge each album from a particular artist on its own merits. It's tough sometimes. When Chris Cornell, mastermind of such albums as Badmotorfinger, Temple of the Dog, Superunknown and Audioslave released Scream... a 100% pop album with r&b and hip hop elements... it was tough to swallow. But after a few listens, its not so bad.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

meh, I guess some people like being familiar with the bands they listen to. I certainly wouldn't like it if Disturbed made a song that didn't sound like their songs. I like new songs that differ from what they've published in the past, but I want to be able to listen to a song and say "Thats definetly Disturbed"

 

[Trogdor1138]

It's good if the change is for the better to evolve their styles. For example, The Beatles has a few very distinct styles throughout their albums. David Bowie would be the best example, he always reinvented himself and his stuff is amazing.

I think the best way for an artist wanting to change is to keep about 50% of their old style and then mix the other half up. I'm not really a fan of bands that stay the same for many years because they can't top their old works. Though Iron Maiden and Megadeth have done this mostly successfully.

So yes, change can be really good... As long as it isn't St. Anger... Good god I hate that album.

 

[Kruxxor]

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?

Linkin Park have always been an experimental band, they were never going to stick to one thing.