A band changes its music style, what's the fuss?
- Thread starter TailstheHedgehog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't get why anyone would be angry at a band for evolving it's style. In the end, music is an artistic expression, and people shouldn't begrudge any artist for changing their style. You can say "I don't like this new style" or "I don't think it works," but it's just juvenile to start whining about how the artist is so stupid and should be thinking about the fans.
For Linkin Park, their evolution has gone great. Remember listening to the songs on Meteora, and having them all blend together around Figure.09? Sure they had some good stuff, but they did what they wanted with M2M and Thousand Suns and made something absolutely beautiful. You can't tell them they done goofed because their music hasn't changed over a decade.
For Linkin Park, their evolution has gone great. Remember listening to the songs on Meteora, and having them all blend together around Figure.09? Sure they had some good stuff, but they did what they wanted with M2M and Thousand Suns and made something absolutely beautiful. You can't tell them they done goofed because their music hasn't changed over a decade.
I don't like when bands change their style because it's usually to appeal to a different demographic and get it's easy money. I was going to mention Linkin Park when I saw the the title, and I'll use it anyway. It was hip-hop mixed with hard rock. This appeals to men mostly. Now their music seems, for lack of a better word, pussified. It sounds like it's made for sixteen year old girls, like most music. None of it hits like it use to. I haven't listened to most of the new stuff, but it at least sounds better than Minutes to Midnight.
But...you realize that everything from the Black album on (with some song exceptions, of course) was exactly OPPOSITE of the music that the fans had, at that point, been following and loving.Xiado said:
Slayer is a FINE example of a band that has been performing the SAME thing for DECADES (as long as Metallica, giver or take). THis is a band that has not let their fan base "down" by changing their formula and compromising their craft in an attempt to make music for the masses.
Metallica, to a point, did that EXACTLY. Working from the assumption that you are younger than me, Metallica did a virtual 180º the MOMENT that "One" became popular on MTV. I remember it, I was in high school and friends who wouldn't listen to anything harder than Aerosmith suddenly began becoming metal heads and jumping on the Metallica wagon. Metallica, in turn, started getting a ton more money, fame, groupies and drugs. They wanted to keep that trip going, made more ear-candy for kids who'd normally not be wandering far from their Bon Jovi mixed-tapes and leaving behind the fans that had helped pave the way.
Not to begrudge anyone who likes them now, as while I'm a music snob, I don't care who listens to what. I'm just of the opinion, still, that if an artist wants to change, they can change. Just don't expect fans of their previous work to enjoy it. HOPE that they do, but don't be surprised if they don't.
Never had a problem with it as long as they can actualy play the style that they are switching to and don't sound like a pretender as a result. My example of a band that has pulled this off would be the Thrash metal band Testament who went through a 'death metal' phase.
Basically what I was gonna say.MisterM2402 said: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.
Because people become fans of them liking the music at that time, if they change it might not be the same style of music they like, therefore ruining that whole persons love of the band.
People a insanely afraid of change because their safe little world might be damaged. I'm pretty sure no band has ever taken notice of what people say when they change their style because usually they have a damn good reason to. I have loved everything LP have done exactly because it is varied.
People always get upset when they no longer love the thing they once loved. Bands and listeners change and if they don't change in similar ways, the fans will often be annoyed.
Especially if said band can be accused of following market trends and not their artistic muse. Someone tossed Bowie out there and you can see him doing both in his career. Early on, he was a musical chameleon dabbling in whatever struck his fancy. Later on, you see him making crass attempts at the mainstream. Mind you, this is not me saying this, Bowie has pretty much admitted that the reason behind the Let's Dance years was money. Lots of acts get this way in later years, hiring pop producers and song writers to keep them fresh: Alice Cooper, Aerosmith, Metalica, and on and on. Alice Cooper has jumped on the punk band wagon (Flush The Fashion), the hair metal band wagon (Trash), the industrial band wagon (Brutal Planet), etc. Recently he's foregone a lot of that because he thinks the industry is back where he started and has been releasing albums a bit more in tune with the early albums... well, not the bad Frank Zappa influenced albums he was doing before they teamed him up with pop producers.
But if an act is obviously chancing trends and achieving a lot of success doing it, then they're going to annoy a lot of older fans.
Especially if said band can be accused of following market trends and not their artistic muse. Someone tossed Bowie out there and you can see him doing both in his career. Early on, he was a musical chameleon dabbling in whatever struck his fancy. Later on, you see him making crass attempts at the mainstream. Mind you, this is not me saying this, Bowie has pretty much admitted that the reason behind the Let's Dance years was money. Lots of acts get this way in later years, hiring pop producers and song writers to keep them fresh: Alice Cooper, Aerosmith, Metalica, and on and on. Alice Cooper has jumped on the punk band wagon (Flush The Fashion), the hair metal band wagon (Trash), the industrial band wagon (Brutal Planet), etc. Recently he's foregone a lot of that because he thinks the industry is back where he started and has been releasing albums a bit more in tune with the early albums... well, not the bad Frank Zappa influenced albums he was doing before they teamed him up with pop producers.
But if an act is obviously chancing trends and achieving a lot of success doing it, then they're going to annoy a lot of older fans.
Its the typical Darwinian theory of evolve or die. Bands have to change in order to get more fans and actually make some money. Although its not always deliberate.
For instance, R.E.M.'s first 2 albums were by and large very similar, all mumbled lyrics and plenty of jangle. Their 3rd album became much darker and crazed because of how miserable the band were. Then in their 4th album they changed again, due to Michael Stipes increasing confidence in singing and so the voice and lyrics became clearer and so more 'mainstream' by their standards.
Fast forward 3 albums and they release Out Of Time. Its not deliberatly mainstream and yet sells millions, causing them to be accused of selling out. I don't get this, their most famous song (losing my religion) is nearly 5 mins long, no chorus and was played on a mandolin, that doesn't strike me as a mainstream song by any stretch.
Then their album after that was slow and about death, it sells even more and is regarded as one of the best albums of the 90s.
TL;DR version: R.E.M. rock and mainstream is what the public make of it, not the band itself.
For instance, R.E.M.'s first 2 albums were by and large very similar, all mumbled lyrics and plenty of jangle. Their 3rd album became much darker and crazed because of how miserable the band were. Then in their 4th album they changed again, due to Michael Stipes increasing confidence in singing and so the voice and lyrics became clearer and so more 'mainstream' by their standards.
Fast forward 3 albums and they release Out Of Time. Its not deliberatly mainstream and yet sells millions, causing them to be accused of selling out. I don't get this, their most famous song (losing my religion) is nearly 5 mins long, no chorus and was played on a mandolin, that doesn't strike me as a mainstream song by any stretch.
Then their album after that was slow and about death, it sells even more and is regarded as one of the best albums of the 90s.
TL;DR version: R.E.M. rock and mainstream is what the public make of it, not the band itself.
Check Still Grey against Comprahicos (both by Pendulum) you'll find to totally opposite songs, are you also comparing Immersion to In Silico, because they are similar, but compared to their first album, Hold Your Colour, they're totally different.bahumat42 said:
If you start listening to a band, and they have a unique sound that you really dig, and then they change it, then you'd be disappointed that you don't have any new songs of this style to look forward to. Not to mention if they're not as talented in creating music with the new style as they were with the old one.
Then again, I love diversity in my artists, but I can understand why some people'd be upset.
Then again, I love diversity in my artists, but I can understand why some people'd be upset.