New cool original thread, Band that change there sound so much you hate it?

[Carlo Gesualdo]

 

I'm sorry to say this because there 3 first album are good, than they become pseudo filter weak industrial metal mainstreamer and this kill me ...But I wrote to J..s Clayden singer of Pitch shifter (U.K band) he a cool guy regardless, , let's start whit first album Industrial on Peaceville great industrial Death more Death than godflesh for voice less industrial but still a masterpiece of genre, Submit e.p that follow was rad , than Desensitized was good but started to sound less death industrial no more death growl, but it was still a kosher band if you understand what I mean by kosher, this mean ok nothing more no racist remark. Than the Pitch Shifter I love change to comercial radio friendlly Filter -ish sounding I was mad at Pitch Shifter for doing this awfull move stop  liking them but still like there first two and live desensitized Album.

What the hell happen to them , they sold out to corporate music industry to be play on radio I was so angry,, Godflesh a similar sounding Band never did this if you skip the weak song of love and hate this was the most mainstream album by them, but I find it wierd skipping track one ssong of love & hate in Dub is enjoyable more than original album, this I don't get , but sometime  stuff is odd, I learn to like dub trough them.

Tell what band totally change there sound so darn much it like not the same band you like and feel bitter or resent it, like why did they do this , why did they sell out and became mainstream...

See deprofundis can and will write cool new topics, original, perhaps none have though of this or maybe not will see thanks for reading...

[steve ridgway]

Yes I like Desensitized best but these artists don't earn any money from teaching or grants and have to find something that sells. It's not so easy to develop this sort of music further and a different style may lose the old fans but gain more new ones.

[Carlo Gesualdo]

Yes I like Desensitized best but these artists don't earn any money from teaching or grants and have to find something that sells. It's not so easy to develop this sort of music further and a different style may lose the old fans but gain more new ones.

Indeed mister , steve you nails it, artist need to comprosiise  to make money, but we should blame record industry for ostracizing what they perceived as marginal sounding, I follow you on this. Look at a band like soundgarden my favorite remain there first whit bassist Yamato and big bad motor finger than , whit black hole sun ddoeing pop rock sound they sold out becoming less grungy less crusty rock(grunge is dirty rock) invented and coined by David Geffen, real grunge is not supposed to sound like pop rock. Not that black Hole Sun album was not a good ''pop rock album'' but grunge is  not  like this, they tame grunge, record industry does this to every artists that are like I said marginal, some people like there music like this there is a market for this selling out is always a bit sad , as very hard to take, it happen to Punk  and every sub-genre.

[steve ridgway]

Indeed mister , steve you nails it, artist need to comprosiise  to make money, but we should blame record industry for ostracizing what they perceived as marginal sounding, I follow you on this. Look at a band like soundgarden my favorite remain there first whit bassist Yamato and big bad motor finger than , whit black hole sun ddoeing pop rock sound they sold out becoming less grungy less crusty rock(grunge is dirty rock) invented and coined by David Geffen, real grunge is not supposed to sound like pop rock. Not that black Hole Sun album was not a good ''pop rock album'' but grunge is  not  like this, they tame grunge, record industry does this to every artists that are like I said marginal, some people like there music like this there is a market for this selling out is always a bit sad , as very hard to take, it happen to Punk  and every sub-genre.

I agree about Badmotorfinger too. Original punk was great for a year or so but then was over, the punk bands that started after 1977 were rubbish.

[BWV 1080]

I agree about Badmotorfinger too. Original punk was great for a year or so but then was over, the punk bands that started after 1977 were rubbish.

The Dead Kennedys formed in 1978, so need to move that back a year

[BWV 1080]

Don't like prog Opeth

[steve ridgway]

The Dead Kennedys formed in 1978, so need to move that back a year

Fair enough, I had forgotten about them but now you mention it the Fresh Fruit album was fun.

[Karl Henning]

The classic example is Chicago, who had lots of juice before they devolved into chick-flick balladeers.

[greg]

Surely there's a lot of people that would mention Opeth.

I don't dislike their change, just think it tends to lack as much punch as their older music.

[71 dB]

Musicians and artists have principles of creativity. Musicians operate in in a world and the interactions between the world and the artistic principles dictate the product of creativity. If the principles and/or the world change with time, the products of creativity also change. Principle may stay the same or almost the same, but the world changes. Does your favorite band make different music today they did 20 years ago? Off course they do! The world has changed a lot in 20 years! If the principles change a little bit due to interactions with the world and the interactions themselves changes a lot because the world changes the end result changes a lot. Not changes your expectations is dumb. It's like expecting mobile phones of today are the same they were 20 years ago. I see this all the time. The early stuff is good. the new stuff is bad. No! Wrong! People program themselves to expect the old stuff. Sometimes bands go downhill. That can happen, but not so often people think. Fluctuations up and down is more probable.

Do you like X because of the principles of creativity or the interactions with the world? If latter, changes are you hate the "newer stuff". If former, you may find strengths and weaknesses througout the years or activity.

Popular music is more prone to interactions with the world because commercial success is very important aspect. The principles of creativity are heavily influenced by the consumers.

[greg]

Musicians and artists have principles of creativity. Musicians operate in in a world and the interactions between the world and the artistic principles dictate the product of creativity. If the principles and/or the world change with time, the products of creativity also change. Principle may stay the same or almost the same, but the world changes. Does your favorite band make different music today they did 20 years ago? Off course they do! The world has changed a lot in 20 years! If the principles change a little bit due to interactions with the world and the interactions themselves changes a lot because the world changes the end result changes a lot. Not changes your expectations is dumb. It's like expecting mobile phones of today are the same they were 20 years ago. I see this all the time. The early stuff is good. the new stuff is bad. No! Wrong! People program themselves to expect the old stuff. Sometimes bands go downhill. That can happen, but not so often people think. Fluctuations up and down is more probable.

Do you like X because of the principles of creativity or the interactions with the world? If latter, changes are you hate the "newer stuff". If former, you may find strengths and weaknesses througout the years or activity.

Popular music is more prone to interactions with the world because commercial success is very important aspect. The principles of creativity are heavily influenced by the consumers.

As long as the musicians aren't selling out... musical styles shouldn't change just because the world changes. If they genuinely like newer music and want to sound like it, then great. But sellouts are never good. The artists should first please themselves with their own music, not try to please others.

Opeth is the opposite example of selling out. The musical sorta went decades back in time... no one asked for it, but whatever. Mikael just does what he wants, and that's that. Deserves much more respect that way, even if me and many other people would love to hear him add distortion and scream again.

[71 dB]

As long as the musicians aren't selling out...

Well, sometimes the whole point of being a musician is to "sell out" and earn your living.

musical styles shouldn't change just because the world changes.

That's a strange statement. As if music was a constant. It's not. Of course change in musical styles is to be expected when the World changes around. This change means also richness. Imagine if all music was Byzantine Chants.  Tallis, Mozart, Sibelius, Elvis Presley, Aretha Franklin, Thelonius Monk, Katy Perry etc. would all be Byzantine Chants, because why change the style when the World changes? I rather have all this cornucopia of styles and periods to choose from. If you like a band's music from the 70's, but not the 80's and 90's output then maybe it's the 70's style you like more than the band? In that case explore other bands from the 70's and find similar music. Maybe you don't find anything, maybe you do, but that's a rational way to go: The band almost tells you it's the 70's style you actually like because you like the band in the 70's, but not in other decades. There is no "stupid" reasons to like music. You like it or you don't. The reasons being silly doesn't change the facts. Just find and enjoy the music you like. Use all the "hints" you have to find more music you like. Construct a model of your taste. Taste can be expanded/developped, but it takes effort and open mind.

If they genuinely like newer music and want to sound like it, then great. But sellouts are never good. The artists should first please themselves with their own music, not try to please others.

Has it ever occured to you maybe they were already "selling out" when they made the stuff you do like? You liking it is not a proof of not "selling out." As the World changes so changes what sells. Mucisians must consider economic issues because if their music doesn't sell, what record label is crazy enough to work with them and lose money? Millions of people make music for themselves as a hobby (me included), but you don't know about them. Well, people dump their creations online for others to hear, but why would you listen to some crappy tunes by a random guy? The changes of you liking it are utterly miniscule.

Another thing people seem to miss: When a band has released only one or two album(s) there is not much to compare it to. You take them as they are without much expectations, because you are only now learning about what kind of expectations to have with the band. However, the more the band releases, the more there is to compare it to. You are suddenly more critical. Hey, why are the drum solos on this new album worse than in the band's previous album? For simple explanation for the frustration and confusion you blame the changed style because that looks most obvious, but it may all be just inside your head, human psychology. It may be beneficial to stop to think for a while what is really going on. What is it the band is doing and why? What are your expectations and why? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the new music? Have you changed yourself? Come back later and re-evaluate. A lot of my favorite bands/artists I have found very late (King Crimson and Tangerine Dream in 2008, Carly Simon in 2011 etc.) meaning I was exposed to both the old and new stuff when getting into the artist and that has helped accepting the changes in style. The changes are not happening while I watch them happen. Instead I was totally ignorant when they happened and only afterwards I knew about them as "history that happened years ago." The first King Crimson I bought wasn't "In The Court of the Crimson King", but "The Power to Believe".

My dad (b. 1938) is almost only into jazz from 50's (jazz peaked mid 50's according to my dad) and 60's. My dad did HATE the experimental electronic jazz of the 70's (Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock etc). In my childhood I heart a lot the 50's/60's jazz for this reason, but not at all the 70's electronic jazz. It wasn't until 10-5 years ago I discoved this music by myself and I like it quite a lot (all that funky style is wonderful imo). So, I played my dad this stuff and he said it sounds better than he remembers when being shocked by it in the 70's because the use of electronic instruments. The reason for this is simple: In the 70's electronic instruments were somewhat new thing and most music was acoustic. Nowadays most music is partly or totally electronic and purely acoustic music is a bit rarity outside classical music. That's why 70's electronic jazz sounds pretty damn acoustic in the the 2000's and in no way shocking to anyone. Shockingly good perhaps if anything. 

[greg]

I meant "one's own musical style shouldn't change just because the world changes" instead of all musical styles.

Selling out by making music in a genre which doesn't make much money to begin with is a weird thing to do... I don't see the point in that, might as well work an office job and make more money.

[Irons]

Hate is too strong a word but the best example I can think of is Fleetwood Mac, who went when Peter Green was a member from a blues band to something else.

[steve ridgway]

Hate is too strong a word but the best example I can think of is Fleetwood Mac, who went when Peter Green was a member from a blues band to something else.

There have been some big changes in direction following the departure of a key member. Pink Floyd after Syd Barrett, Genesis after Peter Gabriel, Ultravox after John Foxx.

[71 dB]

I meant "one's own musical style shouldn't change just because the world changes" instead of all musical styles.

Ok, fair, but the styles of musicians don't exist in isolation of the World around. Styles are a consequence of influences. When the World changes, also influences change => changes in style. Had W. A. Mozart born 100 years earlier he would have been a baroque composer. Had he born 100 years later he would have been a composer of romanticism. Asking someone not to change their style is actually asking a lot.

Selling out by making music in a genre which doesn't make much money to begin with is a weird thing to do... I don't see the point in that, might as well work an office job and make more money.

How is making music in a genre which doesn't make much money "selling out"? If anything, that's creating music for the sake of music instead of money. That kind of activity satisfies the need to be creative, something  a nine-to-five-job in an office job wouldn't do.

[greg]

How is making music in a genre which doesn't make much money "selling out"? If anything, that's creating music for the sake of music instead of money. That kind of activity satisfies the need to be creative, something  a nine-to-five-job in an office job wouldn't do.

It's a response to you saying that perhaps the musicians I like also sell out... the genre I like aren't exactly moneymakers, so I doubt it. I've heard of cases where some quit from not making enough and just get a "real" job instead.

[71 dB]

It's a response to you saying that perhaps the musicians I like also sell out... the genre I like aren't exactly moneymakers, so I doubt it. I've heard of cases where some quit from not making enough and just get a "real" job instead.

I used the word "perhaps" for a reason. Apparently in your case it wasn't about selling out. It was something else. New influences? Getting tired of the old style? Something along those lines I guess.

[greg]

I used the word "perhaps" for a reason. Apparently in your case it wasn't about selling out. It was something else. New influences? Getting tired of the old style? Something along those lines I guess.

If you are talking about the Opeth example I mentioned, I think so. I don't completely understand that guy, so just a guess.

If you are talking about me, then I'm not sure how this relates...

[71 dB]

If you are talking about the Opeth example I mentioned, I think so. I don't completely understand that guy, so just a guess.

If you are talking about me, then I'm not sure how this relates...

I replied to your post so I was talking about you. This relates to you because you are posting here.