Should a band/artist keep their style or change?

[Vincent Vega]

What do you tend to prefer in a band--A band that stays true to their roots and their own beginnings musically, or a band that changes, adapts or evolves?

Take for example Metallica. Everybody who loves Metallica more often than not loves their traditional albums--The hard, fast, raw thrash records of the '80s. Opinions vary on The Black Album--some feel it's their best album, some feel its them selling out. Then take Load. Some see it as a product of real artistic growth an maturity, an experiment which proved the band was more than just a thrash act, while some feel it was nothing but jumping on a band wagon and actually a sign of the band's lack of creativity, and hate it.

Or look at Guns. You have fans who love the UYIs and even CD for taking the music to another place, while others would've really just preferred GN'R to have put out AFD Part II, III, IV and so on.....

What's your take on bands and artists changing their sound and MO?

Edited January 31, 2013 by Vincent Vega

[bacardimayne]

If it sounds good I'm all for it. Keeps them fun to listen to.

[bran]

i have no problem with bands changing their style, as long as they do it well. some bands have done it and have done it in outstanding fashion. opeth is one that really comes to mind in doing it well. starting out as a progressive death metal band, and ending up a progressive rock band. amorphis, bathory, gnr, thin lizzy are other great examples.

other bands however have done a very poor job at it. metallica being the biggest example. making half assed albums plus limitations vocally really hampered their progress. iam also not a huge fan of in flames change either.

Edited January 31, 2013 by bran

[Jakey Styley]

I can't stand when a band doesn't change their sound, eventually the songs lose their identity. Change is usually good.

[KBear]

I guess I agree with bacardimayne, although it doesn't necessarily have to be fun to listen to.

Do other things if you can do them well. Putting out the same album over and over again isn't what most music fans should want. But, you have to inject your band's sound into whatever you do. So if GN'R changes style, it should sound like GN'R doing another style of music, not nothing like GN'R at all.

[Johnny Drama]

If its good, its good. People didn't like the Loads because they suck compared to say Ride The Lightning, not everyone hated them just because they weren't thrash.

[luciusfunk]

Change.

Turn and face the strange.

[izzygirl]

I prefer a band that stays true to their roots. Change can be awesome and sometimes inevitable or necessary, but it's risky and not always work.

I like when a band has its own style, when it has a recognizable sound. For example, one of my favourite bands is AC/DC, I know they are criticized because their albums sound all the same but I fuckin' love that sound! I wouldn't like them to change to be honest, despite what people say.

Same with Guns, as much as I love the UYIs, I prefer the AFD style.

Edited January 31, 2013 by izzygirl

[Ragnar]

I prefer a band that stays true to their roots. Change can be awesome and sometimes inevitable or necessary, but it's risky and not always work.

I like when a band has its own style, when it has a recognizable sound. For example, one of my favourite bands is AC/DC, I know they are criticized because their albums sound all the same but I fuckin' love that sound! I wouldn't like them to change to be honest, despite what people say.

Same with Guns, as much as I love the UYIs, I prefer the AFD style.

Except AC/DC can`t and won`t change their sound `cause their abilities as musicians are very limited I can`t stand them anymore they`ve become ridiculously predictable, stale, uninspired, generic and boring

Edited January 31, 2013 by Son of a Guns

[sweetness]

I like when a band grows and evolves, it keeps things interesting and fresh when a new album comes out. But it's good to maintain an identity, if they change their sound so much or go into a direction I don't care for I lose interest.

[Rovim]

If a band doesn't evolve, then I usually lose interest. If you can find a way to change your music, but not just for the sake of changing it, but because you want to keep it interesting for yourself, while exploring sounds that are new to you, and you can still keep your identity, that's cool.

I prefer that over releasing a different version of the same album every few years cause I believe as humans, we constantly change, and music is just a reflection of our emotions, so it makes sense to me you'll want to 'update' it or evolve.

[dalsh327]

What do you tend to prefer in a band--A band that stays true to their roots and their own beginnings musically, or a band that changes, adapts or evolves?

Take for example Metallica. Everybody who loves Metallica more often than not loves their traditional albums--The hard, fast, raw thrash records of the '80s. Opinions vary on The Black Album--some feel it's their best album, some feel its them selling out. Then take Load. Some see it as a product of real artistic growth an maturity, an experiment which proved the band was more than just a thrash act, while some feel it was nothing but jumping on a band wagon and actually a sign of the band's lack of creativity, and hate it.

Or look at Guns. You have fans who love the UYIs and even CD for taking the music to another place, while others would've really just preferred GN'R to have put out AFD Part II, III, IV and so on.....

What's your take on bands and artists changing their sound and MO?

I think it's a gamble that can pay off or fail. Not everyone is "KISS doing disco". KISS has become the poster child for "what not to do" band.

The hardcore fans of Kill Em All & Ride the Lightning will always bitch about Metallica's direction, but they started crafting songs over time.

You also have to take a look at the type of music the people in the band were playing before they were in the band that made it big, maybe it wasn't a departure. Bob Dylan was in a rock band before he was a folkie. Hendrix was in a lot of R&B bands, he had 3 years to develop his stage show and stage presence. Frank Zappa and Dr Dre were both producing and engineering pretty early on in their careers.

I was listening to Tommy Mottola on Howard Stern, and he was talking about Michael Jackson working on "Invincible", and all this money was being spent on studio time and any whim Michael had, kind of like Axl, and he said that they cater to those whims because at the end of the day, it's about what the artist wants. He also said that when it was something the record company doesn't like, they don't tell the artist what to do, but make "suggestions". I'm sure Iovine at some point will write his book, but it was an interesting take on studio excess and the politics involved - he also said at that level, there's 50 other people involved in someone's career, and the pressure Mariah was getting was from them more than it was from him.

At least Axl wasn't going "Jimmy Iovine is the devil".

The studio is a dangerous place for artists sometimes, esp. when they've made a lot of money.

Anyway, we've seen "Some Kind of Monster", and we saw the process Metallica went through at an interesting time in their career. Some bands have to realize when they've peaked and when they're past their peak and start relying more on the back catalog - and that's where GNR and Metallica are. Same place Phil Collins and Sting were 20 years ago. Same place McCartney's been. Billy Joel opted out of the recording/touring treadmill prematurely, but if he felt the creative well was dry, that's his right, and they usually find other things to pique their intrest. Billy had boat building, motorcycles, a B'way musical and composing. Elton's also talked about retiring for 20 years, and I just think his forays into theater and animation have worked in his favor.

For some bands, keeping things sounding a certain way works for them, like Skynyrd or AC/DC, but most bands incorporate something into it to give it a contemporary sound.

[Rovim]

Putting what you feel about their music aside, I thought U2 did a great job of changing their sound while still keeping what defined them as a band.

I'm mainly talking about the transition from The Joshua Tree to Achtung Baby.

Queens Of The Stone Age is another band that just sounds as different as they want to be and it still works. It can be done, and when you do it right it sounds refreshing and 'new' imo.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Rovim

[James Bond]

I prefer a band that stays true to their roots. Change can be awesome and sometimes inevitable or necessary, but it's risky and not always work.

I like when a band has its own style, when it has a recognizable sound. For example, one of my favourite bands is AC/DC, I know they are criticized because their albums sound all the same but I fuckin' love that sound! I wouldn't like them to change to be honest, despite what people say.

Same with Guns, as much as I love the UYIs, I prefer the AFD style.

Except AC/DC can`t and won`t change their sound `cause their abilities as musicians are very limited I can`t stand them anymore they`ve become ridiculously predictable, stale, uninspired, generic and boring

Yes, Angus and Malcolm are terrible musicians.

[izzygirl]

I prefer a band that stays true to their roots. Change can be awesome and sometimes inevitable or necessary, but it's risky and not always work.

I like when a band has its own style, when it has a recognizable sound. For example, one of my favourite bands is AC/DC, I know they are criticized because their albums sound all the same but I fuckin' love that sound! I wouldn't like them to change to be honest, despite what people say.

Same with Guns, as much as I love the UYIs, I prefer the AFD style.

Except AC/DC can`t and won`t change their sound `cause their abilities as musicians are very limited I can`t stand them anymore they`ve become ridiculously predictable, stale, uninspired, generic and boring

Yes, Angus and Malcolm are terrible musicians.

Sorry, but the thread isn't about AC/DC and if they are good or not. They're absolutely great though.

[Ragnar]

I prefer a band that stays true to their roots. Change can be awesome and sometimes inevitable or necessary, but it's risky and not always work.

I like when a band has its own style, when it has a recognizable sound. For example, one of my favourite bands is AC/DC, I know they are criticized because their albums sound all the same but I fuckin' love that sound! I wouldn't like them to change to be honest, despite what people say.

Same with Guns, as much as I love the UYIs, I prefer the AFD style.

Except AC/DC can`t and won`t change their sound `cause their abilities as musicians are very limited I can`t stand them anymore they`ve become ridiculously predictable, stale, uninspired, generic and boring

Yes, Angus and Malcolm are terrible musicians.

I did n`t say they were bad musicians I said their abilities were limited two different thing it`s not far fetched from truth to be honest

[James Bond]

I prefer a band that stays true to their roots. Change can be awesome and sometimes inevitable or necessary, but it's risky and not always work.

I like when a band has its own style, when it has a recognizable sound. For example, one of my favourite bands is AC/DC, I know they are criticized because their albums sound all the same but I fuckin' love that sound! I wouldn't like them to change to be honest, despite what people say.

Same with Guns, as much as I love the UYIs, I prefer the AFD style.

Except AC/DC can`t and won`t change their sound `cause their abilities as musicians are very limited I can`t stand them anymore they`ve become ridiculously predictable, stale, uninspired, generic and boring

Yes, Angus and Malcolm are terrible musicians.

I did n`t say they were bad musicians I said their abilities were limited two different thing it`s not far fetched from truth to be honest

I see where you're coming from, but I'm sure they could do something a little different if they really wanted to. Not do a synth oriented album or anything drastic, but something a little more creative. I think ultimately they've just stuck to what they know best and what they enjoy doing.

[bran]

I did n`t say they were bad musicians I said their abilities were limited two different thing it`s not far fetched from truth to be honest

i agree. i think a lot of it, which i said is the reason why metallica is so limited. vocally they cannot move on. brian johnson with his voice can only do so much. you can changeup new things all you want but brian's vocals dont really lend themselves to go along with style changes. james hetfield is in the same boat IMO.

[Ragnar]

I did n`t say they were bad musicians I said their abilities were limited two different thing it`s not far fetched from truth to be honest

i agree. i think a lot of it, which i said is the reason why metallica is so limited. vocally they cannot move on. brian johnson with his voice can only do so much. you can changeup new things all you want but brian's vocals dont really lend themselves to go along with style changes. james hetfield is in the same boat IMO.

At least Metallica tried to do something different for better or worse I surprisingly enjoyed Load and half of Reload The Outlaw Thorn and Fixxer are their best songs by far

[James Bond]

I think Metallica adapted decently since Hetfield's voice has changed over time anyways. Nowadays his voice doesn't sound as good on the more aggressive stuff but he can still nail the "lighter" stuff.

Johnson you're probably right, but I think his voice could still suit songs that explored the rock/hard rock genres a little more instead of the three chord blues inspired rock that AC/DC has stuck to. That's what I meant when it's not like they are incapable of changing at all, just not a drastic change.

[chevelle]

Change, definitely.

The way I see it, I'd rather get an album that I don't like at first, but start to love it after a few, than one that I love from the first listen and quickly get burnt out on because they've done it better in the past.

[Chewbacca]

Change, of course.