TOS
You're trying to say you like DOS better than me, right?
Glenzinho's Chicabro
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by TOS on Jul 27, 2017 7:45:10 GMT -5
It is normal for bands' sound to change over the years. But sometimes a band changes their sound so drastically that a name change is in order. Discuss that here.
Obviously, the first one that comes to mind for many is Metallica. I consider ...And Justice For All to be their last true thrash album. Then on 1989 something happened. They began writing the black album, and it was amazing. But was it thrash? Maybe a song or two (Holier Than Thou and Don't Tread On Me are the closest ones I can think of, and that's using a loose definition of thrash). But the rest of the album, while great, was a completely new sound for the band. They seemed more produced and less thrash centered. Then Load and ReLoad came out...and while I enjoy those albums (many Metallica fans do not), this was the point in their career where I really think they should have changed their name. By this time, Metallica had become a brand name, and the product on those albums was not anywhere near what people expected when they bought the then new Metallica album. I loved these albums...but there is absolutely nothing thrash or even really metal about them. They're great hard rock albums, definitely. But it just wasn't the Metallica that people had come to expect. Thanks to those two albums, then St. Anger...now nobody knows what the hell to expect when a new album comes out. It might be great, or horrible, or okay. Metallica turned a definitely good product into a gamble for people looking for a good, truly metal album.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 8:36:30 GMT -5
I think when you've been in a band and you've done albums that were at or near the best of the genre, it becomes a question of "Do I really want to make the same album over and over again?" Musically, it gets boring. I think at least on some level that's what spurred Metallica to do what they did. However I also don't deny that their sound became more accessible for monetary reasons as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 19:58:41 GMT -5
"Lulu" is one of the worst albums ever made. An absolute musical abomination. It's good for some quick comedy though, because every time I hear this track I burst out laughing. James Hetfield: " I AM THE ROOT ... I AM THE TABLET!" 4:00 - " I AM THE TABLE! I AM THE TABLE!" (rofl)
|
|
TOS
You're trying to say you like DOS better than me, right?
Glenzinho's Chicabro
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by TOS on Jul 27, 2017 20:50:23 GMT -5
Dude, when Lou Reed died, did you see James's tweet that read, "I am a very sad table, indeed."? That shit was hilarious.
But yes. Lulu is a fucking abortion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2017 1:00:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I may have to amend what I said. I had forgotten about "Lulu". Absolute garbage that one.
|
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 6,105
|
Post by 40oz on Jul 28, 2017 12:20:48 GMT -5
There are few bands that get better with each album, many where each album is always good, and enough that go in their own deviation.
One thing I have a lot of respect for is when a band can maintain their image and style through their entire discography. I'll bet the temptation to shift styles for mass appeal, or to respond to criticism, or try something completely different after the popularity has been established can be really strong. I feel when a band is consistent over a long stretch of time, it means the band members are really happy with their sound and what they're doing with it. Changes in sound are sometimes indicative to me that they weren't really "all in" with the band in the first place.
Its not always true though. Some awesome bands are formed from members of other bands that had totally different sounds. Sometimes the deviation is closer to what they were always trying to make in the first place. Once the fans and money came along they could afford better instruments, get better advice on their production, and learn how to use different equipment or whatever. Then somewhere along the line nothing they make sounds like what it once was, this bi-product of what they created before these new factors came into play.
In most cases it sounds like a loss of creativity or blurred inner vision to me. But its also possible that some of these people did something extraordinary first for the awareness before they pursued music as a serious career.
I dont know, but for the purposes of listening, and being a fan, I really enjoy consistency. There's enough bands that you can find the ones you really like, and when they do it right, you want them to keep making that. Dont stop doing that, I cant get enough of that etc. I suppose, as artists before content providers, they're not under any obligation to stay the same. But dammit it sucks when they try to fly too close to the sun.
|
|
dn
Body Count: 02
the motherfucking darknation
Posts: 1,762
|
Post by dn on Jul 28, 2017 13:43:00 GMT -5
It's a rare person who sits down to create and knows exactly what the final product will look like. If there isn't an element of experimentation and risk involved, then you're not challenging yourself. And if you're not challenging yourself, then you're a fucking Linkin Park-style artistic fraud and should probably just kill yourself.
|
|
joe-ilya
Hey, Ron! Can we say 'fuck' in the game?
a simple word, a simple turd
Posts: 3,070
|
Post by joe-ilya on Oct 8, 2017 15:02:50 GMT -5
Green Day, Bad Religion and NOFX.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 5:01:05 GMT -5
I think every band should undergo a sound change with every release. I kind of pity musicians that drove themselves into a corner by finding something the audience likes and then feeling forced to just continue doing it in order to please the fans. Must be depressing. In general, I don't understand why almost everyone has to work in a specific niche or why almost all music releases contain songs of only one genre. As a result I very rarely listen to actual albums because it's just hard to get through 10 songs that feel the same, even when I really like the band. When I'm walking around with my iPod, I'm switching between different artists all the time. Pop, guitar shredding, hip-hop, gentle piano, punk: I put everything in the same playlist and get an actually varied musical experience. When will we start getting albums like this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 2:54:48 GMT -5
I can't think of two Zappa albums that even sound like the same band, even when it was. The only common element in all of it seems to be his singing and guitar playing, that aside, you're going to hear everything from rock to jazz to folk to classical to 80s to etc etc etc.. There's a reason he's one of my favorites, the dude was never afraid to try ANY sound whatsoever. Hell, the only thing he ever won a Grammy for was a terrible MIDI from a mostly-great album that was all MIDIs composed using a synclavier. I can't think of any other 60's musicians who just kept going on and on and changing their sound over the years like Zappa did, they usually kept relying on their old hits decades later rather than having an always-fresh lineup of new hits to mix in with the old stuff at live shows and whatnot.
For those curious, several examples of the wide, wide array of sounds Zappa covered:
Such a classic 60's pop-rock sound
Sounds like early 90's computer setup tutorial music or something, yet is a great song
That piano is just oozing soul
Way ahead of it's time for a 1969
Nothing short of awesome, sounds really nice played by a full orchestra
There's even more genres he played in but this gives you a general idea that he truly was willing to write in/play with any sound. I wish more great musicians were open ended to this level. Many MANY great musicians are boxed into a corner. Maybe it's like Doom mapping though - Some have the talent to make everything from "true 1995 oldschool" to "beautiful and modern", but I haven't got that talent, all I make end up feeling like something old. Be that a good or a bad thing, it is what it is - It's a limitation as a result of skill and time, not choice! I can't help but think the same must apply to quite a few musicians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 0:07:01 GMT -5
The Mentors had a few changes in their sound before el Duce's death. If you're gonna post stuff by The Mentors, I have to bring up El Duce's "Karaoke King".
|
|
joe-ilya
Hey, Ron! Can we say 'fuck' in the game?
a simple word, a simple turd
Posts: 3,070
|
Post by joe-ilya on Oct 12, 2017 18:08:53 GMT -5
Green Day, Bad Religion and NOFX. All those bands suck (content removed), real punk bands are: Sex Pistols, Ramones, New York Dolls, Meatmen, Fear, SOD, MOD, Mentors (some of their stuff is punk), GG Allen and others. Real punk just because it's from the 70's? Get outta here, you purist. I think every band should undergo a sound change with every release. I kind of pity musicians that drove themselves into a corner by finding something the audience likes and then feeling forced to just continue doing it in order to please the fans. Must be depressing. In general, I don't understand why almost everyone has to work in a specific niche or why almost all music releases contain songs of only one genre. As a result I very rarely listen to actual albums because it's just hard to get through 10 songs that feel the same, even when I really like the band. When I'm walking around with my iPod, I'm switching between different artists all the time. Pop, guitar shredding, hip-hop, gentle piano, punk: I put everything in the same playlist and get an actually varied musical experience. When will we start getting albums like this? There's quite a few albums that experiment with sound within themselves already, here's a couple of examples : Green Day - Nimrod (1997) 1. Nice Guys Finish Last = Simple pop punk. 2. Hitchin' A Ride = Punk song with a jazz groove with some hardcore and shredding. 3. The Grouch = Simple punk rock. 4. Redundant = Melancholy punk rock. 5. Scattered = Dramatic punk rock. 6. All The Time = Simple punk rock. 7. Worry Rock = Anthem-like punk rock. 8. Platypus (I Hate You) = Superfast punk rock. 9. Uptight = Grunge-y punk rock. 10. Last Ride In = Smooth Surf Jazz instrumental. 11. Jinx = Simple punk rock. 12. Haushinka = Ballad pop punk. 13. Walking Alone = Folk punk rock. 14. Reject = Politically charged punk rock. 15. Take Back = Hardcore metal. 16. King For A Day = Ska. 17. Good Riddance (Time Of Your Life) = Acoustic ballad. 18. Prostheric Head = Simple pop punk with a lot of breakdowns.
Teen Suicide - Waste Yrself (2012) 1. Lonely Boy Goes To A Rave = The band makes a rave sounding song using traditional Rock instruments. 2. Benzo = Rock song with lots of breakdowns. 3. We Found Two Dead Swans And Filled Their Bodies With Flowers = Rock song with a Jazz groove. 4. Haunt Me (x 3) = Vaporwave. 5. Everything Goes To Hell = Acoustic folk lullaby. 6. Falling In Love = A sweet folk song with echo-ey vocals. 7. Savila Plath = A melancholy piano song. 8. Doing All The Things We Used To Do With People Part 2 = An atmospheric and ambient song, somewhat sweet.
|
|
joe-ilya
Hey, Ron! Can we say 'fuck' in the game?
a simple word, a simple turd
Posts: 3,070
|
Post by joe-ilya on Oct 12, 2017 20:52:57 GMT -5
Only in their first two albums they sound like that. "Wannabe commies" isn't even musically related.
|
|
joe-ilya
Hey, Ron! Can we say 'fuck' in the game?
a simple word, a simple turd
Posts: 3,070
|
Post by joe-ilya on Oct 13, 2017 11:32:14 GMT -5
Yes, it gives you one reason, but takes away two.
|
|