Before dipping into a contest about which band is more versatile, I'd like to take a moment to ask, "How commendable is it to be versatile?" The word makes me think of some lounge band, where the audience can ask, Can you play us this? Can you play us that? And I'm sure that in terms of ability to play something, it's a real achievement to be more versatile than the next guy, as it demonstrates a more extensive technical ability.
But when it comes to major creative artists , it's often their consistancy that I admire. I like it when artists find their "voice" and explore it thoroughly, in album after album, if they can keep it interesting. Some artists that come to mind are Nick Drake, Can and the Allman Bros.
For me, versatility often works against an artist; Zappa got distracted from jazz-rock fusion because he could also do pop/doo-wop pastiches. Beefheart could also have done without that display of versatility, Bluejeans and Moonbeams, imo. And Queen were so good at playing around with different genres that for me, it starts to feel directionless, insincere, or superficial, like tourism.
Having said that, some versatility sounds more genuine, or more like an organic development of an artist, and my candidate for that would be Dylan. Without compromising his trademark voice, he has explored folk, rock, Americana and Tin Pan Alley. (At a stretch, on the way, he also stopped off at rap before it was invented, with Subterranean Homesick Blues) But he moved through these styles slowly across the years, the way most people's interests will naturally shift from one thing to another.
(Yes, Janszoon, I know Dylan is not a band, and I don't think Nick Drake is either.)
__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953
|