Bands that lost you to change
 

I just listened to some all new Opeth songs today and found them surprisingly good. Usually, I don't like opeth, but I did like the previous album. Most old-school fans either like the new stuff or consider it a major disappointment.

This thread isn't about Opeth, but it made me think of all the other times I've heard similar reactions to a change in style.

So, what bands did you lose interest in not so much because they started sucking, but because you didn't like their change in style, feel or changes in singers/musicians that altered the sound of the band?

Can't really think of any myself. I tend to stick around no matter what a band does, as long as they don't lose their energy.

Sick Puppies. They were a great alternative rock band. But then they released connect. It was awful, they completely abandoned anything that made them cool and became pop band #21445369522869

I've been fortunate that no band I really like has ever really "sold out".

Or that's what I was about to say, then I remembered that Guano Apes got somewhat boring since they released Bel Air - pretty much a radio rock album. I don't hate them now, but aside from some catchy hooks, there's not much left there. Listening to a song like Pretty in Scarlet side by side with the new stuff is enough to make me a bit upset. All that musicality is just gone with the wind.

I would have mentioned No Doubt, but while I really do think they've become crap since Rocksteady, I have started disliking the old stuff too...

I don't like saying sold out. It has become another way of saying, "this band got big therefore I don't like them."

You're right. Whenever I say "sold out", what I really should be saying is "started sounding bland and safe".

Lol. There you go.

This is a good question, and it allows me to confess that my interest in David Bowie took a total nosedive after Aladdin Sane.
I agree too that "selling out" is an over-used accusation and in fact I have my own theory about the transitions that bands go through, which is like this:-

First album or two: they are still finding their feet or special sound so their music is a bit confused or generic
Albums #2, #3 or #4: they've worked out how they want to sound and are full of great ideas and enthusiasm. These are their classic albums.
Albums #5, #6 or #7: they've explored all their best ideas, but feel that they should progress in some way so they either change their style or try making their songs more sophisticated. If we are fans of albums 2, 3 and 4, we try to like these later efforts, but deep down inside we are kidding ourselves.
Albums #8 and above: just the upper echelons of the musical pantheon find a new creative high and keep going according to their own individual genius.

For me, Steely Dan, Yes, Neutral Milk Hotel, Paul Young and Bryan Ferry more or less follow this pattern, without quite reaching that new creative high.

I liked Slipknot for their first two albums but that could be because I was like 13 when I first heard them. Anyway, everything they've released since has been progressively less interesting and more pandering to their audience of Juggalo-esque fans.

And Norg presumably.

How do you think it's pandering to juggaloes?

There's a lot of good points there. Bryan Ferry lost his mojo around Taxi in my opinion. The album after that, Frantic, had a few good songs, but after this point it's all diminishing returns.

There's several artists that I do feel like managed to catch 2nd or even 3rd winds over a long row of albums. Tori Amos, Prince, Megadeth and Depeche Mode, for example.

Now that I think about it, I tend to disagree with the notion that bands always hit their highest highs early. Many have put out excellent late-career albums that I consider among their best or even their best, flat out.

Let's not forget the two types of bands for whom the 1st and 2nd albums are generally the best: the 2nd, 3rd, etc wave bands of a genre who have more enthusiasm than creativity, and the genre founders who may have great albums afterward but never surpassed the inventive purity of their original albums (although the latter groups are often judged on personal taste, since they're generally creative enough to actually evolve with subsequent releases).

Smashing Pumpkins? But they were always ****.

Lol. So true!

So you were talking about Smashing Pumpkins? Nice to know your musical taste is ****. Takes the pressure off of debating with you.

I feel like Smashing Pumpkins is one of those bands who's getting modern backlash. I think they always had a minority of detractors who were trying to get through to everyone else just how ****ty they were, but now a bigger minority of people seem to be listening.

There might just be hope for humanity.

Like the way Limp Bizkit does?

Dolly Parton > Smashing Pumpkins

Except Limp Bizkit are obviously ****. Smashing Pumpkins are deceptive in their ****tiness.

At least Limp Bizkit could put out a fun jammer. Pumpkins were just ****ty alternative crap.

They both could put out fun singles, but so far as I can tell Smashing Pumpkins at least had the edge in album tracks. And "Zero" is infinitely better than anything Bizkit ever put out.

That should express the extent of my distaste for SP that I only feel the need to defend them when they are compared to Limp Bizkit.

Lol.

I was comparing their fans to juggalos, and I call it pandering because they get progressively more melodic/radio friendly as they went on, presumably for their young fan base.

You take that back right now, bitch.

:laughing: :clap:

The one and only time I think I'll ever agree with you.

How the **** could you hate someone who is so much fun in so many ways? Oh yeah, you're a post-punk fan. You're contractually obligated to be a joyless ****.

I hope you get rabies.

*ahem*

Watch Dolly Parton's Coat Of Many Colors (2015) Full Movie Online Free - Watch32 Movies

No. I refuse to watch a Dolly movie without Dolly. And there's no proof that it's bad.

Oh, Dolly's in it alright. And have you seen it?

It's terrible.

Never trust a Dolly hater. I'll watch and tell everyone just how awesome it is regardless of the truth.

Bowie recovered amazingly well though at some point. Actually at several points in his career. Don't tell me you never checked out any later stuff.

Intelligence is irrelevant to fun. And stupid can be more fun than intelligent since it doesn't require extra effort to appreciate.

People should stop worrying whether their music is smart or not. Makes them boring.

I wish all bands would change every song or half album TBO

when I was younger I wanted to form a band that played all genre of music with song from song o hell within a song .....

so yeah If bands don't change im usually like Mehhhh ....

There's no way you can hate on this stupid. You'd have to completely hate fun.

I can easily appreciate 10, 15 or more albums by the same band, but I always feel that when a band has made a perfect album in a particular variation of their sound, they have no reason to do it ever again. There is such a thing as the final word in a particular expression. The most fun bands to follow are the ones that are somewhat unpredictable.

Yes, definitely, but there are several bands/artists that have released 10+ albums where I found that every single one of those albums had something to offer me that made it not redundant, but interesting in comparison with the other albums in the discography. And then you might have whole other bands who have done a similar thing better, but it wouldn't feel the same when done by different musicians and singers.

Now, I know that Tori Amos is not exactly super popular around here, but she's a great example of an artist that has grown with every album and an artist who is unique enough to have something to add to the overall genre conversation.
Prince is another. I've got 19 albums by now and I still don't feel that any one of those 19 albums have been boring or redundant.
Then you have Children of Bodom - a band that I really love - but I don't need them to ever make an album again. They keep playing the same style with little to no variation and they've already made more than one perfect iteration on that style. I don't need more, no matter how good it could be.

None of those artists have continued making genre defining album after genre defining album, but Prince and Amos have both continued to make albums that were fresh to me, as a fan.

I see people have very different views on this sort of thing, which is especially noticable when reading snarky reviews of "passé" artists, for example.
No music critic gives a **** about what Prince did for the last two decades of his life or about anything Tori Amos has done after her 3 first albums.

Basically, but those two albums ****ing kick ass!

that's why I like korn so much they usually change every album


S/t / LIP - There orginal Early SOund


FTL- Increased there Guitar tone to a lighter sound and More Hip hop

Issue- Stripped down again but MUCHHHH More Darker and melodic

Untouchables- Studio Production x1000 Album Melodic

TALITM- Same production has Untouch but Heavy tone

Syotos- korns Industrial album

Turn the crank - Korns Artsy Album

KORN III- back to raw striiped down

TPOT- Dubstep album

PS- Back to Modern Production guitar drivin album mature songwriting compared to everything they have ever done IMO

Mike Doughty of Soul Coughing was an accomplished poet in NYC, featured on the Moonlight Meditations radio program and in other quality poetry circles. He had a particular knack for using words as rhythmic devices rather than for narrative purposes and he created wonderfully infectious abstract pieces which I still enjoy to this day. Soul Coughing's debut was brilliantly edgy, showcasing their self-described sound of "deep slacker-jazz".

But each subsequent record became more and more radio friendly, and the band split after their third successful LP.

But the most significant change in M Doughty's sound came with his overcoming his drug habit. Shortly thereafter, he re-emerged as a funky and lighthearted acoustic coffee culture performer. The album, Smofe & Smang best captured his live entertainer sound where he interjected humorous stories between new originals and covers of SC classics.

But it quickly became apparent that the new, clean Doughty had lost every ounce of his former edge. Every track featured the exact same staccato guitar rhythm, the same tired coffeehouse melodies, and trite lyrics with repetitive choral hooks. It was bland, safe, and terribly dull.

As Doughty, himself confessed at the end of "Bustin' Up a Starbucks", he became "a patsy for the Man."

well more like Korns "Flowers in the dirt album" or COlors album LOL

A. Silversun Pickups or B. Smashing Pumpkins?