Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Band Progression

  • 23-08-2009 9:53pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭


    This topic came to mind when I started listening to the Arctic Monkeys new album Humbug. Its sound is completely different to the Arctic Monkeys first album Whatever people say I am... and is also different from their second album.
    It will undoubtedly lose themselves fams but I like! Is their may bands that have gone this route? Did it make them or brake them in your opinion?


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    I think most bands do progress through their career, and you will see an evolution of their style. Bands who continue to pump out the same thing they've done since their first albums are usually unoriginal and boring. I wouldn't say that a band will lose fans if their sound changes, as long as they're still creating good music that's what matters. Death are a great example, started out very simple and very standard Death Metal, but rapidly evolved, the music became a lot more complex and varied, and the lyrics became much more mature and thought provoking. They're the perfect example of a band that just kept on getting better, until Chuck Schuldiner's untimely death.

    I'd say that very, very few bands can keep the exact same sound throughout their careers and still managed to make good music. Iron Maiden are the only ones that come to mind. Others just stagnate.

    Most of my favourite bands and artists have always changed it up. None of Hiromi Uehara's albums sound anything like each other. Opeth's first album sounds nothing like the second, or their sixth album sounds nothing like their fourth, and a few albums ago they've added a keyboard player to the lineup. So there's always that evolution. Devin Townsend's music changes fairly drastically from album to album.

    A lot of bands can change for the worst of course, just look at Metallica. But I'd rather listen to a band that's going to be more creative and progress as they go on, than a band who'll just uncreatively rest on their first album.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,048 ✭✭✭DerekD Goldfish


    While I wont comment on the Arctic Monkeys because
    A) I don't like them B) I haven't heart the new album
    However on the subject many bands have departed form their previous sound and in many cases resulted is some of their best most interesting work and when a band doesn't veer for its original sound its generaly only a few albums before they run out of ideas.

    Some of the best/my favourite examples of bands changing their sound include
    Talk Talk
    Starting of the Early 80's as a synth pop band not to dissimilar to Duran Duran for their first 2 albums while album number 3 Colour of Spring was a significant step forward what the band became for the 4th an 5th album could not have been expected 1988's Sprit of Eden and 1991's Laughing Stock saw the band become a a band somewhere between Jazz, Ambient and something not yet defined the term post rock wasnt used in the press until the review of the 1994 Bark Psychosis album "Hex" but as Bark Psychosis have often said they were trying to achive what Talk Talk did on the last 2 albums they have retrospectively been seen as one of the creators of the genre.
    While the 2 albums remain 2 of the most critically acclaimed albums of the last 20 years they sold practically nothing as compared to the bands previous output EMI dropped them after 4th album with the band and the label suing each other the 5th album didnt sell many more copies and
    band split in 1992 although this probably had a much to do with the band feeling they had achieved what they set out to do as not having the money to record any more material.
    The move at the time lost them a record deal and millions of fans however it did leave 2 pieces of art which have inspired more bands that artists who sold ten times as many albums

    Radiohead
    Their progession wasn’t a million miles away from that of Talk Talk’s while their 2nd and 3rd album were 2 of the biggest citical and commercial successes of the 90’s so how do you top that? Simple you don’t you change you sound signifiganly lose at least half of your fanbase but gain the creative freedom to do whatever you want. The Bends and OK Computer gained fans as quckly as Kid A and Amnesiac lost them and although they may never release an album with the critical and commercial success of Ok computer they have released themselves from the noose around their neck.
    While there is always a section of fans calling for a return to their old stuff I don’t think the band could have stood the pressure of another OK Computer and Im glad they are still making great music.


    Scott Walker
    Beginning his musical carear in the Teen Idol before joining mid 60’s boyband The Walker Brothers a few years of hit singles and he went solo. He released 4 solo albums between 1967 and 1969 perfect orchesteral pop album that got more wondeful and complex over the course of the releases Scott 4 despite being his best record wasn’t as big a succes and the previous 3 (It still went top 10) it was the first album containly songs he had entirly written himself the pressure from the record company and his own self doubt caused by the reletive failure of Scott 4 he released a series of stuio enforced medicore albums until 1974 after which he disapeared from the music scene for 10 years (except for a termpory reunion with the Walker Brothers)
    Coming back with climate of the hunter in 1984 an album maketly different to his previous solo albums but still miles away from his next album 1995’s Tilt. One of the bleakest albums ever released its remarkable it came from a man who’s audience was once hoardes of teenage girls a review on AMG cites it as “Tilt is not an easy album to love; it's not even that easy to listen to” and while that’s true to a certain extent if you give it time to get thorugh the indeciperable misery it’s a truly remarkable album. The Drift followed in 2006 like Tilts deranged uncle while not quite as massive a leap as his early records to Climate or Climate to Tilt it does tend to indicate that any progression Scott makes is unlikly to get him teenage girls for fans again I can only imagine the desnse dark masterpeice he will release in 2017.
    Having made 2 major shifts in his carear the first of which gave him for a time commerical and critical success and the 2nd a devoted cult folowing while Scott 1-4 are revered as much as if not more than Tilt and The Drift I don’t think their would be the same interest in them if its wasn’t for the tragic crazy loner influence of his later work


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,329 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    aye - Talk Talk must have had the strangest career path of any pop band, starting out with Duran Duran-esque synthpop (albeit pretty good synthpop) and winding up doing ambient/jazz post-rock.


Advertisement