Rammsteinmad
05-20-2008, 02:52 PM
So something I thought we could talk about, what do you all think about bands progressing over the years?
It always bothers me when fans feel they can dictate a band, I will elaborate on this in a moment.
Some bands like Slayer and Iced Earth for example, have been generally releasing the same song for the last 20 years. I'm not saying these bands are great or crap, all I'm saying is if you listen to a Slayer song from their beginning to now, you could easily think they are from the same album (with the exception that production is better these days).
Some bands on the other hand are always reinventing themselves and pushing the envelop further. Take Dream Theater (my favourite band) for example... Here's a look at the different identities their albums have:
1. When Dream and Day Unite (1989) - 80's style production, majestic keyboard work.
2. Images and Words (1992) - Epic, complex songs, great production, all round perfect album.
3. Awake (1994) - Darker, heavier, lots of 7-string guitar work.
4. Falling Into Infinity (1997) - Mainstream pop type album, a lot "lighter" than previous work.
5. Scenes From A Memory (1999) - Full blown concept album, PLENTY of solos and ambitious song writing.
6. Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence (2002) - A lot heavier with detuned guitars and lots of atmospheric sounds
7. Train of Though (2003) - Full on metal. Still progressive with lots of keyboards, but more a "metal" album than a "prog" album
8. Octavarium (2005) - Mainstream prog album, mellow, heavy, with influences from bands like Linkin Park, Pink Floyd, Muse etc.
9. Systemic Chaos (2007) - Train of Thought with more radio friendly songs.
The point of this is some bands manage to do different things and pull it off, while others get heavily slated for it.
After 10 years of being "metal", Metallica turned to a more "Rock" kinda sound. And as we all know a lot of people turned their backs on Metallica for it. A lot of people would say "they cut their hair, how dare they" or the default "they owe it to the fans" etc. However, what's the point of being a musician if you're not writing for yourself.
Why should a band like Metallica feel like "the fans wanna hear this, let's do this"... when it's their band. If the fans want metal, they can start their own bands.
I'm going off on a bit of a rant here, to sum up, it's a catch 22 scenario. Now every band has two groups of fan, the ones who do and the ones who don't. Every band has the fans who like all their material, and the fans who only like certain eras of that band
With demands from the fans to cater for everyone, it comes to the point where if a band has released the same song for 20 years they will be criticised for doing just that, yet if a band tries to break away from that and it fails they will be criticised for selling out and "not staying true to their roots".
I personally feel it's good for a band to always try new things. Some fail while others succeed. So what do other people here feel? Should a band stick to one sound for their whole careers, or should they try to evolve and try new things. And if they wanted to play other styles as well, should they do so, or should they stick to the sound that got them where they are?
It always bothers me when fans feel they can dictate a band, I will elaborate on this in a moment.
Some bands like Slayer and Iced Earth for example, have been generally releasing the same song for the last 20 years. I'm not saying these bands are great or crap, all I'm saying is if you listen to a Slayer song from their beginning to now, you could easily think they are from the same album (with the exception that production is better these days).
Some bands on the other hand are always reinventing themselves and pushing the envelop further. Take Dream Theater (my favourite band) for example... Here's a look at the different identities their albums have:
1. When Dream and Day Unite (1989) - 80's style production, majestic keyboard work.
2. Images and Words (1992) - Epic, complex songs, great production, all round perfect album.
3. Awake (1994) - Darker, heavier, lots of 7-string guitar work.
4. Falling Into Infinity (1997) - Mainstream pop type album, a lot "lighter" than previous work.
5. Scenes From A Memory (1999) - Full blown concept album, PLENTY of solos and ambitious song writing.
6. Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence (2002) - A lot heavier with detuned guitars and lots of atmospheric sounds
7. Train of Though (2003) - Full on metal. Still progressive with lots of keyboards, but more a "metal" album than a "prog" album
8. Octavarium (2005) - Mainstream prog album, mellow, heavy, with influences from bands like Linkin Park, Pink Floyd, Muse etc.
9. Systemic Chaos (2007) - Train of Thought with more radio friendly songs.
The point of this is some bands manage to do different things and pull it off, while others get heavily slated for it.
After 10 years of being "metal", Metallica turned to a more "Rock" kinda sound. And as we all know a lot of people turned their backs on Metallica for it. A lot of people would say "they cut their hair, how dare they" or the default "they owe it to the fans" etc. However, what's the point of being a musician if you're not writing for yourself.
Why should a band like Metallica feel like "the fans wanna hear this, let's do this"... when it's their band. If the fans want metal, they can start their own bands.
I'm going off on a bit of a rant here, to sum up, it's a catch 22 scenario. Now every band has two groups of fan, the ones who do and the ones who don't. Every band has the fans who like all their material, and the fans who only like certain eras of that band
With demands from the fans to cater for everyone, it comes to the point where if a band has released the same song for 20 years they will be criticised for doing just that, yet if a band tries to break away from that and it fails they will be criticised for selling out and "not staying true to their roots".
I personally feel it's good for a band to always try new things. Some fail while others succeed. So what do other people here feel? Should a band stick to one sound for their whole careers, or should they try to evolve and try new things. And if they wanted to play other styles as well, should they do so, or should they stick to the sound that got them where they are?