[Rev2010]

I was perusing some old artists I used to listen to and I noticed some new CD's out and a few of the reviewers said, "Nothing new, same 'ol stuff". But we also always see people bitching about when bands do change their style from CD to CD. So my question is why the fuck do people bitch either way?? It's silly really. But yeah I know we all have opinions and that's what it really comes down to. Personally, I dislike when bands change style too much. I like them to sound like they always do but maybe with a bit more experimentation - like musical growth normally exhibits. Like incorporating new sounds into their music but still keeping the original sound. I mean, not for nothing I find it rather dissappointing loving a band just to find their newest CD is a complete departure from their previous work. But when bands release new CD's that stay true to their sound you then some reviewers saying "nothing new here" even if the new songs don't rehash old riffs. And if the new CD is way different they say, "What is this shit? This band has lost it, they've gotten lame". It's just annoying... to me at least


Rev.

[shadowgenesis]

meh. ignore reveiwers and people who say all that kind of garbage. If you like it you like it. Usually people who are serious fans of the music can appreciate it when an artist is taking a new direction. If they decide to try out something totally new and different, chances are they'll still be doing it in their own way and as long as they're not forcing it, they'll still sound like the same band. If you don't like it, then that's a side of the band you don't connect to, but that's no reason to be dissing. Music is an expression of what a person is, feels, and thinks. If you can't connect to what they're expressing, oh well. Go check out another band i guess?

(i totally hate when i start typing and by the end of it, i completely forget where i was going with it. *sigh*)

[Drew]

Easy. Because people like to bitch.











/smartass

Actually, your frustration here is because you're treating this as an either/or dichotomy, when in fact it's really not. There's at least one more option, possibly several - bands every once in a while DO change for the better. I'd heard some live Satch and owned "Surfing" before Crystal Planet came out, and I thought the guy was a pretty good guitar player, but I just couldn't get into him. Then CP absolutely blew my mind. Did Satch change, and was it for the better? Absolutely. I've since gotten into his older stuff, but that album was still a radical departure for the guy, and one I completely loved.

Likewise, Porcupine Tree's first couple albums are good, but not extrordinarily so. Then, out of the blue, they cut In Absentia, a significantly heavier and more focused work, and it fuckin' kills. They changed, they got better, and suddenly a LOT of people started to get into them. The last two times they came through boston, their shows sold out, which even surprised me.

And hell, Jimi went from early period psychedelia to focused, driving funk blues with the Band of Gypsys, and while I like both formats, he undoubtably changed, did something fresh, and still produced some damned good music. And don't even get me started on Dylan.

Oh, and Opeth's Damnation was one hell of a departure too, yet while I love their heavier stuff, that's probably my favorite of theirs.

Anyway, you get the point - I'm coming up with examples of bands that changed and still produced some incredible music, as good if not better than their earlier work, about as fast as I can type them up. I really don't see a "either you change and people wish you didn't, or you don't and people slag off on you for not being creative" thing here.

If I may ask, which band in particular do you think is getting unfairly labeled by critics for "doing nothing new" that you feel is merely staying true to their roots? You seem to have someone in mind...

[Firebeard]

Most reviewers write stuff to make themselves seem big or they'll go totally against the grain and date Oprah to boost their self worth.



I give two giant thumbs up to personal opinion!

[abyssalservant]

Really, it just depends. Sometimes not changing is good, sometimes changing is good. Personally, I prefer a balance, but . . .

[Makelele]

I think that change is definately good, if it's for the better. If it's for what I think is for the worse, I don't listen to it, and I won't go around complaining about how bad it is.

"Pay no attention to what critics say. No statue has ever been put up to a critic." - Sibelius

[abyssalservant]

Amen.
+1 for quoting Sibelius.

[Shannon]

Because we all cry on the inside when our favorite bands stop making the music we love & instead starts chasing the almighty dollar. In essence, the music gets weaker & you can tell all their passion is gone....all because of a quick buck.

The most obvious band is METALLICA.

[Leon]

Drew, you hit the nail on the head, but then you kept talking :p

[Shannon]