Changes In Musical Style: Good or Bad?Music

[YSSMAN]

Since the dawn of this new century I've been dealing with yet another drastic change in my tastes of music. Although I did in fact go through the classic rock phase that every teenager experiences, I've been dead-set in my indie/emo track since 2001. I've had a lot of bands pop-up on my radar, and quite a few drop off rather quickly as well. However, I have to admit that my love for many of my favorite bands today seemed to have emerged in 2004/2005, and has only grown since then.

A week ago today, Panic! At the Disco's sophomore album Pretty. Odd. dropped. As a rabid fan (thanks in part to my friends Jackie and Erica), I was there on day one, and generally speaking, have attempted to learn every word of every song as best as possible, and of course, many of my friends have done the same. However, a discussion came about recently in which we began to question the sudden changes in musical style for some of our favorite artists. Of note in particular was this change for Panic!, in that they went from a very quirky/emo style to something that was clearly a derivative of The Beatles circa Sargent Pepper. The feeling of A Fever You Can't Sweat Out was so unique, so different, that it really did make them stand out, and furthermore, made you feel "special" if you were one of the folks to discover them "early." Needless to say, the reports I've heard back on the new album have been mixed. Sure, we're all big enough fans where we can't hate it, but we can all sense the backlash that could happen at any minute.

...Frankly, other albums came to mind as well. There was the switch with The Killers where Hot Fuss definitely seemed like a more pop/synth/indie feel to something that was definitely more of a "dark" emo/indie feel. Someone had once described The Killers as "the best British band from America," but by the time Sam's Town dropped, it felt much more American than before... Even more so with their compilation album Sawdust as well.

Then I got around to digging some more in my room and the transitions for My Chemical Romance were quite interesting as well. The change between I Bought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge was one that drew a lot of criticism, and continues to draw a bit of controversy. Similarly, by the time The Black Parade hit the streets, it felt like another extension of "growing up" (for the lack of a better description) in sound and lyrics.

So, the question is, why are so many bands evolving as they are? Friends of mine argue that many of them really don't need to change, that is, that their sound had already been very unique and consequently they maintain a very dedicated fan base. However, one could easily argue that the change in sound is necessary to cater to more people, or in some cases, change the game to make things less boring... Fall Out Boy comes to mind there, as their sound seems to have changed little from album-to-album.

Furthermore, what effect do these changes have on the fans? I know that I've argued that it will drive away the "poser" kids, which is good for folks like me, but that being said, it seems to galvanize the bands from gaining anyone new.

===

...Also, can you think of any other changes in sound that maybe has pleased or disappointed you? I recall a lot of people being quite upset back in the late '90s about the change with Metallica, but I can't think of too many other more-recent ones...

 

[exigeracer]

Like you've said your own music tastes has changed, for the same reason the bands themselves have changed. Something they liked can now seem boring and they try something new. Why should anyone criticize them for that?

This borders on issues of "selling out" as well (a term I never liked applying to music), when a band takes a more mainstream-friendly sound to have critics call them sell outs. This scenario is so questionable that nobody can really answer the question (I can think of a certain punk band that suddenly went pop and opened for an Avril Lavigne tour, only to answer "be able to play infront of thousand of screaming pre-teen girls? We couldn't say no"). Similarly, The Offspring always release their hit single as radio singalong pop, but the rest of their albums have mostly remained the same in spirit. Neat little trick to make a living and still do what you love.

I always disliked this whole comparison thing between bands and albums, which only really happens in the big mainstream music scene anyways. I just take music for face value when I listen to it. Of course it makes more sense to keep the album in context with previous releases, but I've woken up some days and played really slow songs on my guitar, then played some upbeat tunes the next. Whatever feels right, as an artist, should be what they put out on their album.

Similarly, by the time The Black Parade hit the streets, it felt like another extension of "growing up" (for the lack of a better description) in sound and lyrics.

Grown ups don't make that kind of music...

 

[Muzaffar]

Well I guess it depends really. It may be good cause the artists try to experiment into different genres and make new fans (as they all say... ) But it could be bad because they are just "sellouts" (meaning, like exigeracer says, selling out to make themselves popular and make $$$ 👎) Many bands are accused of this (A7X, MCR, FOB, etc.) A good example of a better musical style is Radiohead. Each album is so different, and yet, all of them still sounds as good as their last album. 👍 The difference from "Hail To The Thief" to "In Rainbows" are big!

Another good example (for me) is Mew. Although I might guess that very few people might know them, their musical style is very "different" from what mainstream songs sounds like (which is why I liked them in the first place) and each of their songs are just..... The musical style from their first 2 albums and their recent album called "And The Glass Handed Kites" is pretty amazing. Although "And The Glass Handed Kites" didn't get as much attention as their other albums, but its something worthwhile to listen compared to the the same old 🤬 that other artist makes......

In the end, its still up to the person really. If your not sure how good their song is, preview it somewhere else before buying or download their album somewhere.... Indie FTW!!!!!! 👍

 

[YSSMAN]

I'd say the industry is facing an interesting choice; With the success of In Rainbows and the Trent Reznor thingamajig with digital distribution (without record labels), one begins to wonder if we'll see the "selling out" stop in the interest of doing their own thing. In an odd, but similar story, one recalls Kelly Clarkson being told that her last record "wasn't good enough," and after becoming increasingly frustrated with her label, she broke off and did her own thing... With great success.

Odd really. One wonders what the music industry would be like without labels, furthermore, if we'd see these kinds of changes from album to album this frequently...

 

[exigeracer]

I'd say the industry is facing an interesting choice

a) the industry isn't facing this choice.

b) it isn't a choice.

The digital revolution has already ruined major record labels, mostly helped by the industry not wanting to adapt to changing consumer demands. Now we have many artists dropping albums for free of charge and free of DRM protection. The labels saw this a loooong time ago but was too stubborn and greedy to change their ways. Take a look at the print news industry, which took a massive hit in the recent decade because of the internet. They still exist and manage, albeit on a smaller scale thanks to the aura of the tangible, but things aren't going to be the same. Why wouldthe consumer subscribe to a daily newspaper when they can get it far quicker (both in delivery and actual relevancy) and most importantly for free on the internet? The same thing is and will happen to the entire music industry.

 

[superberkut]

The biggest disappointment was the change in mainstream music during the 1990s and 2000s from the 1980s. I am an oddity, however; not many people appreciate hair metal. But bands such as Greenday, Three Days Grace, Panic! At The Disco and Fallout Boy, I feel, are ruining the genre...

Of course, there are exceptions.

 

[YSSMAN]

I appreciate metal... I'm just not sure I'd call Panic! a part of it...

That being said, MCR claims that they're "not emo," nearly metal. Take your pick there.

===

As for the music "revolution," my guess is that more record companies may give the Radiohead method a try if it continues to work. That all being said of course, I have a hard time imagining it working out well for the smaller bands with smaller fan bases.

 

[exigeracer]

As for the music "revolution," my guess is that more record companies may give the Radiohead method a try if it continues to work. That all being said of course, I have a hard time imagining it working out well for the smaller bands with smaller fan bases.

Myspace and OiNK and other sites like that have helped hundreds and hundreds small bands through the propagation of completely free music. The internet is what Nirvana was in the 90s; bridging the gap between underground and mainstream, just far larger.

Take a look at it, torrents and fan-driven music sharing sites are "the most complete and most efficient music distribution model the world has ever known" (Sheridan). Too bad the corporations refused to believe this, and now are slowly and painfully dying.

 

[YSSMAN]

To some extent it seems to depend on what kind of music it is too. Fueled by Ramen seems to come to mind as a label that has embraced the internet for promotion of its music... That, or its just because they promote most of the artists I care about...

 

[Prosthetic]

But bands such as Greenday, Three Days Grace, Panic! At The Disco and Fallout Boy, I feel, are ruining the genre...

You just stabbed me in the heart, really really hard. Calling these bands any kind of metal, ANY, is just soooo wrong.

They haven't ruined anything for metal; and I bet you any die hard metal fan would agree. They would just shake their head and say that they have no metal quality's in them. Metal is supposed to make your testosterone levels go up, your head to make a banging motion, and you have to feel like you are getting shot in the chest.

That being said, a lot of bands (of all genres of music) like to change style between CD's so it doesn't all sound the same. And your music taste SHOULD change, you do get bored listening to the same stuff all the time.

I don't see why changing taste could ever be bad; It shows that you are opening your eyes more.

On the whole internet deal; Since file sharing became popular (and I got this stat from my music tech teacher who plays music as a second living in the city (SF) ) that the cd purchases of underground bands has gone up 25%. So in the end the sell outs seems to be the ones that suffer and not the ones that make multi-million dollar record deals.

 

[Muzaffar]

The biggest disappointment was the change in mainstream music during the 1990s and 2000s from the 1980s. I am an oddity, however; not many people appreciate hair metal. But bands such as Greenday, Three Days Grace, Panic! At The Disco and Fallout Boy, I feel, are ruining the genre...

Of course, there are exceptions.

Its because of MTV..... :rolleyes
But I agree on those bands you've mentioned...... not to say the ruin the genre, but more like selling out themselves instead of making good music..... Never really liked mainstream music because of this (and yet, I still listen to them )

I appreciate metal... I'm just not sure I'd call Panic! a part of it...

That being said, MCR claims that they're "not emo," nearly metal. Take your pick there.

===

As for the music "revolution," my guess is that more record companies may give the Radiohead method a try if it continues to work. That all being said of course, I have a hard time imagining it working out well for the smaller bands with smaller fan bases.

The MCR claim is just bullcrap! If they are not emo, whats up with the emo look and the emo songs? I mean, WTF? Where is the old MCR that I know of.......

I also agree with exigeracer on the whole corporation thing. But just don't think the record label is going to lose anything. They can still make money from the concerts, merchandise and sponsors....... But really, I better download music from some music blog or P2P clients than buying a CD unless of course I couldn't find the music anywhere on the internet.....

 

[exigeracer]

I also agree with exigeracer on the whole corporation thing. But just don't think the record label is going to lose anything. They can still make money from the concerts, merchandise and sponsors....... But really, I better download music from some music blog or P2P clients than buying a CD unless of course I couldn't find the music anywhere on the internet.....

Record labels have already taken big losses. They make barely any money from concerts and merch, it's all in the music sales.

The labels have two things: ownership and distribution. With the internet they clearly lose the distribution of hard-copy music, which is half of their business. They then try to make it up by overprotecting the ownership of their music as DRM-reinforced mp3 downloads. The smart music listener is now realising how unfair and downright stupid this is, so they continue with other illegal sources and getting music from DRM-free sources.

Remember when Ford wanted to sue that Mustang club for using "their" cars in a calendar, and everyone thought it was ludicrous? How is this different from buying an mp3 online and the record label won't let you put it on a different device?

Bottom line is, if you buy music to support the artist (very few actually do), the best way is to not buy their album, but rather support them with concert and merch purchases, which go more or less directly into the pockets of the musicians and not the big corporation. Support bands like NIN, Radiohead (In Rainbows shouldn't have been so lossy as a free download) and Green Day who have released new music free of charge and copyright protection.

 

[superberkut]

Prosthetic, I don't mean to call them metal, but I grouped hair metal and their music style as, "mainstream". I would kill myself if I said Greenday was metal. Instead, I said Greenday was ruining the mainstream music genre.

As for Muzaffar Musa's post, that was likely what I meant to say.

 

[Prosthetic]

Prosthetic, I don't mean to call them metal, but I grouped hair metal and their music style as, "mainstream". I would kill myself if I said Greenday was metal. Instead, I said Greenday was ruining the mainstream music genre.

As for Muzaffar Musa's post, that was likely what I meant to say.

Ah! Ok, I feel much better now. And really I totally agree with you. But Green Day certainly didn't just come around, they where around in the early 90's, and that music was MUCH better.

Old mainstream music certainly was much better, now I just don't even bother. And personally I really don't want my bands to be playing on MTV because they would have to water down their lyrics and videos. That certainly = FAIL.

Sellouts=FAIL.





If you really want to know what to listen to, go to
"pandora.com" It's a online radio, where you can name a band you like, and it will play a song of that band, and then play similar stuff. It's how I discovered almost all the bands I listen to.