I’ve noticed that the majority of bands I’ve loved since I was younger have entirely abandoned their old style for music that feels far more bland and uninteresting. It breaks my heart to no end when a band I’ve loved releases a new album and by halfway through you’re done with it.
Lately this has been happening too often to me. Anyone else notice this with their music selection of choice?
Of Monsters and Men disappointed me with their second album.
As mentioned by another user, Mumford & Sons went a weird and unfortunate direction.I’ll say that I am glad that The Postal Service dropped one perfect album and never released anything ever again.
Also, while Daft Punk did change over time (maybe hardcore house fans grew to hate them), I would argue that their albums only got better over time and their final album was absolute musical perfection.
Their breaking up was the most bittersweet decision I’ve seen in music.The Postal Service got a cease-and-desist from the United States Postal Service, and that’s why they never dropped another album under that name. It was bullshit, but Gibbard broke up with his gf (the female vocalist on the album) and I guess he didn’t feel it was worth fighting for a side project.
Yeah I now recall reading that.
I also recently read that he is aware that he has never had such an inspired and creative moment in his life since 2003. Whatever the case, I’m glad they dropped that one magical gem and that was that. You can’t top perfection.
The shortest concert I’ve ever been to was Monsters & Men right after they dropped their first album. They came on stage, played literally every song, and then said “thanks that’s all of them guys” and left. To be fair, it was all of them.
I went to a number of hardcore punk gigs in the late '90s, where there’d be 8 bands on the flyer, because they’d all take to the stage, spend 20 minutes blasting through their entire 30 song catalogue, then down tools and fuck off to the bar.
It was glorious.
Were we at a concert together?
Another Postal Service fan! Ben Gibbard’s greatest achievement imo. What an album!
I stopped bothering about it. I’m thankful for the albums that the band released when the style fit my taste and I keep listening to these albums. Let the musicians do what they want. Even if it seems bland, maybe it’s what they really want to do.
This is where I am with 65daysofstatic. I’ll always have the records up to Wild Light, and I’ll always love them, and while replicr, 2019 is too ambient and experimental for my tastes, I love that they’re doing what they find interesting and fun.
Kinda the same with John K. Samson, in that as much as I want him to make more music, to reform The Weakerthans and tell more stories, I respect that he’s moved on from it for now. All of his records are still there to be heard, there just probably won’t be any new ones.
One of my favorite bands is Brand New, who had a different sound and feel to each album all while having a few threads that could tie between them. It was enjoyable to experience the arc of the phases the band went through in their lives. Likewise for The Beatles, or Queen, The Who, or more modern bands like the RxBandits (ska -> progrock) or Streetlight Manifesto (ska -> Roma jazz/Calypso/‘other’).
Then there’s creative concept bands like The Decemberists who dig deep into a style for an album, and the dedication to that version of the art form is a cherry on top of the musicality. Maybe Panic! At the Disco falls into this category too for some.
(The above is not an exhaustive list)
Then there’s, well, medio-core
Brand New, like Modest Mouse, would massively evolve between albums. That’s different than a complete shift in sound (although similar in concept). Built to Spill kinda did this too, although to a much lesser degree.
Both are amazing, btw, and I love them both for it.
I appreciate you commenting, because I’ll certainly be checking out Built to Spill tomorrow! Also because it’s a good take on the album timeline of those bands, for sure. There’s a very clear memory of listening to Your Favorite Weapon on the way to the record shop and going “ohhhhhhhh I get it!” listening to Deja Entendu on the way home. I ended up ordering the special vinyl of Daisy and Science Fiction but when I first heard Daisy I was all
Gee, thanks! It’s rare that I get positive feedback regarding this sort of comment. I’m glad to hear that this positively impacted your music listening experience!
If you like MM, Built to Spill will be right up your alley. Two of my favorite bands. The first two albums especially Keep It Like a Secret and Perfect from Now On, are classics of PNW indie rock.
I’ve not listened to anything from Modest Mouse since We Were Dead Before The Ship Even Sank. I see they’ve released a couple albums since then, how do these compare to their older albums?
There’s been two albums since. Strangers to Ourselves has some gems but I think a lot of people found to be a weaker release. The most recent one, The Golden Casket, I liked quite a bit better.
Tragically, Jeremiah Green, the drummer and one of the founding members of MM, passed away in Dec 2022. They haven’t disbanded or anything but their output might change pretty significantly from here on out.
Ah that’s sad to hear about their drummer.
I’ll give The Golden Casket a listen to, thanks!
My three favorite artists are Miles Davis, David Bowie, and Kanye West. Three artists that changed their sound every single album.
So no.
Changed vs blanded. Different is OK, boring is not. Many of my favorite bands were hardcore and then went soft, no bueno.
From my view, you are choosing to create a subset of “changed” that has no objective meaning, “blanded”. This can mean anything to anyone. Please don’t misunderstand, because there is nothing inherently wrong with doing this.
Its just that I find when I try to define what I mean in strictly objective terms, then I am able to pen a better description. It improved my communication, this may not apply to you, but its what came to mind.
More bland, less exciting. Mellowing out. Switching from hot sauce to mild sauce. Sometimes it is becoming more corporate or more palatable, losing their sharp edges.
And I assume you like your music with those edges, less corporate. That makes sense. Funny, your way of describing things reminds me of me. I have similar preferences. Have a nice day and thanks for the reply.
Do we need strictly objective terms though? Everyone understands intuitively what “blanded” means
Not really, no. I’ve already gone through all the Metallica stuff when I was younger, so I don’t have a lot of energy to be mad about that kind of stuff anymore. I tend to figure that bands will change overtime, and even if they change their style, they often go back to their older styles later on. And if they don’t, there are thousands of other great bands out there.
Also, one thing I love doing is getting into a band after they’ve already gone through their controversial changes, and I often find myself really liking their “bad” albums because I don’t have the expectations I would have had if I was already a fan before those albums came out. A lot of metal bands got really weird in the 90’s, and there is a lot of really interesting stuff there.
For me, no. Because as an artist. They are inherently porous, they absorb everything around them, consciously or not. And by that, they can sometimes get inspired by things that differ from their original inspirations.
Thus I understand that they will inevitably change as time goes on. The only difference is how fast and drastic that change is.
Also creative people get energized by change.
Back in the mid 90s there was this band Radiohead that only had one album and I totally loved their music. I went to see them play live and there must have been less than 50 people there, it was really fun.
Later they changed their style and became really popular, but they and all their fans seem to hate that first album and it’s the only one I really like.
Kid A felt like Radiohead reacting to the enormity of OK Computer by shrinking into a band that no one would want listen to, but it didn’t work and they just got bigger.
For what it’s worth, I really enjoy both sides of Radiohead. The early, straightforward indie is nice for my nostalgia, to remind me how I felt when I first heard Creep and Street Spirit. Then I still have the newer stuff for when I want to get lost in sound with my good headphones. A Moon Shaped Pool is an intriguing record.
I still love Pablo Honey and The Bends. It took me a while to understand the new direction they went in, but I’m so glad I did.
This can go a number of ways, I think.
You get bands who hold on to their original sound with a vice-like grip, and invariably get kinda stale (I’m thinking Green Day here), you get bands that adapt their sound to their current circumstances and current market trends, who end up getting kinda stale. Then you get bands who just do what they damn well please, and that one is interesting to me.
Ultimately, though, we mostly get the second of those. Bands like Coldplay, whose first few albums are interesting, in a middle-class-dinner-party kind of way, but by the fourth record had hit a point where they needed to keep making money, but maybe didn’t have the inspiration they needed to make interesting music. U2, Snow Patrol, Biffy Clyro, and sadly (from my personal view) the Foo Fighters. They churn out records, sell the merch, play the stadia around the world, but the music doesn’t move me in any way, not like their earlier stuff does.
But I don’t blame them; they’re reacting to the world we live in, making music is their career, and they’re under contract to bang out a new collection of tunes every couple of years, whether they’re inspired to or not. Having said that about the Food though, their latest album is genuinely wonderful, so it’s not all bad.
I don’t think Greenday stuck to their laurels. They were straight up punk in Dookie, but got much more pop and slow and whiny as they progressed. Wake me up when September ends.
Mumford and Sons did this and broke my heart when they did.
Glad to hear this one. Their third album seriously had me wondering if it was incorrectly labeled.
What a dumpster fire.
I still love their first two albums of course.
Sometimes I love it sometimes I hate it. Sometimes I hate it at first then grow to love it. Radiohead is a great example of change that I love. First album was mediocre rock, second was much better rock, third was one of the best albums of all time layered… space rock? Then the biggest shift of all to Kid A. Over and over again.
David Bowie is another example of successfully changing sound over and over.
Beastie Boys went from a hardcore band to hip hop.
I know there are examples of bands where I didn’t like the change but I guess I remember the ones I like more. Weezer and Smashing Pumpkins are two bands that got worse over time, although they didn’t change their sound up quite as much as the above mentioned.
I remember when Spinal Tap became “Spinal Tap mark 2” and went on a Jazz Odyssey
Kinda confusing when they rebranded as The Folksmen though.
Sometimes I like their new music, sometimes I don’t. When I don’t, I am bummed that I don’t like the music. But if it is a change the band wanted to make, I am happy they get to make that music. I would hate to be told what kinds of art I should or shouldn’t make, and at the end of the day the artists I love are the same; they’re just people trying to create something that (hopefully) represents something to them. I think because music tends to affect people on a deeply emotional level, it has a particular sting when a band no longer resonates with you and you feel almost like you’ve lost a connection to someone who understood you. It is understandable to be sad that they are no longer making music you enjoy, and it is OK to hope that they someday make music you want again. But at the same time, it should be celebrated when artists try to expand, learn, and grow, IMO.
Look, I’ve seen this reply a couple times now and of course an artist getting to make what they want is important. That goes without saying.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t disappoint me when I dislike their new sound. It can be crushing when you adore a band and you know you’ll never get more of that art that affected you greatly emotionally.
Yeah, it really Toads the Wet Sproket!
There are a few bands like Beck who I’ve been able to continue to enjoy throughout changing of styles in their albums, but for 95% of rock bands they have a “golden period” of a few albums which I like and then I don’t like anything after that.
U2, Yes, Rush, Metallica, all have 3-6 albums which I like, usually at or near the beginning of their careers and often 10-20 more which I don’t like at all. Usually the inflection point when I begin to dislike them is when they try to pivot to the new “hip and cool” musical style of the age and they just fail.
Metallica trying to go more grunge with their self titled Metallica, or Rush trying to go 80’s pop with Signals or Yes doing the same with 90125. U2 didn’t change that much but just started to suck after Zooropa (and it was probably only Brian Eno’s work that saved that one).
This doesn’t seem to be the same for Jazz though. While Jazz musicians do tend to have some bad albums, they don’t seem to be grouped together in the same way as rock artists for the most part. Miles Davis or Bill Evans have shitloads of good albums.
So many of my favorites mellowed out too far. Greenday, Metallica, Crystal Castles, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Franz Ferdinand, Blink 182, A Perfect Circle, the Black Keys, Bush, Elliot Smith (he didn’t get more mellow, but he started adding superfluous drums and such), Fever Ray, Foo Fighters, the White Stripes, Orgy, REM, RHCP, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Toadies, Type O Negative.
As a counterpoint:
Tool was my favorite band in high school when Aenima came out. Then Lateralus was released in college and it became my favorite album. But when 10000 days was released in grad school I hated it. It took me ten years but I came around and now really enjoy it.
