Do you think No change is not a bad thing

[silentlistener]

Hi All, Few bands change their style of music or mix a lot of musical influnces. just as an example i wanted more of DT'S Gallery style of music or Inflames Juster. But the next albums that came out were different (not a lot, but there was change)
should bands try to repeate it for fans even though they want to experiment or mature in their music?

Thanks for listening

 

[Final_Vision]

i feel that when musicians make music, they should make it for themselves (and usually do) because while fans love to have their wishes come true, not all fans can be pleased. Its all based on taste.

So when a band changes its because they felt the need too, if they feel the need to remain the same, its their choice. I personally give a lot of respect to bands who have the cajones to venture into unmarked territory. Its just how you mature as an artists, you usually wanna try new things and I would think staying the same for a while can get tiresome.

DT does it so damn well, cheers to the DT boys!

 

[Malaclypse]

come to think of it, i can hardly remember a band which held their style from the beginning to the end. only ac/dc would come to my mind. i can't understand how the drummer has the nerves to play the same beat on and on for 20 years

other opinions?

 

[Alfred]

Originally posted by silentlistener
Hi All, Few bands change their style of music or mix a lot of musical influnces. just as an example i wanted more of DT'S Gallery style of music or Inflames Juster. But the next albums that came out were different (not a lot, but there was change)
should bands try to repeate it for fans even though they want to experiment or mature in their music?

Er.. it could maybe seem a bit of a simplistic answer to you, but imo it's plain that a band should do exactly what it feels it should and wants to to. There are many different ways to change style or sound, exactly like there are a lot of ways to remain more or less in the same musical area, from an album to the next one. Some of these ways are good (i.e. I personally like them), some aren't. But putting the matter in sheer terms of variety-unvariety is a bit generalizing and not so straight-to-the-point, imo.

Bye

Alfred

 

[Arch]

Change is good.
Slayer's been doing their same stuff for 20 or so years and it get really old.

 

[FatherVic]

well it's not that easy Arch....
as it has been stated before (somwhere) changing it's more an urge for the band that normally comes out by itself...
I'm not with the ones who think money changed their style for money (since they had a lot already!!!) I guess they just felt like that, and it's been the worst disillussion ever (in music) for me!
Normally I love no drastic changes in many directions, and I think there are no bands with no changes I still like. Let's take manowar, loved them but now it's hard for me to stand their material. Rhapsody will be one of the dreaded ones, with the same lame stuff...and I loved them in the first release....
so I guess it's the mastery of the band which makes their evolution a good thing....see DT, their evolution it's great, see IF their evolution leads them to tour with Slipknot and wear workdress for gigs...

 

[GrandMelancholy]

i think change has gotta happen, if not for 'natural' progression of the music in its own right, then on the artists' perogative (the two are interrelated anyhow)...

and if it wasn't for 'change' there wouldn't be PROJECTOR!!



-GM (whos not making any sense cos she's just so bias for projector)

 

[FatherVic]

well there are some bands that GET stuck in the same stuff as always with the only thing that changes is the boredome that increases in the listeners (or not)