When bands "lose it"

[Yippee38]

The QR thread brought up something in my mind that I've thought about many, many times. It has to do with bands who were once great, but become utterly "meh."

Has anybody else noticed that for a lot of bands, when their lyrics suddenly all have ethical/moral/political themes, that the band suddenly loses that whatever that made them great?

QR has always had political/ethical themes, but not every song. You could argue that O:MC did, but that's different as it's a concept album. Empire is almost entirely ethical/political. It's almost like they've run out of things to write about.

I noticed the same thing about Rush. Rush used to have very fantastic songs. Sure, some of them had political/ethical themes, but they were the minority. Around Subdivisions, those types of songs seemed to increase dramatically over the fantastic themes. I lost interest soon after.

Obviously, people can argue all day long that QR or Rush are still great. Sure. To some people they are. But I think their audience has changed as a result of the change in their music. You certainly can't argue that their music hasn't changed significantly.

I've thought of other examples in the past, but I can't think of them right now. I'm sure people can also come up with examples of bands that defie this theory.

That doesn't hold true for some bands though, as they've always been very political. I'm no expert, but I'd guess that PoS is a perfect example of this type of band. I've only got two PoS albums, so maybe I'm wrong.

I don't know if it is cause an effect. I mean, just because a band starts writing songs with societal themes, does not mean they are going to get boring. Maybe it has to do with the passion which drive the songwriters. If their passion for creating something unique goes away and is replaced be some sort of need to make the world a better place, their songwriting will definitely change. Maybe it's that lack of passion for creating uniqueness that makes them less interesting.

So what do you think? Is there a connection there? Or do you see something else as a common link?

 

[adaher]

Politics can ruin an artist, although I think it actually made the Scorpions better.

I think the real issue is that artists start to take themselves too seriously. Or they suddenly develop a distaste of what made them famous and decide they want to do something else, but still sell it under the old name to make money. IMO, bands should adopt a new band name if they are going to abandon a sound entirely, rather than just evolve it. I have little patience for bands that think they are being heroic by abandoning their commercial sound for something more eclectic, but still use the marketable band name to sell it, thus screwing fans who buy their albums without hearing samples. Half the reason we have so much downloading is bands engaged in that practice.

 

[nomisofsiman]

The QR thread brought up something in my mind that I've thought about many, many times. It has to do with bands who were once great, but become utterly "meh."

Has anybody else noticed that for a lot of bands, when their lyrics suddenly all have ethical/moral/political themes, that the band suddenly loses that whatever that made them great?

QR has always had political/ethical themes, but not every song. You could argue that O:MC did, but that's different as it's a concept album. Empire is almost entirely ethical/political. It's almost like they've run out of things to write about.

I noticed the same thing about Rush. Rush used to have very fantastic songs. Sure, some of them had political/ethical themes, but they were the minority. Around Subdivisions, those types of songs seemed to increase dramatically over the fantastic themes. I lost interest soon after.

Obviously, people can argue all day long that QR or Rush are still great. Sure. To some people they are. But I think their audience has changed as a result of the change in their music. You certainly can't argue that their music hasn't changed significantly.

I've thought of other examples in the past, but I can't think of them right now. I'm sure people can also come up with examples of bands that defie this theory.

That doesn't hold true for some bands though, as they've always been very political. I'm no expert, but I'd guess that PoS is a perfect example of this type of band. I've only got two PoS albums, so maybe I'm wrong.

I don't know if it is cause an effect. I mean, just because a band starts writing songs with societal themes, does not mean they are going to get boring. Maybe it has to do with the passion which drive the songwriters. If their passion for creating something unique goes away and is replaced be some sort of need to make the world a better place, their songwriting will definitely change. Maybe it's that lack of passion for creating uniqueness that makes them less interesting.

So what do you think? Is there a connection there? Or do you see something else as a common link?

First off, I don't think Rush is a good band to compare this to. Their last album was pretty good and they're still filling up arenas, so I wouldn't exactly say their star is waning. It was at one point before S & A but not since.

Anyways, I don't think it has as much to do with the themes as much as it has to do with bands changing what made them great in the first place. A lot of bands I understand they want to go in different directions, but if you do that too much and it strays to what brought people to the band, that in my opinion is the culprit. This is what happened to Queensryche. Their material sucks now, but it did slowly but surely start to change ever since Empire in my opinion. They went more commercial and laid back, and outside of OM: 2 (which in no way am I saying it's a good album) their sound as been very laid back.

Sometimes yes bands start to take themselves too seriously but at the same time, changing their themes can help them. In the end I think it has more to do with the music changing than the themes. I have no problem with bands wanting to experiment with their sound, but sometimes they go too far.

 

[batmura]

I'd guess that PoS is a perfect example of this type of band. I've only got two PoS albums, so maybe I'm wrong.

Well, POS' Remedy Lane is easily one of the most personal, non-political albums ever. Also one of the greatest, if not THE greatest disc of the decade (2000-2010).

 

[Jasonic]

Anyways, I don't think it has as much to do with the themes as much as it has to do with bands changing what made them great in the first place.

This.

Long running bands SERIOUSLY should take a few general business classes.

Your band is indeed a business.

Any successful business has a mission statement that should RARELY change.

The problem with a band like QR is that they have changed their "mission" (No pun intended), too many times.

Brand name recognition can only go SO far if what drew people to the brand initially is no longer present.

 

[eppst1]

I really don't agree with that statement Jason. I think a lot of the time bands "lose" it because they, the band themselves change. Either it's because they are older and wiser, or just in a different place then they were when they first started out. Look at bands like Amorphis or Samael. You think those bands lost it? Did they change for monetary reasons? Did they change because of political beliefs? I don't think so. I believe their personal view points, new band members, or even musical abilities changed over the years and they became the bands/musicians they are now. It has nothing to do with "selling out" or political viewpoints. It just happened.
But that's just my opinion.

 

[nomisofsiman]

I really don't agree with that statement Jason. I think a lot of the time bands "lose" it because they, the band themselves change. Either it's because they are older and wiser, or just in a different place then they were when they first started out. Look at bands like Amorphis or Samael. You think those bands lost it? Did they change for monetary reasons? Did they change because of political beliefs? I don't think so. I believe their personal view points, new band members, or even musical abilities changed over the years and they became the bands/musicians they are now. It has nothing to do with "selling out" or political viewpoints. It just happened.
But that's just my opinion.

There are always exceptions to the rule. Amorphis is one of them. If I remember correctly Amorphis wasn't THAT popular before they started changing their sound and what Jason and I said was basically what makes bands "lose it" is when they change their sound drastically from what made them popular in the first place. Amorphis has become more popular and in my opinion a better band upon changing. I can't comment on Samael as I don't know much of their history and how popular they've been in each era of their career.

I actually don't think many bands (at least the ones I like) change for monetary reasons, outside of some like Metallica of course. Queensryche while they did a tad for Empire, they changed drastically in a much more progressive and laid back sort of way, mostly because that's what Tate enjoys more of.

 

[dcowboys311]

I actually don't think many bands (at least the ones I like) change for monetary reasons, outside of some like Metallica of course. Queensryche while they did a tad for Empire, they changed drastically in a much more progressive and laid back sort of way, mostly because that's what Tate enjoys more of.

Exactly.

You can't expect a 35 year old to make the same music he made when he was 20.

 

[Jasonic]

Look at bands like Amorphis or Samael. You think those bands lost it?

Not sure these are examples I speak of.

Amorphis and Samael are bands that simply changed their sound, but still maintained their core formula and ability to create decent music.

QR are trying every cliched trick in the book to keep their name out there. (IE - Novelty tours, repeated live albums and compilations, cover album, Part II of a classic album, etc, etc).

They went from being innovative musicians to fighting just to keep their name in circulation.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that in QRs case, the loss of focus and mission extends far beyond just the change in musical style.

 

[eppst1]

Exactly.

You can't expect a 35 year old to make the same music he made when he was 20.

That's what I was trying to say - maybe it didn't across that way.

 

[eppst1]

Not sure these are examples I speak of.

Amorphis and Samael are bands that simply changed their sound, but still maintained their core formula and ability to create decent music.

QR are trying every cliched trick in the book to keep their name out there. (IE - Novelty tours, repeated live albums and compilations, cover album, Part II of a classic album, etc, etc).

They went from being innovative musicians to fighting just to keep their name in circulation.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that in QRs case, the loss of focus and mission extends far beyond just the change in musical style.

"...ability to create decent music." or "...trying every cliched trick" aren't really hard and true facts - they are just opinions. Don't you think fans of Amorphis' "Isthmus" or "Lakes" era music thinks Amorphis "lost it" when they moved away from that sound? Or, on the reverse side of that - people like their newer stuff but don't care for the old stuff. Does that mean they "gained it"? I just think some people change over time, and so will their music. Same with people that listen to it - do you listen to the same music when you were 5, 8 or 12? Does that mean you "lost" it?
I really don't think bands "lose it", they change.
But that's just my opinion - maybe I lost it!

 

[nomisofsiman]

"...ability to create decent music." or "...trying every cliched trick" aren't really hard and true facts - they are just opinions. Don't you think fans of Amorphis' "Isthmus" or "Lakes" era music thinks Amorphis "lost it" when they moved away from that sound? Or, on the reverse side of that - people like their newer stuff but don't care for the old stuff. Does that mean they "gained it"? I just think some people change over time, and so will their music. Same with people that listen to it - do you listen to the same music when you were 5, 8 or 12? Does that mean you "lost" it?
I really don't think bands "lose it", they change.
But that's just my opinion - maybe I lost it!

I get what you were trying to say, but like I said I don't think Amorphis fits the "losing it" argument. Also, as I think someone said here or another thread, when a band changes who they are and why they had popularity, that's not cool and pisses off the fans that were there for them in the early days. If their tastes change, I have no problem with that, but I would say that if that is the case they need to either go solo or change the band name.

 

[eppst1]

I get what you were trying to say, but like I said I don't think Amorphis fits the "losing it" argument. Also, as I think someone said here or another thread, when a band changes who they are and why they had popularity, that's not cool and pisses off the fans that were there for them in the early days. If their tastes change, I have no problem with that, but I would say that if that is the case they need to either go solo or change the band name.

Again - I think Amorphis *does* fit this example - it just depends on the fans opinion. You don't think when they went from Tales to Elegy it didn't make some of their fans mad? I know people that stopped listening to the band because they added clean vocals to Lakes. So I think Amorphis *could* fit into your statement about bands changing who they are and it makes people mad. It just comes down to the individual listener to say if the band has lost it or not.
So I'm a little confused on your comment about if their tastes change - that's OK, but if a band changes who they are that's not cool. How are these mutually exclusive? If a band changes who they are becuase their tastes change - is that OK?
I really believe it's up to the fan to decide if they lost it or not. I don't think there is any hard or fast rule laying out when a band is no longer true to themselves and should stop.

 

[Jasonic]

I am going to be extremely blunt here, in an effort to prevent going on for pages and pages.....
Take this as you will, and this might not go over well with some of ya.....

Amorphis and Samael have artistic integrity.

I can not say the same for QR.
To be honest, I think they simply continue to embarrass themselves which each move they make.

For the record, I do like QR (well, to be specific, up to and including EMPIRE).

 

[nomisofsiman]

I am going to be extremely blunt here, in an effort to prevent going on for pages and pages.....
Take this as you will, and this might not go over well with some of ya.....

Amorphis and Samael have artistic integrity.

I can not say the same for QR.
To be honest, I think they simply continue to embarrass themselves which each move they make.

For the record, I do like QR (well, to be specific, up to and including EMPIRE).

Agreed. Though I also enjoy Promised Land. Just like I said in the other thread, once Degarmo left the band really lost most of its integrity.

 

[Jasonic]

Agreed. Though I also enjoy Promised Land. Just like I said in the other thread, once Degarmo left the band really lost most of its integrity.

I think they still had "integrity" up until the past few years, to be honest.
I just don't really care for much post EMPIRE, though I think they still were concentrating on making music.

Now, they are simply whoring out the band name, milking it for all they can.

They are going to commit themselves to ending their career playing casinos and summerfests country-wide. (Granted, you can make a living on it, but can it really be THAT rewarding to be in a band where no one gives a damn about your new material???)

 

[nomisofsiman]

I think they still had "integrity" up until the past few years, to be honest.
I just don't really care for much post EMPIRE, though I think they still were concentrating on making music.

Now, they are simply whoring out the band name, milking it for all they can.

They are going to commit themselves to ending their career playing casinos and summerfests country-wide. (Granted, you can make a living on it, but can it really be THAT rewarding to be in a band where no one gives a damn about your new material???)

We shall see. I hope they don't turn into that, but with the things they've been doing recently I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Jasonic]

QR plays MANY casinos each tour........

 

[Stingray11214]

I think they still had "integrity" up until the past few years, to be honest.
I just don't really care for much post EMPIRE, though I think they still were concentrating on making music.

Now, they are simply whoring out the band name, milking it for all they can.

They are going to commit themselves to ending their career playing casinos and summerfests country-wide. (Granted, you can make a living on it, but can it really be THAT rewarding to be in a band where no one gives a damn about your new material???)

I would not blame QR for this.....I would blame Susan Tate for wanting to be a Sharon Osbourne wannabe for Geoff to lose his nuts with QR.