View Full Version : How do you feel when artists change their sound?

July 6th, 2011, 1:40 PM
I'm sure it's happened to a band/artist you like before. They put out an album you really enjoy and then when they release their new album it sounds like a new band/singer/genre. Do you like when artists experiement with other genres and styles of playing? Or do you prefer that they stick with what made them successful within their fanbase?

Personally, I don't like when they stray too far from their sound. I think it's cool if they're influenced by a certain genre, but don't make their whole album sound like it. For example: I loved Christina Aguilera's Stripped album and even her Back to Basics album which was blues inspired and was good because she still kept her same style of lyrics and pop music. However, her Bionic album strayed away from her poppy sound and was all mostly electronic sounding and her lyrics were shallow and not what she normally does.

I also got Hollywood Undead's new album and it sounded like a whole new band playing. I think they should have kept it to where they still had songs that created them a fanbase in the first place. Which is how I feel about most artists, they shouldn't abandon their roots altogether.

July 6th, 2011, 1:53 PM
It depends. Slight change? Okay. Major change? STUPID BAND @$#%!* YOU ALL AAAAAARRRGH *cough Metallica cough*

July 6th, 2011, 2:37 PM
It honestly doesn't matter all that much to me. I'm one of those people that gets into bands for a long haul, not just for a petty album or two. As a musician myself, I can understand the change that artists undertake, and I'm alright with it as long as I can tell that they're still doing it from their hearts. Plus, when a band explores a new sound, they're expanding their boundaries and exploring new things, and that's what makes musicians great.

July 6th, 2011, 4:25 PM
let an artist evolve. sometimes artists take turns for the worst but i like to think they aren't there to cater to me, i'd rather support artists i respect than give them crap for wanting to experiment.

Eliminator Jr.
July 6th, 2011, 7:07 PM
I like it when bands evolve. Sometimes its for worse, in which I definitely don't like, but often it's for better. If somebody honestly wants an artist to not evolve - consider two years, which is more or less the average gap between albums for most bands: how much has your music taste changed from two years ago? Keep in mind that every member of the band has gained a wide number of influences towards their songwriting in that time - you can't expect them to just bring out the same stuff again and again (as much as many people (myself included) would enjoy it).

July 8th, 2011, 6:44 AM
Change can mean good I'll enjoy the music whether it sounds different from last time.

July 8th, 2011, 8:30 AM
If change is what they need to keep themselves going then don't let me stop them. Even if they don't sound as good, well, at least they tried and got it out of their system and will probably learn from it. If I've got enough respect for an artist to listen to whatever they make it might even help me branch out into styles of music I wouldn't otherwise try.

Rogue planet
July 8th, 2011, 10:28 AM
I tend to enjoy it. I'm sure no matter what direction they take, my favourite artists will always make something I like. In fact, all of my favourites have spanned a wide variety of genres throughout their career. It's not always better than their previous efforts, but they have yet to do something that's actually bad.

I really don't want to see them churn out the same stuff over and over, and they have no duty to please others. I know if I was in a band I'd want to make music for myself, not to entertain others.

Alley Cat
July 8th, 2011, 11:23 AM
Change isn't necesarrily a bad thing. But I can't say that I will like the band if they change their sound. Even if they still sound good, the band wont be the band that I fell in love with. I liked the sound that they already had. But you also have to look at it from the band's point of view. Singing with such a similar sound is bound to get boring. Plus they need to change and mix things up, otherwise they will get accused of having the same run of the mill songs with different lyrics, chords etc. So, slight deviation is good. But when the change is such a major change, then it is bad, and I really can't stand listening to the band anymore.

Captain Hobo.
July 8th, 2011, 1:33 PM
I don't really mind it, but when they use a computer or an editing device to play with there voice I hate it >:(

I am sure most everyone has do it before, but I hate it when it is noticeable.

Careful With That Axe, Pichu!
July 9th, 2011, 10:42 AM
I think it's cool only if it isn't to be more accessible, profitable or popular.

Mr Cat Dog
July 11th, 2011, 10:58 AM
Variety is the spice of life. Even if the change is for the worse, if the artist/band in question can learn from the mistake and improve, a change would ultimately be for the best.

July 11th, 2011, 2:13 PM
I think it's cool only if it isn't to be more accessible, profitable or popular.
Why else would you do anything if you're in the entertainment business? O_o

Anyway, I'm okay with it as long as they seem like the same artist/band/group in some recognizable audible fashion. If they're just "Band X" in name only after their evolution then I'd probably move on, provided I don't like the new sound.

For instance, The Beatles changed their sound many times over but they're still identifiable as that group even as they transition from Mersey Beat to folk-rock to psychedelic to purely experimental to rock. And I love it all.

July 11th, 2011, 2:18 PM
Why would it matter? This is one of the problems I have with the music industry - artists get vilified for not changing their sound, and yet they get vilified for changing their sound anyways. Just becuase Linkin Park isn't as heavy as they used to be, that doesn't mean their new sound is automatically bad. If the musics good, then It's good - regardless of what label people stick to it.