Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: baseball19225 on August 03, 2008, 11:06:43 pm
-
Sorry for the delay. Here’s a topic.
It’s not uncommon for bands to have lineup changes, which often result in a change of musical direction. SO I want this topic to be about the various changes that bands go through, and maybe see which ones have benefitted from them.
Lineup and directional changes can be separate, of course. Some musicians just want to keep experimenting and changing their sound. So I guess I’m making this about ANY changes that a band goes through, and looking to find which ones have been the best/worst.
Because a lot of people identify with the vocals in a song, it’s probably the hardest to survive a change in singers. Pink Floyd began with Syd Barrett at the helm, but he left after two albums. While those albums were important in their own right, the Roger Waters-led Floyd is generally the “classic” lineup, making The Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here, among others. Then when two albums were released after Waters left, they just didn’t feel the same.
However, bands such as AC/DC have survived this. But they sucked so I don’t care.
An interesting example is Joy Division / New Order. Due to an agreement within the band, Joy Division broke up after the death of their singer, Ian Curtis. However, they simply regrouped as New Order, with slight lineup changes, and have been just as influential as their predecessor.
That said, it can be other lineup changes that affect the band. I’m no fan, but I get that Guns N’ Roses without Slash wouldn’t fit. The Who and Led Zeppelin lost their drummers—The Who weren’t quite the same, and Led Zeppelin ended (though there were other factors in their demise).
As I said, sometimes these changes will prompt a change in music, with new members bringing in new ideas (look at what Frank Zappa did when he joined the Mothers). Of course, this doesn’t have to be the cause of directional changes—some bands just want to keep experimenting.
I guess Radiohead are a good example: listen to their first two albums, then see where they’ve gone now. Even each of their recent albums is different from the previous. I’d always thought Muse was kind of bland music, but enjoyed what I heard of their latest album. It seemed, to me, to be more rich and layered and whatever else ( :rolleyes: ).
Seems to me that the RZA went nuts and so new Wu-Tang albums haven’t felt like any of the older stuff. It’s far enough removed to be a change of direction in my eyes, anyway. Fortunately, I can enjoy both sides of Tom Waits’s catalogue: I like the older, jazzy stuff just as much as I like his weirder, post-Beefheart-discovery stuff.
Then, as an odd one: I like that Big Boi from OutKast has stuck with their original sound, but don’t enjoy Andre 3000’s work nearly as much. He went all into pop music and jazz and it didn’t work for me (except Hey Ya! because that song rules). Listening Speakerboxxx/The Love Below will explain what I mean.
I think that’s a few examples from me now, so on to you guys!
Here’s a few questions to consider:
1. Which bands have changed members, thus improving or destroying themselves for you?
2. Which bands have changed direction, thus improving or destroying themselves for you?
3. Is it possible to lose members and still be the same band?
Tell me what you think about changes then! GET TO IT.
-
Seems to me that the RZA went nuts and so new Wu-Tang albums haven’t felt like any of the older stuff. It’s far enough removed to be a change of direction in my eyes, anyway.
Just thought I'd touch on this. When Wu Tang started they gave RZA full control, he made a plan for everyone and they trusted him to get them out of the hood. He literally made hundreds of people very wealthy, Wu and the affiliates. Rza decided what type of album they should each make and what label they should be on but I think dissagreements began when members became individual superstars so he signed each member off and let them control what they wanted to do. I think the last album he was involved with was Supreme Clientele and that album is a classic, Wu started to fall off when RZA had less control and he started producing less. With 8 Diagrams Rza invested his own money and said he would be in control if they wanted, they agreed but didn't appreciate his style. He wanted all of the beats to be played by live musicians instead of just sampling and drum beats.
Also Wu members weren't "united" in the studio as they had been in the old days and it shows on this album. Everyone complained but didn't actually do anything to change it so RZA basicially did the album alone creatively, members wouldn't show up to premiers or perform new stuff.
This interview is pretty interesting: (Raekwon and Ghostface used to be enemies!) http://fatlacemagazine.uproxx.com/?p=670
Will answer the rest of the topic later.
-
Is it possible to lose members and still be the same band?
R.E.M.
anyway, I don't really pay attention to member changes in a band.
-
When a vocalist comes and goes I really hate that. Like Falconer when they lost Mathias Blad, or Cryptopsy without Lord Worm etc
-
I've heard good things, but it's not Alice in Chains without Layne Staley as far as I'm concerened.
Tom Waits changing direction was a good thing because all of his albums started to sound the same (actually I kind of want him to change direction again, but he's still doing great work so I won't complain.)
-
1. Faith No More - the loss of Chuck and Mike Patton joining them is quite easily the best thing that ever happened to the band. Usually a vocalist change can either make or break a band, but after hearing the material that Chuck did, it was quite obvious that the band needed to find someone better. To me, the band before Patton was still essentially Faith no More, as much of the material was written by the instrumentalists of the band, so the direction that they took after Patton joined didn't really change.
2. Disillusion - This was a great band with a sort of progressive metal/death metal/thrash style that was really quite notable. The band however (well, the lead vocalist anyway) felt that they weren't "original" enough, and decided to suddenly release their next album as terrible and bland industrial metal. Ironically, its less original sounding than their previous works
3. Depends what members you were to lose. If Billy Corgan were to leave the smashing pumpkins, it would in no way be the same band. Queen without Freddy Mercury is not the same band, and neither is Alice in Chains without Layne Staley. However, losing Nick from Queens of the Stone age, still managed to be the same band, as the presence of Josh Homme was really the main force behind the band. I feel that as long as it isn't one of the main songwriters or the main focus of the band who leaves, it can still remain the same band
always thought Muse was kind of bland music, but enjoyed what I heard of their latest album.
what the hell black holes and revelations is a good album but you have to be on pure LSD to think that its better than any of their previous material
-
The direction that they took after Patton joined didn't really change.
Well, maybe on The Real Thing, but to say that Patton joining the band didn't change the direction is just... not right. I mean, compare everything they did after The Real Thing to Introduce yourself. The focus of the music shifted more to the vocals and more types of lyrics were explored. I would say, however, that Jim Martin's departure made a greater change in the band than Patton joining.
-
Well, maybe on The Real Thing, but to say that Patton joining the band didn't change the direction is just... not right. I mean, compare everything they did after The Real Thing to Introduce yourself. The focus of the music shifted more to the vocals and more types of lyrics were explored. I would say, however, that Jim Martin's departure made a greater change in the band than Patton joining.
well i meant it as in referring to the real thing, because the album was written all by the band without any input from patton (although patton did most of the lyrics). Obviously, a direction was taken that was varied from previous material with Angel Dust and beyond, but there is only indirect linkage to that direction being any indication of changing of members. Patton did begin to take charge more and have a lot more input in the band, and in that respect he did help form the direction they took, but during the first years of Patton joining the band, the direction didn't change right way. The rest of progression was natural result based on the band working together.
-
1. Faith No More - the loss of Chuck and Mike Patton joining them is quite easily the best thing that ever happened to the band. Usually a vocalist change can either make or break a band, but after hearing the material that Chuck did, it was quite obvious that the band needed to find someone better. To me, the band before Patton was still essentially Faith no More, as much of the material was written by the instrumentalists of the band, so the direction that they took after Patton joined didn't really change.
EXACTLY this is the correct answer
what the hell black holes and revelations is a good album but you have to be on pure LSD to think that its better than any of their previous material
wrong bitch