Experimentation Over Time OR A Way To Rag On Nickelback Without Being Too...Explicit?

[Lumenskir]

So, experimentation by bands, how do we feel?

Personally, I've usually judge solely based on how it sounds on its own merits, not compared to the past or whatnot. That way, when I initially hear the beginnings of a changed style the "Whoa, lemme check that artist label" whiplash subsides after the first song and I begin to consider the album/song as a unique entity. Sometimes the new sound is enjoyable, and the experimentation can be considered a success, sometimes its not and I don't enjoy the divergence, but considering experimenting bad solely because it's experimenting seems a bit wonky.

On the other hand, I've never really gotten why people get so worked up over bands that find a groove they're comfortable in. I'll confess that I've listened to albums and said "Man, I wish there were like 11 more tracks to this" when I'm finished. A common word that gets thrown around is formulaic which I think has acquired an undeserved negative air about it. "Formula" to me has always been akin to words like genre or medium, a sense of boundaries with variation. What I can agree with is staleness, or not even bothering to see where you can push the formula.

[Krylo]

I think formulaic is used too often to describe something which follows a formula toward a purpose--generally a formula to create money--as opposed to just formulas in general, and that's where the negative air comes from.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Im kinda split on experimentation. Metallica experimented, and their new stuff, IMO, is vastly superior to the old. On the other hand, every time another band I like experiments, it ends up not being good. Listen to some of the 90's Scorpions albums, or that acoustic Godsmack album. It can be good, but it can also alienate fans, which I think is worse then being "the same."

[Cid Highwind]

And on Metallica, I beg to differ. However its a matter of taste and preference. In all cases. Once you come to that conclusion, there isnt much else to be said. But for some reason, music is something that must be argued over, even though its clearly a matter of opinion.

[Mirai Gen]

Well to be fair lots of the arguing about music is all about generational spectrums, the smaller issues being just personal preferences. The whole "Nothing but noise" sneering at the younger music thing, if you would.

But anyway; Experimentation in music is really crucial, but you have to be careful not to basically change your entire sound. A good example of experimentation was the second Black Mages album. Their new introduction of vocals threw me for a complete loop, but after a while I got used to it and I actually happen to like it now.

And on the Metallica thing: They did No Leaf Clover with a full orchestra. That is very experimental, and its easily my favorite Metallica song.

EDIT: I liked Until It Sleeps.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

S&M was pretty cool, Until it Sleeps was epic, but I can see that turning off a lot of people.

[Cid Highwind]

I did like No Leaf Clover/Until it sleeps as well. Every one of the albums had something good on them, with an equal share of crap. Pre black album, though there was only one song I couldnt get behind, The Thing that Should not Be. Although I do have one complaint about S&M. For majority of the album the orchestra didnt do much at all. For most songs, it was simply tacked on. You would get 15 seconds of metallica playing, the orchestra would go DUN DUNNN, and then metallica plays again. The orchestra gets like, 2 notes in a whole section. They could at least try to follow along, an orchestra is an excellent mood-setter, but its no good if they arent playing.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Actually, I found myself only liking about half the tracks on pre-Black albums (excluding MoP, which was all gold). I know a lot fo people loved Ride the Lightning, and No Remorse, but I dunno. Part of it is I hate Hetfields voice in KeA/RtL.

[Invisible Queen]

Me, I have almost no conception of a band's general image or how it develops over time. I can barely form an overarching opinion of a whole album; I care for individual songs.

To take Metallica, I like: For Whom The Bell Tolls, Fade to Black, Master of Puppets, Orion, One, To Live is to Die, The Unforgiven, Nothing Else Matters, Hero of the Day, The Outlaw Torn, The Unforgiven II, Low Man's Lyric and Saint Anger. You'll notice with a few exceptions that's exactly two songs per album but that's just a coincidence.

Just my two cents.

[Nique]

The thing is, when bands say that they are 'experimenting' or whatever, usually it just means 'We changed our sound to be more marketable' which means 'we sold ourselves out of any real creativity or artistic integrity. Buy our album!'.

I'm going to use Third Eye Blind as a not-totally accurate example; their first album was really great. Unique sound, some catchy songs, lyrics that were, maybe risque for the audience they were marketed to, but very revealing and pretty cool. Then 'Blue' comes out and it's like every song is built like their single from the first album - it's all so it can be marketed to the 'pop' crowd a lot easier, which is infuriating. I think this happens a lot and it is not symptom but one of the causes of the 'Sophmore Slump'

Then you have messed up stuff where who knows whats going on like Garth Brooks becoming Chris Gains or Rob Thomas becoming a solo artist.

[Mirai Gen]

I think that "Experimenting" has become that kind of meaning as of late but let's face it, that's the lesser of two evils when you have stuff coming out like Some Bands That Are Totally Not Nickelback.

[Nique]

You know, at the very least I can appreciate Not-Nickelback ironically. I mean, anytime I want to make fun of someone all I have to do is pick an appropriate whatnonot-Nickelback single and (easily) imitate their (non) lead singer.

I would contend that not all bands need to 'expirment' to stay fresh - Coldplay's style hasn't really altered much at all on any album and they pop out some quality stuff nearly every round. (haha I just realized it sounds a lot like I'm talking about drugs)

[Mirai Gen]

I would contend that not all bands need to 'expirment' to stay fresh
Never said they did. But there's a difference between "Keeping a sound" and "Playing the same stuff." Like I said, no band has to be Radiohead about it.

[Lumenskir]

The thing is, when bands say that they are 'experimenting' or whatever, usually it just means 'We changed our sound to be more marketable' which means 'we sold ourselves out of any real creativity or artistic integrity. Buy our album!'.
I don't...I don't think that's a widely used definition of experimentation, at least as far as anything else I've ever read. Wouldn't you assign that definition more to an unknown band selling out/mainstreaming themselves. What you described is basically a band figuring out what's expected of them and hammering out the safe and reliable bits hard, as opposed to experimenting with something they aren't familiar with.

Of course, I guess the term could be subjective. I don't really think a band with less than two albums under their belt can really 'experiment' widely since they're usually just figuring out what their baseline is.

[Nique]

Wouldn't you assign that definition more to an unknown band selling out/mainstreaming themselves.

No because bands who were already successful have pulled that, ostensibly because the producers/ record company imagines that the can improve on the previous efforts (financially) despite not having any artistic ideals or even musical aptitude whatsoever.

[Mirai Gen]

So the one thing that's inevitable after mainstreaming is changing their sound?

That's lots of generalizations that I'm not comfortable with making about bands, because it basically puts 100% of music production out there under a "Damned If You Don't Damned If You Do" ultimatum.

If we're going to turn into the Yahtzee of music, then sure, whatever gets our viewership up, but this just isn't the case and it feels like you're condemning all artists to suck post-success. Like, the ultimate "They were great before everyone liked them" indie snob.

[Nique]

It only bothers me when their 'more accessible' album actually isn't all that good.

So the one thing that's inevitable after mainstreaming is changing their sound?

And no, I'm not condemning bands for 'mainstreaming' or saying that it's inevitable that their sound will change when they do. It bothers me when the music stinks and when the reason is because the driving force became making something marketable, which is different than wanting people to enjoy your music. I understand and do not fault bands and artists and even the record companies for wanting a return on investment. It's when that motive has created worse music than would have been produced in it's absence.

[Mirai Gen]

OH okay, now I think we're on the same page.

You're saying that it's despicable to both change or mainstream your sound for the cash, because "Mainstreaming" and "Becoming Accessible" are two sides of the same ugly coin when it's done for profit, right?

Because that's an idea I can totally get behind, it just took me a second to get it.

[Lumenskir]

It bothers me when the music stinks and when the reason is because the driving force became making something marketable, which is different than wanting people to enjoy your music.
But this is entirely subjective. Sure, you don't like their new sound, but some people might not have liked the old sound. Who's taste is better? Who gets to make that decision?

And really, it's not always greedy cartoonish cigar-chompers who 'force' bands to adopt the most accessible style. I've read a few band testimonials where the members confess that they always wanted to make studio-music but didn't have the resources, necessitating a more low-fi experience for their before-fame albums. Come to think of it, aside from explicitly corporate-controlled enterprises (your boy bands and pop girls and such) I have never read an interview where a band said that their music was taken over by the label.

[Krylo]

But this is entirely subjective. Sure, you don't like their new sound, but some people might not have liked the old sound. Who's taste is better? Who gets to make that decision?Me. I get to make this decision.

I've read a few band testimonials where the members confess that they always wanted to make studio-music [...] I have never read an interview where a band said that their music was taken over by the label.Those artists don't know the meaning of art, then.

I would also call bullshit on this, because resources aren't what change the sound of your music. Yes, they'll make it cleaner, but going from early Nickelback to modern Nickelback, for instance (because their in the title so I thought of them first) has absolutely nothing to do with money. It's a complete stylistic change.

You can play the same music regardless of money.

[Lumenskir]

You can play the same music regardless of money.
For a given genre, sure, especially now that music making tools have become more widespread and cheaper. But, if you're band's ultimate aspiration is to sound like a studio-band but you only have a garage band budget, the sound difference from your pre-studio and post-studio days will be noticeable.

But that's not really the point I was trying to make. I can only read so many "Oh, the faceless fatcats made my favorite band blah blah blah" posts before it gets old. I mean, it's easier to blame a new sound on some non-existent strawman than it is to say "Oh shit, maybe my favorite band wanted to make music like this new stuff."

[Mondt]

So my rampant fanboyism of The Human Abstract has failied me.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waCbpAxhCs8) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRA2Zv-ZvEw) are the most popular songs from their first album.

People's initial opinion is that this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtiaeaqd1A) is the best song off their new album. Mind you, it leaked about a week ago, so there hasn't been lots of "sink in" time but man.

Ew.

I didn't mind the change too much but it just seems like they're trying too hard. Too hard on what, you might ask? Well to me, it seems like they're trying to take Between the Buried and Me's new album, Colors, use the progressive style off of it, mix it with some generic mathcore sounds... then add the vocalist's fetish for cross-genre styles.

I mean it's not bad, but it's just... not my thing.

I think "experimentation over time" has overstepped a boundary here.