• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bands that dramatically changed their sound for the better?

IMHO, playing with more accuracy is not playing like Keith at all. Keith was reckless abandon personified - both his playing and lifestyle.

I don’t believe in glamorizing the fact that he had a sickness. He could have been the same quality drummer even with treatment.

Zak captures his style of playing just fine. It’s not bad that he is better at keeping time.
 
Porcupine Tree. The early days were Floyd-like psychedelia. As Steven Wilson went on to actually form a band, their sound and style stayed mostly psychedelic until they added Gavin Harrison on drums and came out with "In Absentia" in 2002. That album marked a shift in the overall sound of the band to a more guitar driven "metal" sound. Although I like almost all of P.T.'s music, I think the shift to a more "prog/metal" sound was an improvement and I think their last few albums bear this out.
 
I’m pretty sure that when the OP asked about bands, he, by default, did NOT mean solo artists. This would eliminate the likes of David Bowie, Neil Young, Tom Waits, Miles Davis, etc... These guys could/can do whatever they want without the added politics and vagaries of a true group dynamic.
That being said, my suggestion might also be Kraftwerk. I love their more organic earlier stuff, but by the time they got to ‘Europe Endless’, their aesthetic was truly sublime.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Franchy
Wow, 10 pages in and no one suggested Steely Dan.

From their pop rock 1st:



To their jazz chorded 7th:


A group comprised of some of the best studio cats , getting better at their craft, while separately recording with a diverse cadre of artists (some of the best of the best)
Agree there was a progressively better output.

What would surprise me , would be if they didn't get better.
 
My nominations:

The Electric Light Orchestra (several times) - Proggy art rock > classical tinged pop/rock > disco tinged pop > electropop > 80s pop > back to classical tinged pop/rock (as a heritage greatest hits act)

Spandau Ballet - new wave/romantic > smooth sophisticated pop

Ultravox - (John Foxx era) art rock > (Midge Ure era) new romantic electro pop

Roxy Music - glam/art rock > sophisticated smooth soulful pop

Depeche Mode - electro pop > dark rock/pop.
 
Last edited:
I have actually read all of the previous posts I believe and I don't think anyone's mentioned Yes who went from a flashy mostly cover version band into starship troopers and beyond. And then they flipped again and again with the addition of new members.
There were still good moments after Drama but maybe nothing was ever the same after Bruford left.




 
I haven't read all 10 pages ("who's got the time...?"), but just about every long-running band has gone through some level of transformation.

As was mentioned up front, there are bands who have perfected their style (AC/DC, ZZ Top, etc.) to the point that you recognize the band's signature within seconds of hearing a song from them.
Most bands, however, will grow and adapt, as the Beatles did from "Please Please Me" to "Strawberry Fields" to "Tomorrow Never Knows."
Even pop acts like Michael Jackson, Madonna and Lady Gaga manage/managed to stay on top for decades by constantly reinventing their sound and image, something pioneered by David Bowie in the 1970s.

As others have said, most bands change over the years, usually due to personal changes. Fleetwood Mac always revolved around Mic Fleetwood, but the rest of the musicians came and went. Genesis changed when Peter Gabriel left, and again when Phil Collins left. Black Sabbath changed when they replaced Ozzy with Ronny James Dio. Van Halen changed when David Lee Roth was replaced by Sammy Hagar. And so on, and so on...
 
  • Like
Reactions: IMMusicRulz
Most of us prog snobs, myself included, prefer 70s Genesis to 80s pop Genesis, but to millions of people 80s Genesis is infinitely more listenable. It's just speculation but I'm going to guess that Phil Collins and the guys thought the band was better in some ways after the change

I think it's funny that every mention of Genesis that I've seen in this thread refers to the change from a 5-piece prog-rock band fronted by Peter Gabriel to a 3-piece pop-rock band fronted by Phil Collins...and I bet that there's probably an equal number of folks who cite the latter as "better" as those who wouldn't.

But when I read the OP's premise, Genesis was the first band that came to mind... not because of their post-Gabriel transformation to pop stardom, but because of their post-Anthony Philips transformation from fey wimpy soap opera-esque treacle to bona fide movers & shakers in the burgeoning genre of British prog-rock. Have you ever listened to From Genesis To Revelation and then fired up The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway? Were it not for the singer's voice they'd sound nothing alike, and I daresay the latter is immensely "better" than the former!
 
Can’t think of any country music after 1980 that really deserves to be called country.
When you are raised on songs written by people who came out of the fields, hills, and hollers of rural America writing and performing songs drawn largely from their own personal life experience, it’s tough to get the same connection when kids from the suburbs who hire lifestyle coaches to teach them how to act more “rural” so they sound more authentic when being interviewed about their latest tune. A song written by a committee guided by algorithms used to pick out trending keywords from social media. There are a few authentic voices in country music these days, but the closest you will find them to the Nashville hit machine is busking outside the CMA awards.
 
When you are raised on songs written by people who came out of the fields, hills, and hollers of rural America writing and performing songs drawn largely from their own personal life experience, it’s tough to get the same connection when kids from the suburbs who hire lifestyle coaches to teach them how to act more “rural” so they sound more authentic when being interviewed about their latest tune. A song written by a committee guided by algorithms used to pick out trending keywords from social media. There are a few authentic voices in country music these days, but the closest you will find them to the Nashville hit machine is busking outside the CMA awards.

Don’t think you’re too far off the mark there.

You have to really WANT to try to stay connected with what life was like for your parents and grandparents.

I grew up in the suburbs myself, but spent a good chunk of each summer in rural NC. Granted, my grandparents’ house had been updated over the years to include luxuries like electricity and indoor plumbing - things my mom didn’t have when she was a kid.

For me, the traditional pre-outlaw country will always remind me of going inside their hog house and hearing country music play from an old transistor radio hung up with a nail. They said it helped keep the pigs calm.

Most of the time, it’d be my mom and myself as dad was working and couldn’t take off 4-6 weeks. Around mid-morning, we’d go hop in the car with me screaming “IT’S HOT!!!!” as the vinyl seats scorched my legs and I made sure not to get near any of the seatbelts which might as well have been branding irons. As we made our way past the various swamps and fields, eventually the A/C would finally cool it down before we made into town to the restaurant where my grandmother worked, her cooking appeared to be the largest driver of economic output in the town.

We’d sit around, eat and chat. Most of the people there were either working on hog farms, or on tobacco farms. You could spot the guys working tobacco because they were just coated in tar.

For me, if a country song doesn’t remind me of people and places like that, it ain’t country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fhm555
While I prefer Bon for sure, the Back in Black album was full of great songs and Brian was a perfect replacement for that band.
But as far as the band changing, nothing changed, the sound, the singing, the recording, the songwriting, the look.
Billy Gibbons and Angus Young should each find a great blues band in need of a guitarist and record some straight electric blues/boogie records.
They both still play really well and both badly need to break out of the corners they've painted themselves into.
Neither of them need to make more money, so they have a freedom to make changes, they might enjoy the change, I sure would.

Billy Gibbons has done three solo albums without Dusty Hill and Frank Beard and has a new one coming out June 4th. His solo stuff is not really a departure from the ZZ Top sound.









 
Billy Gibbons has done three solo albums without Dusty Hill and Frank Beard and has a new one coming out June 4th. His solo stuff is not really a departure from the ZZ Top sound.









None of that was Billy stretching even a little.
I was thinking more along the lines of no Billy vocals and not Billy songs, not ZZ formula again.
Billy adding his guitar slinging to different songs by a different creative force... maybe even covering great blues songs from past masters.
Even more, I would like to see a change of pace from Angus Young, the few times I've seen video of him jamming with other people it was great.
 
Last edited: