Bands that dramatically changed their sound for the better?

[two fingers]

Who gets to decide what is "better"? Sure, I prefer Terry Kath era Chicago for the most part. But they sold a ZILLION more albums in the late 70s into tue 80s. So, the general public must have preferred the pop Peter version..... by far.

 

[Richland123]

Australian band Sherbet started out in the 1970s as a bubblegum and soft rock pop band. After changing their name to The Sherbs in 1980, they became more of a new wave band.

Sherbet





The Sherbs

 

[g-dude]

The Who.

Listen to the early albums, and they’re the epitome of the 60s British sound. Listen to the albums produced in the early 70s, and they are the epitome of Classic Rock. Listen to Who Are You, and you hear an album that bridges the 70s into the 80s - it’s the musical equivalent of when you look at a photo of someone in the early 80s or late 70s, and you’re not quite sure which decade they belong in, but you’re still amazed at how skinny everyone used to be, and wish you could find a t-shirt that looked like that.

 

[micguy]

Neil Young. Get tickets to one of his tours, and you're never completely certain what style of music is going to show up. He was, indeed, fired by his record label for switching things up too much - they wanted a formula, so the record sales would be more consistent.

 

[mindwell]

Fleetwood Mac. Didn't read the rest of the thread, sorry.

 

[smurfco]

The Flaming Lips

 

[MisterUbu]

The Who.

Listen to the early albums, and they’re the epitome of the 60s British sound. Listen to the albums produced in the early 70s, and they are the epitome of Classic Rock. Listen to Who Are You, and you hear an album that bridges the 70s into the 80s - it’s the musical equivalent of when you look at a photo of someone in the early 80s or late 70s, and you’re not quite sure which decade they belong in, but you’re still amazed at how skinny everyone used to be, and wish you could find a t-shirt that looked like that.

I'd say the who are more of a band that "refined" their sound instead of really changing it outside of adding some elements from time to time. The best way I'd describe The Who is having a studio sound that gradually caught up with what they were already doing live. There were attempts to go in a direction that was more focused the other way around with backing tracks that had studio overdubs/synthesizer work, but that did not end up well due to technological limitations. I'd agree with you on the late 70s-80s output, that was a result of Pete Townshend writing different songs that were more accommodating to Kenny Jones's style of drumming/closer to his own original vision in demos. The personnel "change" did really affect the Who's sound, good or bad depends on the singles/occasional album cuts I go back to.

 

[josephbass86]

Don’t know how much this counts, but if you listen to Ween’s early high school demos, they started out as a barley competent screamy garagey punk type band (and they carried that screamy rock stuff over onto their debut album a bit) which is a far cry from the slick, genre splicing psychedelic nature of stuff like “Chocolate and Cheese” and “The Mollusk” or the Beatles type pop stuff of “White Pepper”. Definite style change and for the better.

 

[58kites]

The Beatles are the only band that comes to mind, although I’d say the music got more interesting than necessarily better.

On a somewhat related note, Jethro Tull (my favorite band) dramatically changed their sound for the worse, to me subjectively.

I agree about the Beatles.
I think Beatles and Stones had their early selves both recording a slew of fantastic records.
Then they both found a whole other thing...
I think the Beatles transition was in 65-66 with Rubber Soul and Revolver, then with St. Peppers they had been fully transformed.
The Stones made the big change in 1967 with Satanic Majesties Request and had fully transformed for Beggars Banquet and onward until their last great effort with Some Girls...after which they should have transformed back to a pure blues band. Blue and Lonesome in 2016 is the best record they've made since Some Girls in 1978.

Jethro Tull is also a top five favorite band for me, been a huge fan since I was 12 years old, saw them live when I was 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 40 years old.
I think they just ran out of hooks after Songs from the Wood.

 

[RichardW]

How about Joni Mitchell? Started out as guitar-strumming sensitive singer-songwriter type and finished as a brilliant and innovative guitarist and composer exploring the far reaches of jazz--while her songwriting got even better.

She is a genius in my book.

 

[Yellow Bang66]

I think it’ll be a short list then if that’s the level of change you’re thinking of.

I always thought there were two kinds of bands: first being those that are on a journey to perfect what they’re doing (AC/DC would be a great example) and those that are willing to change it up and experiment with different sounds (or set/follow trends)...U2 would be a prime example. There’s a ton more in both categories that have done this to different degrees.

I’m having a hard time coming up with just one band, that has some modicum of name recognition, having completely switched gears and still remained relatively popular.

Maybe my ears aren’t tuned very well for the genre, but aside from “In Sounds from Way Out”, the Beasties were still pretty much rap/hip hop until the end....to me...unless you’re counting their pre-fame punk stuff. Even the outlier of Paul’s Boutique and the sampling used on that was still put into a rap/hip-hop context. Experimental for sure, but not a genre jump.

Even a “crossover” artist like Darius Rucker doesn’t qualify....still guitar-driven music, despite going solo and then going country.

I was thinking of a band then saw Journey in your reply! as a big fan I went back to their first couple of albums, hoping to find some gems, but nope. they were a kinda Prog rock boring Band until Steve Perry came in & then Jonathon Cain changed them again!

 

[Michedelic]

Well, "better" is a matter of opinion. I will say this. I absolutely respect bands that kept up with the times and were able to crank out hits over decades. Yes and Rush are two examples. But many here hate their 80s stuff. They remained relevant. And, to me, their sound/music was just as good.

So, you’re down with this, then?

 

[coyote1]

Aerosmith - completely reinvented themselves in the 90s as a power ballad machine

So much for “for the better” lol

 

[Pdaddy1978]

Alice Cooper band started out, and recorded(badly)2 albums of Psychedelia.
Then ,Bob Ezrin remolded them into more of a hard rock band.....thank god.

 

[wilberthenry]

A lot of the bands I listened to in the 80's weren't on majors and changed a ton. For the better is always debatable. Black Flag is a prime example as are many from that scene (Butthole Surfers, Tar Babies, etc.). It is far easier to change stylistically when you aren't selling millions of records or selling out arenas (or dealing with major labels).

 

[Paul New]

Miles Davis is the king of stylistic evolution, or even revolution. Better or worse? That 's disputed.

But I know that rock is the relevant genre around here, so I offer Deep Purple. Huge change, and improvement, between debut and subsequent albums methinks.

 

[Michedelic]

I’m all for new directions...

 

[Michedelic]

I'd say the who are more of a band that "refined" their sound instead of really changing it outside of adding some elements from time to time. The best way I'd describe The Who is having a studio sound that gradually caught up with what they were already doing live. There were attempts to go in a direction that was more focused the other way around with backing tracks that had studio overdubs/synthesizer work, but that did not end up well due to technological limitations. I'd agree with you on the late 70s-80s output, that was a result of Pete Townshend writing different songs that were more accommodating to Kenny Jones's style of drumming/closer to his own original vision in demos. The personnel "change" did really affect the Who's sound, good or bad depends on the singles/occasional album cuts I go back to.

They should have hung it up after Quadrophenia, it would have been a fitting bookend, a ten year arc, considering the lookback at their origins and sad nostalgia embedded in the lyrical content/storyline. They had nothing new to offer after that, and Keith was already starting to go down the tubes at that point.

 

[getBAK]

Corrosion of Conformity: They started off a Thrash/Punk band with their first three records.
10+ years after their first record, "Deliverance" came out. Fantastic southern-rock meets metal with a bunch of orchestration. I consider it one of the best albums of the '90s

 

[Nephilymbass]

Architects is one that comes to mind for me. They seem to be able to change sounds completely while continuing to grow in popularity.

I mean this is more emo/screamo to me
This is more hardcore
Then they went more almost Meshuggah like metal while incorporating heavenly ambient guitars to add contrast to the heaviness
The newest album dialed back the heaviness and added more layering with keys or maybe it’s MIDI and virtual instruments.
Been a fan of theirs for many years and there’s not many bands I’ve seen change so much while still growing and not alienating all their fans. But I think part of why is they are one of a very small number of younger bands (although I guess they aren’t that young now) who have been able to keep it going long enough to evolve and mature in a way that wasn’t too drastic all at once. So for a lot of longtime fans like me it’s like their music taste evolved as mine did.