• 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 free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Bands that dramatically changed their sound for the better?

#141
spatters said:
Inspired by the following exchange in another thread:





Here are a few examples off the top of my head of bands who became something very different, and better, than they started as.

Radiohead
Pantera
Talk Talk
Beastie Boys
Ministry

Can we add to this list?

Please, only bands that changed dramatically -- enough to be considered a different genre -- and that most people would agree improved as a result. We can all name a million bands that simply got old and lazy, or sold out.
Click to expand...
Bad religion.

Nofx

Offspring

Pharmaceutical Bandits

Placebo

Jane's addiction

Nirvana
 
#143
monsterthompson said:
As mentioned in the OP, Pantera.
Also mentioned was Dio going from Red Caps to Elf, Rainbow, Sabbath, solo.



Not a band I love, but you can't deny Beastie Boys going from hardcore punk to rap, and then returning to some rock-based roots.
Click to expand...

Pantera was better as what they were. Before they tried going nu metal. That's why thier greatest hits album only really spans the first two albums.
 
#145
Cave In dramatically changed styles from crazy spastic metal/hardcore on 1998’s Until Your Heart Stops:



To awesome proggy melodic space rock on 2000’s Jupiter:



Was it for the better is subjective, but I prefer it.

RIP Caleb Scofield
 
#147
swarfrat said:
It was a dig at the former whiney voice rock n roll hillbilly twang screecher that everyone seems to love while bashing the guy who took them from a good band to an incredible phenomena. Yet it's not actually safe to say you prefer Brian to Bon even just a little bit on internet.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billyzoom
#148
JeezyMcNuggles said:
Pantera was better as what they were. Before they tried going nu metal. That's why thier greatest hits album only really spans the first two albums.
Click to expand...

By "first two" you mean 1990 CFH and 1992 Vulgar? I'm assuming you don't mean 1983's Metal Magic and 1984 Projects in the Jungle, or are you starting at 1988's Power Metal when Phil joined?

When was the "nu metal" period they went through?
 
#150
g-dude said:
Like how the guy from The Cure looks these days when he puts his goth warpaint on.
Click to expand...
You can dig at Robert Smith's appearance, but The Cure is an excellent example of a band evolving.
1982:


1989:


1992:


I mean, it's fair for somebody to think they creatively peaked in their goth period, but in terms of songwriting and musicianship it's like they're different bands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickpc, Aqualung60 and /\/\3phist0
#151
Michedelic said:
No, I said a ten year lifespan, a respectable run, from ‘64 to the autumn ‘73 release of the album, then do a tour, put it all to bed. Things were already starting to fall apart on them...Keith of course was a mess, collapsing on stage from drink and drugs during said tour, them having to play along with backing tapes(which kept going wrong, and which meant they couldn’t put the music across satisfactorily as a four-piece), Pete being a boozy wreck, and so on. When I heard the entire album for the first time, I thought, “how are they going to top this?”, and, you know, they couldn’t. By Numbers was disappointing, they sounded tired and out of ideas, Pete realizing that his famous line from “My Generation” was finally biting him on the ass. “Squeezebox” was an embarrassment, essentially 30 year old blokes telling schoolboy level dirty jokes. Then, talk about cash cows, they squeezed more out of Tommy with that trainwreck film. That set Roger off on his acting career, Entwistle tried hard to get his solo act going, and Keith was going down in flames. Who Are You was more of the same, but more gratuitous, more same old same old. Had they split up with Quad, with dignity, they still could have been involved with the movie later. They still made money off of that. “Emminence Front” and “You Better” could have easily been Pete solo songs, but those albums as a whole are forgettable. And there were always reunion tours to rake it in with, which they did anyway, becoming a Vegas act, but John didn’t make that gig. Kenny Jones was a great drummer...for the Small Faces.
Click to expand...

You make some interesting points, but I am flabbergasted that you couldn't manage slag Sister Disco somewhere in there ;)
 
#154
The Rainbow Butt Monkeys certainly went in a more serious and poppy direction as they passed through their first album as Finger 11 to the point that they did Paralyzer which was probably their most commercially successful single, though I’m not sure it really represents a huge shift in the overall sound of the band, and I didn’t find it something I liked as much.
 
#155
micguy said:
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.
Click to expand...
One of the most engaging shows .
I feel for his backing band, he wanders around the stage, (and the semi circle of amps) and just starts playing whatever. Still really fun!
 
Last edited:
#156
Jefus said:
Not a band I talk about often, but I think we can all agree that R.E.M. evolved until they made that one album we liked, then evolved into something terrible. What that one album was is different for all of us.
Click to expand...
True. But I don’t imagine that anyone who likes R.E.M. would put that one album earlier than Document or later than Monster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pauly 4001, Relayer71 and Jefus
#158
monsterthompson said:
By "first two" you mean 1990 CFH and 1992 Vulgar? I'm assuming you don't mean 1983's Metal Magic and 1984 Projects in the Jungle, or are you starting at 1988's Power Metal when Phil joined?

When was the "nu metal" period they went through?
Click to expand...
Like around Gosh darn electric and tread the water some more.

But yes, I meant cowboys and vulgar.
 
#159
MichelD said:
Status Quo who had a psychedelic/pop hit with "Pictures of matchstick men" in 1968 turned into a three-chord boogie band to huge success.
Click to expand...

That must be one of the most dramatic changes ever... flower power psychedelia to denim-clad rockers. Very Spinal Tap. I can't imagine how many times I saw the Quo in the 70s, they were on every festival lineup.
 
#160
aetheldrea said:
True. But I don’t imagine that anyone who likes R.E.M. would put that one album earlier than Document or later than Monster.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Some might even say that their last truly excellent album was 1987's Document, though followup albums Green, Automatic For The People, and Monster were not bad, Out of Time being the only terrible album at that point. Some might say after that, they didn't recover until the very end. Some might say. :)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back