Who else did it?

[LBS-bass]

Rolling Stones (IMO, excluding the side projects of members)

The Stones were good at aping this kind of behavior for maximum satirical effect, which went over the heads of many of their fans. I'm thinking in particular of their "Miss You" period during which they dragged out some weird disco-style tropes and made another small fortune mocking that style.

 

[SteveCS]

And not forgetting Aretha Franklin, who had hits in the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s, managing to move with the times without ever straying too far from her roots.

 

[RichardW]

Bowie is the obvious #1 in this category, though you make an excellent argument about Robert Palmer.

Here's a group to consider: The Clash. Started as punk in '77, transitioned into straight up rock n roll and by the end were well into funk, dub, and rap. And, oh yeah, they managed a huge pop hit in Rock the Casbah at the very end. Joe Strummer went on to world music and Mick Jones in dance music.

 

[murmur70]

The BeeGees-went from folk rock to disco to pop.

 

[Low Commotion]

I recently started a thread about early Robert Palmer music. It has been a blast. Thank you to all who have contributed. Reading it, and checking out the linked songs has been fascinating.

Here's what really stands out about the guy. He seamlessly, and I mean SEAMLESSLY, navigated through a time of incredible changes in music, pop culture, fashion, etc.

He was right there in the thick of the early 70s when we were transitioning from unpolished Rock, protest music, psychedelic, roots rock into "guitar radio rock" like early stones, later Hendrix, etc. He had The Meters, some of the great soul players from NYC, some of the great studio soul/R&B greats, and other influences of the time collaborating on his projects and theirs. From Vineger Joe to his earliest solo stuff, he was "with it" for the times.

By the late 70s, Palmer was hip deep into new wave. He was working with the likes of Bowie and Talking Heads. And the music was as relevant as his earlier stuff.

Then, of course, there were his polished, ridiculously-well-produced, pop rock hits of the 80s.

And he sort of went back to his roots with later releases, but remained relevant.

OK, enough about him. The other thread is for that.

My question is this. Who else did that? I can only think of a few. I don't mean the kinds of acts that stuck to their original formula for decades and managed to stay with that one thing (like Allman Brothers, Aerosmith, etc.). I'm talking about artists/bands that completely reinvented themselves over and over again to remain relevant during an incredible period of change from the late 60s/early 70s to well into the 90s or even later.

Rod Stewart - Dude went from Stones style rock, to straight up disco, to pop, and even got kind of "rat pack revival" at one point. Always a fashion icon. Always in the thick of whatever was popular. He was always recording, touring, and collaborating with the who's who of talent.

All of the people associated with Genesis, including Genesis itself and all of their pet/solo projects. I watched a documentary on these guys. For a span of about thirty years there was a rare chart that didn't either have Genesis, or one of its original members, in the top 40.

David Bowie - Similar to Rod Stewart and Palmer in that he was always there in the middle of pop culture, fashion, and, of course, music. Always collaborating with others. In fact, he probably gets the award for contributing the most to other artists careers. He was always writing songs for other artists, having them join him on songs, and joining them on their projects, lending his name and influence to whatever they had going on.

There's a possible honorable mention nod for Paul McCartney. I think his relevance came and went more than the others on this list. Sure, he has always been an original Beatle, and that will carry him to the end. But, in my view, there were times when he just "wasn't there" as much as the others.... possibly even by choice. He did the Wings thing, a few 80s hits, including the Michael Jackson duos, and whatnot. I don't know. I could be dragged over the line to keeping him on the list. Convince me.

Who else did this? I'm ready to go down more rabbit holes. The Robert Palmer "thing" has been a lot of fun.

Again, we're talking only about artists who completely transformed their musical styles to roll with the changes. Just "sticking around" doing what you've always done doesn't count (not that it isn't a big deal.....just not the topic of this discussion).

I would say that Boz Scaggs could fall into this category. He was with Steve Miller for a bit, went on his own in the late 60's early 70's with some great R&B stuff, and then came out with Silk Degrees with hits such as Lido Shuffle and Low Down. He's come full circle with his last few R&B albums.

 

[kesslari]

I think almost any artist that has had longevity of say, more than 20-30 years, has had to morph with the times somewhat. Many are not content to just stay in a certain swim lane, some want to stay relevant to what "fans are liking" or some seem to reinvent themselves just for fun or to explore other genres. I think that generally that's easier for a solo artist than a band. But bands do it too.

and adding to the list that didn't seem to do this:
Grateful Dead
James Taylor
Rolling Stones (IMO, excluding the side projects of members)
Alabama
Buddy Guy

It's funny, I'd put the GD in the other camp.
From the acid rock of Anthem, Aoxomoxoa and the early stuff
to the acoustic-y country of Workingman's Dead and American Beauty...
to almost fusion Blues for Allah
to the Frisco Disco era
and beyond into ... never mind that part.

 

[FilterFunk]

Lionel Richie.

Serious funk, dance music, great ballads and even some pseudo-country with the Commodores. Hugely successful as a pop solo artist, and an album reimaging some of his biggest Commodores and solo hits with a variety of country artists ("Tuskegee").

Sting has gone through a few musical twists and turns as well.

 

[Richland123]

I agree that Eric Clapton went through many phases over a long time from blues and rock to country and pop to stay relevant and back to blues whether part of a band or his solo career.

 

[boombloom]

Dylan. The Laureate.

 

[OregonJim]

I'm talking about artists/bands that completely reinvented themselves over and over again to remain relevant during an incredible period of change from the late 60s/early 70s to well into the 90s or even later.

I don't see this as a positive thing.

It means that the artist is trying to follow the culture instead of leading it. I don't see any virtue in that. It means that their focus is on their own stardom ("relevance") rather than the music itself.

If they want to do that, fine - money has a way of corrupting many things - but it also causes me to lose interest in them.

I'm much more interested in artists that DON'T "reinvent themselves" and remain true DESPITE any cultural shifts.

 

[dkelley]

Blondie navigated a few musical transformations. Post punk to rock to disco, etc.

and..... jazz and blues.... well, not Blondie, but Debbie

 

[dkelley]

I'm trying to figure out which thirty year span that could refer to. I'll be the first to admit I haven't paid particularly close attention to the Top 40 charts in the last 10 or even 20 years...but still, between Peter Gabriel's super-infrequent album output and Phil Collins' health issues, was anyone from the Genesis camp charting since the turn of the century? Or did that thirty year span start all the way back in the 1970s?

Genesis formed in 1967. So the answer is right there.

 

[lucas303]

Lemmy

He went from the psychedlic/space rock of Hawkwind to the heavy metal of Motorhead.

I think almost any artist that has had longevity of say, more than 20-30 years, has had to morph with the times somewhat. Many are not content to just stay in a certain swim lane, some want to stay relevant to what "fans are liking" or some seem to reinvent themselves just for fun or to explore other genres. I think that generally that's easier for a solo artist than a band. But bands do it too.

Some have been mentioned here, here are some others that come to mind:
The Beatles
Tina Turner
Madonna
Taylor Swift
The Who
Chicago
Paul Simon

and adding to the list that didn't seem to do this:
Grateful Dead
James Taylor
Rolling Stones (IMO, excluding the side projects of members)
Alabama
Buddy Guy

Gotta' disagree about the Dead. Listen to Live/Dead and then listen to Cornell '77 and tell me the band didn't morph over time.

 

[dkelley]

And not forgetting Aretha Franklin, who had hits in the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s, managing to move with the times without ever straying too far from her roots.

I wouldn't say she reinvented herself though.. she stuck to what she did best, which happened to be better than anyone else at the world - sounding like Aretha!

 

[SteveCS]

I wouldn't say she reinvented herself though.. she stuck to what she did best, which happened to be better than anyone else at the world - sounding like Aretha!

I guess that's true. So disqualified, yes?

 

[Bob_Ross]

Genesis formed in 1967. So the answer is right there.

That would only be true if they had tunes in the Top 40 charts from the get-go.

I realize it's plausible that some of their early classic albums -- e.g., The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway -- might have appeared on Billboard's Top-100 Albums chart. But when someone says "Top-40" I immediately think singles, and I can't imagine a Genesis single charting before "Misunderstanding" (1980) or maybe "Follow You Follow Me" (1978).

Edit: I just looked it up: Their first single to chart in the Top-40 in the United States was indeed "Follow You Follow Me" (1978) at #23. "Your Own Special Way" made it to #62 the year before. No other singles charted in the US at all prior to that.

 

[Ellery]

Navigating seamlessly through changes of style and fashion is easy when you're a sellout.
Place mass market appeal over artistic expression and voila, you're a star.

 

[BassFalcon]

I'm not quite sure they tick all your boxes but Alice In Chains would be an honorable mention. There's the hard rock grunge AIC, the experimental rock of Jar of Flies AIC and the unplugged AIC and they seamlessly transition between them all.

 

[DirtDog]

Bowie is the obvious #1 in this category, though you make an excellent argument about Robert Palmer.

Here's a group to consider: The Clash. Started as punk in '77, transitioned into straight up rock n roll and by the end were well into funk, dub, and rap. And, oh yeah, they managed a huge pop hit in Rock the Casbah at the very end. Joe Strummer went on to world music and Mick Jones in dance music.

Problem was that their key albums are a mash up of many styles. London Calling for instance - little touch of punk, rock, pop, disco, new wave, dancehall, reggae, two-tone ska, dub. Same with Sandinista but even more deep/diverse and into whatever it was that was a precursor to rap.

 

[two fingers]

I'm trying to figure out which thirty year span that could refer to. I'll be the first to admit I haven't paid particularly close attention to the Top 40 charts in the last 10 or even 20 years...but still, between Peter Gabriel's super-infrequent album output and Phil Collins' health issues, was anyone from the Genesis camp charting since the turn of the century? Or did that thirty year span start all the way back in the 1970s?

Yeah started in the 70s.