This morning while clumsily ironing my shirt, I had the tv turned to MTV (to see what The Kids are listening to these days) and heard the new Foo Fighters song. Which sounds like just about every other Foo Fighters song from the past five years.
This led me to think about the role of the band. Do you want your band to (a) advance and change with each - or at least every other - album? Or do you want your band to (b) find a sound and stick to it, embracing the fans who have elevated you from the garage to MTV?
The White Stripes, Radiohead, Wilco - these are bands whose latest albums sound drastically different from their first. You would think Radiohead had sold their soul to the devil judging from the leap in quality from Pablo Honey to The Bends. Wilco sounded like a bar band with A.M. and now with Sky Blue Sky, sound completely different. The White Stripes were once The Strokes' retarded little brother. Now who's wearing a helmet?
If you put together The Essential Foo Fighters compilation disc, you could stop with "There Is Nothing Left To Lose." The first, self-titled album, was good. The Colour and the Shape was great. There Is Nothing Left to Lose was good. I'm not sure about the rest of it, because it sounds the same.
What do you prefer? With each and every Foo Fighters album you know what you're getting. With Radiohead you don't know if you'll get words that make sense, not to mention the possible scenario that the new album will include 51 minutes of CB transmissions. What works for you?
My Wife Almost Left Me (And Still Might)
1 year ago
1 comment:
It depends on the talent of the band. Some bands have no talent, but you like their "one" sound. So if you are talentless, then stick to your success and go with that because that is what people want. But if you're good enough to change your sound and still be good, that will carry you to the next level in my mind. I always think Beck when I think of artists like this.
Also what do you think about Bonds' 756th headed your way?
Post a Comment