Originally Posted by Stu_Strib
Because its fun? I could play 2 and 4 back beat shuffles all day long in a blues band.
I've always found bands and artists who 'branch out' to new areas to be pretentious. The absolute Poster Child of the phenomena has to be Pearl Jam.
Bands should change to keep up with the times, but they should never leave the original essence of what got them there. Well, they can, if the like, but they have no right to bitch about commercial failure if they do. If they want to play just to play and experience music, then more power to them. But they can't expect their fans to just change and suddenly like their new stuff, because "that old stuff was so lame and cliche".
Think Tom Petty here. Hasn't changed a thing, and his music is timeless. You can't tell a 1984 track from a 2003 track.
This doesn't mean keep playing the same 3 chords and the same cliche lyrics over and over either. But change for artistic sake...bah. Stick to what works for you.
Steve Smith left Journey and rock drumming pretty much forever in 1983ish, but I still hear the foundation of that big tom pounding rock style (and his early fusion stuff before that), even though he's branched of into Indian music and stuff. That's his own personal trek, and he's never been one to disguise it. But rock bands who have less talent than STeve has in his pinky are totally phony when they are "branching out to new musical realms".
In short, bands should evolve with the times, not change for some phony "musical enlightenment". So in that aspect, I agree with you finn.
I think the point you made about Petty is exactly why i would initially disagree with you, however i agree with you in one way. Bands/artists changing their sound just for the sake of sounding different on every record do seem pretentious to me as well, but i also think it's really boring to hear the same type of record from a band every time. I'm always confused at those ppl who get pissed off when their favourite band changes up their sound a bit or explores a slightly different direction( for example when Metallica started doing slow songs). I guess i'm mostly writing this because i'm a huge Pearl Jam fan and i don't think they change their sound all the time just to sound different, but because they simply enjoy trying different things, and for me it's the main reason why i'm still a big fan after all these years. Also, i fully agree with you that a band should keep the essence of what got then to where they are, but i definitely don't think they should keep up with the "times".
Basically, i think that as long as a band is writing material that comes naturally to them there's no reason to rag on them, but i still think playing the same style for 20 yrs like Petty is incredibely boring.....peace.
I almost forgot to write something about Brad Wilk....he's definitely one of my favourites, and i like both Audioslave and RATM but i think his drumming on RATM was tigher and way more funky and fun to listen to, even though over all i like Audioslave a little more for its musicality.