Can you give me examples of bands that have "evolved" to your liking and bands that have not evolved? I am a huge Prince fan and he is always evolving and he evolved so much that I stopped listening to his new stuff. No album should sound exactly like any album before that means they were a one-hit-wonder. RHCP has some very different albums they evolved a lot as they went along it seems you just have an issue with RHCP, they changed a lot since the 1st album.
This. But what great band or musician sounds alike on every track most great bands don't have songs that sound alike on one album, let alone multiple albums. I think Donny might be a bit of a music snob.
The Beatles evolved. Whether you like their early stuff, or their late stuff (or none of it I guess), its a totally different sound. I think you can actually find fans that LOVE their early stuff and hated their later, experimental stuff...and then you can find the opposite as well.
Music taste is subjective so that's totally fine. If X style floats your boat and will float your boat forever rock on. Not my thing most times. FWIW artists can change for the worse too. It's not a universal positive. But I do consider it more impressive when an artist can change/experiment and yet keep me listening and happy.
Great example. But they are probably the greatest collection of musicians and songwriters ever not a great band to base all others on. And it shows that "evolving" can alienate a lot of your fans even if it is good music.
An artist does deserve credit for making good music under different styles. It shows the artist has lots of talent and creativity. Everyone's taste is certainly subjective and it's great when you find an artist that matches your tastes, as wide as your tastes are. Oftentimes, artists will gradually move away from their original sound and it'll fall outside what I liked about them originally. It's cool if they want to experiment with different sounds on some tracks, but I'd prefer they stick to their roots for the majority of their music.
I will also say that I like some bands that haven't changed their style much. Whether that is because I happen to like their style that much or because they're just so talented they consistently write bangers in the same vein without getting stale, I dunno. But for me RHCP just sounds so tired. I can only listen to so many jams about sex, drugs, California, surfing, and funky bass or whatever until I'm just checked out. One measure I think of how good music stands up is how it sounds when it is re-arranged, especially acoustically. Foo Fighters tunes sound almost better when they're stripped down, which is pretty remarkable. I can't say the same for RHCP (their acoustic show I saw was... not great).
Yeah, it’s pretty crazy to say their stuff is the same. Their music when they started to now is unrecognizably different. That’s why there are fans that only like certain era of RHCP, their sound had changed pretty dramatically over the years, whether that’s a good or bad thing. Also, these guys are like in their 60s, no one cares about them “reinventing” themselves at this point.
a band doesnt "need" to evolve. ill submit AC/DC as exhibit A. but i do like when bands change their sound from album to album. if its a band im a fan of im more than happy to go along for the ride. at a minimum, it shows to me that they want to push themselves creatively, which i appreciate. someone already mentioned the beatles, but a couple other big name examples are radiohead and U2. they changed from album to album during the peak of their careers when it would have been much easier to keep putting out joshua tree and the bends. and miles davis reinvented himself at least five times. i dont agree that RHCP never evolved, but i think its kind of silly to call someone a "music snob" for saying they dont like when bands dont evolve. to me that sounds like someone who is a curiously adventerous music fan who is interested in hearing their favorite bands exploring new sounds. has anyone else heard of this australian band called "king gizzard and the lizard wizzard". im just getting into them and theyre super prolific. they put out like 2 or 3 albums a year and theyre all different. they have a record called "infest the rats nest" which sounds like early metallica then another called "flying microtonal banana" where they used these custom made guitars refretted with quarter-tones like you hear in arabic music. then another album called "12 bar bruise" that has a definite 60's psych-pop vibe. it always sounds like them, but each album is very different and i love it.
Enjoy both bands. But I have to go Red Hots. That was my band in HS. Freaky Styley, Uplift Mofo, Mother's Milk. That's what we skated to and partied with, along with G&R and The Cult. But RHCP felt like we had a band only we knew about. I have always felt Nirvana was overrated.
yeah brah. mothers milk was heavy in our rotation during my skateboarding days. i liked nirvana, but i wasnt a massive fan at the time. i preferred smashing pumpkins gish to nevermind. but i did see nirvana on their last tour (dec 93 at the astroarena). i only went b/c the breeders were opening and i was a massive pixies/breeders fan. it was a school night and i almost left before nirvana played, but im really glad i stuck around. they were actually an incredible live band. i was impressed. but its also cool to say that i got to see them. its like when @Deckard always talks about how he saw hendrix for $1.50 in 1969 and snorted lsd off some hippie chicks boob. bragging rights for life! damn...how stupid would i have felt for the rest of my life if i left before nirvana played! haha.
RHCP first few albums were really interesting and great. But for me Blood Sugar Sex Magik was a real departure. It was a good album but it seemed to lose the fun non-sensical character of their previous stuff. To me their pinnacle was the "Taste The Pain" single with "Show Me Your Soul" B-side. Both songs showed real growth, but were still fun and interesting. This was just before they tempered their sound back for "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" Everything from then-on just seemed a little more bland. I'd easily take early RHCP over the Foo Fighters. But The Foo Fighters have consistently put out great stuff for nearly 30 years. They're still putting out good solid singles but I cannot say the same for the RHCP which seems like todays "easy listening".
I agree with all of this I called him a snob because of his disdain for RHCP and the fact that he writes off any band or musician because they don't "evolve". This is not a new thing with Donny.
This. Oh look, they added a synth! Enola Gay came out in 1980, and it's not like any of these bands are improving on that. That being said, I do like when bands try to be a little more experimental or maybe even a little out of their comfort zones. I just don't consider making some recycled dance music a step forward.
