PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on rock bands.



Vera
06-09-2007, 02:44 PM
It's been a while since I've gotten into a completely new rock band but I recently have, and it's probably no surprise to you guys that the rock band is Asian (Taiwanese, to be exact).

But before you click back thinking "Fuck, another one of Sanni's obscure interest topics!", hear me out.

It's just that with this new band of mine, I've encountered some similarities to the other rock bands I like, and they all seem to form a certain career pattern of sorts.

First of all, one of the first things I ran into when finding information on Mayday (Wu Yue Tian) was a topic where people were discussing how they preferred the band's older material. They were also talking about how the band has changed their style somewhat.

Well, progress is natural to any rockband. To quote something we're all familiar with, it's like Dexter said about not being able to make Ignition ten thousand times. It just doesn't work like that. And it also tends to be that fans enjoy the older stuff - the songs you got into when you first heard them, or when only you and your closest friends were into them, or just back when they sounded unpolished but awesome.

Anyhow, back to Mayday. I downloaded (and later bought - yay legal!) their latest album, and listened to it. I really loved it and by then had already ordered their "Greatest Hits" type of CD (they've been around really long so I wanted to get a glimpse of their past CD's quickly). So eventually the GH arrived and listened to it. It was indeed vastly different from their latest. More poprock, less "epic", not as many classical instruments and smaller melodies, not much of the stadium rock grandeur that some of the songs on their latest definitely had.

What mostly struck me about their songs new vs old was the singer Ashin's vocals, though. They were very unique in the old songs - to the point that I could easily imagine people finding them peculiarly irritating, or people saying, "That guy can't sing" based on some of the songs. In the newer songs, his singing was more refined, like he'd slowly learned to use his vocals to their full potential without restraining them to create a unique rock sound. His voice - to put it simply - sounds more beautiful now.

Then I started thinking about some other bands and found similar vocalist progress. I like the way Dexter sings on Smash but I think he's vastly improved between Smash and Splinter. Kent, AFI, Jimmy Eat World, nearly every band I can think of has this sort of semi-contradictory thing where a lot of the fans confess to preferring the old skool stuffs but on the other hand, the band's musical skills, vocals etc have improved and are better on the newer records.

So is it that bands develop their downfall? Do they become generic and lose their originality while developing musically? Does big record company production make sure of this or is it just the band members themselves trying not to repeat themselves endlessly? Are fans just stupidly nostalgic or is the rougher old skool material always generally better? Does my theory make no fucking sense?

(And before y'all get all "OMG I know this and this band used to suck but became better with their newest material so your theory is bullshit!", I know there are plenty, plenty of exceptions... And yet. There are so so many bands this applies to some extent or the other.)

nieh
06-09-2007, 02:57 PM
So is it that bands develop their downfall? Do they become generic and lose their originality while developing musically? Does big record company production make sure of this or is it just the band members themselves trying not to repeat themselves endlessly?

Bands getting more talented with their instruments coupled with better production pushes them closer and closer towards being 'perfect'. The closer they are to being 'perfect', the fewer idiosyncrasies they have which causes them to lose a bit of their personality and sound that much more like everyone else. There's more to it than that because there's plenty of bands/artists that are insanely talented and have great production that still sound incredibly unique and awesome but that is one of the big things.

GBH2
06-10-2007, 07:24 PM
The closer they are to being 'perfect', the fewer idiosyncrasies they have which causes them to lose a bit of their personality and sound that much more like everyone else.

yeah, i agree with this. often what makes a band different and interesting is some 'quirk' or something about them that makes them unique. just a random example, right now i am listening to husker du, and they have a very distinct sound to their guitars and vocals (recording-wise), and that is art of their 'charm'

good production can actually expose a band's flaws, too. for example, i have two versions of "so cold" from a band called Rocket from the Tombs. one is (sounds like) a live track, or a live studio version, and it is raw and agressive. When they recorded it again later (years later) with crisp vocals and guitars, it sounds kind of crappy (poor production had actually disguised the singers voice a bit)

by now, this is sounding like a lame rant that no one will care about, so i'm gonna shut up now...

wheelchairman
06-11-2007, 02:34 AM
I don't know, I think the Smashing Pumpkins got much better with time. Same as AFI and the Offspring. Fans are just douches.

Harnum
06-11-2007, 03:02 PM
All the fans that say the old stuff is better began listening to them when the older stuff came out (for the most part). They like what they heard and they didn't want it to change. As bands like these progressed, The Offspring for example, the older fans didn't want their favorite type of music and band to change therefore saying the new stuff is shittier.

I like both types, old and new, that bands like The Offspring bring to the table. You can really see the change in their abilities and how well they've come along.

nieh
06-11-2007, 05:37 PM
I don't know, I think the Smashing Pumpkins got much better with time. Same as AFI and the Offspring. Fans are just douches.

I think even Smashing Pumpkins fans normally dislike their first album, though.


All the fans that say the old stuff is better began listening to them when the older stuff came out (for the most part). They like what they heard and they didn't want it to change.

I'm not so sure about Offspring. I got into them through Americana but my favorite album of theirs is Ignition which is one of their earlier ones. At the same time though, I like Ixnay and Americana more than any of their other albums and those two were later.

Vera
06-12-2007, 02:15 AM
I think Kent and Jimmy Eat World get better with each album. Out of my other favourites, I think AFI reached a peak with Art of Drowning, then things started to get a little too pretentiously dark and the wrong kind of experimental for my taste. I still like their newer albums but not love.

Offspring's definitely getting better but at the same time I think Splinter would be so much better with more unique songs and less "this is what Offspring is supposed to sound like" type songs like Lightning Rod. I look forward to what they come up with next, though.

With Mayday I think I like the grandeur of their new songs as well as the quirkiness of their older songs.

All About Eve
06-12-2007, 07:51 AM
I think Kent and Jimmy Eat World get better with each album.
I don't know Kent, but pre-"Futures" I thought Jimmy Eat World was mediocre at best, but I absolutely love that cd.

Also, AFI's Sing the Sorrow was their best album, and I vastly prefer Splinter to Smash.

I'm probably the odd man out here, though, because I can totally see what you're saying and don't have many other thoughts on it.

Edit: Yes I do. I think it gets to a point with most bands, that if they release a new album similar to the rest people start ragging them for making the same music over and over, but if they totally change their style people start ragging them for selling out or something and become elitists over the old stuff. So maybe there's no way to prevent it?

JohnnyNemesis
06-12-2007, 10:24 AM
Also, AFI's Sing the Sorrow was their best album

The correct answer was "The Art of Drowning". Thanks for playing, though. lawl!

All About Eve
06-12-2007, 01:36 PM
The correct answer was "The Art of Drowning". Thanks for playing, though. lawl!
prnk on u, ur wrong.

Andy
06-12-2007, 01:44 PM
Surely you mean Decemberunderground?


HA


Nope, I can't even think about it without cracking up.

0r4ng3
06-12-2007, 09:05 PM
The correct answer was "The Art of Drowning". Thanks for playing, though. lawl!
Yeah, you keep thinking that while I listen to This Celluloid Dream for like the billionth time.

Also I agree with Splinter > Smash, but I think that's just my taste in music more than actual quality.

JohnnyNemesis
06-12-2007, 09:10 PM
Don't get me wrong, Sing The Sorrow is amazing, (and I guarantee I've listened to "This Celluloid Dream" about a bajillion more times than anyone) but anyone who doesn't think The Art of Drowning is the pinnacle of their lives is a failure. FAILURE! GAHH FAIL STOP FAILING I KILL YOU SCUM.

WebDudette
06-12-2007, 09:31 PM
I'll set the world
And in the burning light
I'll write my first love song
And I will feel warm

Anyway, I generally like albums more near the middle then the earlier stuff or the newest stuff.

All About Eve
06-13-2007, 11:04 AM
but anyone who doesn't think The Art of Drowning is the pinnacle of their lives is a failure. FAILURE! GAHH FAIL STOP FAILING I KILL YOU SCUM.
Shut up and go listen to more Depeche Mode, fag.

HeadAroundU
06-13-2007, 03:32 PM
STS is the album of my life. It pwns! It's a pinnacle of music! :p It's like 4 stars by Rolling stone. None of my favourite bands gets that much. :D