Jump to content

Do bands evolve more slowly these days compared with the past?


Requiem

Recommended Posts

The more I think about this topic, the less sure I am of it, but allow me to make some narrow observations from my youth. 

I was driving home from work this afternoon listening to Moonspell's 'The Butterfly Effect', their industrial/electronic tinged album from 1999. I also currently keep 'Am Universum' by Amorphis (2000) and the Sentenced best of 'Story - A Recollection' (1997) in my car by chance. 

As a dark/gothic/doom metal obsessive teenager in the 90s, there was a strange phenomenon that occurred whereby bands that I really loved evolved their sound very drastically into something quite different. It wasn't such a big deal at the time, because when you're a kid time moves so slowly and it felt like the bands had been around for ever, so change was natural.

But now it's clear that these evolutions occurred incredibly quickly in certain bands' lives. 

Here are some examples from my favourite bands (take genre application with a grain of salt please; you know what I mean): 

Paradise Lost: Debut album 'Lost Paradise' (1990 death metal) evolved to 'Host' (1999 electronic pop) = 9 years

Sentenced: Debut album 'Shadows of the Past' (1991 technical death metal) evolved to 'Down' (1996 dark rock) = 5 years

My Dying Bride: Debut album 'As the Flower Withers' (1992 doom/death) evolved to '34.788% Complete' (1998 electronic/experimental) = 6 years

Katatonia: Debut album 'Dance of December Souls' (1993 doom/black metal) evolved to 'Discouraged Ones (1998 bleak rock) = 5 years

Anathema: Debut album 'Serenades' (1993 doom/death) evolved to 'Eternity' (1996 gothic rock) = 3 years

Moonspell: Debut album 'Wolfheart' (1995 gothic metal) evolved to 'The Butterfly Effect' (2000 industrial/electronic metal) = 5 years

Amorphis: Debut album 'The Karelian Isthmus' (1992 death metal) evolved to 'Tuonela' (1998 rock) = 6 years

Theatre of Tragedy: Debut album 'Theatre of Tragedy' (1995 gothic metal) evolved to 'Musique (2000 electronic pop/rock) = 5 years

Ulver: Debut album 'Bergtatt' (1995 black metal) evolved to 'Themes from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' (1998 experimental/avant-garde) = 3 years

To put this into a modern context, that would be like a new band, signed to a decent label and with a good following, putting out a death metal album in 2012 to move into rock or electonic by 2017. It's almost impossible to consider, yet look at the examples above - so many bands headed in that direction at the same time. Evolution was an accepted and ubiquitous part of metal. 

Even bands like: 

Metallica: Debut album 'Kill Em All' (1983 thrash) evolved to 'Load' (1996 hard rock) = 13 years

Megadeth: Debut album 'Killing is My Business' (1985 thrash) evolved to 'Cryptic Writings' (1997 hard rock) = 12 years

That would be like a new thrash band putting out an intense thrash album in 2005 before coming to commercial rock in 2017. Not out of the question, but does that happen these days? 

Are bands in the 21st century less willing to experiment/mellow out/evolve once they have locked their fanbase in?

Looking back at my initial selection of bands above, if you consider the last four or five albums from Paradise Lost, Amorphis, Katatonia, Moonspell and My Dying Bride, it is clear that they have now more or less settled into a fairly steady stylistic approach for at least a decade! 

Obviously there is an element of 'finding their feet in youth', but are there examples of bands in the last five or six years who are changing like this? Has evolution in bands slowed to a crawl? 

Thoughts? Experiences? Criticisms? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems to me that extreme metal genres especially attracted a very experimental crowd when it was in its infancy. All of the bands above were breaking new ground both when they debuted and as they evolved. It's sad to me that most evolved into something uninspired and bland pretty quickly, but they still left us a nice legacy. BTW, I would add Ulver to this list, change Katatonia's debut from doom/death to doom/black metal, and fix the name of Anathema's debut album (Serenades, not Sleepless, that was the single).

 

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For bands that have had an evolution towards rock and softer influences in their sound more recently, Opeth is the most glaring example that comes to mind. Enslaved has experienced a very natural progression of incorporating softer parts over the course of their career; Gorguts expanded their palette dramatically between "From Wisdom To Hate" and "Colored Sands"; Gojira softened up a lot; going back just a few more years, Isis got way more mellow as time went on. Thankfully, those changes seem like honest choices rather than trend-hopping.

As far as the 90s, I think you're looking at a portion of a larger trend, which we've talked about before; it seemed like a wave of rock influences and simplified songwriting was sweeping over everything. I think a lot of it had to do with market forces. The market has changed. I don't think an extreme metal band these days has anything to gain (commercially) by going more mainstream. If they want to take a stylistic left turn, it would be easier and less confusing to form a different group and/or release that material under a different name, unless there are contractual obligations that won't permit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BlutAusNerd said:

It seems to me that extreme metal genres especially attracted a very experimental crowd when it was in its infancy. All of the bands above were breaking New ground both when they debuted and as they evolved. It's sad to me that most evolved into something uninspired and bland pretty quickly, but they still left us a nice legacy. BTW, I would add Ulver to this list, change Katatonia's debut from doom/death to doom/black metal, and fix the name of An Athena's debut album (Serenades, not Sleepless, that was the single).

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

Well picked up regarding the Anathema slip and the Katatonia suggestion. Ulver is a great example of what I'm talking about here. I've edited my post to include all of your suggestions. It definitely does seem to be about breaking new ground back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they want to take a stylistic left turn, it would be easier and less confusing to form a different group and/or release that material under a different name, unless there are contractual obligations that won't permit it.

A prime example of this would be Slumber who released a wonderful debut death/doom album and ended the band to re-emerge as Atoma (with the same members) in a new musical

direction all together.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FatherAlabaster said:

For bands that have had an evolution towards rock and softer influences in their sound more recently, Opeth is the most glaring example that comes to mind. Enslaved has experienced a very natural progression of incorporating softer parts over the course of their career; Gorguts expanded their palette dramatically between "From Wisdom To Hate" and "Colored Sands"; Gojira softened up a lot; going back just a few more years, Isis got way more mellow as time went on. Thankfully, those changes seem like honest choices rather than trend-hopping.

As far as the 90s, I think you're looking at a portion of a larger trend, which we've talked about before; it seemed like a wave of rock influences and simplified songwriting was sweeping over everything. I think a lot of it had to do with market forces. The market has changed. I don't think an extreme metal band these days has anything to gain (commercially) by going more mainstream. If they want to take a stylistic left turn, it would be easier and less confusing to form a different group and/or release that material under a different name, unless there are contractual obligations that won't permit it.

Interesting examples there in your first paragraph. Enslaved's big hop occurred around 2001-2003, so almost in the same era that I'm talking about. Opeth is a great example of a recent shift. I'm not across the other bands' discographies enough to comment, but sounds interesting. 

Regarding your second paragraph, absolutely. The funny thing is, I think most of these bands (and their labels) realised that the move into more mainstream sounds actually didn't create the sales they were hoping for. Old fans were put off by albums like 'A Fine Day to Exit' and 'Host', and mainstream rock people into Radiohead and Coldplay were hardly going to pick up a Paradise Lost album. So they were left in limbo.

I still remember reading about how 'A Fine Day to Exit' was Anathema's conscious push into bigger things, at least as far as Music For Nations was thinking. It just didn't come about - although of course they're as popular as ever nowadays with their current material. And in many ways 'Host' was a tragedy for Paradise Lost because they were on the success train with 'One Second' and the whole 'Host' advertising budget was through the roof. But what made them huge in the first place had been sifted out of the mixture and people turned away in droves, myself included - not even buying it when it was released. 

Bands like Moonspell, Amorphis, Paradise Lost etc said 'sod that' and went heavy again, re-establishing their careers and serving their niche market. Much to my unmitigated pleasure. 

The rate that all this change took place was crazy in today's money. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 2017-6-30 at 9:41 AM, somerandomguy said:

no because of the internet there is  more access to the internet and websites

 

Because there is the internet... there's more access to the internet? I'm sorry man but could you explain what you mean please? We're talking about bands who change their style over time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-6-30 at 9:41 AM, somerandomguy said: no because of the internet there is  more access to the internet and websites

 

Because there is the internet... there's more access to the internet? I'm sorry man but could you explain what you mean please? We're talking about bands who change their style over time. 

 

People often make redundant comments because of redundancy.

 

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's the point really. If a band changes their sound so radically that they no longer appeal to those who enjoyed thei original sound they shouldn't expect all of that crowd will follow them. Having said that I can think of many bands who changed their sound for the better. Death for example starting out pioneers of death metal before evolving into tech-death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

I think that's the point really. If a band changes their sound so radically that they no longer appeal to those who enjoyed thei original sound they shouldn't expect all of that crowd will follow them. Having said that I can think of many bands who changed their sound for the better. Death for example starting out pioneers of death metal before evolving into tech-death.

And most bands who make significant changes to their sounds wouldn't be expecting everyone to follow along with their new style - although I'm sure they would appreciate it if they did. Bands love trotting out the 'we make music for ourselves first' line, which is no doubt true is most instances. 

Another factor is that with album sales at close to zero, it doesn't pay to put an album out every year or second year like it used to. With a good album costing upwards of tens of thousands of dollars, they would simply never make their money back based on sales. Bands tend to swing around to releasing something every three years if we're lucky, then tour the hell out of it. 

We can only look on the past release schedule of a band like My Dying Bride with nostalgia and whimsy:

Release years: 1992, 1993, 1994 (EP), 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999!!! The 90s was the decade for My Dying Bride releases, and you got an entire genre change as a bonus. Now we wait three years and end up with 'Feel the Misery'... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

One thing to remember is that Change does not = Evolution. Evolution is "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form". Some bands change to more simplistic and even 100% different styles and claim that its evolution when its simply an abrupt change in music style/direction (not always better), making new fans while alienating others.

COUGH....COUGH...In Flames...COUGH

And I'm not saying suicide silence was ever "Great" but their latest effort is an example of this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Idromos247 said:

One thing to remember is that Change does not = Evolution. Evolution is "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form". Some bands change to more simplistic and even 100% different styles and claim that its evolution when its simply an abrupt change in music style/direction (not always better), making new fans while alienating others.

COUGH....COUGH...In Flames...COUGH

And I'm not saying suicide silence was ever "Great" but their latest effort is an example of this problem.

This is too literal, "evolution" in this context is just a figure of speech. I'd also say that what looks "abrupt" from a fan's standpoint, from one album to the next, may very well be a culmination of a years-long process of writing in different styles before finally getting to express the product of that work on an album, or just a band deciding to explore one facet of their music to the exclusion of others. The growth can happen behind the scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Idromos247 said:

One thing to remember is that Change does not = Evolution. Evolution is "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form". Some bands change to more simplistic and even 100% different styles and claim that its evolution when its simply an abrupt change in music style/direction (not always better), making new fans while alienating others.

COUGH....COUGH...In Flames...COUGH

And I'm not saying suicide silence was ever "Great" but their latest effort is an example of this problem.

I think the members of In Flames would be the first to acknowledge that they consider their sound to have 'evolved'. Of course, like FatherAlabaster says, we're not talking evolution in the sense of Darwinian natural selection - unless of course you take into consideration the likelihood that they let non-commercial riffs drop off and die whilst songs that appeal to today's kids are allowed to flourish and reproduce, thus changing the shape of the beast.  

I'm no scientist, but not all evolution means something becoming more complex. A tale dropping off, or hair becoming shorter doesn't seem more complex, but they are obviously things that for some reason help that species to reproduce and survive. In the context of metal, the dropping of death metal elements in a band's sound to a simpler rock structure may ensure a wider audience and ultimately allow the band to extend its life and go to greater (commercial) heights. The traditionalists of this world would call that 'devolution' because it goes against their taste for authentic, complex, music. But really, it's just a change the band sees as useful to their purposes. 

Anyway, the thread was about how quickly bands changed their sound back in the 90s compared with today. What do you think Idromos247? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of those 'traditionalists' I'll gladly give my two cents. A band whose focus shifts away from the music they craft and towards how well they can sell themselves shows where their intent truly lies. They prostitute themselves for an easy dollar offering an experience immediately satisfying but ultimately unfulfilling.

 

A band such as Katatonia who make wholesale changes for other reasons i.e. feeling restricted by their earlier style, or that a new direction offers greater room for creativity, should not be admonished for the ambition of that decision. The music crafted ought to be judged upon its own merits. In some cases it may be quite the pleasant surprise as with Bathory's move into Viking Metal. In other instances it may be akin to an attractive woman getting fake tits - you started out with something wonderful and now it just feels weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

The process is more involved now though. Another level of musicianship, more complex arrangements are common, it is difficult to release albums annually. On top of that artists need to tour more, or they have actual jobs on the side.

With the technology available, I'd say that it's easier than ever to record and produce an album.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point here isn't about how quickly a band can produce, it's about how willing they are to change styles, and how likely they are to do that as a group within the confines of their name and back catalog, rather than just starting a new project if they want to explore different sounds. I think (based only on my own experiences and reading) that bands these days are more likely to think of their band name as a brand representing a particular sound, and so they're more apt to work in several projects at once, and I think it plays out differently depending on the musicians and whatever obligations they may have to a particular label or other entity. Good luck finding a label who's willing to release multiple albums a year from the same band in today's crowded and less lucrative market. If your point is that musicians today are less prolific because individual bands don't release albums as frequently, I would say you're wrong, at least for metal. I know of quite a few people who are constantly playing in multiple productive bands, with their names on several releases a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recording an album isn't as simple as just going into a studio though. There's the actual songwriting process, which as I pointed out is often more involved then ever, the fact that artists actually have day jobs to consider, time spent on the road is greater then ever for artists who are trying to make a living off music as well. It's entirely understandable that a band can't drop an album every six months. There are probably exceptions as with everything but they are few and far between. Take technology out of the equation since for metal bands auto-tune and other pop hallmarks are seldom considered.

 

Why don't we look at the kind of music being made forty/fifty years ago...

 

 

 

 

...and now compare that with what we see being released now

 

 

 

This whole discussion relates less to the evolution of artists then the industry as a whole.

12 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

The point here isn't about how quickly a band can produce, it's about how willing they are to change styles, and how likely they are to do that as a group within the confines of their name and back catalog, rather than just starting a new project if they want to explore different sounds. I think (based only on my own experiences and reading) that bands these days are more likely to think of their band name as a brand representing a particular sound, and so they're more apt to work in several projects at once, and I think it plays out differently depending on the musicians and whatever obligations they may have to a particular label or other entity. Good luck finding a label who's willing to release multiple albums a year from the same band in today's crowded and less lucrative market. If your point is that musicians today are less prolific because individual bands don't release albums as frequently, I would say you're wrong, at least for metal. I know of quite a few people who are constantly playing in multiple productive bands, with their names on several releases a year.

Using doom as an example (and I'm exaggerating a little here) Wino has his name (and distinctive vocals) to a great many project outside Saint Vitus and they weren't even his first band. BAN would know the full extent of his projects better then I but he is no doubt among the most prolific artists out there. Because a band isn't releasing doesn't mean their members are resting on their laurels.

 

Would it be such a good thing to have these bands releasing three or four albums a year is another question which ought to be asked. Let's look at the last decade of Iron Maiden releases. There's enough good material across Brave New World, Dance Of Death, A Matter Of Life And Death, Final Frontier, and Book Of Souls to form one average album. Maiden fans are disappointed by the quality of those albums dropping every three or four years so imagine the disgust were sub-par albums like that bombarding us multiple times a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A recording studio is close as the nearest laptop so long as you have the proper software. My point wasn't just about metal. It was about music in general. It wasn't just the hard & heavy bands that released an album every six months or so. It was everybody.

And how has the songwriting process become more involved? You write a song the same way everyone has ever written one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on bands' release schedules: as I mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread, I think it often comes down to economics too unfortunately. With album sales plummeting since the rise of file sharing and youtube, it just isn't possible to drop tens of thousands of dollars each year on studio time and expect to see any of it back. 

Let's use the My Dying Bride release schedule history, but this time I'll add more recent years:

1990s Releases: 1992, 1993, 1994 (EP), 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999. = 7 studio releases in 8 years. 

Later 2000s Releases: 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015. = 4 studio releases in 10 years.

Bands who want to scrape together a career in music, however impoverished that will leave them, have to do so through touring and a few sales of merch. There is no cash coming back from album sales to spread around management, the members, the studio staff etc. It's all on a shoe-string budget these days. 

If it costs a band like My Dying Bride $10,000 to record and release an album in a semi-professional studio, and they only sell 10,000 copies, and the band only gets maybe ten percent of the revenue, to then divide between five or six members, well it clearly isn't cost effective. Back in the 80s and 90s a band like MDB would sell over a hundred thousand, maybe more, and there's cash coming in. Not a lot of it of course, but enough to justify getting back into the studio. 

So I think it's a combination of differing expectations from punters as well as the almighty dollar. Basically, if people were buying albums we would see a lot more put out than one every three years, complex music or not. 

It must be sadly infuriating for bands to see their youtube clips gain millions of views but hitting actual album sales below 10,000. There are more people than ever listening to the music, but no one (except us) paying for it. It sucks. 

And as everyone knows, true geniuses need proper studios. Just ask Jari from Wintersun...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 10 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • Full length number 19 from overkill certainly makes a splash in the energy stakes, I mean there's some modern thrash bands that are a good two decades younger than Overkill who can only hope to achieve the levels of spunk that New Jersey's finest produce here.  That in itself is an achievement, for a band of Overkill's stature and reputation to be able to still sound relevant four decades into their career is no mean feat.  Even in the albums weaker moments it never gets redundant and the energy levels remain high.  There's a real sense of a band in a state of some renewed vigour, helped in no small part by the addition of Jason Bittner on drums.  The former Flotsam & Jetsam skinsman is nothing short of superb throughout "The Wings of War" and seems to have squeezed a little extra out of the rest of his peers.

      The album kicks of with a great build to opening track "Last Man Standing" and for the first 4 tracks of the album the Overkill crew stomp, bash and groove their way to a solid level of consistency.  The lead work is of particular note and Blitz sounds as sneery and scathing as ever.  The album is well produced and mixed too with all parts of the thrash machine audible as the five piece hammer away at your skull with the usual blend of chugging riffs and infectious anthems.  


      There are weak moments as mentioned but they are more a victim of how good the strong tracks are.  In it's own right "Distortion" is a solid enough - if not slightly varied a journey from the last offering - but it just doesn't stand up well against a "Bat Shit Crazy" or a "Head of a Pin".  As the album draws to a close you get the increasing impression that the last few tracks are rescued really by some great solos and stomping skin work which is a shame because trimming of a couple of tracks may have made this less obvious. 

      4/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...