What's better? Starting pop/commercial/accessible and getting more experimental and complex as time goes on, or vice versa?

[Entre_Perpetuo]

I can name successful bands and artists who have done both.  The Beatles are the obvious example for starting very commercial and accessible and gradually getting more and more cutting edge and daring in the studio and having tons of success regardless.  Genesis are a great example of a band with tons of early success (within the prog sphere) doing the most complicated experimental stuff they could concoct, then later having even greater success making concise, efficient, (relatively) straightforward pop tunes.  Radiohead were more accessible early on.  Queen got poppier as they went along.

 

Also, where does Rush stand in this? The debut is as accessible as they come by Rush's standards, and everything that followed up to Hemispheres was increasingly experimental, but then everything up until Hold Your Fire seemed to be going more and more commercial (despite still being really really complicated), but then in the 90s they went simultaneously less pop but also less complex, and then by the 00s the direction was just whatever they felt like on any particular album, and of course they only seemed to be more and more successful with each passing year (barring the hiatus). Maybe not on the charts per say, but with the fans and the tours.  A very odd artistic trajectory.

[taurus]

I don't know if one is better than the other. I can think of more examples of starting off more experimental and then going poppy. Which is understandable, going ther Beatles route you likely need to be wildly successful first to be able to bankroll your experiments. Beatles and The Beach Boys come to mind but I guess an exception would be David Bowie - very conventional in his earliest work, a little more edgy shortly afterwards and then his most experimental coming in the Berlin trilogy

 

I guess as long as the change happens for authentic, artistic reasons and not contractual obligation reasons

Edited May 12, 2022 by taurus

[IbanezJem]

If a new band wants to make an impact, I think they need to be true to themselves and not show their influences too nakedly. This might be poppy or it might be experimental. As a listener I want to hear something genuine and the early records of most bands will be where this exists, because it`ll be before the influence of success and money and pressures come in, it`ll be the music they created before success. 

[bluefox4000]

it's purely a band decision obviously. and i feel what's "better" is in the eye of the beholder.  aso depends on the band.

 

examples

 

Genesis- Not really a fan of the gabriel era.  while it has moments of brilliance (foxtrot is for my money that era's best easily)  i find most of it to be too precious and silly for it's own good.  i prefer the pop Genesis much more. i know come at me, lol

 

Yes- this to me is the opposite case.  I love the proggy experimental stuff.  Yes album, Close to the Edge, Relayer, Going for the One.......even Tormato.  I love nearly all of of that to death.

 

Pop yes.........yikes.  It comes off like dinosaur past their expiration date musicians trying to be hip.......and IMO....it's so cringe. that rescue 90210 album or whatever the hell it's called has a few good tunes but is mostly dreck.  Big Generator.....please, lol   That Yes fell flat on it's face for me.

 

so again.....depends on the band.

 

Mick

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by bluefox4000

[stoopid]

2 hours ago, bluefox4000 said:

it's purely a band decision obviously. and i feel what's "better" is in the eye of the beholder.  aso depends on the band.

 

examples

 

Genesis- Not really a fan of the gabriel era.  while it has moments of brilliance (foxtrot is for my money that era's best easily)  i find most of it to be too precious and silly for it's own good.  i prefer the pop Genesis much more. i know come at me, lol

 

Yes- this to me is the opposite case.  I love the proggy experimental stuff.  Yes album, Close to the Edge, Relayer, Going for the One.......even Tormato.  I love nearly all of of that to death.

 

Pop yes.........yikes.  It comes off like dinosaur past their expiration date musicians trying to be hip.......and IMO....it's so cringe. that rescue 90210 album or whatever the hell it's called has a few good tunes but is mostly dreck.  Big Generator.....please, lol   That Yes fell flat on it's face for me.

 

so again.....depends on the band.

 

Mick

 

 

Same here, the answer to the question has as much to do with personal tastes of the listener.  Pop Genesis works better for me than Gabriel era through Duke.  Starting with the self-titled I can listen to the albums from beginning to end.  Not that every song is brilliant, it just rings truer and is more objectively enjoyable.

 

Yes I like through 90125, there's some great songs on 90125 like It Can Happen, Changes, Cinema/Leave It... Big Generator is a rough listen now, although I remember enjoying it as a kid.  Shoot High, Aim Low is the only surviving track to my ears.  Could Yes have gone this direction if not for the successes of their prior albums and tours?

 

The band Live (1990s mostly fame) had a mostly acoustic based first full album, Mental Jewelry.  Then after grunge had a firm footing, they added a lot of electric guitars and attitude on the hugely successful followup Throwing Copper.  Despite aligning with the obvious market tropes of the time [distorted, half step tuned down guitars, songs written in a lower key for the lead singer to be less shrilly] they managed to stay true to their roots, as evidence of their MTV Unplugged performance that had these same 'heavier' song translate extremely well to an all acoustic format like they would have appeared on the first album/in the style of the first album.  My point is that sometimes it's not the compositions as much as the instruments they're played. 

 

Radiohead from The Bends to OK Computer wasn't a huge leap if you look under the musical hood, there was just a bit of electronic peppered into what could have easily been The Bends v2.  And yet that album (OK Computer) is heralded as something new, and that was almost entirely accomplished through changing the delivery mechanism of the music (type and tone of the instruments).

 

IMO a band needs money to record and effectively distribute an album, and to get that they need to have some level of success.  Nowadays this is even tougher as contracts are written less favorably for the bands, often requiring record sales and/or touring metrics to be met to recoup the studio costs being loaned them for making the album, putting pressure on new artists to create something accessible or lose their shirts (and band) in the process.  Zappa and others warned of this trend going back as far as the 1970s ('drooling accountants', etc).  This makes for an environment where signed artists are less likely to take risks until they are firmly established, if ever.  Thankfully we're in the age of home recording / budget studio recording that can rival what the record companies typically expect/use.  So there's a healthy supply of interesting music to be made and enjoyed, so long as the artist isn't trying to fully support themselves on the sales which still requires a marketing budget, shit luck, or a boatload of touring.

 

Is there a direct correlation of bands that have changed gears once or more over their career and the objective quality of their output?  Aerosmith went full on sellout, but were commercially successful prior (although fading until they released Permanent Vacation).  Their late 80s onward output is cringeworthy but coming from a place of 'we don't *really* need to sellout, but here we are'.  They could have just as well gone the other direction, and went electronica, prog, or metal.  I think their choice is one worth examining when looking at other artists who made the least commercially viable decision they could have made at the time.  Rush did this several times, to varying success.  Interviews indicate they had to in order to survive, they otherwise would have grown bored trying to make Hemispheres or 2112 over and over again.  In doing so, they gave listeners something new to appreciate, even if it wasn't their favorite version of the band.  Did they sell out because they changed, or did they not sellout because they changed in a pop direction their fans did NOT want?  The Beatles were selling a lot of albums before and after they shifted gears, and in the context of those differing styles they made good music in either version of the band.  It still comes down to what pleases the listener's ears, so it's not a rule or filter that can be applied blindly to any band, era, or trend.

Edited May 12, 2022 by stoopid