Alex
King Of The Wasteland
So I was listening to the new Bring Me The Horizon song Drown.
[YOUTUBE]TkV5709EG5M[/YOUTUBE]
I think it's a pretty good song. Nice melodies and Oli Sykes vocals are actually pretty good and build on what they did with their previous album Sempiternal.
Sempiternal marked a big change in the bands sound as they added more electronic bits as well as keyboards (as they added keyboard player Jordan Fish to the line up)
[YOUTUBE]lir3dzYIhz0[/YOUTUBE]
Now a fair few fans didn't like Sempiternal as it moved away from the metalcore sound the band had previously been known for saying they 'sold out'
[YOUTUBE]QuQW1vkDA1c[/YOUTUBE]
My question why is it when a band changes their sound fans immediately claim they sold out or now suck because of the new direction. This isn't new. Some fans say that a bands early work was their best e.g. 30 Seconds To Mars, Metallica, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Green Day, Manic Street Preachers etc.
On the flip side some fans only like a bands later material and will say their earlier work sucks e.g. Red Hot Chili Peppers, 30 Seconds To Mars, Green Day etc.
Then you get bands who stick to the same formula more or less throughout their career like Iron Maiden, Motorhead, Oasis etc.
My question is why do fans get so iffy about some bands changing their sound. Granted sometimes this is due to line up changes (a discussion for another time). But it seems some bands can't experiment while others can
I don't really hear anyone complaining about Queen going from Another One Bites The Dust style rock to I Want To Break Free with pop influences yet when Metallica tone down the heaviness a bit it's blasphemous.
I know experimentation doesn't always bring great results (people say Chris Cornell's R&B solo record was shit) but experimentation does yield some good results such as the self titled Motley Crue album, and the Mike Patton era Faith No More releases.
Also if a band doesn't really change their style what's the point of getting their new stuff. There's the joke that AC/DC have been releasing the same album for thirty years but that can be applied to Motorhead, Iron Maiden etc.
So what is it about some bands being allowed to experiment and others aren't. My personal opinion is certain fans don't like change (another thing that can be linked to line up changes) and that if it's not similar to what they like they'll dismiss it.
What are your guys views??
[YOUTUBE]TkV5709EG5M[/YOUTUBE]
I think it's a pretty good song. Nice melodies and Oli Sykes vocals are actually pretty good and build on what they did with their previous album Sempiternal.
Sempiternal marked a big change in the bands sound as they added more electronic bits as well as keyboards (as they added keyboard player Jordan Fish to the line up)
[YOUTUBE]lir3dzYIhz0[/YOUTUBE]
Now a fair few fans didn't like Sempiternal as it moved away from the metalcore sound the band had previously been known for saying they 'sold out'
[YOUTUBE]QuQW1vkDA1c[/YOUTUBE]
My question why is it when a band changes their sound fans immediately claim they sold out or now suck because of the new direction. This isn't new. Some fans say that a bands early work was their best e.g. 30 Seconds To Mars, Metallica, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Green Day, Manic Street Preachers etc.
On the flip side some fans only like a bands later material and will say their earlier work sucks e.g. Red Hot Chili Peppers, 30 Seconds To Mars, Green Day etc.
Then you get bands who stick to the same formula more or less throughout their career like Iron Maiden, Motorhead, Oasis etc.
My question is why do fans get so iffy about some bands changing their sound. Granted sometimes this is due to line up changes (a discussion for another time). But it seems some bands can't experiment while others can
I don't really hear anyone complaining about Queen going from Another One Bites The Dust style rock to I Want To Break Free with pop influences yet when Metallica tone down the heaviness a bit it's blasphemous.
I know experimentation doesn't always bring great results (people say Chris Cornell's R&B solo record was shit) but experimentation does yield some good results such as the self titled Motley Crue album, and the Mike Patton era Faith No More releases.
Also if a band doesn't really change their style what's the point of getting their new stuff. There's the joke that AC/DC have been releasing the same album for thirty years but that can be applied to Motorhead, Iron Maiden etc.
So what is it about some bands being allowed to experiment and others aren't. My personal opinion is certain fans don't like change (another thing that can be linked to line up changes) and that if it's not similar to what they like they'll dismiss it.
What are your guys views??