Experimentation Over Time OR A Way To Rag On Nickelback Without Being Too...Explicit?
 

So, experimentation by bands, how do we feel?

Personally, I've usually judge solely based on how it sounds on its own merits, not compared to the past or whatnot. That way, when I initially hear the beginnings of a changed style the "Whoa, lemme check that artist label" whiplash subsides after the first song and I begin to consider the album/song as a unique entity. Sometimes the new sound is enjoyable, and the experimentation can be considered a success, sometimes its not and I don't enjoy the divergence, but considering experimenting bad solely because it's experimenting seems a bit wonky.

On the other hand, I've never really gotten why people get so worked up over bands that find a groove they're comfortable in. I'll confess that I've listened to albums and said "Man, I wish there were like 11 more tracks to this" when I'm finished. A common word that gets thrown around is formulaic which I think has acquired an undeserved negative air about it. "Formula" to me has always been akin to words like genre or medium, a sense of boundaries with variation. What I can agree with is staleness, or not even bothering to see where you can push the formula.

I think formulaic is used too often to describe something which follows a formula toward a purpose--generally a formula to create money--as opposed to just formulas in general, and that's where the negative air comes from.

Im kinda split on experimentation. Metallica experimented, and their new stuff, IMO, is vastly superior to the old. On the other hand, every time another band I like experiments, it ends up not being good. Listen to some of the 90's Scorpions albums, or that acoustic Godsmack album. It can be good, but it can also alienate fans, which I think is worse then being "the same."

And on Metallica, I beg to differ. However its a matter of taste and preference. In all cases. Once you come to that conclusion, there isnt much else to be said. But for some reason, music is something that must be argued over, even though its clearly a matter of opinion.

Well to be fair lots of the arguing about music is all about generational spectrums, the smaller issues being just personal preferences. The whole "Nothing but noise" sneering at the younger music thing, if you would.

But anyway; Experimentation in music is really crucial, but you have to be careful not to basically change your entire sound. A good example of experimentation was the second Black Mages album. Their new introduction of vocals threw me for a complete loop, but after a while I got used to it and I actually happen to like it now.

And on the Metallica thing: They did No Leaf Clover with a full orchestra. That is very experimental, and its easily my favorite Metallica song.

EDIT: I liked Until It Sleeps.

S&M was pretty cool, Until it Sleeps was epic, but I can see that turning off a lot of people.

I did like No Leaf Clover/Until it sleeps as well. Every one of the albums had something good on them, with an equal share of crap. Pre black album, though there was only one song I couldnt get behind, The Thing that Should not Be. Although I do have one complaint about S&M. For majority of the album the orchestra didnt do much at all. For most songs, it was simply tacked on. You would get 15 seconds of metallica playing, the orchestra would go DUN DUNNN, and then metallica plays again. The orchestra gets like, 2 notes in a whole section. They could at least try to follow along, an orchestra is an excellent mood-setter, but its no good if they arent playing.

Actually, I found myself only liking about half the tracks on pre-Black albums (excluding MoP, which was all gold). I know a lot fo people loved Ride the Lightning, and No Remorse, but I dunno. Part of it is I hate Hetfields voice in KeA/RtL.

Me, I have almost no conception of a band's general image or how it develops over time. I can barely form an overarching opinion of a whole album; I care for individual songs.

To take Metallica, I like: For Whom The Bell Tolls, Fade to Black, Master of Puppets, Orion, One, To Live is to Die, The Unforgiven, Nothing Else Matters, Hero of the Day, The Outlaw Torn, The Unforgiven II, Low Man's Lyric and Saint Anger. You'll notice with a few exceptions that's exactly two songs per album but that's just a coincidence.

Just my two cents.

The thing is, when bands say that they are 'experimenting' or whatever, usually it just means 'We changed our sound to be more marketable' which means 'we sold ourselves out of any real creativity or artistic integrity. Buy our album!'.

I'm going to use Third Eye Blind as a not-totally accurate example; their first album was really great. Unique sound, some catchy songs, lyrics that were, maybe risque for the audience they were marketed to, but very revealing and pretty cool. Then 'Blue' comes out and it's like every song is built like their single from the first album - it's all so it can be marketed to the 'pop' crowd a lot easier, which is infuriating. I think this happens a lot and it is not symptom but one of the causes of the 'Sophmore Slump'

Then you have messed up stuff where who knows whats going on like Garth Brooks becoming Chris Gains or Rob Thomas becoming a solo artist.