"That's 'Our' Band. Not Yours"

[Khor1255]

Of course a band's musical direction is entirely their own choice. All I'm saying is that no matter how great their previous stuff (or bad for that matter) I also have the freedom to come and go as I please.

Mindfunk's first album was drippy. Not the worst cheese metal by any stretch of the imagination but nothing I would have ever given a second listen. Their second is EPIC!!! but then their third felt like they ran out of steam.

The first time I heard the lyrics to Vital Signs I thought 'please don't tell me Rush is embracing New Wave then Signals came out and there was no denying it. I've come to like that album and the one right after it butt that's really as far down that road as I can go. Once a band changes I feel sort of obliged to stay on for a while but there is a limit.

However, with some bands like Crimson, they can change all over he place and I can stay on board because the music still remains interesting. So it's not the change itself but rather the direction the change happens.

 

[Sox]

I saw them in concert a couple of weeks ago, they were outstanding! I already really liked their albums, but after seeing them live, I have to say I like their studio work even more. The energy these guys have on stage amazed me. Great charisma, great interaction with the fans. I found a new appreciation for them, including the latest album... more so than before seeing them.

That's good to hear, I saw them in 2009 at Donington (Download) and they were spot on, a real force. I've heard a couple of tracks from "Magic Mountain" and they sound good, maybe the 3rd album was just a mellower slant ?

 

[Jonny Come Lately]

Yeah, Coldplay is definitely another band I could see that with. It's no secret that they have a lot of pretty consistent marks in their hits and since (if I'm not mistaken) they've been the most successful band of the last 15 years. So it'd make sense if Chris Martin is reluctant to deviate and risk losing that title. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it right?)

Beyond just trying to give fans a very Colplay-y sounding album though I think some of it is that the songs are being written for this setting...



...second to the actual album that would call it home. I'm not saying that's a bad thing as numerous bands, including my favorite band Queen, wrote songs with the live performances in mind but when you willingly limit your sound then those big anthems and emotional ballads are all you're left with, right?

Some bands are better suited to playing massive venues than others, for instance I think U2 and Queen were/are extremely well suited to playing stadiums with their powerful singers and big sound, whereas by contrast I think Dire Straits suffered when they moved into bigger venues after the success of Brothers In Arms and were better playing more intimate venues which provided a more appropriate setting for their laid-back sound and storytelling lyrics. Coldplay lies somewhere between the extremes, I would not say they are not a 'natural' stadium band (Chris Martin isn't a powerful enough live singer and the rest of the band lacks real presence) but they are not ill-suited to the big venues either, their sound is big enough and their songs tend to be written with these settings in mind.

I myself strongly prefer Coldplay's older music, I think they seem more natural with a more melancholy sound. To me at least their more recent and more upbeat material, especially from the Mylo Xyloto album, comes across as a bit forced, almost like R.E.M.'s Shiny Happy People without the irony (and I loathe Shiny Happy People). Also, when I listen to Parachutes I feel like I'm listening to a real band in a real room, a feeling that I get less and less with album onwards after A Rush Of Blood, culminating in their most recent album where the guitarist and drummer may as well not have been there for the most part. Additionally, some of the most widespread criticisms of the band have become fairer over time - Chris Martin has never been a great lyricist by any stretch of the imagination but on A Rush Of Blood the lyrics are adequate and devoid of any real clunkers, whereas some of the lyrics on the last couple of albums have been pretty embarrassing (think 'I'd rather be a comma than a full stop' or 'cause you're a sky full of stars') .

 

[Riff Raff]

Of course a band's musical direction is entirely their own choice. All I'm saying is that no matter how great their previous stuff (or bad for that matter) I also have the freedom to come and go as I please.

Mindfunk's first album was drippy. Not the worst cheese metal by any stretch of the imagination but nothing I would have ever given a second listen. Their second is EPIC!!! but then their third felt like they ran out of steam.

The first time I heard the lyrics to Vital Signs I thought 'please don't tell me Rush is embracing New Wave then Signals came out and there was no denying it. I've come to like that album and the one right after it butt that's really as far down that road as I can go. Once a band changes I feel sort of obliged to stay on for a while but there is a limit.

However, with some bands like Crimson, they can change all over he place and I can stay on board because the music still remains interesting. So it's not the change itself but rather the direction the change happens.

Of course. This is something else I find annoying with fans of some bands. If you dare to admit an era of a band is not your cup of tea the idiots call you close minded or some stupid shit like that. Its closed minded to call others that for their own preferences. Some bands have much better old eras than new ones.