Inspired by our Senator's line yesterday that he didn't like post OK Computer Radiohead.

It got me thinkin'. We all want our favorite artists to stretch out a bit, try new things, challenge us and not remain static. I mean who wants to hear an artist regurgitate the same album over and over again?

Yet, isn't there a fine line in experimenting? I mean, can't an artist take it too far, to the point that they cease to be the artist we fell in love with in the first place?

This isn't a Radiohead topic per se. I'd just like to hear some thoughts on the subject. I know I'm not leaving you guys much to grab hold of but if possible...

Discuss

I generally like when bands try to "reinvent" themselves or try a new direction or whatever. I think it's important for bands to know their limits, though. Bands like Radiohead can do just about anything and it feels like a "natural progression" from their last record. Some bands just wouldn't be able to do that without it being a total disaster.

I think Wilco has done a good job overall but I think 'A Ghost is Born' was a small step backwards for them.

I used to love U2 mainly because they did try to progress their sound with each album. Through Pop, they were one of my favorite bands. When they tried to go back to their former sound with 'All That You Can't Leave Behind' I lost almost all interest in the band.

I'm trying to think of a good example of a band/artist who was great but ruined themselves when they tried a new sound but my mind is a blank right now.

Since I inspired it, I will comment. Three of my favorite bands of the late 90s pretty well jumped the shark in the past 5 years:
Radiohead
Wilco
Outkast

There is still hope for all three actually. I saw Radiohead in concert on TV a few weeks ago, and aside from shit like "Everything in it's right place" they were still bringing it pretty hard. That said, I had no compunction, nor do I ever feel I will to even hear HTTT.

Wilco and Outkast are harder to define in their downfall, it's mainly that, to me, Aquemini>Stankonia, which suffers from severe bloat, overdone skits, and some bad songs (Toilet Tisha, anyone?) Of course, Speakerboxxx/The Love Belwo has its moments....if they had taken the only 2 listenable songs on The Love Below and replaced some of the filler (Bamboo?!) on Speakerboxxx they may have made one of their strongest albums, as it stands it was a failed experiment and hopefully this year will see a return to true form.

Wilco is similar. IMO Summerteeth is just a far superior record to YHF, as is Being There. Those two records are different enough to say that Wilco was moving in new directions, but I just don't get all the hype (or maybe I'm the only one who truely gets it, because the collective Obnerati refuses my theory about YHF's genius marketing scheme) surrounding YHF.. It's a good record, but, as I believe splates said in the other thread, the 'experimentation' sounds forced and added. A Ghost is Born has its moments, but Tweedy's massive ego driving away everyone but Stiratt, and his constant bs puscatorism in interviews, combined with the noise wankery adds up to a record I have listened to maybe 10 times.

I think it's excellent when an artist "stretches" their sound; branches out.

But I also think that, after a point, it becomes self-conscious. They stretch, because the fans (and critics) EXPECT them to, and not because of genuine artistic/creative restlessness. That's when it all starts to turn sour, methinks. And I think that EVERY band reaches that point at some time. The itch has been scratched, and they're trying something new, just to try something new.

Even happened to The Beatles (hence the retreat to a rawer sound with Let It Be.)

So I have nothing but respect for U2 for going back to the "old" sound. The songs have still been rock-solid. If they feel the itch again, I'm sure they'll go back to experimentation and "stretching".

I don't agree that Radiohead have jumped the shark at all, but Wilco and Outkast have although I think both bands did it on their last records. I think most bands have truly quality 2-3 records and about a five year window. When they exceed that and the "reinvention" process begins, most of their original fans start to drop away.

When you have a truly great band (since the Senator carried this thread so far, I'll say the Rolling Stones), they can easily move between different types of sound and crank out quality for years and nobody is really worrying about if something is more bluesy or roots oriented etc. For me Radiohead seems to be that kind of band.

I guess at heart here is this: when a band overhauls its sound / songwriting in a MAJOR way, ie wilco, outkast, radiohead, it is in most respects a different band. That isn't neccessarily a bad thing, but it means that people re-evaluate the "new" band, and not all of them will like it. Think about "Creep" and then think about anything recent... the voice sounds similar, but 90% of that sound is completely new, across the albums. I find this slightly less true of Wilco, but only slightly. And I happen to like the new Wilco, but in a different way than Being There wilco... it's really not that different, mentally, than liking 2 different bands.

i think that the problem with the outkast record was the decision to market/release it as an outkast album when it clearly wasn't anymore. if it had been a pretty decent but conservative big boi album and a funk/soul album from andre then it wouldn't have gotten either the sales or acclaim but it would probably be a more truthful representation of what they were each thinking and doing. personally i'm more bothered by bands like the Sea and Cake that release the same album over and over.

radiohead (kid amnesiac)
wilco (a ghost is born)
bjork (medulla)

3 artists i felt a bit awkward with their change of direction. "kid a" and "medulla" i ended up liking more than most of the rest of their catalogue. "amnesiac" didn't work as much as an album, and "a ghost is born" just feels to lethargic to best "summerteeth" or YHF.

bright eyes comes to mind too, with his hint-of-folk/country and hint-of-idm tinged albums. "digital" is good, but just isn't focused enough in some songs, kinda like lifted in it's inconsistency. However, "wide awake" works as a cohesive album and retains most of what i love about "lifted".