It's a snob thing, I know...

Dozy,I agree to a certain extent.I want to share good music with other people & I don't consider a band is selling out if they become popular unless they blatantly change their style to gain a commercial success.As you say,often the newer stuff can be better-it's just childish snobbery on my behalf that you usually lose that intimacy experienced when a band goes from playing small venues to larger audiences.Like I said,it's a selfish view...

I much prefer small ones, which is why most of the live music I see these days tends to be jazz or chamber music, even though they're not as well represented as rock or pop in the disc collection.

Quite often rather cheaper as well, of course, and you don't have to put up with someone talking behind you, smoking in your face or spilling drinks on you. Or shouting out song titles of things you know damn well aren't going to get played, the names of people who left the band 5 years ago and other inane stuff when you're trying to listen.

Pete.

quote:

---

I dislike it more when popularity changes the music: like Simple Minds and U2 - starting out as great bands with an edge (no pun intended) but the music bloated in sync with their audiences.

---

Although I know that this is probably the cause in some cases, I think it's a misinterpretation for many more. Have you considered the possibility that the bands are merely growing up and evolving, and/or that their members are getting older and losing their "edge"?

For example, XTC used to be a punkish, New Wave band, with a strong pop sensibilities. As they progressed, their writing and production became more sophisticated. However, it also lost some of the angry energy that they had in their earlier years. Is this a bad thing? Many bemoan the fact that they don't sound exactly the same as they did before, while I actually prefer the advanced offerings from their later years. Notably, I was introduced to XTC with Oranges & Lemons and Skylarking, not their earlier albums (although I had heard some of the first hits on the radio). Therefore, I think it has much to do with what you've learned to expect.

Joe Jackson is another good example. His original albums sported the persona of a wry, cynical individual. In his memoirs, he claimed that this was image was intentional (although I'm sure there were aspects of the "Real Joe" ensconced within). In the liner notes of Beat Crazy he denounced the genre, and his next album was Jumping Jive. Many were sad to lose the old Joe.

A lesser known band from the US called "12 Rods" was known for their intense and raw indie sound. Their first album was a little rough around the edges, but was enjoyable nonetheless. Their second album was produced by Todd Rundgren, and it was much more polished and sophisticated. As I listen to both albums, I suspect that they would have had the same sound from their first album, except that it was beyond their skill. Rundgren helped them to express their vision more fully. (I later learned that they made this claim themselves.) However, many of the original fans were shocked at the new sound (even though it's quite obviously the same band). Here's a quote from one review:

quote:

---

But the stomach-turning pain this record causes me doesn't stem from any particularly grating noise or gut-wrenchingly awful sonic mishap to be found on the record. Rather, it comes from the knowledge that a band I once considered to be one of the absolute greatest bands in modern music could produce a record that sounds so bad. What's even more perplexing is that the same band could call such an obviously terrible-sounding record "the record we wanted to make and that sounds like us."

---

For the full review, go to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/t/twelve-rods/separation-anxieties.shtml. It's an entertaining read. Obviously the first album really hit a chord with the reviewer, so that their new release was predestined to fail. (BTW, I prefer the second album.)

In the end, it all comes down to expectations and familiarity. Music is such a personal thing, that it can often become a self-appointed anthem. You feel a strong emotional tie to the band -- a relationship of sorts. When that band evolves into something else, or heads in a different direction than you do, it can seem like you've been jilted. People don't seem to realize (or at least don't accept) that the perceived relationship is pure illusion.

When Joe Jackson visited Toronto during a book signing tour, I dropped by to hear him speak, and perhaps to get an autograph. I'm not usually an autograph hound, but I was willing to make an exception in this case. I felt a special affinity for Joe's music: When I was a teenager, the angst in his first three albums resounded in my psyche. As I grew up Joe's music changed, and this seemed appropriate somehow. I went to the signing with my copies of I'm the Man and Symphony #1 (i.e. my first and my most recent purchases), so that I could express how I've been enjoying all his music throughout his career. I felt "close" to him, and I was hoping to make a small personal connection. When I looked into his eyes across the little table, I knew that I was just another fan, and that any perceived relationship was just a teen-inspired fantasy.

Even if we feel an affinity for an artist's music, we must realize that we don't have any form of propriety. The artist's output can and will change, and we have to accept that as part of life. I know it's a silly platitude, but it certainly speaks to the content of this thread.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

I was hoping to provoke a well argued discussion (even though my original statement wasn't well argued-blame the Guiness for that!)and you've all made some very good points.Mike & Met have both hit upon a couple of very valid points that my initial poorly reasoned, blunt statement failed to recognise.
I agree that it is only natural that a band should evolve & mature even if it means alienating some listeners-you can't please all the people all the time(hmmm..now who said that?-sorry ,thats a US pop quiz leader....)As Met stated,I thik sometimes we expect too much from people.What would Jimi Hendrix be doing now?Or Otis Redding?Would they be held in such high esteem if they descended into musical mediocrity in their later years, had they survived?
As for bands losing their edge, I agree that the 'edge ' is, by nature of definition moved further away as soon as a band makes that initial impact.What is new all too often soon starts to sound old.
I'd rather that bands evolved (not neccesssarily
in a musical direction that I'd approve)than stagnate,repeating the same old tunes over & over(Belle & Sebastian spring to mind here).All too often one is disappointed in the newer output of old 'heroes' which indicates they have moved on & we haven't(Weller used to get me bouncing of the walls-now he makes me want to do some hoovering...but I accept that that is him maturing personally and musically-It just means I don't listen to his new stuff.)As you both say,we have a tendancy to adopt bands on a personal level,and that we often feel betrayed if they move in a direction we don't approve of.I guess the point that I was trying to make ,as Mike stated , is that I take it personally when a band does evolve into something I can't find an connection to.It's a growing process on all our behalves...