One of the biggest problems I often see in the metal scene are musicians who just don't know when to call it quits, or, more specifically, when to move on from a sound that they've already established. This is a personal interpretation, of course, and surely other people may see it differently. But I nonetheless think that sometimes, people just don't know when the sound they've developed has gotten tired, redundant, and needs a redefinition. Look at Abbath. I almost feel sad that he's still going on with a sound that he's been doing for multiple decades now that Immortal's moved on without him, instead of saying "ya know what you guys, to hell with you all, I'm just gonna do me" and trying something completely new to distance himself and create a new musical identity. Same with Slayer. They've long since passed their golden age, they've already left a legacy, and they don't need to do anything else. I understand some people just love doing the same thing for an extended period of time, but please: if you want to be taken seriously as an artist (at least in my book), at some point you have to evolve.

One of the biggest examples of this, and a man I respect tremendously, would be Ihsahn. He was able to see the writing on the wall. He understood that Emperor had run its course. They had done the heavy, gritty, lo fi shit, and they had done the epic, majestic, grandiose symphonic shit. They had covered all their bases and putting out further material would have quite likely led to them repeating themselves over and over and becoming stale. So he called it quits and started doing his own thing with his own sound, which is DRASTICALLY different from anything Emperor have ever done. He created a new musical persona for himself, and he's still kicking ass. And if you ask me, that's what it's all about.

Do you think this sense of needing to evolve and redefine yourself is important? Why/why not? Discuss.

You mean when Metallica became shit they should have switched their name to something other than Metallica? (In order to not ruin their image.) I'm with you on that if that's the case.

I think it really depends how / which way bands evolve. In Flames / Megadeth / Cryptopsy etc. went from eventual crappy versions of their original sound to even shittier versions of something else. Whereas Blut aus Nord / Emptiness / Sigh / Enslaved / Advent Sorrow (a recent discovery for me) and probably hundreds of other bands evolve their sound in interesting and relevant ways.

Really depends on the sound / band though. Some bands seem to be exempt from criticism when they don't bother to evolve, such as Bolt Thrower, High On Fire / basically the whole of the funeral doom / stoner genre etc. whereas thrash bands get it in the neck when they all start sounding alike. It's all fairly relative I think.

Yes I mostly agree. If I were to look at the discography of some of my favorite artists, most of them would have albums vastly different from others by the same artist. Sure, there is a kind of novelty factor (for lack of a better word, maybe "un-novelty") in bands such as Motörhead, Slayer and Iron Maiden (debatable but imo, yeah) who are still doing what they have always done. But what is the point of having 15+ albums that all sound like carbon copies of each other?

Sometimes I wonder about these kinds of artists, from different points of view. First, do they not grow tired of playing the exact same types of songs for over 20 years in a row? And second, how does their creative process actually work? Do they just happen to always come up with stuff that is very similar to previous efforts or is it more of a conscious decision? If so, why? I can think of several reasons...

They might have found a sound that "just works" for them and see no need to fix what is not broken. However, much like an LP that has been played over and over for years, the record actually gets broken because you never change it up. So in many cases I'd say the stagnation is actually what's "broken." This line of thought can also be applied to more commercially-leaning artists who realize that the best way to get publicity and money is to never lose your identity. And it works, for many listeners, but for me it just makes me want to find their best album and forget about all the (similarly sounding but slightly inferior) other albums.

When I look at many of my favorite bands, as I said, they have a quite colorful track record. Amorphis, for instance, had a streak of 6 vastly different albums before settling into their style of today. And while they still make good music, their back collection is just a lot more interesting for me since I can pick out what parts actually make up their, so to speak, "identity," by reading between the lines and drawing connections between albums. If nothing else, it just makes the artistic intent of the band a lot more believable. Sentenced made a death record, then a black record, then a "death'n'roll" record before settling with gothic metal.

This might be influenced by how the bands percieve themselves in the beginning of their career. Do they want to be an explicit "death metal band", play straight forward "hard rock" or do they just want to play with their influences and see what comes out? I think true creativity will be more likely found in the latter category.

Oh well, TL;DR is that a band that evolves might risk losing parts of their fanbase but as long as they evolve in the right direction they will more than make up for it with new fans. And by not evolving they risk losing many fans who just get bored. Yes, evolution is important, at least for me.

Written by Redn1ght on 02.10.2015 at 18:52

You mean when Metallica became shit they should have switched their name to something other than Metallica? (In order to not ruin their image.) I'm with you on that if that's the case.

That certainly would've been funny, but not entirely the point that I'm getting at. I've heard that before, when bands change their style radically and people are like "oh, they shouldn't even call themselves _______ anymore at this point." Hell, it even happened with WITTR last year when they dropped that ambient album. But it's a point I have to disagree with. Sure bands can change sound considerably and still retain their name. New style doesn't have to mean new name, and I really don't understand the notion that it does

Written by [user id=4365] on 02.10.2015 at 19:02

I think it really depends how / which way bands evolve. In Flames / Megadeth / Cryptopsy etc. went from eventual crappy versions of their original sound to even shittier versions of something else. Whereas Blut aus Nord / Emptiness / Sigh / Enslaved / Advent Sorrow (a recent discovery for me) and probably hundreds of other bands evolve their sound in interesting and relevant ways.

Really depends on the sound / band though. Some bands seem to be exempt from criticism when they don't bother to evolve, such as Bolt Thrower, High On Fire / basically the whole of the funeral doom / stoner genre etc. whereas thrash bands get it in the neck when they all start sounding alike. It's all fairly relative I think.

Yup, that latter group of bands you listed is exactly what I'm talking about. They have all had multiple incarnations and redefined themselves several times throughout their career. And there's a good feeling, with all of them, that they weren't doing it for the sake of bringing themselves to a larger audience, or for the sake of being cool, but out of a genuine desire to change things up and more fully explore some of their other musical influences.

That second point you make is very interesting though. Why DO those types of bands get less shit for redundancy and staleness than thrash ones do? I really can't answer that question entirely, but I think it might have something to do with the macho male and anti poser attitudes typically associated with thrash, which have started to be criticized heavily within the past decade. I've noticed that most metalheads don't really embrace that shit nearly as much as they used to, have started distancing themselves from it, and that could be part of the reason why thrash bands generally get more shit for it today than they did 10, 15 years ago.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 02.10.2015 at 19:22

That second point you make is very interesting though. Why DO those types of bands get less shit for redundancy and staleness than thrash ones do? I really can't answer that question, but I think it might have something to do with the macho male and anti poser attitudes typically associated with thrash, which have started to be criticized heavily within the past decade. I've really noticed that most metalheads don't really embrace that shit nearly as much as they used to, have started distancing themselves from it, and that could be part of the reason why thrash bands generally get more shit for it today than they did 10, 15 years ago.

I dunno really, it's hard to answer tbh. I guess it would relate back to my big old rants in that Is Thrash The Most Important Metal Genre thread. I think the likes of doom, stoner, funeral etc are more about tonality, feeling, perhaps even texture in some cases, whereas thrash is more or less about riffs and perhaps aggression. I think it's easier to "feel" a stoner band, or an f-doom than it is a thrash band so it's more enduring. That's pretty much from my own perspective as a general non-thrash fan, and I've no doubt that thrash fans would disagree.

Written by Netzach on 02.10.2015 at 19:11

They might have found a sound that "just works" for them and see no need to fix what is not broken. However, much like an LP that has been played over and over for years, the record actually gets broken because you never change it up. So in many cases I'd say the stagnation is actually what's "broken." This line of thought can also be applied to more commercially-leaning artists who realize that the best way to get publicity and money is to never lose your identity. And it works, for many listeners, but for me it just makes me want to find their best album and forget about all the (similarly sounding but slightly inferior) other albums.

When I look at many of my favorite bands, as I said, they have a quite colorful track record. Amorphis, for instance, had a streak of 6 vastly different albums before settling into their style of today. And while they still make good music, their back collection is just a lot more interesting for me since I can pick out what parts actually make up their, so to speak, "identity," by reading between the lines and drawing connections between albums. If nothing else, it just makes the artistic intent of the band a lot more believable. Sentenced made a death record, then a black record, then a "death'n'roll" record before settling with gothic metal.

TL;DR is that a band that evolves might risk losing parts of their fanbase but as long as they evolve in the right direction they will more than make up for it with new fans. And by not evolving they risk losing many fans who just get bored. Yes, evolution is important, at least for me.

"Don't fix what isn't broken" is definitely the case with many bands, and I can think of plenty like that who, even though their discography isn't very varied, are still highly enjoyable. Fistula and Bong immediately come to mind for me (yes I know, what a contrast ). I'll still always prefer that variation though, even if I can still get into bands that don't have it. Commerciality is definitely a factor though, especially with the bigger bands. It sucks, because part of me thinks that even though some of them might want to change up their sound, or just settle down and stop making music altogether, contractual obligations simply prevent them from doing so. It's a sad reality, but it's reality nonetheless.

Finding those "invisible threads" you sort of mentioned between albums is one of the most fun parts of all of this. It's that whole question of how have bands managed to retain a core sound while still crafting albums that are all drastically different from each other. It's something that, as a musician myself, I love to study and investigate. Mories, Stephen O'Malley, and Vindsval have pretty much become my go to composers for that.

Written by [user id=4365] on 02.10.2015 at 19:26

I think the likes of doom, stoner, funeral etc are more about tonality, feeling, perhaps even texture in some cases, whereas thrash is more or less about riffs and perhaps aggression. I think it's easier to "feel" a stoner band, or an f-doom than it is a thrash band so it's more enduring. That's pretty much from my own perspective as a general non-thrash fan, and I've no doubt that thrash fans would disagree.

Another good observation

It sure is nice when a band manages to grow and produce material that reflects their maturation (the way Devin Townsend and Ihsahn do), but the fact is some bands lack the desire to do that or the capacity to do it successfully. Bands like Slayer and Manowar are prime examples of musical stagnation. The cause in my perhaps too cynical a view is to some extent the restrictive rigidity of their genres, which don't reward change and the fact that they have largely survived in the music industry not because of great artistic abilities, but a fanbase buying into their shtick. What these bands have had to contribute to music has been exhausted for a long time but its impact has allowed them to overstay their welcome. Bands like this don't thrive on the stir of the muse's fanciful whims, but the craft of giving fans exactly what's expected of them. If even a band as revered and artistically ambitious as Opeth suffered the post-Heritage wrath of disgruntled fans, do you expect a band that has been rewriting its first album for decades would risk a stylistic shift they may not survive, just to attempt a challenge they might not be up to?

Written by Auntie Sahar on 02.10.2015 at 19:14

Written by Redn1ght on 02.10.2015 at 18:52

You mean when Metallica became shit they should have switched their name to something other than Metallica? (In order to not ruin their image.) I'm with you on that if that's the case.

That certainly would've been funny, but not entirely the point that I'm getting at. I've heard that before, when bands change their style radically and people are like "oh, they shouldn't even call themselves _______ anymore at this point." Hell, it even happened with WITTR last year when they dropped that ambient album. But it's a point I have to disagree with. Sure bands can change sound considerably and still retain their name. New style doesn't have to mean new name, and I really don't understand the notion that it does

They should've called themselves Shitallica when they made Lulu and called it a parody. I would've forgiven them that one.

Written by Nimlot on 02.10.2015 at 19:51

It sure is nice when a band manages to grow and produce material that reflects their maturation (the way Devin Townsend and Ihsahn do), but the fact is some bands lack the desire to do that or the capacity to do it successfully. Bands like Slayer and Manowar are prime examples of musical stagnation. The cause in my perhaps too cynical a view is to some extent the restrictive rigidity of their genres, which don't reward change and the fact that they have largely survived in the music industry not because of great artistic abilities, but a fanbase buying into their shtick.

And that's something to consider as well. Certainly not all musicians possess the level of versatility with their composition to continuously morph and redefine themselves. I get that. But the thing is, it doesn't always have to be a radical shift. For example, even Slayer were kind of complimented for going for a slower approach on South Of Heaven after Reign In Blood. Granted, that might not be as huge a change as, say... Bathory going from black metal to Viking metal. Or for a more obscure example, Menace Ruine going from their weird blackened drone approach to the neofolk type stuff they do now. But it was nonetheless a shift, and one that could have perhaps been further explored in the future had the band not have come from (as you mentioned) so rigid a genre that placed a lot of limits on experimentation on them.

But imagine if they had gone farther with that slower tempo approach though... some doom Slayer probably would've been both interesting and hilarious
By the way, if that sounds silly, know that it's not entirely impossible. Napalm Death for example have a good amount of slower songs in their discography and the slower feel doesn't compromise the aesthetic of the music or lyrical themes at all if you ask me.

Written by Nimlot on 02.10.2015 at 19:51

If even a band as revered and artistically ambitious as Opeth suffered the post-Heritage wrath of disgruntled fans, do you expect a band that has been rewriting its first album for decades would risk a stylistic shift they may not survive, just to attempt a challenge they might not be up to?

The backlash from some Opeth fans was pretty outrageous - after 9 albums that most-all of them had lauded to the heavens, for some to start acting betrayed with Heritage and PC was just nauseating - if Opeth can't earn some kind of leeway when they want to play around with what they want after releasing 9(!) albums of varying levels of widespread acclaim, what chance does any other band have?!

As far as the topic goes, I'm not sure any band should feel obligated to make any big changes to their sound if they're not interested in doing so. If a band actually wants to keep playing the music they do (which I believe at least Motorhead so, Slayer not so sure), then they're perfectly entitled to. Not every band can make sweeping shifts in their sound and that's fine, as long as they maintain some passion and inspiration at what they are known to do - a single identity maintained by consistently strong releases is fine by me, and change for change's sake isn't stringly necessary. The problem is when bands lack that inspiration and produce music people ultimately forget, but then time will inevitably show up such albums as creative voids. I don't know, it's a strange subject, but I think it's ultimatley more important to produce strong and inspired music than different music.

This reminds me of an interview I remember reading with Dream Theater's keyboardist, Jordan Rudess.

It was in regards to another project he had going at the time, and the interviewer asked about these really interesting synth sounds he utilised on one of the songs. He then asked if we'd hear more unique sounds like that in his Dream Theater work.

His response however, was along the lines of "As much as I'd like to, our fans have come to expect a certain sound from Dream Theater, and I'm not really sure if these synths would fit in with that sound the fans are looking for."

And this brings up perhaps my biggest issue with this whole topic.
WHY ARE BANDS LETTING FANS DICTATE THEIR MUSIC?

More than half of the time, fans have a far worse idea of how the band can make a good album, and their advice is often vague, not thought out and bloated by hivemind. (Naturally there are exceptions to the case, but I'm talking majority here.) The reason Dream Theater's 2013 album was so mediocre was because they did exactly what the fans wanted and tried to give them that "core Dream Theater sound" which had already grown tired from albums they had made over 10 years ago.

**When you're making music to cater to an audience, you need to at the very least add your own twist to it and keep it fresh.**

As much as fans like to state "It would be so much better if they made another album like ___________ again", if a band actually does exactly that, the result is guaranteed to be far worse received because it's already a tried and tested formula.

It's for reasons like this why I'll always have respect for bands like Cynic. Even if the fan reception towards each subsequent album worsened, they stuck to their guns and released the music that THEY wanted to make, and that THEY would be interested in.

/ranting and rambling

Written by musclassia on 02.10.2015 at 22:36

I think it's ultimatley more important to produce strong and inspired music than different music.

I think Apothecary's point is that inspired music frequently is different music. For many bands characterized as "progressive" it is expected and demanded that their sound evolve fluidly from album to album as it explores different directions, all while retaining the band's unique identity. But in some genres, whatever inspiration might have propelled the band to begin with, has been bled dry without replenishment. Apothecary's prescription in such dire cases is swift change (when possible). My own inclination is that such ambitions will rarely succeed, so I can see why bands would stick to the familiar path that they themselves may have helped pave and on which others now trod. I just wish they wouldn't.

Written by Lethrokai on 02.10.2015 at 23:08

It's for reasons like this why I'll always have respect for bands like Cynic. Even if the fan reception towards each subsequent album worsened, they stuck to their guns and released the music that THEY wanted to make, and that THEY would be interested in.

Church!

It's a double edged sword no matter which approach you take to it. Take Darkthrone for example, their debut being a pretty straight forward death metal album, a quality one, then they changed their sound fairly abruptly. The subsequent releases were quality and groundbreaking material, thus no one truly gave a shit, except for that one guy, there's always that one guy. Once they established their sound and had a successful run of albums, people starting bitching that they had become stagnant. So they began incorporating the punk, heavy metal, etc influences, people again started bitching that Darkthrone wasn't really Darkthrone anymore. No matter what an established artist does with their sound, there's always someone who who'll take issue with it, it's just more profound in the internet age.

Naturally an album of lesser quality, regardless of progression or stagnation, is subject to much harder scrutiny. The post Watershed Opeth albums for example, especially Heritage, being the relative mess that it is. As opposed to the recent Motorhead releases, I have yet to hear Bad Magic mind you, but Aftershock was fucking killer. Quality is just harder to hate on in general.

A couple of you guys mentioned you prefer to see a band expand and grow ie Cynic, Enslaved, and so on. I love those bands and the work they are doing, but it's also wonderful when we get a new Iron Maiden album, maybe it's nostalgia, but I'm not gonna complain.

Written by Lethrokai on 02.10.2015 at 23:08

And this brings up perhaps my biggest issue with this whole topic.
WHY ARE BANDS LETTING FANS DICTATE THEIR MUSIC?

More than half of the time, fans have a far worse idea of how the band can make a good album, and their advice is often vague, not thought out and bloated by hivemind. (Naturally there are exceptions to the case, but I'm talking majority here.) The reason Dream Theater's 2013 album was so mediocre was because they did exactly what the fans wanted and tried to give them that "core Dream Theater sound" which had already grown tired from albums they had made over 10 years ago.

Yeah, it's something I can't quite understand either. If you're a technically accomplished musician, why are you going to let people who aren't (some fans might be musicians, but in my experience most usually aren't) push you around about what sound you take with your own shit? It consistently blows my mind.

You do make a good point though about how sometimes bands just can't please everyone. Fans sometimes say they want something new, and when it comes, they don't like it because it's too big a departure from a pre-established sound. However, when the band goes back to that pre-established sound, they likewise get criticized for a perceived lack of originality. However, I really do think that if a band in question establishes themselves as one that wants to experiment with a diversity of sound right from the outstart, this will hardly ever become a problem. I'll use the example of Mories again, say with Gnaw Their Tongues. No one can really legitimately complain about any album being too big a departure from a pre-established sound since he never really does anything twice anyway, so there's no time for a dominant sound to ever really be established in the first place. And they can't say that he needs to do something new because he's ALWAYS trying something new. Get where I'm going here?

I think bands should do whatever makes them happy.
If they enjoy releasing the same album over and over let them, someone will like it.
If they want to do something different, let them.
It might be different for fans and the bands such as Metallica's case or even Megadeth.
I really do not like anything Metallica did after Justice or Megadeth did after Rust.
Now Darkthrone however which when I saw this they instantly came to mind, I love every album from them.
Their death, black, crust, heavy, etc. Nocturno and Fenriz do what they want, what they like and in the process have evolved.
Sure their crust albums and the Underground Resistance is exactly original but I very much enjoy it.

Written by Dungeon Shaker on 03.10.2015 at 01:30

A couple of you guys mentioned you prefer to see a band expand and grow ie Cynic, Enslaved, and so on. I love those bands and the work they are doing, but it's also wonderful when we get a new Iron Maiden album, maybe it's nostalgia, but I'm not gonna complain.

As I said to Netzach, the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" idea definitely holds true for many bands. I'll always value originality in music probably more than anything else, but I certainly don't think that just because a band isn't very original that that would automatically mean that they suck. Now, with some of the bigger bands that've been mentioned here, Maiden, Slayer, Motorhead, etc... I don't particularly care for their more recent material, and I hold by what I said in OP about how those bands really have nothing left to prove to people and would probably just be better off putting things to rest. But at the same time, one can't really be too surprised to see them still going with what they've always done when they've built up such legendary reputations for doing it. I think it could just be a psychological thing: not only might they see themselves as needing to continue to dish out the goods to their fans, but perhaps, even more importantly, they just can't imagine their musical identities in any other way. The music has become such a part of who they are that they simply can't fathom playing in any other style.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 03.10.2015 at 01:41

Written by Dungeon Shaker on 03.10.2015 at 01:30

A couple of you guys mentioned you prefer to see a band expand and grow ie Cynic, Enslaved, and so on. I love those bands and the work they are doing, but it's also wonderful when we get a new Iron Maiden album, maybe it's nostalgia, but I'm not gonna complain.

As I said to Netzach, the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" idea definitely holds true for many bands. I'll always value originality in music probably more than anything else, but I certainly don't think that just because a band isn't very original that that would automatically mean that they suck. Now, with some of the bigger bands that've been mentioned here, Maiden, Slayer, Motorhead, etc... I don't particularly care for their more recent material, and I hold by what I said in OP about how those bands really have nothing left to prove to people and would probably just be better off putting things to rest. But at the same time, one can't really be too surprised to see them still going with what they've always done when they've built up such legendary reputations for doing it. I think it could just be a psychological thing: not only might they see themselves as needing to continue to dish out the goods to their fans, but perhaps, even more importantly, they just can't imagine their musical identities in any other way. The music has become such a part of who they are that they simply can't fathom playing in any other style.

Or it's just a business, Kerry King needs to pay his bills. But at the end of the day, if it's what he loves doing, more power to him.

When the preorder became available for The Book of Souls, I got super excited and bought it on the spot. I knew what I was getting, inevitably I was disappointed, but for a moment there it was like it was 1984 again. Nostalgia is such an easy card to pull for bands, but metal is fairly young, and relevant again.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 03.10.2015 at 01:34


However, I really do think that if a band in question establishes themselves as one that wants to experiment with a diversity of sound right from the outstart, this will hardly ever become a problem...... Get where I'm going here?

More than you know. It's that kind of band that I'm always looking for in the first place. Even outside of metal, I'm always searching for bands and artists who KNOW how to experiment and shift their sound when they feel like it. It's one thing to keep your core sound and give your band an identity through your albums; it's something entirely else to be completely one-note under the guise of "having an identity".

Written by Lethrokai on 03.10.2015 at 13:14

More than you know. It's that kind of band that I'm always looking for in the first place. Even outside of metal, I'm always searching for bands and artists who KNOW how to experiment and shift their sound when they feel like it. It's one thing to keep your core sound and give your band an identity through your albums; it's something entirely else to be completely one-note under the guise of "having an identity".

Aye, captain. Ever listened to Death Grips?

Even if a band has it right from the start, if they have released a fair amount of albums they need to change their sound at least slightly, not to the extremes where they sound so different they might as well change the band name.
A good example for me would be hypothermia, the hypnotic monotonousness in the early albums was magic for about 5 albums and 8 or so splits, but you cant keep getting the same emotions from that shit if you keep repeating it, so they gradually started adding post rock influences throwing the old sound in here and there, and it all blended in very well keeping people interested for years.
A bad example for me would be bands like Ulver who basically did a nice black metal album and then tried to do all these other types of genres. Usually bands are only good at a few genres, bands with "black metal early, post rock later, drone/death now" on their genre description annoy me.
Bands need to change a bit, if it's for the better or worse is just the risk they have to take. They do need to release a decent amount of albums of what is working well for them first before they fuck with their sound though.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 03.10.2015 at 17:05


Aye, captain. Ever listened to Death Grips?

You've seen my 2015 top albums list, haven't you?

Written by Lethrokai on 04.10.2015 at 00:14

You've seen my 2015 top albums list, haven't you?

Oh that's right, that was your list... haha, I knew someone had put them in their 2015 list and made it nonmetal inclusive, just forgot it was you buddy

Written by [user id=136611] on 03.10.2015 at 22:05

Even if a band has it right from the start, if they have released a fair amount of albums they need to change their sound at least slightly, not to the extremes where they sound so different they might as well change the band name.
A good example for me would be hypothermia, the hypnotic monotonousness in the early albums was magic for about 5 albums and 8 or so splits, but you cant keep getting the same emotions from that shit if you keep repeating it, so they gradually started adding post rock influences throwing the old sound in here and there, and it all blended in very well keeping people interested for years.
A bad example for me would be bands like Ulver who basically did a nice black metal album and then tried to do all these other types of genres. Usually bands are only good at a few genres, bands with "black metal early, post rock later, drone/death now" on their genre description annoy me.
Bands need to change a bit, if it's for the better or worse is just the risk they have to take. They do need to release a decent amount of albums of what is working well for them first before they fuck with their sound though.

For the most part I can agree with you on this point. However, if the band plants seeds early on that can hint that such extreme changes might be coming in the first place, I don't really see any problem with that, as long as they take it in a step by step process. I disagree with you on Ulver, because to me, the band had always flirted around with melodic and atmospheric elements, even when they were still playing black metal. That influence was always there right from the start, so their transition to a more ambient based, electronic sound wasn't a huge WTF moment. It was definitely an extreme shift, but one that nonetheless ultimately had its roots in some of the sounds that they had been playing around with already.

A better example I think would be WITTR. Personally, I loved Celestite, and had always wondered whether or not they'd ever do something like it. Some people really didn't, but even so, those people can't act as if that was a move taken by the band that you couldn't see coming, because, once again, the band had ALWAYS played around with those ambient and atmospheric elements. The only difference from Ulver is that WITTR took more of a gradual evolution with how much they embraced those elements on each album. The first two? Maybe not so much. But Celestial Lineage was a big shift in the band's sound that really opened the door much wider to the possibility of doing a full fledged ambient album in the future. And sure enough they did. So it's all about natural evolution in my mind man. Sometimes the steps between different points in that evolution are much bigger for some bands than they are for others, but as long as there's a good sense that "yes, even though what we're doing now is considerably different, it's still part of the same general idea," I think things will work out.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 04.10.2015 at 02:01


For the most part I can agree with you on this point. However, if the band plants seeds early on that can hint that such extreme changes might be coming in the first place, I don't really see any problem with that, as long as they take it in a step by step process. I disagree with you on Ulver, because to me, the band had always flirted around with melodic and atmospheric elements, even when they were still playing black metal. That influence was always there right from the start, so their transition to a more ambient based, electronic sound wasn't a huge WTF moment. It was definitely an extreme shift, but one that nonetheless ultimately had its roots in some of the sounds that they had been playing around with already.

A better example I think would be WITTR. Personally, I loved Celestite, and had always wondered whether or not they'd ever do something like it. Some people really didn't, but even so, those people can't act as if that was a move taken by the band that you couldn't see coming, because, once again, the band had ALWAYS played around with those ambient and atmospheric elements. The only difference from Ulver is that WITTR took more of a gradual evolution with how much they embraced those elements on each album. The first two? Maybe not so much. But Celestial Lineage was a big shift in the band's sound that really opened the door much wider to the possibility of doing a full fledged ambient album in the future. And sure enough they did. So it's all about natural evolution in my mind man. Sometimes the steps between different points in that evolution are much bigger for some bands than they are for others, but as long as there's a good sense that "yes, even though what we're doing now is considerably different, it's still part of the same general idea," I think things will work out.

Ulver done a great bm album and though they were on the same grounds, they progressed way to fast for my liking. I liked the new WITTR album too and it came at good timing.

For me it depends on the band. I still think Slayer can deliver mindless thrash that I can appreciate for the moment. Megadeth on the other hand is for me an example of a band that has evolved during the years, but should have called it quits (or at least stopped releasing more albums) after Endgame, which was a great album. I do though agree that more musicians should do an Ihsahn or even Opeth and do whatever the fuck they want. At the end it all comes down to personal taste and if you think that your favourite band still can deliver in their usual style.

I didn't understand why people were so pissed when WIITR went onto new direction. Considering band released shit tons of statements in interviews and mags that old WIITR will disband and will go into new direction.