I think ACDC remained quite consistent in their sound.
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)
Music
7282 readers
10 users here now
Discussion about all things music, music production, and the music industry. Your own music is also acceptable here.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They have one song and boy are they going to milk it
You can notice some slight style differences between the Scott and Johnson eras, but that’s probably more to suit their singing styles than more “artistic” reasons
Apart from a brief detour in the mid to late 90s, Iron Maiden have been fairly consistent over the course of their nearly 50-year existence - you can usually tell if a track is one of theirs within a few seconds.
A lot of metal acts tend to be scared of veering off from their niche subgenre, so they end up making albums that sounds like mashups of their earlier albums.
True, but some genres just kinda are like that with a lot of bands. Metal and punk especially. I don't a 100% agree that it's always being scared of experimenting/veering off, but just kind of the nature of the genre for a lot of bands. And even then you have examples of bands still retaining "their sound". Sure it's not metal, but punk, but I think Fugazi have quite a certain sound even though they evolved a lot.
From that another great example and one of my favorites: Bad Brains! Any of their songs could've been on any of their albums and it would not have been out of place.
Metal and punk are very similar in ways though so I excuse myself not thinking of metal examples.
Like I'd say Deathspell Omega sounds have retained their sound in many ways, but they've kind of evolved their thing so much you couldn't really say they have just that specific sound. Where as Deströyer 666 still have the same sound even though they've changed quite a bit, but you could go on forever about outliers. I don't remember what my point was.
Having said all that I wish more metal and punk bands tried something more different sometimes.
just kind of the nature of the genre for a lot of bands
I think I'm in agreement here, just a matter of phrasing it. It's very easy for a metal band to think they're stepping off genre in the albums they're making if they're a pioneer of some sort of subgenre (I think the most prominent example for me is Kamelot). So many of them end up making three or four mediocre albums that could have just been collapsed into one good one.
I also notice that some genres end up having really well defined 'tropes' that get established and then beat to death over a number of years. If you've ever listened to a band like Amaranthe, truly the Nickelback of power metal. They have like 5 albums and I can't tell which song is from where. Not to say that they're bad albums, or unlistenable, just kind of blurs together in a pleasant blob.
In comparison, Ghost really changed up their sound. They started off kind of like different Megadeth with a lot more theatrics (which is wild to think about), and now they're ABBA with distorted guitars... and more theatrics.
Pulling up something from punk(ish) land, Streetlight drops albums so rarely, and they're perfect shiny jewels every time. Not always totally fresh, but always putting a new twist on the last one.
Uncle Acid still sounds like Uncle Acid/Sabbath
And then you have examples of bands like Oranssi Pazuzu that kind of have achieved a similar thing to Led Zeppelin where they can be a lot of things across an album and throughout their discography but still very much retain their sound because they've always kind of incorporated influences from all over ito their sound and just making it their own. I wouldn't say they have ever been scared to "veer off" out of their fairly specific genrehole even if they have their sound throughout. It's tricky.
Sleep is a stoner metal band that has barely changed over the years and I love them for that. They've only made four albums plus some singles. Their first three albums, Volume 1, Sleep's Holy Mountain, and Dopesmoker came out in 1991, 1993, and 1999 respectively. Dopesmoker is a 1 hour album comprised of only 1 song, or one 60 minute song plus a bonus song depending on the version. Then they didn't make another album until The Sciences in 2018. Trust me on this, The Sciences sounds so incredibly similar to their first three albums it's kind of crazy. It's just more modern, the bass hits heavier, and it's noticeably better produced.
It's amazing to me that they were able to come back all these years later and produce such a similar sound while still exploring new ways to make that sound.
Led Zeppelin stayed roughly the same, but they had all kinds of influences mixed in from the start to sustain their sound and not get tired.
High on Fire to an extent. Matt Pike is an absolute riff machine and it seemed like every album up til sobriety was just a banger of an album after the other.
Primus I kind of think too, just because they have a very unique sound due to Les's Residentsy vocals and his bass style.
The Smiths? The Fall! Sonic Youth as well. Elliott Smith.
I think it kind of depends on how much you allow and what you see as their sound. You can always find examples and some difference in sound, but for many bands and artists it's more song to song or even producer dependent.
Hell I'd chuck in a band like Kyuss as well, most post-Kyuss projects John Garcia was involved with still sound like Kyuss because he was a massive part of the sound, listen to Slo Burn or Unida and tell me you don't hear Kyuss.
A lot of artists change more drastically, like you can tell if some song is by Nick Cave, but there's a huge difference from album to album, where as The Birthday Party though kind of had a specific sound they stuck to as well even if they explored it a little.
Ooh and Judas Priest in a big way, Motörhead too to an extent.
Good question!
E:typos
Late stage Led Zeppelin was definitely affected by Robert Plant’s affinity for country music that not many of the others shared. I agree that Plant’s preferences mixed with everyone else’s was what led to their initial and enduring popularity. I doubt they become one of the best Rock bands ever if they didn’t have everyone pulling in very different directions
Yeah I have to admit I don't really listen to anything from Physical Graffiti onwards so I admit I have a bit of a blindspot there. Maybe some day. I don't think I've ever even heard the last three albums.
Presence has Achilles last stand which is hands down one of Zeppelin's best songs
Oh I know Achilles Last Stand, maybe I'll give Presence a spin first.
Airbourne. They’re basically a modern AC/DC. All their albums sound the same, but that’s the sound I want to listen to sometimes.
First time I heard Airborne my thought was they kicked ACDC out of the studio and too their music too.
I don't think the Pixies drastically changed their formula during their Kim Deal years or since they've been bringing out new music. The main difference in sound on their records is usually down to production.
I love the Pixies don't get me wrong!
As a side note check out The Pixies' cover of "Que Sera, Sera" they did for this Stephen King-esque horror series 'From'. I couldn't believe it was them. I only know early Pixies stuff and had no idea they're still going.
When Sum 41 released a new album in 2016, I though it was pretty true to all their prior stuff.
Status Quo ZZ Top Guns n Roses
I was gonna comment about ZZ Top having a distinct early period, middle period and later, but I realized I think I've only hear like four albums by them.
Just needed to comment: there's a great band/cover band name for someone: ZZ Top Guns
Bad Religion