Q says of Ash's Envy single:
"4 out of 5. The new track from forthcoming singles collection "Intergalactic..." continues their almost scientific explanation into the concept of catchiness and, as such, it's pretty mighty, but maybe something more strange and complex wouldn't go amiss next time"
Don't understand this attitude, I have to say. If a band releases a really good single, I don't understand why I'd demand something completely different from them next time out (especially with this example, as Ash's attempts at dabbling in other genres have been so clumsy, why would you want them to deliver anything other than splendid summery punk-pop?)
Ok, to be fair, there are some acts who I like to see evolve, and progress, and experiment. But I think it's ridiculous to demand that every act must make frequent changes, even if they're doing a splendid job of perfecting/honing a certain style or sound. If Teenage Fanclub delivered something other than harmony-laden power pop, or if Low decided to rock out for an album, I'd be disappointed.
If a band sticks to a certain style, and it starts to sound tired a few albums in (oasis and Belle and Sebastian, perhaps?) than I can understand people demanding that they try something else, but why stop a band on a roll? Anyone beg to differ?
We may have done a thread on the same subject very recently, and if so, I apologise in advance.
― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 29 October 2002 20:49 (twenty-three years ago)
I agree. There are so many thousands of bands out there, if you want to listen to something different, why not just listen to another band instead of forcing one band to conform to your ever-changing moods?
― Nick A., Tuesday, 29 October 2002 21:20 (twenty-three years ago)
Flowchart of journalists' critism of bands:
1) [band x] has [sound y] which is the next great thing!
2a) [band x] has exausted [sound y], they should adopt [sound z]
or
2b) [band x] has switched to [sound z] when they should've kept to [sound y]
(note that 2a and 2b are contradictory, much like all of life's mysteries)
3) Despite [changing to sound z]/[keeping sound y], [band x] has proven they stand the test of time and we like them again.
Or instead of 3) the band just disappears off the face of the earth and aren't deemed writing about anymore.
Did I leave anything out?
― Aaron W, Tuesday, 29 October 2002 21:52 (twenty-three years ago)
But this is a completely applicable and fair criticism in many cases. To use a ridiculous example: Suppose Missy started making twee records. You think it would be unfair for writers to say that she had made a mistake? And you don't judge an album based on the fact that other bands do other things, you judge an album for what it is.
― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 29 October 2002 22:00 (twenty-three years ago)
But this is a completely applicable and fair criticism in many cases. To use a ridiculous example: Suppose Missy started making twee records. You think it would be unfair for writers to say that she had made a mistake?
but you've just totally backed up kilian's point.
― michael wells (michael w.), Wednesday, 30 October 2002 09:17 (twenty-three years ago)
She might have been disagreeing with Aaron's points, I'm not sure.
― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 30 October 2002 10:04 (twenty-three years ago)
I'm a he, Kilian. And yes, I was addressing Aaron.
― Yancey (ystrickler), Wednesday, 30 October 2002 16:34 (twenty-three years ago)