Biggest sound changes between albums

From Moving Pictures to Signals. A huge shift in sound with the synths dominating on Signals. And this was personal for me. Signals was so different, I just couldn't get into it back then, but taking a break from it and then returning for round two at least allowed me to appreciate it for what it is. I started to like the songs. And it grew from there.

King Crimson have been specialists (Fripp at least has) in gestaltic changes: Islands, LTIA, Discipline, and counting.

richardh wrote: Logan wrote: I don't know about biggest, but to go with two albums I love in PA, I think that Radiohead's OK Computer to Kid A was a significant shift. agreed but also The Bends to OK Computer took a major leap from Alt rock to Art rock. Kid A always seemed to me a reaction to the music press calling them 'prog' after OK Computer.

Indeed, and I actually thought of that when writing the above post, but then thought that maybe The Bends would be better thought of as more of a transitional album between Pablo Honey (an often underrated album to me, by the way) and OK Computer.

 

And right now I am listening to Fishmans' Uchu Nippon Setagaya (its last studio album) and this is big change from its former Long Season, and Long Season was different from Something in the Air. Wonderful band, imo.

Okay, I'll try to break it down, and sorry if I sound excessively negative. I had read your whole post before and will break it down to see if I misunderstood your concerns. It is so easy to lose context when not quoting in full or taking a whole piece in full (paragraphs and sentences in posts can be like songs in albums, the sum is greater than its parts, and you need the whole commonly to understand the part, which is why when quoting here I commonly prefer quoting in full and in toto rather than broken up).

You did not say you did not like the changes, did anyone claim you did?, but you seems again to make assumptions about some generalised "we" that I think most exists in your mind. I wish you would stop talking about what you think we think, or should think and feel, and talk from yourself as yourself.                                                 

Moshkito wrote: This is a scary OP and theme for me. It feels like we're saying that bands/folks can not change with the times and their music, and do something they want, rather than have to "sound" like they did the previous album, as it seems to be the issue here ... wanting the band to sound "the same".

I don't see the premise or OP as scary or see that "we" are saying what it seems to you that "we" are saying.

Moshkito wrote: For me, it's like we have ignored the history of the arts in the 20th century where CHANGES is what it was all about, be it because of a war, or simply a reactionary thing. And here we are, as if we do not allow a band to create something different ... because it isn't our preferred mode or idea.

Again this we you often seem to talk about, who is this we? Why do think this of this supposed "we"? Who is not alllowing it be something different, what is your point if you understand the point of the thread.

Moshkito wrote: No one has suggested that, as far as I can tell, which is easier to handle, but, again, I really think that an artist needs the freedom to do what they are capable of doing, and that means that changing, should be allowed ... and expected!

What has no one suggested? Who other than you is talking about change not being allowed?

Moskkito wrote: Many of the bands listed changed, and I consider many of them good changes, although I did not specifically think one band changed for the better or the worse, though I think that Hawkwind going back to the better known writer, took away a lot of really nice things that the band had been doing, and ASAM is a fantastic album, with the 2 very special long cuts on side 1 of the album. And breaking it all "back" seemed strange and I did not exactly think their next album was better ... to my ears, it sort of became very cartoonish all of a sudden, and Hawkwind, was NOT a cartoon band for me. So, yeah, that change was nuts.

Yep, this topic is about changes, not necessarily for the bad or for the good. Some changes I like, some I don't but I often appreciate trying different things and accept that thins change whether we like it or not.

Moshkito wrote: Other changes were more natural ... GONG is an example, and perhaps looking for a new identity. Mike Oldfield, was probably under the need to get an album that sold, as if Incantations was too big and not something fans loved ... I, personally, think its one of his best albums.

Fair enough. I have no issue with that.

Moshkito wrote: PF is not much of a change. Animals was vastly different from how the band had been playing the 2 pieces from "Animals" which showed that RW was now in control, and changed the pieces into something else. Previously "You Gotta Be Crazy" was a very "space rock" thing, but folks here seem to appreciate the redo, and not the original. The redo was very obvious a RW thing! Both Mahavishnu and RtF had what I consider natural changes. Steve Hillage's changes were tough for me, as I liked his previous albums and excellent rock music, but it was obvious that he was changing to something else.

I often appreciate the redos and the originals. Don't recall hearing the originals of Animals, so no comment on that. I like The Embryo in more than one form.

Moshkito wrote: Again, other than PF, I kinda think that most changes were just fine for me, though I had already fallen off MO, for example, at the time, and I really didn't care for what Hawkwind did for years, until Electric Tepee when they became an Ambient Acid Rock band, and that album had the appeal and attack that Space Ritual did some 20 years before ... but sadly it is not heard, and it really makes "metal" sound like crap! It is that hard, and their next album had excellent things as well, as they extended the ambient thing. But the continuous redoing and re-releases of a lot of their early stuff, kinda ended Hawkwind for me. The Moody Blues I had already fallen out of it, before I even got to European stuff in 1972 ... the band had become a joke, and it wasn't neat poetry anymore, it was about being hip and cool now, and the music lost a lot of its meaning for me. Steve Hackett was a come down, in my book after the first album, as soon as he figured out that some fans wanted songs ... ciao baby ... there was better music all over Europe!

I don't know if it was heard, and don't like to refer to music sounding like crap even if metal generally is not much my thing. But then there is lot of music considered metal that I like and kinds of metal I like, so whatever. I thought you tried to be more respectful to music than what I seem to be reading here.

You often talk about standing up to the artistry, and I don't know what you mean. Who here is against artistry and why does it require your defence? Honestly, I think you're titling at windmills. On tangential note, what is art, to some extent, can be in the eye of the beholder.

You often seem to attribute things to this we and others that I am not seeing. The issue is that you seem to misunderstand and misrepresent intent and it does come off as a very negative version of what you think others think. I would rather specific examples rather than generalised assumptions, and also realise that people don't always express themselves as clearly as they could and it can be very easy to draw thew wrong conclusions.

And apologies for any mistakes here, I'm trying to get this down as quickly as I can as I have other things to do and perhaps can't give your thoughts enough thought. We both write long and meander (streams of thought and associations) which can confuse.

Yes: Drama to 90125

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - April 09 2025 at 16:14

Logan wrote: Okay, I'll try to break it down, and sorry if I sound excessively negative.

I swear, Moshkito never posts here while he's sober.