"They just weren't.progressing anymore"

I'm not advocating making such statements illegal or anything. I just think they're weird, that's all. Music fans often can seem like they're married to a band, but there's no way a band can be married to each and every one of its fans... yet you figure most people would figure this out by now and reframe statements like the above to "Well, I'm just moving onto other things now." instead.

*puts Rock Action on* Nah, scratch that... :)

As for Sonic Youth, the work on SYR is often good. Their albums? Murray Street was the last one worth anything. The past two have been rather unimpressive.

If someone was to ask why, in a pinch, I might use this excuse.

xposk

What in the world are you saying here? Plz to refrain from ever criticizing stick-in-the-mud, careerist artists because, hey, they're just doing their thing?

Or maybe they're just sick of Sonic Youth, man. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

Look at the recent Pitchfork interview with Devendra Banhart. He's praised for his eclecticism and being tough to pigeonhole, even though (in my opinion) his records sound largely the same. He's not just another one of those fad hoppers like Espers and Sunburned Hand of the Man! He's a genre-twisting artiste along the lines of Caetano Veloso and other Tropicalistas!

I think this is because the artists who do change a lot appear to be resisting the fad cycle culture, and seem less likely to be here today and gone tomorrow like the fads they were so associated with.

Ah, a well-established 'major rock band' move. Why, I remember Pink Floyd pulling the exact same stunt for 'A Momentary Lapse Of Reason'! You remember?

(This argument works because every sane person who has ever heard AMLOR has instantly dismissed it from their memory)

I'm such a slut, I never marry a band. screw'em if they fail to entertain me for whatever idiotic reason I come up with.

Ah, a well-established 'major rock band' move. Why, I remember Pink Floyd pulling the exact same stunt for 'A Momentary Lapse Of Reason'! You remember?

Louis, trust me -- don't try so hard.

I should have provided the disclaimer "This thread was meant to be taken outside a music journalist context" I guess...

so yeah, if the mods just want to have fun and delete this thread, due to a very naive motivation on my part, then by all means, kill kill kill.

"Oooh, I like this record!" they say. "It has that sound! You, know, the good sound." [cue molten shoegazy gtr swirl, or relentless 808 kick, or whatever...]

That's why most people stick to a few safe niches, and why the most successful records are usually fairly predictable. Be it indie, or rap, or house, or metal, or drones, or noise, or pop or whatever. Most folks just want the happy-happy sound.

A vocal minority, however, reject this kind of formalism. They're "rebels". Malcontents. Music critics. They're driven by the pursuit of the obscure, the novel and the challenging. They don't want the happy sound, they want the WTF sound. The sound that takes them by surprise.

They absorb all sorts of different musics, obsessively adopting and discarding interests as fast as they can find new things to listen to. They prize "development" over everything, because that's where the fuckiest WTF sounds come from.

When artists settle into a rut, WTF seekers begin to disparage them.

dumber than your 'Rock vs Pop' one?

That's why most people stick to a few safe niches, and why the most successful posts are usually fairly predictable. Be it indie, or rap, or house, or metal, or drones, or noise, or pop or whatever. Most folks just want the happy-happy post.

A vocal minority, however, reject this kind of formalism. They're "rebels". Malcontents. Music critics. They're driven by the pursuit of the obscure, the novel and the challenging. They don't want the happy post, they want the WTF post. The post that takes them by surprise.

They absorb all sorts of different musics, obsessively adopting and discarding interests as fast as they can find new things to listen to. They prize "development" over everything, because that's where the fuckiest WTF sounds come from.

When posters settle into a rut, WTF seekers begin to disparage them.

but, it is a good point, tho.
Sonic's a good example, i'd say. even tho i'm a fan, i can see why peeps would walk away. they're not the same band. i don't think that they're really BETTER than ever, but certainly no worse to me. others will disagree. another ex.-Smashing Pumpkins- went from one end of the spectrum to the other, and came out of it w/ less fans, less critics in thier corner, less...everything. it was called 'the logical progression', and ya know what? it sucked. Adore spelled it out in loud, road flare letters- bleh. and they never regained the inertia...
pavement also, WZ came out and it hit me that they finally got the sound i wanted to hear, BTC less, TT the least. it wasn't 'going anywhere' anymore to me. i still listened and enjoyed some, but honestly, it wasn't moving as much, to me.

You know, if you are in a situation where you have to listen closely to loads and loads of records a week, whether you expect to like them or not, just because it is your job to listen to them and form yourself an opinion on them, then I am not at all surprised you are likely to fall for whatever is a little different from the norm. But this is a setting that only critics are in (and A&R people, but they think too much of $$$$$$ to let their own taste decide), which means the setting doesn't say to much about what the typical music fan may think of it.

Does Frank Sinatra count as a band? How about Britney Spears? The concept behind the thread title is rockism to the max - it prizes an artist's narrative over his/her actual music. If someone's hit on some sounds or techniques that I like, then I can certainly enjoy them applying those things to various different songs. Otherwise, why would anyone own (for example) both Led Zeppelin I and II? Band on the Run and Venus and Mars? More than one album by Cake or Janis Joplin? HELP ME THERE IS NO PROGRESSION!?!?!

A band changing and/or "progressing" can be very rewarding for the listener, but I strongly doubt it's really essential to most people's listening preferences - - - including people that actually go around talking up progression all the time. I think "progressions" between albums tend to be overstated anyway because it gives reviewers something to talk about. "Building on the blah blah of Previous Album but offering a subtly tightened-up sound with a few unexpected flourishes..." etc.

hey hey hey, are you calling me crazy because i could listen to just my no-neck blues band releases for more than a day? YOU JUST DON'T GET IT MAN

Now that is what I call progression.

Fair point - but in that case, the statement to which I responded is too loaded to really be discussed, ne? "What are examples of bands that have a problem, but don't have a problem?"