Is this another obsolete phenomenon in popular music ??

Just from general "looking around", I don't think young music fans today take it as personally as "we" did in our day (I'm 62); this in fact, is a quality our generation of music obsessives has carried with us into old adulthood. There may certainly be some level of debates between some young fans but I'd think it's pretty rare compared to discussions of the 70's and a little beyond. For the most part, music isn't "the thing" which kids virtually live their lives by as we did for better or worse. They also don't stay as loyal to their favorite artists as we did, anticipating each new upcoming album like it's going to be some kind of life changer. And that's the key phrase right there...when a band changed its' members or even ONE member it was like one of our beloved family members got replaced. This mind set isn't in the air these days...hasn't been for quite a few days.

 

If you were able to easily skip a bad song on a record in the 70s or 80s, you probably wouldn't have been as irritated. Now it's live and let live. If you don't like something, you skip it. There are also much more channels to chose from. Back in the days, when one of the three available channels played that awful hype over and over again, you were stuck with it. I didn't have much troubles with that Psi Gangnam Style thing a few years ago

Since I got into vinyl, I understand the fuzz about a bad song on an album. You have to sit it through, or you have do to a lot of effort to get rid of it and get to something good.

Consequence is also that albums have much more fillers than they used to.

But then again, who still uses the concept of an album? We're back in the singles days!

 

ok, why don't you consider the Duran Duran action a split up.
that's exactly what it was. they split up, so they could go
and do other side-projects.

it's not like they stayed together, or broke up the band.
it was a split, until they came back. there were no recordings
under the name 'duran duran' during this time.

that's the definition of a split.

later
-1

 

Don't know enough about contemporary pop/rock to have any recent suggestions that show distinct split style or change of direction success. However some oldies that haven't been mentioned, who reinvented their sounds to a certain extant, could be the Bee Gees although they didn't change members. Or Acdc before/after Bon. Quite a few solo artists have had seperate phases as well, and sort of became different acts, Cat Stevens, Cliff Richards, Olivia Newton John. In Australia John Farnham.

 

Answering the original question, yeah but now it’s probably happening at the sub-genre level, i.e. not with pop/popular music.

 

When i see names like zz top, radiohead, deep purple and hawkwind popping up in this thread, I get the sense that my concept of modern and most other hoffman member's concept of modern are strikingly out of synch.

 

BEP tried to go back to their roots with their latest Fergie-less album. It got mixed results. The title of their track with Nas may have been a little too on the nose.



As for the the thread subject, I would say in the last decade we have seen this phenomenon primarily with a lot of former child stars trying to break away from the other old personas.

There's no mistaking Hannah Montana with the twerk Miley twerk era.

Demi Lovato (Disney) and Ariana Grande (Nickelodeon) are two other examples of pop singers shedding their previous wholesome family friendly roots.

No doubt, following in the footsteps of Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera.

I believe Taylor Swift was mentioned earlier. Not much of a persona change. As much as musically.

 

I forgot to mention Rihanna. On her debut album, she was still an "Island Girl" using Soca and Reggae rhythms in a lot of her music. That element (unfortunately) has pretty much completely disappeared from her music.

 

Radiohead, Editors, Tame Impala.

 

There have not been so many bands on the charts over the last twenty years, but unlike the 1980s when artists like Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus had their fifteen minutes, they seem to maintain a large audience for a longer time.

 

Two people born in the 1990s had their "15 minutes" in the 1980s?

 

Their kind.

 

click track? what the hell is wrong with that?

 

Doing side projects does not count as a split up. You inferred that the band had broken up, which they never officially did. Ever. We could argue the semantics of the differences between "spilt up" and "break up" for days, but if you look up the actual definition of "split up", it says - an ending of a relationship or partnership; a separation. Technically, the band Duran Duran, never ended the their relationship. Even though certain members chose to do other musical projects for a brief period, they still remained Duran Duran while they were doing them. Now, true, you could certainly say there was a separation between two camps of the band's members while they were engaged in other musical projects, but the greater fact remains that they were still Duran Duran even while perusing them.

Similar situation. When Phil Collins, or Mike Rutherford or Tony Banks decide to do a solo album or project (like Mike & The Mechanics for Rutherford), they are still Genesis even if they do. You wouldn't say Genesis had "split up" while this was occurring. Same with most any band where a member or more decides to do a solo album or side project. Unless the group officially announces they have broken up or ended, then the basic group remains.

So -1 right back at you, (-2 now)

 

Tame Impala is probably the best example cited so far. Made their name as a heavy guitar-based psych pop act, then abruptly shifted to an '80s synth pop sound, while managing to pick up new fans to replace the ones they (well, he) lost.

 

Really? I'd have to explain that one to someone on this forum of all places?

 

yeah, as everyone records with a click track. they have for decades, incase an instrument needs to be swapped out later.
without a click track you are knackered. if you aren't using a click track, you aren't recording properly.

 

Maybe even 3 phases.

 

I suspect ed sheeran will enter another phase on his return to recording.

 

Other artists proving this phenomenon is not obsolete include Kanye (or at least he’s working on a 2nd phase of his career), Jonas Brothers (#JoBros!), and I could draw some BIG distinctions in before- and after-Beyoncé Jay-Z.

If a little less pop, r&b and rap, but more rock is your thing, then John Mayer’s career definitely has a second act.

I’d say either Kurt Vile or War On Drugs have a second act. I’m not sure who actually changed more. Even though one might be inclined to say it was Adam Granduciel’s War On Drugs that changed, I don’t necessarily think that’s the case.

The list can be way more extensive than this, which barely scratches the surface. But no, second acts in popular music are NOT obsolete.

 

Nope, disagree. I hate click tracks and make everything sound mechanical. Strange I need to spell it out for anyone on this forum of all places. Don't give a rat's taint about how easy it is for producers to edit a track after.

 

Indeed, and with the departure of key member, producer and multi-instrumentalist Rostam Batmanglij, VW is also transforming in this way more as
an Ezra Koenig semi-solo venture

 

Bands are a "brand". If your brand is big enough and it is done right, your brand can change its product line to some degree and see newfound success. A modern version, IMO, would be Taylor Swift.

But the bigger the brand, the bigger the risk carried with changing your product. But it also increases the likelihood of success, simply because you are a household name.

 

Im a huge fan of his current incarnation.

 

Artic Monkeys have changed hugely throughout their career so far too.