The evolution of a creative band

I always thought it was interesting how an artistic band progressed. This isn't true with all band of course, but I've always curious about the difference of when a band starts prog/experimental, and goes commercial, or vice versa. For instance, Yes and Genesis both started very prog and artistic, but eventually went pop. On the other hand, bands like Radiohead and Talk Talk started as pop and used their fame to promote their artistic creativity. What drives bands do change so drastically over a period of time? Thoughts on this?

Frank Zappa hardly had any evolution at all. From the beginning of his career, everything was already there in his head. He could write jazz, large orchestral pieces, or string quintets. He had all of his influences and he knew what he wanted in his music. That's one of the reasons he is so inspirational to me. But if a band is dynamic, that's always a fun challenge for listeners. I have not fully developed my writing style to where I can tell if in 5 years I will see every chord I write as the "perfect" or "necessary" one.

If a band is dynamic, that's always a fun challenge for listeners.

I've read at least Rush and Genesis members say that after years of writing multi-part prog epics they found more challenge in crafting concise, melodic songs. I don't think money was that big a factor.

The times was very diffrent - when Genesis/Yes changed, they followed a trend in the culture, The simpler elements in Punk and New Wave( incl. the electronic drums and all that) , was the new thing, and as such "progressive" rather than mainstream. NOONE with a little bit of respect for himself would continue to make the same old records, at

O666 wrote: rdtprog wrote: pianoman wrote: . What drives bands do change so drastically over a period of time? Thoughts on this? Some have enough money to start doing what they want, Radiiohead and now Linkin Park, for example. Others are tired of doing complex 20 minutes songs and write more concise songs, sometimes pop (Marillion, Genesis). Others are going back to a more hard rock sound (Rush, Dream Theater) But i don't think that it's a big change, it's a need to doing something different, sometimes with discutable results. But when they tried to make pop songs to serve company's needs, they are not a creative band. I dont agree with you and I dont want talk about many of bands that you listed before. I want to talk about MARILLION. You said MARILLION tired of doing 20 min songs and then they write concise and pop songs. SO. can you tell me wich of MARILLION's songs is "complex 20 min" song? And what era you talked about? FISH era or H era? I read this topic question again and then read your post and I think your mean is: MARILLION tired of doing complex 20 min songs IN FISH ERA and write more concise pop songs IN H ERA. is it correct or I'm wrong? Can you explain your mean about MARILLION? Thanks.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned King Crimson yet? 

rdtprog wrote: Rune2000 wrote: Why hasn't anyone mentioned King Crimson yet?  Yes, KC has never been pop or commercial, they have been creative from to start to today. Does this mean that they didn't evolve? They evolve in their own way...

Starhammer wrote: rdtprog wrote: Rune2000 wrote: Why hasn't anyone mentioned King Crimson yet?  Yes, KC has never been pop or commercial, they have been creative from to start to today. Does this mean that they didn't evolve? They evolve in their own way... Are you saying that pop/commercial music isn't creative? Please, there is quite a bunch of innovative pop music out there. Bjork, Massive Attack, Yeasayer...

Coldplay, Animal Collective, Nick Drake...

Viva la vida is one of the most creative pop albums I have ever heard. Listen to the song "42" or "Death and All of His Friends." Plus Brian Eno produced it. You have a point with Animal Collective, but their MPP album is very pop, and yet it is some of the most creatively crafted new music in ways that hasn't really been done before.