AC/DC and CCR come to mind. Doesn’t bother me though. It’s the audio equivalent to eating a bag of Doritos. The flavor doesn’t change, but every now and then there’s one with a little more powder on it.
and just like Doritos, every once in a while you gorge on a bunch of doritos until you get totally sick of them and swear you don't like them any more. A month goes by and you start snacking on them again because you hopelessly like them.
"I'm sick and tired of people saying that we put out 11 albums that sound exactly the same. In fact, we’ve put out 12 albums that sound exactly the same."
Pre 1964 Beatles I will give you. After, say, Revolver? I don’t see how you could compare Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds to Tomorrow Never Knows to Martha My Dear to Back in the USSR to Sun King, etc etc etc
Often you can tell it’s the same band, but these are meaningfully different sonic experiences.
The Beatles did evolve over time. Their early stuff all sounds the same and their late stuff all sounds the same, but there's a big difference between their boy band phase and their stoner phase.
I guess I'm just associating them with their "boy band" phase then. Most of my Beatles listening was probably from the collection of hits on the 1 album back in the late 90s or early 2000s, whenever that came out.
The Beatles is like 4 bands wearing a trenchcoat, so I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I wouldn't even say any individual album is samey from at least sgt peppers on
That's how I feel about Michael Jackson. Except he wasn't a band. He was just 1 person who whispered like a shy little girl & flailed around onstage like a noodle and he kept grabbing his crotch and nobody asked him to grab his crotch. I've never understood people's fanaticism.
All your personal issues with the man are yours and not in dispute. I think a big difference here is that MJ was a musical virtuoso, not just a singer and showman.
Yes, look into the man. He composed a shitload of his music.
I personally don't even like the man's musical output. That said, I can recognize genius. The man was nothing short of a musical genius with very few I could even list next to him, perhaps with the exceptions of Stevie, Herbie, Prince, Eno, and other brilliant minds. The guy was out of his tree, but on a level of musicality most people can't even grasp.
Only two and one co-written on Off the Wall and three and one co-written on Thriller (although they are bangers). He did write most of Bad but anything outside of that is imo sub-par. I'm not denying he had a lot of talent but I think he's far from a virtuoso.
You ever start trimming something and one side is longer than the other so, you try to even it up, but you go a little too far, so you have cut the other side some more, and it's still not quite right, so you just keep cutting until nothing's left?
I'm not debating that they bring the hype, people love them and yes they have their influential place in the history of rock.
I'm just saying in this era, I am lost as to why anybody would seek that music out. It had its place and it had its time, but that was like 50+ years ago.
I don't need to hear these boots are made for walkin', and I don't need to hear I wanna be sedated. They're anthems from an ancient time.
Well, firstly, ‘These Boots are Made for Walkin'’ is a great song that sounds gorgeous compared to most of its contemporaries.
Secondly, there are pretty much no other bands that sound like Ramones. If you want that kind of fast and fun sound once in a while, there's no other option. Most other punk sounds like punk, but no punk other than Ramones sounds like them.
The only ones sounding similar to Ramones are those making deliberate effort to emulate their sound: Ramonetures, ‘Gabber Gabber Hey!’, Helen Love.
These are dried up, shallow pieces of music that had their place. Once you've heard one of their 2 minutes songs, you've heard their entire discography!
There's actually great music you could spend your time on, which is what I do. There's 20 new albums every day, there's amazing jazz, amazing punk, amazing growth in various forms of music. In a way, listening to primitive music like Ramones is depriving oneself of what's out there now, which makes it sound like children's jingles in comparison.
I realize I may be coming off harsh, but that is my personal perspective, I think it's weak and one dimensional. Then again, that statement could be applied to many popular acts.
Somehow I'm sure just from your comments that I wouldn't consider most anything that you listen to ‘good’, and I've heard lots of musics in my life. And I certainly wouldn't turn down good music just because it's old or simpler than other music.
Krudler is coming at it like music is a zero sum game, which is silly. I love the Ramones. I also love more innovative, complex music, as well as plenty of vapid garbage. I'm happy jumping from Art Pepper to Guatafán. None of it is a waste of time if it's what I'm in the mood for.
The Ramones were a fresh slap in the face back in the day, and without them punk & new wave wouldn't be what they are. In the meantime, other artists have built on the Ramones' foundation. Similarly, Jimi Hendrix revolutionised how people used the electeic guitar as an instrument, but other artists ran with it to the point that his stuff is archaic (I can't listen to Hendrix for the same reason K dismissed the Ramones, but to each their own).
I guess what I'm saying is that even if you personally don't like an influential band, you have to acknowledge that they might be exactly what resonates with someone else. That's why we have so much music in the world. To the original topic though, Ramones music does all sound the same. Why mess with perfection?
I get told this a lot. Sure, the range of guitar effects is limited if not non-existant, but fortunately they create a sound I like so... I'm glad they all sound the same? I guess.
I think though with Tool the changes are a lot more subtle than people expect, which makes them bad background music. The timing changes, and beats appearing and disappearing every second bar are not so noticeable unless you're really listening to it.
Having been surprised to see Tool twice in this thread, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Between Maynard's voice, and the basslines OP mentioned, they definitely have a distinctive sound, and I could see how it could blur together as background / casual listening music. Especially if you listen to mostly mixes ot playlists.
Personally, I almost exclusively listen to music by album, and I think thats where Tool's songs really become more distinct from each other.
I love Tool but you're right. Yeah they're pulling all sorts of unexplored timing signatures out of their ass, so each song is technically unique in that respect, but the vibe is fairly consistently dark and meditative. There's some exceptions though, I think The Pot really stands out from the rest of their stuff.
As much as I dislike them, their music has evolved. Their 80s stuff sounds different than their 90s stuff. However, after 'Achung baby', they have not made any interesting music whatsoever. To be honest, 'Achtung baby' did not stand the test of time for me either.
"The same" always means "these aspects I'm noticing" and not these other aspects I'm not noticing. And when there are aspects I'm not used to they tend to stand out and eclipse the aspects i'm used to and take for granted. Whole genres that i never listen to "sound the same."
Jack Johnson. If you hear one of his songs in public just say “oh, Banana Pancakes” and move on with your life. Not a soul on earth will be able to correct you
Ozfest 2001 was one of the first concerts I went to, right as AWK started his brief rise. Absolute blast to see live, the music was still fresh at that point. And the guy is just a goofball, total respect for him and his act. But you're also 100% correct. You know what you're getting with them. Early 2000s, they were on every bill, they played constantly.
Look, I like them, so I'm not exactly knocking them, but a long time ago I was working an overnight inventory shift, and my manager at the time put on a Linkin Park album, and I predict how every song was going to go because they all seemed like the same song.
She's alright, but she needs a few more albums with her voice on them, she doesn't sound that great singing Chester's songs. At least at the Vancouver show. Still very enjoyable but her own songs are where she shines. That's probably not surprising to anyone though
Ironically I think she sounds great on Chester's songs, especially Numb. Hearing her sing that one gives the lyrics an entirely new meaning. It's very fitting, given the situation of her filling in his shoes.
As a teenage metalhead of the 90s, little has distressed me more than literally everything Metallica have released since St Anger.
I really, really dug Load and ReLoad. They were different to what had come before, but they still had a hard rock edge to them that I loved. Then Jason quit, and The Corporation Of James And Lars hired the formely mighty Rob Trujillo and set about their plan to record the same indistinguishable wall of noise over and over again until people stopped bothering to even pirate their music.
I think that is true for the vast majority of bands. What some band manage to do is reinvent their sound with different albums and often that is not well received by the fans.
Yeah, I think it's very difficult for bands to reinvent themselves, and the majority who try lose fans because of it. The two bands who always spring to kind for me are Radiohead and Brand New, whose discographies are a bit of a roller coaster genre-wise, the former much more so.
Coldplay springs to mind. The Coldplay who released Moon Music last year is an entirely different band to the one who released Parachutes in 2000. I know of few other bands who've gone through such an enormous transformation. And while the newer stuff may not resonate with me the way the early stuff did, it's fair to say that it's worked for them.
To some degree you are correct, however there is a massive difference between a band like AC/DC which had jokingly been said they have have the same album for 40 years, and say Metallica.
Metallica helped define what Thrash Metal is. But listening to Load/Reload vs Ride the Lightning is a huge difference in sound.
And you take it forward another 10 years from Reload the sound has changed all over again.
Very different from AC/DC but then again most bands/artists don't have 50 year careers as the biggest name in their musical setting
To some degree, Goatwhore. Love the band, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can never remember song titles of theirs, because they are all a bit OTT tbh.
The songs themselves sound a little differnt but if you asked me to identify an evanescence song only by the singer, I'd be unable to differentiate any of them. I know this isn't true but sometimes it sounds to me like shes just singing the same note the whole song.
YOOOOOOOO sorry but this is my all time favorite band and Ive gotta stick up for them. They have an unmistakable signature sound, yes, but not every song sounds the same like AC/DC par examplé as other people have rightly cited.
If you'd kindly take 2 mins to listen to a bit of the following songs I pulled off the top of my head and are still willing to say all their songs sound the same then I dont know what to say:
Here's the standard kinda song you're probably thinking about, You off of No Control:
Thanks. For extra credit, they also had an album they kind of would everyone to forget about that was leaning into a kind of proggy sound, closer to The Who than their own sound if you want something thats way off in the wilderness:
I think I know what it is now. It's the vocal melodies. It might be certain intervals and scales that he reuses over and over again.
Thanks for the suggestions. The songs you posted kind of back my claim. Don't get me wrong, I like individual songs like 21st Century Digital Boy, Punkrock Song or No Control. But when it comes to listening to a whole album it's too much of the same for me.
But "Into the Unknown" is crazy. I didn't know they had an album that sounded completely different and each song is different. They seem to hide it well, it's not on Qobuz, Deezer nor Spotify. I found a podcast about it, listening to it now.
fair enough. I kinda think if you think all BR sounds the same that you might think all Iron Maiden or Nine Inch Nails or Primus or The Doors sound the same, but I do get what you mean.
There are actually two primary song writers, Greg Graffin and Brett Guerwitz, and the album splits are about 50/50. Most of my favorite songs tend to be Guerwitz tunes. If you dont dig the whole BR gestalt then its gonna get old even if I think the songs I listed are pretty radically different. Il do get what you're saying, though.
They deeeefinitely don't do a lot of promotion of Into the Unknown. The only release of it after the initial cassette and CD release in SoCal was a pressing they made for their box set of their entire catalogue.
Id actually be interested to see if you thought Graffin's bluegrass solo stuff sounds "samey" also:
It was not difficult to stand up to defend the world's greatest punk band of all time (who's lead singer has a Ph.D. and has taught Evolutionary Biology at UC Berkley (I think, somewhere in California)
Reading the comments, it sounds like it’s a bad thing for a band to stick to their sound. I actually think that’s good. After all, I started listening to a band because of their sound. When they suddenly reinvent themselves, they usually lose me.
Positive example: Interpol. In my opinion, the band got better over time but kept the exact same sound.
Negative example: Radiohead. At some point, Thom Yorke just started letting cats walk across synthesizers.
Translated by a machine. Spelling errors are subject to the copyright of “Google Gemini”.
Mamaleek change up the sound on every album, and still have their defining mood and are different from everyone else. If I want the different Mamaleek sounds, I listen to the different albums.
About the same with King Crimson, I think, but with longer series of albums.
You have to make a distinction between bands that have a (more or less) coherent sound and style, and blatant repetition.
Anyway, if anyone tries to tell me that Volbeat isn't just rereleasing the same song for the whole time they existed, I have to assume that one of us must be demented.
I disagree on that one. If you listen to Adrenaline and then skip forward to Private music there's barely any resemblance left.
I will agree though that their overall vibe has remained consistent, but I think that speaks to their vision of the band instead of a lack of creativity.
It’s funny, I listened to Adrenaline first, decided it wasn’t for me and forgot about Deftones for a couple years. Finally listened to Saturday Night Wrist and loved it and literally every other Deftones album after that.
The differences in albums has been more subtle, but I thought what they did with Pink Cellphone and the instrumental only Konami Code were unique to their music.
Green Day took a short hiatus from their usual sound for American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown, but otherwise has been releasing the same sound as their original works since after 2009, just now overly produced.
Powerwolf, and that's a compliment. They're consistent; you boot up an album from them, and you know you're about to listen to 40 minutes of horny werewolf crusaders.
I remember one night working a job replacing checkout lanes at Savemart one of the other dudes doing the job setup the PA system to play nothing but Metallica songs and at our first break I asked if he could stop playing the same song on repeat and then showed me he had 6 whole CDs in the thing and it was on shuffle.
So then I asked to add other bands to the mix.
But I mean... There's like 12 different parts to "Unforgiven." Which is basically just 1 song.
Metallica's fandom has fractured every single album release after Ride the Lightning. My best friend in high school and I almost threw hands over the Black album and it's because that was the one we agreed on
There are people used to tell me every track by Summoning sounds the same. Many who don't listen to Classical music complained that Classical music sounds the same, be it Vivaldi or Schostakovich. Some suggested I need to change it to a more uplifting playlist (in an Art Gallery). If I played Bach it would be worse. And then some people told me everything I made looked the same. I mostly agree to all the above. It's better to admit defeat and admit that you would never be good enough.
They all sound similar. Some, though, get really blurry. Led Zeppelin comes to mind; when I was listening through their albums they’d get pretty blurry. Seconding also AC/DC.
Though to be fair, Maynard does vary a lot from project to project, even if not from track to track. Also to be fair, though a lot of Tool songs sound alike, they all sound like the same GOOD song.
(Had to defend Maynard because we share a birthday, and I love having arbitrary reasons for doing things/making decisions. Redman, Jennifer Garner and Posh Spice are in the same birthday club, though I (arbitrarily) disregard criticism of Posh Spice.)
AC/DC and CCR come to mind. Doesn’t bother me though. It’s the audio equivalent to eating a bag of Doritos. The flavor doesn’t change, but every now and then there’s one with a little more powder on it.
and just like Doritos, every once in a while you gorge on a bunch of doritos until you get totally sick of them and swear you don't like them any more. A month goes by and you start snacking on them again because you hopelessly like them.
Dog on the Road
I am both amazed and disappointed it’s taken this long for me to learn how to sing AC/DC. It was Marge all along.
Hard disagree about CCR.
every band that i don’t like
This is the answer.
AC/DC for sure. Every song has the same vibe. It's a good vibe, but once you've heard one song, you've heard them all.
...is it going to be controversial if I also say The Beatles? Maybe not ALL of their music, but most.
I appreciate Angus Young's self-awareness.
haha strong "no one beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row” vibes
It is very controversial to say that of the Beatles. Once they stopped doing live shows they reinvented themselves.
Pre 1964 Beatles I will give you. After, say, Revolver? I don’t see how you could compare Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds to Tomorrow Never Knows to Martha My Dear to Back in the USSR to Sun King, etc etc etc
Often you can tell it’s the same band, but these are meaningfully different sonic experiences.
Say what you will about AC/DC, nobody else can convey the idea of sweaty testicles in musical form as effectively as they do.
AC/DC music is nothing more than 4 chords and a beat.
And you know, sometimes that's all you need.
And we like it like that.
The Beatles did evolve over time. Their early stuff all sounds the same and their late stuff all sounds the same, but there's a big difference between their boy band phase and their stoner phase.
I guess I'm just associating them with their "boy band" phase then. Most of my Beatles listening was probably from the collection of hits on the 1 album back in the late 90s or early 2000s, whenever that came out.
AC/DC especially has the same drum rythm for all songs.
‘How Drummers Knock on Doors’
I feel like there was at least some variety during the Bon Scott era but yeah everything from Back in Black on is the same.
Fyi Bon Scot suggested Brian Johnson replace him if he died early.
Check out Geordie if you want to see what he was doing before joining AC/DC.... Is different.
Oh I like Brian Johnson but that is when everything started sounding the same. Good thing that I like that one thing they did :-)
Geordie sounds pretty good. I'll have to check out more.
There's also Rabbit with Dave Evans who was the singer on the first AC/DC single. They are, well, eh.
Whole lotta Rosie is on my husband's workout playlist and it is a jam. So good.
Live off the If You Want Blood album is the best version! Hype
Oh yeah that's definitely a top ac/dc song
The Beatles is like 4 bands wearing a trenchcoat, so I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I wouldn't even say any individual album is samey from at least sgt peppers on
Nickelback
Multiple bands are just more Nickleback
Breaking Benjamin
they went disco for a little bit
Imagine Dragons. I don't know a lot of their songs but when I hear them I can guess it's them with pretty good accuracy.
I'd say Thunder sounds somewhat different from their other music, and I don't enjoy it at all.
That song is abhorrent. I can’t believe people listen to that shit and don’t turn it off.
sabaton. I still love it though
Sabaton is on my go-to playlist whenever I play Valheim.
The Ramones.
If it’s been a while, I’ll listen to 5 tracks and be like “Yes, The Ramones!!!”
Then after a couple of tracks more I suddenly really need to put on something else.
God The Ramones are such a weak band. I've never understood people's fanaticism.
They were reactionary, trying to destroy the pompousness of 70s stadium and prog rock. Fast and simple the way rock and roll began.
That's how I feel about Michael Jackson. Except he wasn't a band. He was just 1 person who whispered like a shy little girl & flailed around onstage like a noodle and he kept grabbing his crotch and nobody asked him to grab his crotch. I've never understood people's fanaticism.
All your personal issues with the man are yours and not in dispute. I think a big difference here is that MJ was a musical virtuoso, not just a singer and showman.
Was he virtuoso though? I feel like his best work was with Quincy Jones and Rod Temperton and without them he was just meh.
Yes, look into the man. He composed a shitload of his music.
I personally don't even like the man's musical output. That said, I can recognize genius. The man was nothing short of a musical genius with very few I could even list next to him, perhaps with the exceptions of Stevie, Herbie, Prince, Eno, and other brilliant minds. The guy was out of his tree, but on a level of musicality most people can't even grasp.
Only two and one co-written on Off the Wall and three and one co-written on Thriller (although they are bangers). He did write most of Bad but anything outside of that is imo sub-par. I'm not denying he had a lot of talent but I think he's far from a virtuoso.
Lol right. Give me a god damned break! You can't be serious, you're trolling, or genuinley know nothing of music.
That was my fault. I asked him to do it ONCE, and he just wouldn't quit after that!
Hee hee!
^Hee^ Hee!
Mystery solved. The rhinoplasty was the reason MJ couldn't stop grabbing his own crotch onstage.
You ever start trimming something and one side is longer than the other so, you try to even it up, but you go a little too far, so you have cut the other side some more, and it's still not quite right, so you just keep cutting until nothing's left?
Let's just say Michael got that one on the house.
Maybe they're sedated?
BamBamBamBam
I saw them live twice and they were great shows.
I'm not debating that they bring the hype, people love them and yes they have their influential place in the history of rock.
I'm just saying in this era, I am lost as to why anybody would seek that music out. It had its place and it had its time, but that was like 50+ years ago.
I don't need to hear these boots are made for walkin', and I don't need to hear I wanna be sedated. They're anthems from an ancient time.
Well, firstly, ‘These Boots are Made for Walkin'’ is a great song that sounds gorgeous compared to most of its contemporaries.
Secondly, there are pretty much no other bands that sound like Ramones. If you want that kind of fast and fun sound once in a while, there's no other option. Most other punk sounds like punk, but no punk other than Ramones sounds like them.
The only ones sounding similar to Ramones are those making deliberate effort to emulate their sound: Ramonetures, ‘Gabber Gabber Hey!’, Helen Love.
You're missing my point.
These are dried up, shallow pieces of music that had their place. Once you've heard one of their 2 minutes songs, you've heard their entire discography!
There's actually great music you could spend your time on, which is what I do. There's 20 new albums every day, there's amazing jazz, amazing punk, amazing growth in various forms of music. In a way, listening to primitive music like Ramones is depriving oneself of what's out there now, which makes it sound like children's jingles in comparison.
I realize I may be coming off harsh, but that is my personal perspective, I think it's weak and one dimensional. Then again, that statement could be applied to many popular acts.
Somehow I'm sure just from your comments that I wouldn't consider most anything that you listen to ‘good’, and I've heard lots of musics in my life. And I certainly wouldn't turn down good music just because it's old or simpler than other music.
Krudler is coming at it like music is a zero sum game, which is silly. I love the Ramones. I also love more innovative, complex music, as well as plenty of vapid garbage. I'm happy jumping from Art Pepper to Guatafán. None of it is a waste of time if it's what I'm in the mood for.
The Ramones were a fresh slap in the face back in the day, and without them punk & new wave wouldn't be what they are. In the meantime, other artists have built on the Ramones' foundation. Similarly, Jimi Hendrix revolutionised how people used the electeic guitar as an instrument, but other artists ran with it to the point that his stuff is archaic (I can't listen to Hendrix for the same reason K dismissed the Ramones, but to each their own).
I guess what I'm saying is that even if you personally don't like an influential band, you have to acknowledge that they might be exactly what resonates with someone else. That's why we have so much music in the world. To the original topic though, Ramones music does all sound the same. Why mess with perfection?
Tool
Oof. That's a tough one. Every song on an album sounds pretty similar, but I feel like each album has a very distinct style from the others.
(Beginning song with bass) bun da dun dun dun dun x20
I get told this a lot. Sure, the range of guitar effects is limited if not non-existant, but fortunately they create a sound I like so... I'm glad they all sound the same? I guess.
I think though with Tool the changes are a lot more subtle than people expect, which makes them bad background music. The timing changes, and beats appearing and disappearing every second bar are not so noticeable unless you're really listening to it.
Having been surprised to see Tool twice in this thread, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Between Maynard's voice, and the basslines OP mentioned, they definitely have a distinctive sound, and I could see how it could blur together as background / casual listening music. Especially if you listen to mostly mixes ot playlists.
Personally, I almost exclusively listen to music by album, and I think thats where Tool's songs really become more distinct from each other.
I love Tool but you're right. Yeah they're pulling all sorts of unexplored timing signatures out of their ass, so each song is technically unique in that respect, but the vibe is fairly consistently dark and meditative. There's some exceptions though, I think The Pot really stands out from the rest of their stuff.
Surprised no one's mentioned U2
First that came to mind. Can’t stand them. Just boring.
As much as I dislike them, their music has evolved. Their 80s stuff sounds different than their 90s stuff. However, after 'Achung baby', they have not made any interesting music whatsoever. To be honest, 'Achtung baby' did not stand the test of time for me either.
The Doors
"The same" always means "these aspects I'm noticing" and not these other aspects I'm not noticing. And when there are aspects I'm not used to they tend to stand out and eclipse the aspects i'm used to and take for granted. Whole genres that i never listen to "sound the same."
Wesley Willis
Don't change perfection
I still get The Vultures Ate My Dead Ass Up stuck in my head.
Creed
"look at this photograph"
Can't even be bothered to name them, they suck so fucking hard
You fuck. Now I have this fucking shit song stuck in my head!
Sorry about my rage ...
Forgive me
https://youtu.be/NHPj5YokEOY
Curb is still a great album
No, it's not my friend.
There's a difference between something you like and something that is "great".
You are allowed to be wrong. It's okay friend. I'll still give you a hug
Offspring.
And that's why we like it.
Idk, I feel like their first few albums sounded pretty different to the ones that came later.
Most EDM in 2010’s. That’s the obvious answer.
100% Breaking Benjamin. Every album sounds just like the last one.
Having said that, I was a big fan of them and still enjoy their music.
Jack Johnson. If you hear one of his songs in public just say “oh, Banana Pancakes” and move on with your life. Not a soul on earth will be able to correct you
I feel like it kinda works for him. It's very mellow acoustic folkish music you could just have going on in the background.
For sure, I wouldn’t say it’s unpleasant.
Andrew WK had some good tunes, but they all sound the same.
Ozfest 2001 was one of the first concerts I went to, right as AWK started his brief rise. Absolute blast to see live, the music was still fresh at that point. And the guy is just a goofball, total respect for him and his act. But you're also 100% correct. You know what you're getting with them. Early 2000s, they were on every bill, they played constantly.
Linkin Park.
Look, I like them, so I'm not exactly knocking them, but a long time ago I was working an overnight inventory shift, and my manager at the time put on a Linkin Park album, and I predict how every song was going to go because they all seemed like the same song.
This was true up until Minutes to Midnight came out. They're a lot more versatile these days. I really like their new singer.
She's alright, but she needs a few more albums with her voice on them, she doesn't sound that great singing Chester's songs. At least at the Vancouver show. Still very enjoyable but her own songs are where she shines. That's probably not surprising to anyone though
Ironically I think she sounds great on Chester's songs, especially Numb. Hearing her sing that one gives the lyrics an entirely new meaning. It's very fitting, given the situation of her filling in his shoes.
You didn't hear what I did then
Metallica
Oh yes. They have certainly lost their touch.
Also Rammstein or Til Lindemann's solo work (which is just Rammstein with less effort).
Another one is Limp Bizkit. The music has not evolved, even with the new singer.
Bring in the downvotes.
Lol, there is no new singer
You are absolutely right. I meant Linkin Park. d'Oh!
Fair
Rammstein's first three albums were full of bangers. But, I have no idea what they've been doing in the past twenty years or so.
As a teenage metalhead of the 90s, little has distressed me more than literally everything Metallica have released since St Anger.
I really, really dug Load and ReLoad. They were different to what had come before, but they still had a hard rock edge to them that I loved. Then Jason quit, and The Corporation Of James And Lars hired the formely mighty Rob Trujillo and set about their plan to record the same indistinguishable wall of noise over and over again until people stopped bothering to even pirate their music.
It was a legitimate shock to me finding out that Hardwired... to Self-Destruct is from 2017.
I love them but Boston.
Status Quo ( the clue is in the name)
AND YET, Pictures of Matchstick Men is a psych masterpiece.
Aerosmith.
I think that is true for the vast majority of bands. What some band manage to do is reinvent their sound with different albums and often that is not well received by the fans.
Yeah, I think it's very difficult for bands to reinvent themselves, and the majority who try lose fans because of it. The two bands who always spring to kind for me are Radiohead and Brand New, whose discographies are a bit of a roller coaster genre-wise, the former much more so.
Coldplay springs to mind. The Coldplay who released Moon Music last year is an entirely different band to the one who released Parachutes in 2000. I know of few other bands who've gone through such an enormous transformation. And while the newer stuff may not resonate with me the way the early stuff did, it's fair to say that it's worked for them.
To some degree you are correct, however there is a massive difference between a band like AC/DC which had jokingly been said they have have the same album for 40 years, and say Metallica.
Metallica helped define what Thrash Metal is. But listening to Load/Reload vs Ride the Lightning is a huge difference in sound.
And you take it forward another 10 years from Reload the sound has changed all over again.
Very different from AC/DC but then again most bands/artists don't have 50 year careers as the biggest name in their musical setting
I'm stll pissed off about Load, tbh
Really surprised no one's mentioned Everclear, but that might just be because no one thinks about Everclear that much
Volbeat Disturbed
After Bad Guy, i couldn't tell the difference between Billie Eillish songs.
That's absolutely wild, her music is all over the place. None of the singles on her new album sounded anything alike lol
I may not have heard any of her latest stuff.
I'm not a huge Eilish fan, but "when the party's over" is excellent and very different from everything else I've heard from her.
Bon Jovi. Apparently they're not a one hit wonder.
U2? Never listened to them besides sometimes on the radio. But seems kinda samey
Their radio singles are same sounding, but they have some very different sounding songs that don't get played.
I was just listening to them for the first time in a long while last week. There's a noticeably difference pre and post elevation album.
Tiger Army can release 10,000 songs that sound exactly like In The Orchard and I'll gladly buy em all 😆
I like most of those bands. Never heard of Tiger Army, but now I’m curious.
To some degree, Goatwhore. Love the band, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can never remember song titles of theirs, because they are all a bit OTT tbh.
@[email protected]
Haha, agree on that one. I'mma be a lil spicy and say Tankard if we're to stay in the thrash metal genre lol.
Yeah I can't deny that.
Cocomelon.
Vivaldi
The songs themselves sound a little differnt but if you asked me to identify an evanescence song only by the singer, I'd be unable to differentiate any of them. I know this isn't true but sometimes it sounds to me like shes just singing the same note the whole song.
Also his cousin, Marvin Berry.
Bad Religion
YOOOOOOOO sorry but this is my all time favorite band and Ive gotta stick up for them. They have an unmistakable signature sound, yes, but not every song sounds the same like AC/DC par examplé as other people have rightly cited.
If you'd kindly take 2 mins to listen to a bit of the following songs I pulled off the top of my head and are still willing to say all their songs sound the same then I dont know what to say:
Here's the standard kinda song you're probably thinking about, You off of No Control:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v1PgiBpTtao
Then put on Struck a Nerve from Recipe for Hate:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vY-EXZkXWYA
Then Television from Stranger than Fiction:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-8hlEAJZdM
Then Turn Your Back on Me from Dissent of Man:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pqt38l_qTk
Then Faces of Grief from Age of Unreason:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xpO7S29SgxQ
Thanks. For extra credit, they also had an album they kind of would everyone to forget about that was leaning into a kind of proggy sound, closer to The Who than their own sound if you want something thats way off in the wilderness:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HK_vHFs-Tz0
Fuckin receipts brought up in here
I think I know what it is now. It's the vocal melodies. It might be certain intervals and scales that he reuses over and over again.
Thanks for the suggestions. The songs you posted kind of back my claim. Don't get me wrong, I like individual songs like 21st Century Digital Boy, Punkrock Song or No Control. But when it comes to listening to a whole album it's too much of the same for me.
But "Into the Unknown" is crazy. I didn't know they had an album that sounded completely different and each song is different. They seem to hide it well, it's not on Qobuz, Deezer nor Spotify. I found a podcast about it, listening to it now.
fair enough. I kinda think if you think all BR sounds the same that you might think all Iron Maiden or Nine Inch Nails or Primus or The Doors sound the same, but I do get what you mean.
There are actually two primary song writers, Greg Graffin and Brett Guerwitz, and the album splits are about 50/50. Most of my favorite songs tend to be Guerwitz tunes. If you dont dig the whole BR gestalt then its gonna get old even if I think the songs I listed are pretty radically different. Il do get what you're saying, though.
They deeeefinitely don't do a lot of promotion of Into the Unknown. The only release of it after the initial cassette and CD release in SoCal was a pressing they made for their box set of their entire catalogue.
Id actually be interested to see if you thought Graffin's bluegrass solo stuff sounds "samey" also:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FyZziJnRdD4
Oh dang! I also came in here to say Bad Religion, and I would have been wrong. Thank you for bringing sources.
It was not difficult to stand up to defend the world's greatest punk band of all time (who's lead singer has a Ph.D. and has taught Evolutionary Biology at UC Berkley (I think, somewhere in California)
Reading the comments, it sounds like it’s a bad thing for a band to stick to their sound. I actually think that’s good. After all, I started listening to a band because of their sound. When they suddenly reinvent themselves, they usually lose me.
Positive example: Interpol. In my opinion, the band got better over time but kept the exact same sound.
Negative example: Radiohead. At some point, Thom Yorke just started letting cats walk across synthesizers.
Translated by a machine. Spelling errors are subject to the copyright of “Google Gemini”.
I guess you stopped listening to Radiohead after Kid A? Really, really bad take.
Mamaleek change up the sound on every album, and still have their defining mood and are different from everyone else. If I want the different Mamaleek sounds, I listen to the different albums.
About the same with King Crimson, I think, but with longer series of albums.
10cc and maroon5.
Both equally boring as well
You have to make a distinction between bands that have a (more or less) coherent sound and style, and blatant repetition. Anyway, if anyone tries to tell me that Volbeat isn't just rereleasing the same song for the whole time they existed, I have to assume that one of us must be demented.
Deftones (sorry)
I disagree on that one. If you listen to Adrenaline and then skip forward to Private music there's barely any resemblance left.
I will agree though that their overall vibe has remained consistent, but I think that speaks to their vision of the band instead of a lack of creativity.
It’s funny, I listened to Adrenaline first, decided it wasn’t for me and forgot about Deftones for a couple years. Finally listened to Saturday Night Wrist and loved it and literally every other Deftones album after that.
The differences in albums has been more subtle, but I thought what they did with Pink Cellphone and the instrumental only Konami Code were unique to their music.
Gore is very stylistically different
Nickelback Taylor Swift
Basshunter albums from the 2000s
Slayer
Green Day took a short hiatus from their usual sound for American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown, but otherwise has been releasing the same sound as their original works since after 2009, just now overly produced.
Powerwolf, and that's a compliment. They're consistent; you boot up an album from them, and you know you're about to listen to 40 minutes of horny werewolf crusaders.
Alan Walker
The dude has just seen one tune go viral and decided "why not make ALL of my music exactly like this?"
Metallica.
I remember one night working a job replacing checkout lanes at Savemart one of the other dudes doing the job setup the PA system to play nothing but Metallica songs and at our first break I asked if he could stop playing the same song on repeat and then showed me he had 6 whole CDs in the thing and it was on shuffle.
So then I asked to add other bands to the mix.
But I mean... There's like 12 different parts to "Unforgiven." Which is basically just 1 song.
Metallica's fandom has fractured every single album release after Ride the Lightning. My best friend in high school and I almost threw hands over the Black album and it's because that was the one we agreed on
You are so wrong
I used to love The Black Keys, but all their latest albums just sound so samey
There are people used to tell me every track by Summoning sounds the same. Many who don't listen to Classical music complained that Classical music sounds the same, be it Vivaldi or Schostakovich. Some suggested I need to change it to a more uplifting playlist (in an Art Gallery). If I played Bach it would be worse. And then some people told me everything I made looked the same. I mostly agree to all the above. It's better to admit defeat and admit that you would never be good enough.
Everything Sabaton released between Carolus Rex and the last album.
Almost everything Powerwolf released after Blood of the Saints.
Nocny Kochanek after Zdrajcy Metalu.
They all sound similar. Some, though, get really blurry. Led Zeppelin comes to mind; when I was listening through their albums they’d get pretty blurry. Seconding also AC/DC.
Ink Spots, but in a comfy way. I guess it was kind of their intentional gimmick, so this might not be a good answer.
Any solo acoustic guitar wielding singer songwriter bro
Panic! At the disco
That first album when it dropped though, boohwaaaiiih!
Everything arctic monkeys has put out since AM
Stevie Nicks
Snails house.
I like it, but they do kinda just blend into each other.
Audoslave
Dire straits. U2.
Who is music?
I was kinda scared to say rage, but they've definitely got a formula. Not a criticism, it's a formula they perfected, ratm is one of my favorite bands
. Tool . lol sorry when you're drunk and just hear lyrics as if they were the same in every song
Though to be fair, Maynard does vary a lot from project to project, even if not from track to track. Also to be fair, though a lot of Tool songs sound alike, they all sound like the same GOOD song.
(Had to defend Maynard because we share a birthday, and I love having arbitrary reasons for doing things/making decisions. Redman, Jennifer Garner and Posh Spice are in the same birthday club, though I (arbitrarily) disregard criticism of Posh Spice.)
Mac lethal - calm down baby
https://youtu.be/0NFogTOXI2k
The world is gray and blue but what skates me through|
Is knowing that I have a better music taste than you|
I used to like Tool until they made the same album|
That they made the last time they made the same album|
Every time they make a damn album it's the same album, really|
And only stoners listen to their music, it's silly|
Pink Floyd
Which version? Barrett, Waters, or Gilmour?
Except "The Endless River". That was... something.
AHEM!