Tell that to their first EP.
You omitted from my quote “…or if they did, they did not achieve any significant level of success as a punk band.”
Which is rather irrelevant to your assertion that “they didn’t perform as a punk band under the name Beastie Boys”.
I will grant you that yes, they did perform as a punk band under the name Beastie Boys.
But my original question in my OP had two conditions:
Pink Floyd… with Syd Barrett they were playing psychedelic stuff that was probably best consumed with mind altering drugs. It wasn’t the kind of music that would be played on popular radio (though there are recordings of Pink Floyd’s older stuff being played on the BBC). Furthermore, the music wasn’t cohesive. Listen to A Saucerful of Secrets or The Piper at the Gates of Dawn in their entirety and they just don’t have any connection between the songs.
Then after Syd left they transformed to a prog rock powerhouse that pumped out album-based music. Sure there are good songs to be plucked out of those albums, but the only proper way to listen to The Dark Side of the Moon is in its entirety.
Good one! I’m a Floyd fan going way back, so I’m surprised I didn’t think of this one. Yeah, Roger Waters really transformed that band into a reflection of his own personal vision and daddy issues.
I was going to post about Pink Floyd, but I was rather thinking that they went from a typical mid-sixties British blues band to a psychedelic outfit when they first recorded. But yes, I agree that Syd Barrett psychedelic Floyd was a different beast than larger-than-life seventies album Floyd.
Hüsker Dü always had wailing, slashing guitars on most tracks, but it’s staggering to think that the same band that did “Land Speed Record” with all its indistiguishable screamers is the same trio that cut the sad and moody “Hardly Getting Over It” just five years later.
That’s a really short run, but it’s easier to find examples when the artist’s career is super long. Bowie recorded for more than 40 years, and went from fey hippie folkie to theatrical glam androgyny to psudo-soul to pre-industrial noise experiments to sellout pop hitmaker to techno until he settled into his great late-period “it’s just Bowie” albums. It’s hard enough to believe that the man who sang “'Tis a Pity She Was a Whore” on his last record is the same being who did “Young Americans” let alone “Memories of a Free Festival.”
Even speaking as a big Yes fan, this is a good candidate. That said, it’s also an example of how personnel changes play a role – the poppier, 1980s version of the band lacked two key members of the 1970s “classic” lineup, which was known for its long, prog songs (guitarist Steve Howe and keyboardist Rick Wakeman). Howe was replaced by guitarist/singer/songwriter Trevor Rabin, who brought a substantially different approach.
I think that turned out to be a great thing. Stevie Nicks contributed a whole hell of a lot the Fleetwood Mac’s later success.
Yep. For all that she was a “not really wanted or needed add-on,” she has been far more successful than any of the others in the band.
Nat “King” Cole went from a jazz pianist sideman and leader of a jazz trio to a megastar pop song singer.
Here’s a little bit of musical history / trivia for those who aren’t aware it existed-- the pre-Fleetwood Mac lost ‘Buckingham Nicks’ album. In its entirety, with good sound quality. You can hear the ‘Rumours’-era smooth AM radio-friendly pop sound (in a good way) already baked in:
The '76/'77 punks that survived mostly changed. Just to take The Damned as an example, they started off as a punky thrash (of course) and became really rather…musical? Posting an example, as I have no idea how well known this song, say, is known outside the UK.
God knows what they’re doing now - their own tribute band, maybe?
The Clash followed a similar route to (kind of) musicality.
j
Talk Talk was an English band, formed in 1981. They were very much 80s synth pop and had a few MTV hits like this one:
By the fourth album, they had ditched all the synthesizers and drum machines in favor of ghostly moods bolstered by chamber orchestra, muted trumpet and filthy distorted harmonica. Long songs, punctuated by silence and bursts of noise. Their record company probably wanted to kill them.
Try it and see how it grabs you (use headphones). Not a lot of people like it, but those that do love it.
(If you want to hear a ‘song-ier’ part, jump to 2:16)
The Beastie Boys didn’t really change musical styles as their careers went on, as noted by the back-and-forth upthread, but I’d like to submit their name for an honorable mention for drastically changing their music’s philosophy as they got older. They went from misogynistic frat boys to much more openly respectful and thoughtful in their lyrics. In the autobiographical documentary they made a year or so ago, they flat out apologized.
You might appreciate this; A Day in the Life as it might have been done by Buddy Holly:
Yeah, it was a long way from their debut “The Clash” to “London Calling”, though there were only two and half years in between.
Good call. “The Colour Of Spring” already hinted at their new direction, but with “Spirit Of Eden” and “Lauging Stock” they practically invented the genre of post-rock. Almost nobody listened at the time (and yes, their company hated them for it), but the ones who did listen often began to make music in that style.
Do you think the Sex Pistols disqualify themselves? But Hell, from Never Mind The Bollocks to The Great Rock And Roll Swindle in one step (!)
j