New Members = New Sound?

It has been a time of the year when new bands have exploded up like popping daisies and also the time of the year where you hear "This band's changed singer" or "that band has a new guitarist".

But then you also hear two arguments that contradict each other so much, you wonder which one is the right one, and realize the bands actually do have a lot of pressure in decision making when coming to having new members.

Argument number one: They sound so different now, they aren't even the same band anymore!

Argument number two: The new vocalist sounds exactly like the old one: copycat!

But hey, some people change sounds, yet still sound good, like Butterfingers with "Kembali" and even Seven Collar's new album "The Great Escape". What's the magic to that?

Well:

a) Experience - If you guys don't have enough years of experience to give yourselves time to explore a range of music or have around you a solid fanbase to fall upon... Don't dare to change your style.

b) Keep the 'old you' - There's one thing about changing musical style, but there's another to be completely different until the point where you might as well change your band name altogether, you know? For example, there has to be a distinctive vocals for example such as like Seven Collar, or distinctive constant insertions of inspiration (with Butterfingers, it was very much the Malaysian culture). So when you change the genre, or the sound of your band, some part of your band remains the same. That is a key you can't teach, it's just part of being in a good band. :)

Some people diss bands who change their sounds, and it's not always because they sound bad. Fans sometimes just cannot accept when bands change their sounds to something different, which arguably, can be understood. A note to new bands: If you haven't released a full album and gigged enough places, DON'T think about changing your sounds if your fans love you.

Then there's argument two, when bands find replacements for those who leave (mainly a problem with vocalists) and the sound remains scarily the same.

Example: Meet Uncle Hussain.

Heard their new stuff? It's great. But it was obvious that some people would have problems with the AF dude and Black for sounding too alike Lan. "Copycats, lah", some say. "Not as good as Lan", others laugh.

However, guys, try taking a look from this point. How many people loved Meet Uncle Hussain because of the vocals when singing Lalala Kerjalah? Everyone. So would you guys rather Meet Uncle Hussain get a new vocalist who sings Lalala in a totally different tone or a new vocalist yang boleh buat sama dengan Lan? Of course people would want the latter. I know I would.

So why complain?

Take a look at Bittersweet, for example. They changed vocalist (and almost everybody else!) and started producing new sounds, not the Brit-rock inspired tunes like Capital E. Did people love it? No. Were the fans confused, and asking "Where did Bittersweet" go? Yes.

So think for yourselves and judge bands properly for the music they play, not as to who does it, or what style. If it's good, it's good, if it's shit, well... we can see the consequences.

-------------

With Love,

KL Mosher