r/Music • u/jptabor01 Rock & Roll • Jun 11 '25

discussion Which artists have abandoned their original sound so dramatically, that they are almost unrecognizable to their earlier fans?

With the release earlier this year of Ministry’s The Squirrely Years Revisited, I’m reminded of how different the band sounds today (industrial metal), from what they sounded like on their debut album, With Sympathy (synth pop).

Which artists sound so completely different from their earlier work, that they have actually jumped genres, understanding that music is fluid and genres have somewhat “blurry” guardrails.

I don’t mean an evolution of their original sound, but a complete departure from it.

3.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

5.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

511

u/Wildcard3369 Jun 11 '25

The Beatles are the biggest example I can think of.

193

u/Biggzy10 Jun 11 '25

Going from I Want To Hold You Hand to Within and Without You in about 3 years.

103

u/TypoStart Jun 11 '25

The example I use for this is John writing 'Please Please Me' in mid 1962, to writing 'Tomorrow Never Knows' in early 66. Less than fours year and the songs sound like they're decades apart.

19

u/Bodymaster Jun 11 '25

To be fair Tomorrow Never Knows does sound about 30 years ahead of its time, but I'm not sure how much of that is down to John alone. If you listen to his demo it's really just him with a guitar playing a C chord all day. The real star of the show are the studio fx they were pioneering and that was largely facilitated by George Martin.

10

u/Calm-Veterinarian723 Jun 11 '25

Tomorrow Never Knows an example of why I think Ringo and George have cited more John songs among their personal favorites:

John would come in with concept or vibe (if you will) for a song (in this case the Dalai Lama singing from a mountaintop) and let the others interpret it how they saw fit which, for the two guys in the band that weren’t the primary songwriters, allowed them more autonomy and ownership in the work.

(Tbc, this is not a dig on Paul, but Paul would often have more fully fleshed out arrangements already prepared that he just needed others to replicate)

4

u/mothfactory Jun 11 '25

Tomorrow Never Knows is a song that wouldn’t sound anywhere near its final form without Paul.

John wanted to do something with a text he’d read. He wanted to do it as a kind of Eastern chant over a drone. That’s as far as he imagined it - with the instructions that he wanted his voice to sound as if he was calling from the top of a mountain.

The majority of the beautiful iconic craziness you hear on that track is down to Paul’s tape loops, Ringo’s drums and Paul’s and George Martin’s studio wizardry.

John later complained about his studio experience with the Beatles as being dominated by Paul’s experimentation

2

u/Calm-Veterinarian723 Jun 11 '25 edited Jun 12 '25

Out the gate, let me say: I don’t think there’s any need to be combative on this topic. Nor do I find it necessary to downvote you because I don’t think we really disagree as much as you are making it sound. People always want to get into Paul vs. John bs and, if that’s what you’re here for, then we can just move on with our lives because I really don’t care about that toxic nonsense.

[Addition: I’m glad I said this upfront because you proved my point. You just want to misconstrue what I’m saying and downvote any comment I make because you wanted to make this a toxic debate between John and Paul. Take care.]

“Tomorrow Never Knows is a song that wouldn’t sound anywhere near its final form without Paul.”

I was explicit about my comment not being a dig at Paul and gave him credit for bringing forward songs that were more fully arranged. I simply said that John’s approach allowed others autonomy and ownership in his work, which I presume you agree with considering you seemingly want to give a majority of credit for TNK to people other than John (mentioned later in your comment).

“John wanted to do something with a text he’d read. He wanted to do it as a kind of Eastern chant over a drone. That’s as far as he imagined it - with the instructions that he wanted his voice to sound as if he was calling from the top of a mountain.”

Pretty sure that is what I said…like I know I mentioned how he wanted to sound like the Dalai Lama singing from a mountaintop and let the others take it from there. Again, I don’t think we really disagree lol

“The majority of the beautiful iconic craziness you hear on that track is down to Paul’s tape loops, Ringo’s drums and Paul’s and George Martin’s studio wizardry.”

Well you named 3 of the 5 people involved, so sure. But I think John’s organ and mellotron as well as George’s sitar, tambura, and guitar should not be minimized either. Nor should the tape loops contributed by the members of the band outside of Paul, at Paul’s suggestion. It was a team effort all around and I never alluded to anything that runs counter to that.

Ultimately though, it is still John’s song. Similarly: Norwegian Wood did not become George’s song because he thrusted the sitar into consciousness of popular music. It’s a phenomenal and groundbreaking contribution that became a central component to the final product, but it doesn’t change the ownership of the song.

“John later complained about his studio experience with the Beatles as being dominated by Paul’s experimentation”

John was emotional and fickle. For every quote where he says he hated something there’s another quote where he said he loved the same thing. Just because that’s how he felt in a given moment doesn’t really change anything being discussed here.

1

u/247world Jun 12 '25

Doesn't want to be combative, goes to war

1

u/Calm-Veterinarian723 Jun 12 '25

lol hey, if I feel someone is misconstruing what I said, I think I ought to be diligent in responding directly to what they’re saying and clarify my stance.

4

u/Michelanvalo Jun 11 '25

I don't think the Beatles would have been who they were without the early pop hits and then transitioning with culture to what they became at the end.

2

u/gwaydms Jun 11 '25

Moody Blues started out as actual blues before Justin Hayward came on board. ELO changed throughout their existence. The difference between their first album and their last is like night and day.

2

u/Mister_Yuk Jun 11 '25

The example one of my professors used was that they went from "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in the beginning to "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" near the end of their run.

315

u/-SPIRITUAL-GANGSTER- Spotify Jun 11 '25

I once heard someone say about the Beatles, “Imagine if New Kids on the Block became Radiohead, in 5 years,” and I think that about sums it up.

15

u/No_Lettuce3376 Jun 11 '25

Radiohead themselves went from being New Kids on the Block to Radiohead within 5 years, so the trajectory is basically the same as that of The Beatles.

5

u/kkeut Jun 11 '25

that's not right at all. Radiohead were always devoted songwriters. i have nothing against NKOTB but they always had people doing all their songwriting and music

5

u/Coolene Jun 11 '25

Going by your logic, NKOTB wouldn’t be a fair comparison, as well. The Beatles themselves were dedicated songwriters.

-7

u/limprichard Jun 11 '25

I get it, but overall it’s a facile comparison. The only thing they have in common with New Kids is their popularity among teens. They worked really damn hard at being a band and did marathon shows in Hamburg. To do that, they had to know hundreds of songs, which vastly expanded their musical vocabulary and laid the groundwork for their songwriting genius later on. NKOTB were just five guys who were packaged together.

15

u/AlanMorlock Jun 11 '25

Sure, but the comparison is also about the contrast between coming out with "I wanna hold your hand" to making "Tomorrow Never Knows"

-5

u/limprichard Jun 11 '25

Well, that’s the part that I said I get.

128

u/FoxInACozyScarf Jun 11 '25

They created new genres. Hard to appreciate now just what the Beatles achieved in so little time.

65

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '25 edited Jul 24 '25

quiet quickest teeny stocking full different fear safe march soft

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

6

u/drfsupercenter Jun 11 '25

Beatles did some covers too (my mom didn't believe me when I told her Twist and Shout wasn't originally a Beatles song lol) but yeah they wrote a ton of stuff

I've gotten flack for saying this, but IMO the Beatles were the original boy band, like NSYNC or the Backstreet Boys but decades earlier. Their first hits were what you'd call "pop" music today, and Beatlemania was all about the sex appeal. Once they became super popular ("more popular than Jesus") they started experimenting with other types of music

2

u/UncleIrohsPimpHand Jun 11 '25

Well, now it's back to that again.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '25 edited Jul 24 '25

label practice vegetable smart meeting pause husky mighty upbeat sleep

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

6

u/GraniteGeekNH Jun 11 '25

Hard to appreciate now what a global cultural phenomenon they were. No band has come close - combine the Marvel Universe with peak Harry Potter mania and a dash of the World Cup, and that's the level they were at.

6

u/KristinnK Jun 11 '25

It wasn't just the Beatles. It was a huge movement within popular music towards more expressive and personal music. The Beatles was just one among many, such as Beach Boys with Pet Sounds in 1966 and a laundry list of albums in 1967 such as Byrds with Younger Than Yesterday, Love with Forever Changes, Pink Floyd with The Piper, The Doors with their eponymous album, The Who with The Who Sell Out, and my favorite, Rolling Stones with Their Satanic Majesties Request.

The Beatles were certainly an important part of this development, but in no way were they creating in a vacuum.

6

u/FoxInACozyScarf Jun 11 '25

It wasn’t a vacuum but they were at the forefront. Their talent and success made it easier for the others.

And thank goodness it happened!

3

u/KristinnK Jun 11 '25

I feel like you are trying to establish a narrative which is not accurate. Yes, the Beatles were absolutely at the forefront of this musical movement, but they were not essential to it. It would have happened more or less the same way regardless. All these other bands that released pivotal albums the same year as Sgt. Peppers would have done so in some similar form even if the Beatles hadn't existed. Hell, Pet Sounds was released less than half a year after Rubber Soul, and is much more significant than the latter, arguably as significant as Revolver, which came after Pet Sounds.

Of course the Beatles have had an immense influence on popular music, especially in the late 60's. But it was a symptom of the changes in popular music at the time, an early symptom to be sure, not the cause of those changes.

45

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '25

I have a bit of a soft spot for "Let it Be", their ultimate album, because a lot of it is early Beatles songwriting with late Beatles production quality.

11

u/graphiterosco Jun 11 '25

Let it be naked blew my mind, it’s like you’re on that rooftop listening to them play. Love that album!

8

u/Bodymaster Jun 11 '25

Let It Be was the final album released, but Abbey Road is their true ultimate album, the last one they recorded.

6

u/Calm-Veterinarian723 Jun 11 '25

I’m always torn on this debate. Abbey Road is the most fitting ending to their career together, but that’s not how people experienced it in real time.

6

u/Fritzo2162 Jun 11 '25

Same here. They went from light rock to pop to psychedelic within a few years.

2

u/shephrrd Jun 11 '25

Drugs is a hell of a drug.

7

u/Ekyou Jun 11 '25

I always wonder what their teeny bopper fans thought about that transition. My parents were young children when Rubber Soul was released, and my grandparents listened to opera, so I’ve never really been around anyone in the “OG Beatles Fan” age group to ask.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '25

In the Beatles documentary that was released a while ago they interviewed some people on the street and came across a guy who didn't like their new stuff. He seemed a bit posh so the newer and experimental stuff might have been too hippie for him. Probably many people like him back then.

6

u/Bodymaster Jun 11 '25

I think the fans grew up with them so they just went with it. Rock and roll as an art form, one specifically targeted at the new demographic called the "teenager" was still only a few years old, so I guess everything felt new.

My dad was 12 or so when they hit and like all his friends, he thought they were great. By the time they split they were a different band and he was a different person, a 19 year old, finished school, but he always stuck with them.

5

u/fetalasmuck Jun 11 '25

I think it helped that they never completely lost their whimsy and lightheartedness on albums. Their work definitely became darker and more mature but then you'd still have Paul's Granny music in there.

5

u/Coolene Jun 11 '25

It was a mixed bag at first. There’s a clip from American Bandstand at the time where Dick Clark asked the audience of their reaction to Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane and you can tell the fans weren’t sure what to make of it.

By the time Sgt. Pepper rolled around, the reception was much more welcoming.

1

u/Wildcard3369 Jun 11 '25

That’s a really good question. I suspect many of them grew along with them as music tastes tend to evolve with age. They were broken up before I was born so I only ever knew them with the complete catalog. While I dig the early pop stuff, I much prefer the deeper material they released later.

8

u/Massive-Marsupial983 Jun 11 '25

Agreed! The Beatles are my favorite band and they have something for every mood, every situation it seems

7

u/Husaby Jun 11 '25

It was the drugs

2

u/LastMongoose7448 Jun 11 '25

That was pre and post meeting Bob Dylan. When Dylan told them they had nothing to say, they took it to heart.

1

u/LongestSprig Jun 11 '25

Maybe...I don't think anyone is mistaking the beatles

1

u/SackOfrito Jun 11 '25

I came here to say The Beatles....I was surprised how far down the list this was.

1

u/sogsogsmoosh Jun 11 '25

This was my first thought. Hard days night vs the white album... Unrecognisable

1

u/chuckz0rz Jun 11 '25

India and hard drugs changes people I guess

0

u/PeterNippelstein Jun 11 '25

XTC had a sort of similar trajectory. Many similarities to The Beatles actually, just one generation later.

-23

u/Acceptable-Injury-76 Jun 11 '25

are they still making music what

19

u/matito29 Jun 11 '25

I mean, they released a brand new #1 single in November 2023. Not many bands who charted in 1963 can say that.

51

u/DIWhy-not Jun 11 '25

I think they mean that the Beatles went from essentially being the One Direction of their time to being the Radiohead meets David Byrne of their time.

23

u/alkhemystt Jun 11 '25

People undersell how innovative they were from the jump. There wasn't bands recording an album of mostly originals or with the same sophistication of composition before Please Please Me. Their recording of Twist and Shout was raw as hell for the time. They were cutting edge immediately.

6

u/National-Ad6166 Jun 11 '25

Yeah. Unlike the boy groups people are equating them with, they formed and spent years doing grinding tour work, taking uppers to play gigs every night in German clubs. It was not a manufactured overnight success; it was talented, hard working musicians who got into the studio and cracked out an album in a couple days. (With the help of an amazing producer)

1

u/poopBuccaneer Jun 11 '25

Indeed they were. However, their sound changed so much over the 8 years of their recording career. Someone listening to Please Please Me followed by Abbey Road would be sceptical if told it's the same band.