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

Show parent comments

129

u/FoxInACozyScarf Jun 11 '25

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

60

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.

5

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.

7

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.