All this talk on change is interesting. I have always thought that the two features of Glass Hammer were:Thimon wrote:If someone would have told me that glass hammer is a big hoax and all albums where made by different people I could believe it (except for vocals)...
I think change is good, and I look forward to heavier parts and a slightly new sound. It must be Shreddy who set you up.. right?
1: They never underwent radical change in their basic sound, but they did implement it incrementally. With the notable exception of The Middle Earth Album.
2: While Glass Hammer rarely push the boundaries of progressive rock, they always push their own boundaries as musicians.
Glass Hammer have tried many things, but they have always had a fundamental grounding in the music of the seventies, with a combination of bands from the UK and USA. There are a lot of bands like that out there, but where Glass Hammer differs is that they do change and grow, and they are always trying things that they haven't done before. That and musicianship set them apart from a large group of competent but uninspiring bands.
So while Glass Hammer have changed, they have done so nowhere near as much as any of the Big 6 did over the same period of time. Which is just as well, because if Glass Hammer were Genesis we'd be up to Invisible Touch by now. And Walter Moore would be singing Sledgehammer.
Er, summary. Glass Hammer has changed and that is good, but not radically, which is also good in my book. Also, while innovation is fantastic we will never be back in the early seventies when there was so much scope for it. As long as Glass Hammer continue to push themselves as musicians that's fine with me. Besides which, most bands touted as "innovative" these days either aren't (eg Mars Volta, who are just Jane's Addiction with longer songs and a Mariachi band) or just do nothing for me.