The problem I have with a lot of musician's idea of variety is that it's always a very narrow sense of variety. It's easy enough to parody, say, 'Gregorian' chant (which isn't necessarily 'Gregorian'), but there's a subtlety that's often indiscernible initially that is lost, inevitably. To students of early chant there's a massive difference between, say, Tallis and Bingen (the only names I know well in that field) and it always strikes me as disengenuous to throw away the majesty of any music with an ill-prepared pastiche.

Of course, it's all organic, and a things grow out of other things - Soukous is meant to be some African version of rock n' roll, but it's entirely different. I'm not entirely in opposition, but a lot of musicians seem to go about pastiche (which I'm not opposed to) in a very cavalier fashion.

It does come down to talent, there isn't much to debate on this.

There are different ways to look at it, though. Someone mentioned, rightly, people like Beck, who often tend to have 10 tracks on an album and a good 7 of them are in diffrent styles, generally all shite. Then you have people who change style with every album they put out, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so.

What about those who suddenly go from having played in fairly the same style for years to a complete change of direction?

What about people like Prince?

What about the funk marathons tinted with jazz/rock etc etc etc? Are those always sexy?

What about us?

Agreed with both above posts, and here's my two cents:

Talent is essential. A good band or artist will definetly have their own style/asthetic/sound/nuances, which you will know them by. This is regardless to any biting or imitating of other groups or bands, everyone does it to a lesser or greater degree so lets just call it that. BUT, being able to make a body of work or music that has a dynamic and variable flow, yet still maintaing the ''trademark'' or ''staple'' sound of the group is where the talent comes in......arrrgggh nevermind, the bottom line is make a silly first album, sell millions and then play what your mind and soul ask for. If you're good then you'll put variety in your music and maintain your own style.

everyone knows I hate Beck and his stupid shit, not because it is eclectic, but because it is so very GENERICALLY eclectic.

I prefer variety myself. I like butthole surfers records, or cornelius, or albums where the band is rocking in as many ways as they feel like. Of course they need to pull the shit off.

I also like unity. I like cohesion in albums as well, but this is mostly a result of the band involved. Mudhoney for example, only has two songs. arocking bluesy rmp or a slow bluesy dirge. with those two "songs" they fill up 3-4 albums of music. The melvins are the same way. There are many bands I love that have cohesive sounds throughout their albums. Again, if you do this, you have to be very good or else it wil all sound like filler.