I like both, but it could be said that if you've heard one album you've heard them all...

Both such outstanding exemplars of one-trick-ponydom that it feels like shooting fish in a barrel to name them.

Oasis became a one trick band.

Chalky
http://terriblelovesongs.blogspot.com

but I think the Cocteau Twins probably come into this catergory.

Which therefore suggests to me that its no bad thing as long as your trick is a good one.

Stereolab.

New Order? Melancholy rock plus electronic dance. Great though at their best. Sometimes a bit slower, sometimes faster but the same trick.

...The Stones were pretty varied for the first half of their career. Play through that recently re-released 'Rolled Gold' collection and see how many stylistic shifts they went through. Indeed, they continued to evolve until the 80s where they seemed to really believe they were 'the greatest rock and roll band in the world' and didn't do much else but straight-up rock ('Continental Drift' from 'Steel Wheels' is the one exception I can think of!).

Status Quo went through more stylistic changes than they are given for, honest guv! Started out as a ersatz psych-pop band, spent most of the 70s as a 'boogie' band (I enjoy that run from 'Piledriver' through to the 'Live' album), turned out-and-out pop in the 80s and spent most of the 90s churning out ghastly cabaret style medleys.

I nominate Oasis and Coldplay here. Oasis smack me as being more like the Status Quo people describe than Status Quo themselves do! I feel Coldplay have a very formulaic sound as well but maybe they might turn it around with the Eno collaboration. I'll keep an open mind.

Paul Weller's solo career has been pretty samey too, I think, but rumours persist that '22 Dreams' will be different. Loathe as I am to admit it, I think Van Morrison has sailed pretty close to being a one-trick pony over the last decade or so as well!

Van Morrison too when thinking about it. On reflection the lyrical content and spiritual outpourings may be a shade formulaic but conversely I think the music is varied enough for me not to put him in that category. I can see your point though.

It could be said that finding what you're good at and sticking with it might not be a bad thing. Especially when you consider some bands who deliberately move through different styles and 'experiments'. Mostly ill considered. I'll not name those guys. Although I'm pretty much thinking about Radiohead here....

Having said that, I had this conversation the other day: People like Costello and Bowie, who have had musically varied careers: when you actually listen to all their albums in one go you realise that they're not actually that varied. Bowie's 70s output for the most part sounds to me like the same artist. You could interchange any of the albums between about 74 and 80 and not know the difference if you'd never heard him before. And the same is true for much of Costello's careers. Their one trick is sounding like the same artist no matter what the style.

The Ramones.

And the people love them for it.

cf. most glam bands for that matter... or any bands that tend to come out of a fad - haven't seen many britpop bands develop since the mid-late 90s.

Now I think of it, might we also throw in the Sex Pistols? One trick, then self-destruction, but what a trick.

Again, get one album and you've got the whole picture. Get the "best of" and you get mainly the first two albums because the rest was samey but not as fresh.

... I mean, I love Steely Dan. I can appreciate the nuances and can talk about the sheer variety on the debut to the development in their music throughout the 70's. However, I'd also acknowledge that some people find them samey. Your one trick pony is my variations on a theme, I guess.

In their early days I thought U2 were crap and sounded all the same. Then they released 'Achtung Baby' and I thought "this is a bit different, I quite like this". They they released a whole lot of crap albums that sounded the same.

I recently listened again to Achtung Baby and it sounds exactly the same as all their other stuff. Time is the great healer.

...nobody seems to have mentioned Jamiroquai yet. Didn't the record company put anything in his contract about making different albums?

two to four repeating piano notes

chris warbles

guitar joins on same two to four notes

chris warbles

drums and bass join on same two to four notes

chris hits piano harder and warbles a bit louder

strings join on same two to four notes

only variance - tempo

...is that it is music you like: it is the identifiability of an artist that attracts (or repels.) I've lost count of the strands here about the deluge for the bar that follows "Hope you like our new direction. I like
my records to sound like the artist identified on the label. Sure a little variation can be fun: This Notes for You/Neil Young,say, but too much is, um, too much, Trans/Neil Young, but what we really like is the much regurgitated scuzzy guitars or pristinely plonked piano/clumsily plinked accoustics of his 2 main styles.
Van may vary the background, but he's never going to affect a differennt voice.
I can stand Mobys ethereal noodlings, but cannot stand his thrash guitar: he should stick to one or other.

To be fair you could label a whole raft of artists on trick ponies but I think there are some who have become so stuck in a groove / rut and will never ever come out of it. Lenny Kravitz just plays the same song over and over and over and he really grinds my gears.

joe dolce fall into this category

.....having yet to be drawn into his catalogue of similar sounding songs. Are there many?

As one trick and as ponyish as anyone can muster...

Can also argue a case for The Smiths, though dearly loved...