I'd say you can only take each band on it's own merits. For me it depends on if the band is experimental by it's nature or not.
I mean take a band like Can. At the beginning of their career they were basically writing your typical drum/bass/guitar/keyboards riff orientated rock music with touches of experimentation.By the end of their career they were writing funk tunes using African rhythms with whole loads of other stuff thrown it. You listen to their first and last albums back to back it almost sounds like a totally different band. And yet because it's their nature to change things so much I can accept that.

But on the other hand if a band like Oasis or AC/DC suddenly started writing Jazz fusion I would probably avoid it like the plague , mostly because in the past their music has never shown any sign of change or experimentation.

I HATE VS threads! This is the third one in as many days. does no-one read the sticky's?

I have no problem with Floyd changing it up. Meddle and The Wall don't sound alike at all, and I love both of those albums. Pink Floyd were certainly experimental, accessible but experimental. My problem is not with change but rather the end result. I just don't like The Final Cut. Plain as day.

Anyone who knows my taste knows that I dont hate it when people break away from a certain formula.

King Crimson are one band that never really had a formula, they have done stuff that ranges from symphonic rock to free jazz to math rock to new wave to metal, which wouldn't be that impressive if they didn't do it all very well, which they do.

Closing. Sorry peeps.