Why do bands become rubbish with age?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vitriol

Pelican
speakeasy said:
I often find that a band's best album is usually the 2nd or 3rd one. The first one is often a stumbling attempt, but sets an artistic vision, and then they are able to build upon that and do their best work from album 2-4. A group can then start to hit creative bankruptcy at that point unless they evolve.

Pretty much every band has an artistic peak that will last for maybe 3 albums or so if they're lucky, Even if they continue to sell records they will never be that good again. For example in 1986 Metallica released Master of Puppets and Slayer put out Reign in Blood. Both bands were still good for another few years after that, but musically they never did anything that exceptional again.

This is probably why a band like Nirvana gets romanticized so much. They went out when they were still at the stage of putting out their best material, so everyone seems to assume they would've been that great forever. Realistically, any band that stays around for years and puts out more than 5 or 6 records is going to start to become mediocre at best, or sucky at worst.
 

Kabal

Pelican
Gold Member
You hinted upon it with "it is hard to 'strike gold' twice."

Just like with hedge funds, regression to the mean.

There is a selection effect / survivorship bias with "great bands," i.e. they become famous do to (a) piece(s) of work that is (are) essentially an artifact of sampling error.

Just like with Malkiel's coin-flipping metaphor, if you hold a coin-flipping contest among a large group of contestants, eventually a "winner" will emerge who has flipped heads 100% of the time. But going forward, even that winner will eventually converge/regress back to 50% given enough coin-flipping trials, as per the Central Limit Theorem.

Of course, some bands are actually better than others because not everyone is equally talented (to say the least), but as described above, there is a material statistical effect.
 
Yep, it seems like as bands age they get shittier with very few exceptions. My theory to a lot of the bands from the 90s is they got sober. Look at nine inch nails. In my opinion, the fragile was reznors best cd, and also his 4th, but once he got sober his music started to go downhill. With teeth was alright, year zero had a couple good songs, but no fragile. Same with red hot chili peppers. They're still good but nothing like they used to be. And in my opinion their first 3 albums weren't their best.
 

LeBeau

Ostrich
Gold Member
Pete said:
I now realized I derailed from the thread question and answered a completely different question.

Sorry for the rant :laugh:

No need to apologize.

I'm realizing as RVF grows that one of it's huge strengths going forward will be the ability for men in different careers to give a no hold barred/no BS breakdown of their jobs and industries.

For example, the U.S. Air Force data sheet recently.

I'm in a diff. country and field but it was still interesting to read the inside story.

However, I have considered songwriting (any genre) or ghostwriting (specifically hip hop) as a side area I could explore in the future.

Feel free to drop data sheets on whatever tips or knowledge you can give, always appreciated.
 

iknowexactly

Crow
Gold Member
Hotwheels said:
Anarchy in the UK was pretty fucking good.

When covered by Megadeth anyway. :D

"I want to destroy passersby!" hahahhahahah

I think they were quite different which is no mean achievement. And funny too.
 

mastauser

 
Banned
WesternCancer said:
It seems like a lot of your guys' opinions fall in the "loss of passion" side or the "level of talent" side

do you think passion is a manifestation of talent or is talent a product of passion?

All great artists have that certain x factor no one can really describe, is this something we're born with or is it that said artist had the exact right proportions and the exact right ingredients at a specific time for greatness?

Is greatness random or can it be predicted through a huge number of variables?

I don't know, but isn't greatness usually found in those with huge talent just before they make it really big? That fire to be the best and really make it big produces some awesome things. After mainstream success and all the girls, cocaine, money and fame, is the same fire still there?
 

AnonymousBosch

 
Banned
Gold Member
scandibro said:
That fire to be the best and really make it big produces some awesome things. After mainstream success and all the girls, cocaine, money and fame, is the same fire still there?

Imagine having to deal with the mainstream media and your average blogger crowd on a daily basis. It'd sap the life out of anyone.
 

Ingocnito

Pelican
I think it's a perpetually increasing scenario that this happens for these reasons:

a) It's a trickle down business. If mainstream sucks with talentless McArtists and McBands long enough which IMO it has for a while now, eventually it crushes the dreams of indy groups and they either adopt a more mainstream sound and get lost in the flow of junk, or go so obscure that they have little following and cannot afford to eat and keep making the same music forever.

b) Group Think or opposite / Singular Vision: Nowadays technology has given way to just 1 or 2 people being capable of writing music easily for an entire group of 4 or more musicians. Artists and players are seeing productions points and writing points distributed via ASCAP and BMI more unevenly because more and more "hired guns" are taking the place of drummers and bass players who were once part of the writing process and thus paid better. The a singular vision of 1 writer is all the whole band derives from in many cases. When there are groups that collectively write, there will always be a few "stronger" personalities in the group that sway the thinking of the masses. If the whole unit is collectively dependent on each other, and just 1 person cannot do it or goes stale, the whole group starts to suffer from the writing perspective and thus begins to fail. It's also like the telephone game, the more crucial people involved to "transmit" the message or sound the band is trying to convey, the more chances for 1 point-to-point failure to happen exists.

c) Touring and merch are paying most indy groups bills. Unless you sell into the McBand / McArtist thinking (most risky approach, but biggest payout), EP, LP, and singles sales won't make enough to keep everyone eating comfortably. Major labels took a hard hit over the last 15 years and had to rethink their entire existence. Well now Indy labels are feeling similar pains. Economy isn't exactly on point either.

d) Technology in general has both helped and hindered many aspects of the business

e) God paid well, finally want a break: Imagine if you spent 5-20 years busting your ass playing shit-holes getting stiffed by bar owners, van breaking down, drugs, partying and finally you make a name for your self, get recognized and make it! It's almost like working 20 years of a 9-5 job in half the amount of time. Unfortunately, that break period tends to sooth the soul. And restless souls make the best shit.
 

Simple Man

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
Parlay, Biggie never lost it. Both his albums were absolute genius. Life after death was just as good as ready to die IMO.
 
^ yeah, how do you "lose it" when you only had 2 albums? I was never a huge biggy fan. I enjoy his music and have mad respect for him, but never really got into him a lot. I was always more of a tupac guy.
 

iknowexactly

Crow
Gold Member
There's a Pink Floyd interview about the period between Dark Side of The Moon ( their artistic peak) and The Wall ( Their money making peak-- good but not as inspired.)
DSOTM stayed on the charts for years, and eventually they said "half of the people coming to see them were assholes", there for nothing to do with the music.

They went into withdrawal, and came up with "The Wall", but it was from a foundation of huge wealth and fame.

Comfortably Numb is a great song, but it's telling I think that was the only great one on the album.
 

Quintus Curtius

Crow
Gold Member
Lots of reasons, I think. The major ones are:

The entertainment industry in general is very, very fickle. Most artists can expect to have a "shelf life" of 3 or 4 years before they become old hat. It's just the way it is.

The ravages of drugs, alcohol, and a brutal touring schedule can sap the vitality of even the best men.

Personality differences and tensions magnify with time. It is hard to keep a group of guys on the same page of music for any extended period of time. Creative differences, family obligations, and other things can pull people apart.

Many artists just get "tapped out" and lose their creative energy.
 

spook

Sparrow


"So, we all get old and can't hack it anymore, and that's it?"
"Yeah."
"That's your theory?"
"Yeah! Beautifully fucking illustrated!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top