why do bands tend to get worse as time goes on?

K

Korg

-
MBTI
-
Enneagram
-
This is something I've been pondering for a while. Why do most bands hit a creative high water mark relatively early on in their career and then slowly drift into mediocrity? There's actually a scene in Trainspotting where this is talked about:

Sick Boy: It's certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.
Mark: What do you mean?
Sick Boy: Well, at one time, you've got it, and then you lose it, and it's gone forever. All walks of life: George Best, for example. Had it, lost it. Or David Bowie, or Lou Reed...
Mark: Some of his solo stuff's not bad.
Sick Boy: No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just shite.
Mark: So who else?
Sick Boy: Charlie Nicholas, David Niven, Malcolm McLaren, Elvis Presley...
Mark: OK, OK, so what's the point you're trying to make?
Sick Boy: All I'm trying to do is help you understand that 'The Name of The Rose' is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory.
Mark: What about 'The Untouchables'?
Sick Boy: I don't rate that at all.
Mark: Despite the Academy Award?
Sick Boy: That means fuck all. Its a sympathy vote.
Mark: Right. So we all get old and then we can't hack it anymore. Is that it?
Sick Boy: Yeah.
Mark: That's your theory?
Sick Boy: Yeah. Beautifully fucking illustrated.


I agree it's due partly to aging but also individual growth amongst the band members themselves. I mean, what is a really successful band, anyway? It's when a group of creative personalities traveling along their respective life paths intersect for a given period of time, find an extremely rare resonance with each other and create something self-expressive from that. The average lifespan for this is about 5 to 10 years whereupon they create their best and most memorable music. After that, something changes and most bands lose whatever magic they had and either bow out gracefully or start releasing mediocre dogshit or the truest sign of the beginning of the end: live albums and anthologies.

But during that zenith / early stage of their career, they set a musical precedent and set of principles that represent who they are. It feels pure because none of the individual members have grown beyond them yet. There's a magic to it; an authenticity and sense of real commitment to what they're saying and doing. But after some time, they grow as people and start to shatter those early precedents and principles by forging new ones and the group cohesion falls apart and, with it, the charismatic allure of their personalities and music.

What do you think that 'magic' is when a band is at their peak - and why does it fade away (not in every instance, but certainly most) never to be recaptured again?
 
Most bands that start off begin with the mentality of love for music, that's what they're there for, and that's why they're so good at it. However, over time they begin to realize that their music no longer belongs to them but to their fans as well. They feel pressured to be in good terms with their band manager and everyone who looks up to them. This music is no longer genuine, it no longer represents their true essence, but it has been now focused to satisfy the masses.

If you want to hear the 'magic' of music bands, like you said, start from their beginnings, because that represents their true selves.
 
Hmmm this is interesting. I'd say there are a few notable exceptions but for the most part I think you're right. I think a big part of it has to do with just burning out so to speak, most the guys (or girls) in bands that make it big aren't experienced session musicians that are used to just laying it out all the time and being on the road or in the studio can get quite wearing after awhile, playing with the same people over and over getting used to the sound and stuck in a rut. It starts to become stale after awhile. You also don't have much to influence you anymore because your life is completely different now than when you started making music.
 
Its usually because they refuse to shift. Creativity is the result of life, if you don't shift as life does your creativity gets left behind. Classic examples of decent shifting are Bowie, Eno, Madonna, Fleetwood Mac. Basically any that have changes to suit who they are at that point, just as with everything its about been honest. Its like when rappers talk about 'keepin it real', what they mean is give your music the reality which you claim and what you need for it to truly have meaning and effect your audience. Unless thats not the case of which its usually taken as just a show for sensational reasons e.g. theatrical or pop.
There is nothing worse than someone rehashing the same ideas or sound. My personal faves for this sort of difference throughout their careers are Radiohead and deftones.
 
From my little jaunt in the music scene, I'll tell you, there's nothing like the excitement in the beginning. Well, actually starting off is pure shit. After some time together as a band, and you feel the momentum building behind you, everything starts to get exciting. People start wanting you to open for them, then they want to open for you, you start making some money, people know the words that you wrote, and you have no idea how far it's going to take you, but you like where it's headed. I couldn't imagine how that would feel with major public interest and a wide fan base. It has got to be one of the best feelings in the world.

Then you get exposed to the ugly side of the music business, and are reminded that after all, it is a business. There's a lot of behind-the-scenes tension that happens in bands, be it a change in musical directions, money, or too many late nights in cramped basements that just turn bandmates on each other. A lot of the time, from people I've met and talked with, the music declines when band relationships decline.
 
  • They have a backlog of songs written before they got signed, so album #1 has some long-tested songs. Maybe album #2 also. After that, not so much.
  • The resonance between and among members, as was mentioned, dies.
  • When younger, people have the need to express themselves, and do what they see as new, novel. As with every generation, they have the idea they will change things. Then ~20 years go by, and they see that everything has repeated
 
Haha! [MENTION=947]aeon[/MENTION], blame it on the drummer!
 
I'm not sold on the hypothesis that bands deteriorate over time.
 
bamf said:
Haha! [MENTION=947]aeon[/MENTION], blame it on the drummer!
Click to expand...

They just get the press, because of their personalities. They make for good copy.

Everybody else is doing it too
 
aeon said:
They just get the press, because of their personalities. They make for good copy.

Everybody else is doing it too
Click to expand...
 
Sali said:
The beatles.
Click to expand...

He said examples, not example. :becky:

But yeah, by my view they got better, before they each went their ways.


cheers,
Ian
 
Barnabas said:
I'm not sold on the hypothesis that bands deteriorate over time.
Click to expand...

One thing you got to admit is that most bands change their style over time. This could lead to a deterioration, depending on how badly this change in style is.
 
Sali said:
The beatles.
Click to expand...

That's not a good example because John Lennon was murdered. Granted, he quit the band before that happened but I think all the members need to be alive and theoretically capable of making music together in order to accurately gauge the quality of their output over time. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of what if's.

I am not saying EVERY band sucks as they get older. Just that most do. And also that even if they don't "suck", their later work is not as good as the high water mark set earlier in their career.
 
Last edited:
bamf said:
...whereas the drummer wishes they were the lead singer.
Click to expand...

And when that is allowed, great bands eject their lifeblood members, and turn into MOR schlock-generators, e.g., Genesis.


heh,
Ian
 
aeon said:
He said examples, not example. :becky:

But yeah, by my view they got better, before they each went their ways.


cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

Oh, I could name a few but others will probably disagree with me, not many do about the beatles.
 
Sali said:
Oh, I could name a few but others will probably disagree with me, not many do about the beatles.
Click to expand...
Yeah indeed, any examples would be pretty subjective.

I would say Radiohead is another decent example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top