Why do modern musicians become crap as they age?

*disclaimer – huge generalisation in the title

There are of course notable exceptions to this rule (cue millions of examples to the contrary), however, by and large the most popular exponents of the industry generally have a real purple patch of 2 or 3 years – or perhaps 2 or 3 albums – then tend to either fade into obscurity, or ride the gravy train and/or churn out mediocre offerings for the following decades (or they die young and deny the chance of ever knowing).

Name any band thats been brilliant for more than 5 years, and theres a hundred, perhaps a thousand that just couldnt keep it up no matter how hard they tried. Including, dare I say it, mega bands like the Stones, The Who, U2, Led Zep, Culture Club – etc etc.

In other artistic genres, say perhaps Opera or Artists/painters – their work is celebrated way into old age and in many cases demonstrates continual improvement. And in every day walks of life, the common man tends to get better at his job as he gains experience through practice.

So is it purely the rock/pop music world that suffers this fate? Is it a ‘time & place’ thing? The artist being fashionable/new at that very moment – or making a commentry that they cannot follow up as the times change?

Is it a money thing? Once they have the millions, they prefer to retire to cheese making?

The passing of Mr Bowie recently had me thinking more about this subject, as despite agreeing with the general concensus that his best work was 30 or 40 years ago – he was prone to occasional brilliance in the interim – and I happen to think his swansong album was up there with his best ever. He seems to have had ‘it’.

Dylan too has moments that still prove his genius.

I suppose it frustrates me that certain acts I dare to consider as brushed with genius usualy fail to repeatedly deliver the goods. Don’t get me wrong, I admire many acts – but I also have an inbuilt realisation, particularly when listening to modern acts – that what i’m hearing is as good as it’ll ever get from them.

Anyone else ever ponder this?

It might, as well, be you. As you hear more and more of an artist/band you get used to his/their “sound”, new tracks are less new and sound same-y, you get bored, or familiar and don’t look forward to new relases as much.

I reckon.

We had a chat in work yesterday about how many bands have had 4 consecutive good albums in their career. Could only name a few.

Anyway is pop music meant to be long lived?

As you hear more and more of an artist/band you get used to his/their “sound”

I’d counter that with an example that IMO are destined for legendary status – Arcade Fire. Their sound changed drastically on their last album, but I happen to love it pretty much the same as their other great offerings. I think i’m particularly open to new ideas/fresh directions.

Anyway is pop music meant to be long lived?

I suppose it depends on your definition of ‘popular music’. It we extend it as wide as everything you’d tend to hear in every day life, and perhaps beyond that – to niche genre’s and indie labels, I think the same usually rings true.
They usually call themselves ‘artists’, is this perhaps not the case then? Most artists seem to desire longevity. In fact, we all seem to desire longevity.

My Generation by The Who was released closer to the First World War than today.

I think expecting any artist to continue to produce their ‘best’ work within the same genre over a period of 50+ years is perhaps unrealistic.

People like John Martyn seemed to have a good approach – he spent a lot of time trawling his back catalogue and reinterpreting his own material.

The Arcade Fire’s sound better ‘ve changed with their last album. Was getting verrrrrry boring – endless rococococococoo.. bolllox what evs.

I can’t be bothered to type this up on a phone but I think vital, exciting music and youth go hand in hand. Especially if you’re talking rock music. Think of the anger, the boredom, confusion and hormonal whirlwind of being a young man. All that plus a surplus of energy and immunity to hangovers and you’re a ready made rock star.

Middle aged, boring, comfortable, millionaires (for the most part) make comfortable, boring music for the radio 2 crowd.

Paul Weller has an interesting take on this. His most popular stuff is his early stuff – The Jam, Style Council and early solo stuff, but he keeps going partly because he is motivated to produce new music and partly because he doesn’t want to become his own tribute band.

There are countless bands out there who are now doing a bad parody of their younger selves and getting away with it.

so the creativity only comes from being young?

I don’t really disagree with you. But I think the greats should possibly be capable of more?

I think expecting any artist to continue to produce their ‘best’ work within the same genre over a period of 50+ years is perhaps unrealistic.

Clearly, and I agree. Although with The Who – they had a purple patch of what? 6 or 7 years? Maybe a few more if you consider one or two great racks a reasonable output for a decade of work.

I love The Who by the way, Baba O’ is one of the greatest things ever put together by man IMO – plus several other truly great tracks. But multiple classic albums? Nope.

In other artistic genres, say perhaps Opera or Artists/painters – their work is celebrated way into old age and in many cases demonstrates continual improvement. And in every day walks of life, the common man tends to get better at his job as he gains experience through practice.

Maybe most of the “great” young musicians are not that great after all, and just have one good idea?

had an interesting conversation about Paul Weller with the other half recently – Im not his biggest fan, but enjoy Stanley Road.
I asked her if she realised that we are older now than Paul Weller was when he realeased SRd..
Way to feel old.

He seemed ancient back then!

Maybe most of the “great” young musicians are not that great after all, and just have one good idea?

True, but great is a horrendously overused word. There can be great singles, but you need a real body of work to be great.

In other artistic genres, say perhaps Opera or Artists/painters – their work is celebrated way into old age and in many cases demonstrates continual improvement.

Theres maybe a couple of reasons for that – Rock / Pop musicians: Bunch of friends – get a band together – knock out some tune and if (and its a big if) they happen to be doing the right thing at the right time and the right people notice then bingo – they hit the big time. Its a career that is either nothing or explosive. Whats rare is being someone who catches that wave and can then catch subsequent waves. But if they don’t make that big time then, oh well – whatever- they just get on with life and in 10 years time they’ll have probably forgotten they even had ambitions to be rock stars.

Having a great album is great – but thats 10 to 12 songs, three or four of which need be properly good. You could write the lyrics on one sheet of A4. Thats all well and good but that album is the distillation of all the good ideas you’ve had in your life up to that date. You only get 6 months to write the next one and the one after that and so on. So a musician can launch their career on a fluke.

By comparison visual artists will usually have 4 to 7 years of full time study before they’ll even think to stick their head above the parapet, will probably be in their 40s before they starting to make their careers stick, the Turner prize is an award for ‘young artists’ but young i in that instance is under 50. So its vary rare that artists will just burst onto the scene in the way musicians can, if they get anywhere professionally at all they’ve had to stick at it longer to get started than most musicians would consider a whole span of their career.

Conversely in visual art (compared to rock and pop) critical / popular acclaim and financial / commercial success don’t go hand in hand. The phase of their carreer where they are artistically innovative and exciting tends to be commercially perilous – commercial success tends to come later in their career and theres a commercial pressure for same-ness. Collectors and dealers want work that is recognisably by that artist so many artist’s later careers are stifled, nobody is interested in them innovating just on them being dependable and consistent – many almost become their own tribute act making work after work after work that is reminiscent of whatever piece it was that got them noticed, but mantel-piece sized.

In other artistic genres, say perhaps Opera or Artists/painters

Painting and music are completely different.
People who appreciate opera and classical like to hear the same sounds, repeatedly. People who like popular music are mostly always searching for something new and fresh. Or they’re older and not interested in new and fresh and just listen to the same sounds over like opera fans.

Most musicians can’t change their sounds as they get older – they don’t become crap, just less interesting. Paul Weller is a great example. Technically I’m sure his new stuff is great, but he just doesn’t make current music anymore.

It’s a massive subject.

vital, exciting music and youth go hand in hand

As does the ability to really experience it IMO. I still like music but there’s no way I can hear something new and feel the passion and connection to it which I used to feel so readily when I was in my teens.

Good points maccruiskeen – Id argue that there are many solo artists with long careers that have also struggled to be anything like as creative/innovative in later years – despite having a life long love affair with being a musician, and in many cases not being particularly wealthy on the back of their catalogue.
This despite making massively popular music initially – without the help of thier teenage buddies.
Most great albums have hopefully got more than 3 pertinant tracks too.

Agred that visual artists generally ply their trade for much longer before finding success – but this isnt always at odds to the music industry.

Short answer: context

Middle answer: pop music lives and dies in reference to its cultural context. People coincide with that, so it means something at to them at the time they really engage with it.

Longer answer: pop music is, as well as being necessarily defined by its place and time, usually more about the performance than the inherent content. The content is relevant to the place and time, but the connection to a song is always to the musician/band who played it (except in the case of a rare few covers). Not all those musicians wrote the music, but pop music fans are less worried about the composer or lyricist than they are about the signer/guitarist/drummer.

Classical music is defined by the composer first and then the performance. And, in the majority of cases, no-one listening to it was alive at the time it was written and first performed. It’s like a historical re-enactment of an era no-one knew. Even jazz – the first music of the modern era – is increasingly becoming time bound.

There are plenty of people who only ever composed one good thing, just as there are plenty of pop musicians who wrote only one good song (or album of songs). Pop music loves tribalism and loyalty, but if you throw that off and just evaluate each song in its own context you’ll soon work out that the same person has as many misses as hits and that if their recent output isn;t as good as their older songs, then so what?

(I’ve deleted a big rant about the unhealthy influence of baby boomers in how we now understand music – I’m content to leave their music with its own context and not fawn over it just because they loved it in the 60s. Maaaan.)

We had a chat in work yesterday about how many bands have had 4 consecutive good albums in their career. Could only name a few.

Anyway is pop music meant to be long lived?
Why not? Anyway, define ‘pop music’. It is, by definition, music that’s popular, irrespective of perceived quality.
God knows there’s plenty of pop landfill, disposable rubbish designed to make as much money as possible before the next ‘big thing’ from which ever pop Svengali happens to be in favour turns up; listen to half an hour of Radio One for the best examples.
However, there’s huge amounts of music which comes under the catch-all banner of pop music which was recorded thirty, forty, even fifty years ago, and which sounds as good now as it did when recorded.
Just look at the back-catalogues of Stax, Motown, Atlantic Records, etc.
When you start getting away from the really high-profile artists then you find those who can produce consistent bodies of work for years, particularly in folk, blues, and other areas, people like Leonard Cohen, John Cale, even Tom Jones, who’s recently done possibly the best album of his career, because he’s gone away from the ‘pop’ side of things and back to his gospel, soul, blues roots.
I think sometimes artist just play it safe, instead of going for what excites them they go for what they know will sell, what their established fanbase will buy. Like Status Quo, for example.
There are artists in the Americana/roots field who consistently turn out great albums, Shawn Colvin, Patty Griffin, Emmylou Harris, each of whom are eight, nine,ten albums into their careers, with no loss of quality, Laura Marling is five albums in, over eight years, and she’s still only twenty-five, with possible another twenty-five, thirty years in front of her.
Joan Baez is still touring and recording, at seventy-five, and works with other younger artists like our Thea Gilmore, an exceptionally talented singer-songwriter, she’s thirty-six, and has so far released fifteen albums, and five ep’s, and on the evidence of her last couple of albums, she’s just getting into her stride as a writer and singer.
It’s a question of looking a bit further than a few big ‘marquee’ names, although the likes of Arcade Fire seem to be just getting going, their last album and the gigs that went with it, were superb, I can’t wait to see what they’re going to do next, same with Elbow, twenty-odd years and six studio albums and no letting up, although I know there are a those on here who sneer at them, but they’re as good as anyone out there for the quality of writing, musicianship and song-arrangements, and Guy is a great singer as well.
There are those who seem to be bloody contrary just for the sheer hell of it, Dylan springs to mind; I’m really not sure if it’s diminishing writing skills, or a desire to just bugger about and piss people off, because he’s Bob Dylan, and he can!
This is one of those conversations that can go on for hours, because everyone has a different opinion; it’ll be interesting to see where it goes. 😀

Most musicians can’t change their sounds as they get older – they don’t become crap, just less interesting. Paul Weller is a great example. Technically I’m sure his new stuff is great, but he just doesn’t make current music anymore.

Im not sure. If you took a current Weller album and went back in time, I very much doubt people would enjoy it any more than do currently. Same goes for all artists – if its a great album there’s just no denying it.
I do sometimes wonder what would happen if a great artist hid away an album/painting right during the peak of their powers – and released it 20 or 30 years later – if it would have anything like the same impact. More, or less?..

I still like music but there’s no way I can hear something new and feel the passion and connection to it which I used to feel so readily when I was in my teens.

No doubt, I have changed as i’ve aged. But if anything I find myself increasingly open to new genres and styles, and rediscovering albums that I once thought were not for me – and finding that they are brilliant after all. I have recently been move to tears (of joy) at certain gigs, by bands I previously barely knew of. I ‘think’ I still connect/obsess in the same way I used to.

so the creativity only comes from being young?

Not necessarily but the energy that makes some music much more exciting than other stuff helps. I think that energy fades with age. Some of the most exciting music ever made is pretty thin on technique and full of imperfections but overflowing with attitude.

As does the ability to really experience it IMO. I still like music but there’s no way I can hear something new and feel the passion and connection to it which I used to feel so readily when I was in my teens.

Sadly I’ve noticed this. I used to be a fanatic and now I’m largely indifferent.

I’d counter that with an example that IMO are destined for legendary status – Arcade Fire.

I think that’s the crux of it – it’s all about opinion and I’d say Arcade Fire are in no way predestined, I’d be quite happy to never hear their music again!

Good pop/rock music usually has something to say in a much more overt way than opera or visual art – it’s more about what you’re saying than how you say it. And generally before you’re successful you have a lot more to say – once you’re a career rock star your life is less likely to generate meaningful views. As a composer or painter your ability to execute your art improves (just as it usually does as you become a more experienced musician) and that trumps not having so much to say.

Compare punk rock and symphonies. Statement and attitude vs beautiful harmonies, melodies and arrangements.

I still connect/obsess in the same way I used to.

I definitely do! I cried at 2 gigs last year (although maybe says more about my emotional state than the actual music 😆 )

Amen to that brother

I think that’s the crux of it – it’s all about opinion and I’d say Arcade Fire are in no way predestined, I’d be quite happy to never hear their music again!

Of course, its all completely subjective. But in popular terms, its undeniable that AF have a large following and a lot of industry respect. There are of course acts that I probably wouldnt cross the road to see – but I can appreciate that they offer something to the mix.
I’m not a big classical listener but I can respect the craft and commitment. I can easily understand why many people would listen to nothing else.
It’s all about firing the right synapses.

Another way to look at it is probably that writing a good song is far more difficult than we like to think. When its really good it looks easy – and maybe the best songs came easily – extraordinarily few people write properly great songs all the time. Some musicians even sustain a successful careers with out writing many or even any. As an example a couple of the bands referenced in the OP:

If you go through the Rolling Stones back catalogue there are albums where very few of the songs are written buy them, they’re either written for them, or covers, and they definitely made them their own, but they not all their own songs

And if you look at Led Zepplin – they were great performers but not great song writers – as illustrated below

How do we feeel about Robert Plant then?

Arguably churning out his best stuff.. ever?

SICK BOY: It’s certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.

RENTON: What do you mean?

SICK BOY: Well, at one time, you’ve got it, and then you lose it, and it’s gone for ever. All walks of life: George Best, for example, had it and lost it, or David Bowie, or Lou Reed –

RENTON :Some of his solo stuff’s not bad.

SICK BOY: No, it’s not bad, but it’s not great either, is it? And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it’s actually just shite.

RENTON: Right. So we all get old and then we can’t hack it any more. Is that it?

My theory, as musicians get more famous/rich/successful, not only do they get more pretentious, they also get surrounded by more “yes” people.
There’s no one near to them that says “mate, that’s shit” so it ends up getting released.
Or, they just disappear up there own arse in a massive cloud of cocaine.

SICK BOY: It’s certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.

RENTON: What do you mean?

SICK BOY: Well, at one time, you’ve got it, and then you lose it, and it’s gone for ever. All walks of life: George Best, for example, had it and lost it, or David Bowie, or Lou Reed –

RENTON :Some of his solo stuff’s not bad.

SICK BOY: No, it’s not bad, but it’s not great either, is it? And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it’s actually just shite.

RENTON: Right. So we all get old and then we can’t hack it any more. Is that it?

Pretty much this really. Do all the opera singers and classical artists really improve with age? I suspect most did their best work while they were young.

Just like everyone does.

There are some things where you can maintain your abilities to a degree. I’m sure Stephen Hawking is still a great mathematician and scientist. But he produced his best work while he was young.

It’s all downhill once you hit 30.

Lots of “old” musicians are turning out fantastic pop music.

It just doesn’t grab you. Or many people. Perhaps.

And it doesn’t interest people for whom the “music” isn’t really what they’re after anyway… more a connection to something that is happening.

Older musicians are too focused on the music, and not all the other (important) stuff that makes pop music vital.

So, I argue, with some exceptions, it’s not the music that older musicians lose, it’s the other stuff.

After the purple patch of success they get rich ,bored and/or lazy and lose the spark that drove them.
Plus,the music industry doesn’t really back too many acts past two albums……
Some ,true artists, endure ,learn and repeat their success. That type of artist is becoming harder to find IMO.
I’m in the middle of sorting out our enormous(1000’s) cd collection. So many 2 album wonders,great albums nonetheless…

Hmm, consistant bands?
Not that easy tbh.

First thoughts would be;

The Beatles.
The Smiths.
Half Man Half Biscuit.
Abba.
Billy Bragg.
Zappa.
Rory Gallagher.
Pink Floyd.
Dead Kennedys.
The Clash.

All been pretty consistent, with the odd duffer.

Biscuit became much better by the third album, after they’d learnt how to play a bit.
🙂

Probably agree with 2 of Rusty’s list. Most of them ( IMO ) just rehashed the same sound until they became a fixture (or boring, depends how you look at it)
I could provide a list (it’d be short) but it’s all so subjective, don’t see the point.
And look what happened to the Smiths after they got old (ie, went solo) : crap. 🙂

You’ve proved my point.
Consistency.

You don’t like them (which is irrelevant), but you despise the contents of each individual band’s back catalogue equally.
🙂

Actually I can only think of 1 artist, who’s stuff I first became aware of in 1988, who’s latest music I still buy.
That’s a good 28 years of consistency in my book. Not bad going.

You don’t like them, but you despise the each band’s entire work equally.

I’d only put 2 off your list in that category, and 2 I’ve just never listened to 🙂

🙂

Makes me think though – how many years was Mozart, or Bach, or them there opera writers, actually consistently making (writing) classical bollocks? Just cos people listen to cover versions of their stuff now, does that mean they had better longevity than popular music artistes?

Most people like the music the they heard during the period of their lives in which they lived things intensely, roughly 15 to 28. All the things we do in that period mark us for life and have a disproportionate impact on what our tastes will be in later life.

Edukator – Troll
Most people like the music the they heard during the period of their lives in which they lived things intensely, roughly 15 to 28. All the things we do in that period mark us for life and have adisproportionate impact on what our tastes will be in later life.

I am not sure about that Edukator. I agree that 18-25 period of my life contained what I would say was the most intense music listening experience. I feel though that it is largely a period I can leave behind.

I got onto drum and bass in my early 20’s and still love it 15 years later. I think it may be easier for electronic music producers and dj’s to weather the onset of age. Voices don’t go. The feelings can to an extent be hidden behind a mixing desk.

These days I have started listening to blues, jazz and classical. I would never have listened to thos in my 20’s.

I can’t be bothered to type this up on a phone but I think vital, exciting music and youth go hand in hand. Especially if you’re talking rock music. Think of the anger, the boredom, confusion and hormonal whirlwind of being a young man. All that plus a surplus of energy and immunity to hangovers and you’re a ready made rock star.

Middle aged, boring, comfortable, millionaires (for the most part) make comfortable, boring music for the radio 2 crowd.

This nails it for me…think the first arctic monkeys album, first guns and roses album, the first oasis album. It must be quite hard getting the same kind of inspiration when you are a music juganought with millions in the bank rather than an angry young man trying to make it in your garage with your mates.

Also, as bands get bigger they spend way longer in the studio..you end up with an over indulgent, over produced album, rather than the raw sound which tends to define new bands and first albums

Obviously there are many exceptions..I quite liked the 2nd GnR album (s) to be fair, but it was hopelessly bloated and a sure sign of things to come..