Why do modern musicians become crap as they age?

I know he’s not to everyone’s cup of tea (my wife hates him), but Nick Cave has been making great records since the mid-80’s and apart from a couple of mediocre LP’s in the early 2000’s I’ve loved all his LP’s. His last one was his most successful and the Bad Seeds 15th.

Agree with Stainypants on Nick Cave. Amazing body of work.

I think there are more consistent artists than you think. I can think of a few that I could argue the case for and they are only ones that are defined by my taste/listening experience.

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?

The likes of Mozart and Bach were composing for their entire lives. They had to to pay the bills. Musicians weren’t so highly revered in those days, they were mere “servants” of the upper classes. Mozart was highly thought of in his lifetime but died (and was buried) a pauper.

If we take the case of current day classical/opera performers (as opposed to composers) they don’t have to constantly churn out new material. There is still a market for stuff composed by the standard “old, dead men” but there is also a huge amount of excellent “contemporary classical” music available. So providing a great performer stays fit and interested there is no obstacle to them continuing into old age.

As for long lived pop/rock types I certainly agree with some of the suggestions posted especially Zappa (died too early though), John Martyn and Nick Cave. Can I add Richard Thompson and suggest Josh Homme may be continuing to delight and surprise for many years?

I think it’s quite a complex answer. On the one hand how many classical composers have stood the test of time? Considering the amount of time involved not that many. We only really hear who are/were considered the absolute best.

Modern music has been all about capturing the zeitgeist. Our society has become more and more obsessed about staying ‘young’ stemming from the post war period and modern music has reflected this. How can an artist in their middle age continually speak meaningfully with a much younger audience under this criteria.

There are a lot artists who write continually strong pieces of music but they are generally outside the mainstream and so not many people get to hear them. Others, as has already been said, stick to the formula that made them famous in the first place as at the end of the day they have to earn money to live.

Lastly don’t forget it’s an industry with the artists being the tip of the iceberg. Bands for example are often coerced into writing music that they don’t really want to as record companies want to maximise their profits. On the other hand it can also be argued that there are a lot of musicians who write the hits for other artists and have been doing so for a long time but I suppose that is more based on success than artistic merit.

Nick Cave has been making great records since the mid-80’s

Early 80s I’d say. 🙂

I can’t remember whose quote it was, but along the lines of “I distilled 18 years of experiences into the songs on my first album, and only 18 months for the second.”

The Wolfhounds are as brilliant now as they were 30 years ago. Dave Callahan is a true unsung genius.

Agree with Cave

Also think Sonic Youth pulled it off. Sure they had a catchier period in late 80s / early 90’s, but the last few albums were also superb.

I can’t help but feel there’s more to it than the angst of youth. Sure, albums written at a younger age may sound more brash, but doesn’t the 10/20/30 years of solid craft that follow mean anything?

I’m certainly much angrier with the world and far more cynical in my late 30s than I ever was as a teen/20 something

Wolfhounds are as brilliant now as they were 30 years ago
If your idea of brilliance is generic guitar music, yeah.

Ian Mackaye, J Mascis, Omar Rodriguez-Lopez, John Frusciante – all still make great music. Great musicians; creative, passionate, intelligent etc.

i.e. the opposite of most great pop musicians, who had one big hit, winged it for a couple more albums and then ran out of ideas.

While my tastes probably aren’t similar to most on here i can name the OP some that have 4 great albums

Shai Hulud – genius on every album
As Friend Rust
Boysetsfire
Essex’s finest – Special Move, all their albums were amazing

And if you asked me about 20 years ago… Iron Maiden

Nominations then,for artists that have stayed relevant …in my record collection..
Nick Cave +1
Robert Plant (& jimmy obvs)
Beck
Chemical brothers (keep getting better IMO)
Ryan Adams
Underworld
Ian Mckay +1
What’s yours?

I think it’s harder for bands to keep making great music. Take the Stones for example. I reckon part of them knows they’re unlikely to do anything close to what they recorded between 68-72 but what are going to do, stop trying, stop playing? When they started they were living together, playing all the time, young and had access to great drugs. Then as they got older they were living in different countries, a little to preoccupied with chasing women, becoming full time junkies or settling down. You’re never going to be as inspired to write as you were when you were learning about the world or your lead singer was shagging your girlfriend on camera. If I’m listening on shuffle and a Stones song comes on from post Exile mostly I think, that’s not bad, wonder which album it’s on. There’s not many I think are rotten it’s just when you compare them to Gimmie Shelter etc they seem a bit ordinary. I think solo artists like Neil Young or Nick Cave don’t have to compromise which helps and whilst I don’t rate all of their newer stuff some of it is as good as anything they’ve done. I’ve only just got into Dinosaur Jr and that was through I Bet On Sky which I think is their latest album. But I think J Mascis is in full control and they’ve never been successful enough to get lazy.

Neil Young has been turning out very good music since the mid sixties. No not all albums are great but many are and not just the early stuff.
I think the issue is that in many cases the artist changes the direction of output and this doesn’t appeal to the original fan base, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad. In opera, look how few operas or classic composers output has survived.

A lot of male singers (and there are a lot reaching their sixties and seveties at the moment) just can’t reach the high notes and need to drop an octave. Examples: Jagger, Elton John, McCartney, Daltrey, poor old Bowie… embarrassing to hear them.

Leonard Cohen never got out of the bottom notes, mind you.

Belle & Sebastian have been smashing out great albums for 20 years.

Senor j – you stole my record collection! Although hand on heart, has Ryan Adams reached the heights of Heartbreaker since? Great output no doubt, he’s a creative one.

Reginald Dwight is a prime example – classic albums during the 70s, some real poppy guff through the 80s/90s, nothing worth crossing to road for since 30+ years yet still milking the public dry. And Taupin.

Just got back from seeing Massive Attack. They’ve certainly still got it!