Post: #1

Just wondering what your theories are?

I mean - writers seem to be able to stay relevent for most of their lives.

And I understand why sportsman become rubbish. Since they lost their physical strength with age.

But - why does this happen with bands?

Here are some theories I have. Firstly - a band hits on a sound which 'works' for them. And they run with it for awhile. But eventually - they come to a crossroads.

Do they go in a different direction? In which case they are trying to get lightning to strike twice - since there may have being alot of luck in them hitting on the sound which worked for them in the first place.

And it is hard to 'strike gold' twice...

But - what if a band doesn't change their sound? Well - then the beand becomes lazy - and become monotomous for the fans as they lazily rehash the same type of music over and over again. And this too - can result in an artistic decline for the band.

Or perhaps - the fans of the band age with the band? And over time - the ability for music to move them lessens (due to the waning passions of age). Which means they are harsher criticis than they would have being in their teens.

Added to which - the music they loved in their teens - has had extra decades to bury itself in their subconscious. And has had time to be layered with waves of nostalgia as well.

So - in that sense. It becomes harder and harder for a band to get a 'fair hearing' when it comes to their new music.

Another theory could be waning desire and passion on the side of the band. I know in my own case that I don't have same emotional intensity in my thirties that I had in my teens.

And with that in mind - perhaps bands find it harder to be inspired since they are now quite placid people.

One other thing. Every 5-8 years - the teens of their day want their own bands. And do not want to obsessively follow the same bands their older brothers were into. As such - they are looking for new bands to define their era by.

So - with that in mind - the spotlight of fame quickly moves on from bands. And the realites of the music industry disheartens the bands. Resulting in a subconscious lack of care in their approach to new albums. Since they know their fortunes are on the decline irregardless of how good their new music is.

Just some theories I have. I am sure I have left other useful ones out. And also - it is possible that the truth is some combination of all of the above.

There is no reason why it has to be any one reason alone.

Post: #2

Artists do their most interesting work when they're young.

Good art is truth. It's honesty. Doing it for the right reasons; you have a creative vision, and you execute on it. Not hung up on technique, business, or whatever you may have done before it.

Those young impulses are the correct ones. The most genuine.

Teenage boys the world over start showing off around the same age, to attract females. Singing, dancing, playing in a band is just a very sophisticated mating ritual.

Horny young omegas need a strategy for competing with the alpha silverbacks. So they make a lot of noise with guitar amplifiers, turntables, canvases, dance moves, and YouTube vids.

With age, comes less of a "need" for singing & dancing.

Post: #3

I am a huge fan of the Smashing Pumpkins.

Anyway - I have being really pleased to see that Billy Corgan (the lead singer) is one of the most thoughtful and interesting musiciains I have seen interviewed. Below is a clip of him talking about the difficulties of getting older in the music industry:









And if you check on YouTube you will find alot of other interviews with him. He is a great guy and pops up alot now on Alex Jones, and has a pretty unique take on many issues.

Even though I am a huge fan of his work. I was genuinely surprised at how smart and lucid he is in interviews. For some reason I thought he might be aloof and slightly grandiose.

Post: #4

Music is my passion. I own over 4000 vinyl records, and after years of listening I can honestly say, most bands simply aren't very good.

I've come to realise that the vast majority of bands really only have one or two great songs in them, and their albums are lesser 'filler', padding out the space around the one or two good tracks.

A much smaller amount of bands, have multiple great songs, and usually one great album in them.

An even smaller amount of artists are able to sustain a consistent run of multiple good-to-great albums. They're the statistical aberrations.

You're simply expecting more than what most bands can deliver.

Post: #5

Nice analysis. And it would explain how some people can produce a brilliant 'one hit wonder' before quickly fading away without ever coming up with anything else of interest.

Also - to run with some Nassim Talen (and his ideas around 'Extremistan'). If a band is 30% 'better' than another band. They won't have 30% more sales. They might have 10000% more sales. Since the commmercial rewards for talent go up exponentially.

So - perhaps we are making a mistake when we look at a great band who are very successful. Because of their commercial success we fall under the illusion that they are dramatically more talented than they really are.

The same thing is true in Soccer. A team of the 11 best players in the world is only about 35% better than a team made up of the players ranked 989-1000 in the world.

Which is why the 'lesser' team can occasionally get a draw (or even a win) against the better team.

The differences in ability between the two is not that great. But the financial rewards are hugely different. And that can fool us into thinking the gap in ability is even bigger than it really is.

Post: #6

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.

Post: #7

commercial success depends heavily on marketing, to a lesser extent with youtube now, but you need a good video and so on

Post: #8

(11-16-2013 02:52 AM)cardguy Wrote:  waning desire and passion

^ This (mainly).

Let's also compare it to an intense romantic relationship, where you experience a real and passion filled pair bonding. That is never sustainable long term, because you're on a chemical induced high that can't be held at peak levels forever.

It's the same with a really good band. Their performances and song writing (and if there are multiple song-writers) are very much reliant on the members "vibing" off each other and staying true to that vibe, and what's more, being on the same page throughout any progressions/deviations of their sound going forward - which is essential in staying relevant in the industry, and doesn't necessarily equate to a decline in quality (which is often claimed by unsatisfied fans).

Things (read: ego) can inevitably get in the way though, as seen throughout history.

I'd say, in comparison, it's easier for a great solo artist to put out a quality catalogue over the course of their career because (if they retain artistic control) they are able to stick to their vision and not be forced to make compromises that a band scenario can entail.

If you consider the creation of music as a mere conduit for emotions, then it makes sense that an individual (the artist who created the music) is better positioned to experience success longer term - as they're reproducing their own emotions each time they play their track, and therefore being real, rather than trying to channel someone else's.

Post: #9

I'm a fan of the best bands though, consistently good albums, best bands being mostly British from an era gone now of course

Post: #10

(11-16-2013 05:40 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  It's the same with a really good band. Their performances and song writing (and if there are multiple song-writers) are very much reliant on the members "vibing" off each other and staying true to that vibe

When I was young, you'd get 5 or 6 albums from a band within a five year span, sometimes 3 albums in a 2 year period. Bands who vibing off each other well could capitalise on it before it wore off. Bowie released 'Ziggy Stardust' only six months after 'Hunky Dory'. Prince would throw out an album a year, and have two albums of unreleased material to go with it.

Now, you release an album and are expected to work it via singles and touring for 3 years, so instead of the Beatles releasing something like 13 albums in six years you have two albums, the second of which was probably recorded after the band went off the boil. You'd think three years would give them time to amass high quality tracks and cull the weaker stuff, but it doesn't seem to happen.

I suspect songwriters are driven to write songs if an audience is there or not. People who just want to be famous aren't writing constantly and never develop consistency or figuring out which experiments are successful and which are dead ends. I'm surprised at how weak modern songwriting seems to be: 1000 journeymen to 1 genius.

Post: #11

I'm 31 - and my interest in music has definitely waned. I am not as obsessed with it as I was when I was a teenager.

And I honestly would never have imagined I would feel likt that.

So - I imagine alot of bands - find (to their surprise) that they are also get a bit bored of music has they grow up.

Being a bit bored of music isn't a problem for me. But it would be if I was the songwriter for a successful band trying to find inspiration.

The same thing happened with movies. I don't really watch them anymore.

Post: #12

(11-16-2013 05:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  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.

Definitely. Solo artists too.

This popped up in the side bar:





Say what you will, but I am of the opinion he is utterly talentless. Sell out too, probably never stood for anything in the first place. Not that I wouldn't 'sell out' for the right price.

Post: #13

I work within the music industry in various ways.

1. As a songwriter, it's hard. I may have a period of 3-4 months where I'm very productive and of 150 songs I write, 30 are hits, 50 are good, 20 are average, and I choose to discard the rest (50). Those periods are followed by periods of the same amount time where I find it very hard to find inspiration to write anything good.

2. As a singer, I've learned you gotta evolve. If you get stuck with the same sound/style/rythm you are not growing. Period.

3. As an audio engineer/producer I work with many singers/songwriters, and I find they often make very few good songs, but that stems from not doing enough songs. If you force yourself to write everyday, you will have a few good ones. Also, many famous singers can't even write a song for themselves.

Another thing I see is that many just do it because they have the illusion of getting famous and living the movie life. Not because they really love music.

Getting to that level requires a combination of persistence and money (sometimes luck, but that's as rare as winning the lottery two times in a row), and it's not either or. You need them both. Any singer who says they became famous just working hard without spending any money is bullshitting.

Making it to the top without having someone invest money in a singer is virtually impossible. You need big money, whether it be a record label or an investor who believes in you. I mean, $50k may help a song become a hit in some countries, but you need more than just one unless it's a one hit wonder.

That's the story famous singers always sell to the public, but as an industry insider I found out the hard way it simply isn't true.

Also, if someone is on tour constantly it's hard to be able to practice your craft, thus it gets rusty.

I now realized I derailed from the thread question and answered a completely different question.

Sorry for the rant

Post: #14

(11-16-2013 06:04 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'm surprised at how weak modern songwriting seems to be

Possibly a result of desensitisation(?)

I think, given the proliferation of "popular" music ever since, probably, the creation of the electric guitar/tube amplifier, and despite numerous innovations in technology and progression/creation of genres and sub-genres, it becomes increasingly harder for a song-writer or band to garner the buzz approaching the same level of former greats.

Everything has been done before, and if it is something vaguely new, the variation is not drastic enough for people to get into it on the levels of yesteryear. When you compound this with the change that has occurred in the way the majority of people listen to music these days (more in the background than at the forefront), due to the accessibility and disposability, music in general does not have the value on the whole that it once had.

Of course, there are outliers to this phenomenon (case in point: Bieber, 1D), however they are harnessing their popularity via hysteria in their fans, and the marketing machine - not sheer prowess of musicianship or vocal ability, nor are they presenting anything progressive.

So, maybe what you're perceiving as weak song-writing is merely its juxtaposition against the back catalogue of which you reference. i.e. not weak, just diluted.

Post: #15

(11-16-2013 07:03 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 06:04 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'm surprised at how weak modern songwriting seems to be

Possibly a result of desensitisation(?)

I think, given the proliferation of "popular" music ever since, probably, the creation of the electric guitar/tube amplifier, and despite numerous innovations in technology and progression/creation of genres and sub-genres, it becomes increasingly harder for a song-writer or band to garner the buzz approaching the same level of former greats.

Everything has been done before, and if it is something vaguely new, the variation is not drastic enough for people to get into it on the levels of yesteryear. When you compound this with the change that has occurred in the way the majority of people listen to music these days (more in the background than at the forefront), due to the accessibility and disposability, music in general does not have the value on the whole that it once had.

Of course, there are outliers to this phenomenon (case in point: Bieber, 1D), however they are harnessing their popularity via hysteria in their fans, and the marketing machine - not sheer prowess of musicianship or vocal ability, nor are they presenting anything progressive.

So, maybe what you're perceiving as weak song-writing is merely its juxtaposition against the back catalogue of which you reference. i.e. not weak, just diluted.

The past is the past. It's not better nor worse, just different. Consequently, music right now isn't better nor worse than before.

Thing is, access to music right now it's easier right now than it was every before.

And it's easier for an artist to "be heard" over the internet, as there aren't the same barriers (see: co$t) to fame or recognition as it was in the past. Not saying it's free and there aren't any. They're still there, just easier to get around. Especially with money.

In the past you only heard acts signed by big labels (Sony, Universal, Emi, Warner, etc.). For every band or singer that was famous and successful, the record label had signed thousands of acts/bands/singers that never made it and lost money, most of the time labels dropped them. Probably it may seem music was better (maybe it really was) because the barriers and obstacles singers had to go through to get heard were higher in the past.

Nowadays there are many independent labels and singers who have songs in the radio and in the charts.

And, while I agree with some of what you said, I've listened to quite a few songs of Justin bieber and some of them have really good songwriting going on (especially those in the beginning of his career).

Post: #16

Because you're struggling and suffering in the beginning and that's where the anger and the angst comes from.
You have no money but you're actually working 2 jobs. Your 9-5 day job and your night job as a musician.
Traditional starving artist. It comes out in the music.

When you're 3-4 albums in you've already made some money and aren't worried about paying the rent anymore.
There's no fire or motivation. You just have nothing to be angry or upset about. And that also comes out in the music.

You end up being like Biggie Smalls singing about how tough it is to be a millionaire. Mo money Mo problems.

People can't relate. Lame.

Post: #17

They quit using drugs. Look at Aerosmith.

Post: #18

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?

Post: #19

(11-16-2013 06:25 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 05:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  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.

Definitely. Solo artists too.

This popped up in the side bar:





Say what you will, but I am of the opinion he is utterly talentless. Sell out too, probably never stood for anything in the first place. Not that I wouldn't 'sell out' for the right price.

Anarchy in the UK was pretty fucking good.

When covered by Megadeth anyway.

Post: #20

(11-16-2013 07:48 AM)Pete Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 06:04 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'm surprised at how weak modern songwriting seems to be

So, maybe what you're perceiving as weak song-writing is merely its juxtaposition against the back catalogue of which you reference. i.e. not weak, just diluted.

(11-16-2013 07:03 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  The past is the past. It's not better nor worse, just different. Consequently, music right now isn't better nor worse than before.

Yeah, I recognise what you're both saying, but I'm talking about the actual nuts and bolts of songwriting.

I hear very few artists on the radio who have any idea of the power of dynamics, and use it to add excitement to their songs.

I hear songs that offer a chorus and nothing else of interest.

I very rarely hear an opening hook, extended into an interesting and memorable melodic phrase, where the rest of the verse either builds on variations of it, or offers a succession of interesting and memorable melodic phrases.

I hear simple hooks stretched thin and numbed with repetition that lessens any desire to play the song again, because the song itself has weakened the power of the hook.

I hear fewer artists who understand that chords have pull. I hear fewer experiments with extended harmonics. I hear people who don't understand an intro can be interesting in its own right, and perfectly set up the introduction of the vocalist.

I hear backing tracks that are basically busking, and sound detached from what the vocalist is doing, which makes sense, as top lines are being written after-the-fact.

What I'm getting at, is I don't hear as much craft. I can't remember the last time I hear contrary motion in a pop song, or an augmented chord.

(11-16-2013 07:03 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  Thing is, access to music right now it's easier right now than it was every before.

This is the problem. Throwing the doors open to everyone with a computer and a pirated copy of Protools has simply dumbed down the craft. I'm utterly against the democracising process of the internet, and the related concept of everyone having a voice. People simply aren't special and unique, particularly artists. The majority of people are lazy, want reward and praise without effort, and are too precious about their art to create something then realistically self-criticise to learn how to improve, which is why the fucking moronic concept of 'Hater' has been popularised: people who think their art is already perfect and anyone who criticises just hates everything, rather than finding the art purile.

Most of the female pop artists rely on the same groups of songwriters - to the extent that songs are often recorded by one that another has rejected - and I find them utterly generic because of it.

Post: #21

(11-16-2013 05:22 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  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.

Post: #22

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.

Post: #23

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.

Post: #24

(11-16-2013 07:03 AM)Pete Wrote:  I now realized I derailed from the thread question and answered a completely different question.

Sorry for the rant

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.

Post: #25

(11-16-2013 11:22 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  Anarchy in the UK was pretty fucking good.

When covered by Megadeth anyway.

"I want to destroy passersby!" hahahhahahah

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