Why do Musicians decline in quality (generation, heroin, cocaine, drugs)

[mikeyking]

Always wondered why bands and musicans release one or maybe two albums lets say in their 20s achieve lots of success - and then from there it just gets weaker they release more material but its never the same, or good as they have done, its just similar to what they have released but never hits the heights. Even with all the money and resources you would think it might improve them, but no.

Of course there are exceptions - The Beatles music got better and got more varied- but Mc Cartney or Lennon never really hit the heights of their beatles days atter the breakup. U2's music have had good music in the 80s,90s and 00s, they have had consistent hits they are one of the exceptions - But then again there best songs have been really thinly spread out over those years - if you were to look at many of their albums beyond the hits, they perhaps don't have the depth of B Sides, and other songs that other bands have- they have focused on making a few really, really big songs.

Oasis had good few albums and years but eventually declined in quality, split probably just couldn't write good songs anymore.

Coldplay have been pretty solid but not outstanding. Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen haven't really released that many good singles since 1990s. Even Michael Jackson hits were pretty patchy from the 90s onward, from 2000 onward very little just best hits albums, and Madonna has had her ups and downs and you could argue hasn't really produced a real true hit like she did in 80s, more hype, she had a few decent songs in the 90s but has followed the pattern of declining in quality. - That is assuming they were the ones actually writing all their music.

I mean Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones - can you honestly say they have done anything decent in maybe 20 years - basically just living off their glory days - i boycott musicans that can be bothered to at least make some good new music. The thing you find is they often sell lots of albums - but the quality is pretty poor and a lot of its from existing fans who will buy anything from the Band or Musican.

So we do we have any examples of Muscians or bands that have got better over the years. I mean commercially successful, that is the true test of its quality - not releasing albums which have been good in the OP of a small group of people.


You could argue they have made their money - and therefore don't need to write good music - or maybe its just getting older, and losing the passion for their music. Maybe they have only got so many good songs in them, and have done it all - so all their new stuff is just weaker and derivative of the younger days.

Perhaps its all the practise, isolation, hard work, and pushing themselves hard in their younger days develops the creativity, the pushes them beyond their natural limits - and then it becomes impossible to replicate this environment as they get older.

[Green Onions]

Some thoughts:

a) In many cases, they don't. What happens is that they make it big with a certain sound. Their sound then evolves, and they lose some fans because they don't sound the same as they once did. This is a case of fans no longer liking a given band's offerings, but is often mistaken for the band no longer being 'good'.

b) Some people simply exhaust their artistic ideas. Just because someone has created a great album, it does not follow that they have an infinite number of great albums in them. We see a miniature version of this in the classic 'sophomore slump'. A band is born and all the members are able to express their musical ideas. They play gigs, write songs, finally get a record deal, and cherry-pick the best 10 or 12 songs that they're written over the past 3, 5, 7 years. For their next album, they have to pick the 'next 10/12', or come up with their 'next best' ideas. This is like the novelist who has one or two or three great stories to tell. Sometimes the well just runs dry.

c) The 'freshness' is lost. A lot of great early albums are made with less production and less polish than later albums. Often, an album cut on the cheap in three weeks -- full of quirks and minor mistakes that make it sound real -- has a vibrant sound that is more appealing, to some, than an album produced to death over 18 months in a fully tricked-out studio.

d) The hunger of the artist. Early songs/albums are typically written by people living in the real world. Struggling to pay the bills, playing bars and other dives, scraping to afford a bit better equipwent, lugging that equipment to shows in a van, then sleeping in the van afterward. This can lend a sound of reality to the stories told in the songs. They artists are hungry, striving. They haven't 'made it' yet. Conversely, later on you've got artists jetting to the studio in southern France from their lavish Hollywood or Manhattan home. They are far detached from the struggles of the real world -- or at least the struggles familiar to most of their audience. And in the end, songs are generally the western narrative of struggle of some sort. The storyteller still needs to connect with the audience.

I think all of these things can lead to what is seen as a decline in the music of a given artist.

[goldenchild08]

The hunger of the artist. Early songs/albums are typically written by people living in the real world. Struggling to pay the bills, playing bars and other dives, scraping to afford a bit better equipwent, lugging that equipment to shows in a van, then sleeping in the van afterward. This can lend a sound of reality to the stories told in the songs. They artists are hungry, striving. They haven't 'made it' yet. Conversely, later on you've got artists jetting to the studio in southern France from their lavish Hollywood or Manhattan home. They are far detached from the struggles of the real world -- or at least the struggles familiar to most of their audience. And in the end, songs are generally the western narrative of struggle of some sort. The storyteller still needs to connect with the audience.

This.

Artists do lose touch with their core audience of people living day to day in the real world once they become rich and famous. Once artists become rich and famous in America, they become deified often around the world. Many of them become ego-maniacs and or full-time party animals and drug addicts. Many very successful musicians crashed and burned chasing drugs and various other addictions once they had a seemingly endless supply of hundred dollars bills to support these habits. Michael Jackson became addicted to plastic surgery. Bobby Brown, Jodeci and El DeBarge became crackheads. Heroin has been a popular drug with Rock bands for decades. Rappers like Lil Wayne and Pimp C of UGK, the latter who died of an overdose, were addicted to Promenthazine with Coedine or "syrup", "lean" or "sizzurp" or "bo" as it is known in the Rap world. Scott Storch, who was a super-producer and one of the highest paid men in the history of the modern American music industry a short 6 years ago, blew his entire net-worth on a bad cocaine addiction as well as lavish conspicuous consumption. Watch any VH1 Behind the Music and fast-forward to the part where hard drugs and or alcohol and constant wild rich rockstar partying destroy the band or artist's ability to even live their life let alone produce music. I guess it is hard to make good music that everyday people can relate to when you are completely strung out on alcohol, crack, coke, dope or are too busy screwing groupies and strippers 24/7.

The OP listed a lot of older examples of musicians who had lost their pizzaz so to speak. Even Kanye West was a completely different rapper when he released his first album, College Dropout, in 2004. Back then, Kanye preached fresh and original much needed and appreciated messages of spiritual/religious awareness on the radio on songs like "Jesus Walks" as well as songs addressing the unnecessarily materialist nature of our society, "All Falls Down", and questioned the credibility and necessity of college and higher education years and years before it became the talk of the nation in the media. Although Kanye West was a breathe of fresh air in the cookie cutter baggy jean tall tee shirt thugged out Rap world in 2004, he let his achievements and critical acclaim go to his head. Today, Kanye is a complete ego-maniac addicted to the smell of his own sh#t. He is more renowned for his often questionable envelope-pushing fashion sense and who he "dates" rather than his music today.

Certain great musicians of the past refused to sell-out and become detached from the everyday struggles that their fans were living. This is one of the reasons why Kurt Cobain killed himself.

One of my favorite new musicians is a popular local Bay Area rapper named Lil B because he refuses to disconnect with the struggles of everyday people. He uniquely does this by wearing the same dirty tattered pair of Vans and same dirty jeans everyday which he wears in all of his music videos which he produces every week. Many of these videos have gone viral and have millions of views despite the fact that Lil B is not signed to a major record label or promoted by anyone but himself. Although his attention getting viral videos/songs are extremely ignorant and dumb, he also has a constant stream of inspirational songs and videos about the universal everyday struggles that normal people go through. Wearing the same dirty shoes and dirty jeans everyday is a symbolic display that the everyday man can make it in the world today, get rich and still get tons of girls. It's rather inspiring. His refusal to sign to a major record deal is also a giant pact to "not sell out" with his enormous fan base. Dude consistently sells out shows in NYC, collaborates with all the big name rappers and is not on MTV or played on Clear Channel or Radio One.

[hoffdano]

I find the lack of longevity less mysterious than how so many people become successes in the first place. I have never heard a Katy Perry song worth listening to for more than 15 seconds. There is nothing interesting in Justin Bieber's music. Why does anyone pay to see or listen to J Lo? Please - how do people find Rihanna that interesting? Nicki Minaj?

I think bands have a tough time holding their band together. 4 or 5 people that work closely together for a few years will inevitably fight or struggle to maintain their energy and creativity for more than a few years.

But there are many examples of people who continue to produce interesting music, sell out shows, and influence others. A few examples:

Eric Clapton
Eminem
Willie Nelson
Rolling Stones

I think Adele is just getting started. Unless something happens to her voice she should be making great music for decades.

[A&M_Indie_08]

Music has gone way down in quality starting around 1995 or so..... less music more noise

The musical instrument is becoming a dying breed being replaced by computerized noise in many cases

The death of touring and playing shows also helps to alienate fans too

I always support the true musicians and buy their music even though much of it was made before I was even born

[Ohiogirl81]

Do they? Levon Helm (RIP) made much of his best music in the last 10 years.

Usually it's the audience that can't accept the fact that the artist has grown. Rick Nelson wrote a song about it, when he reinvented himself after his teen idol days. A little thing called "Garden Party".

[RogueMom]

I have had this discussion with my son who is 18. Being that I am in my 50's now, and very much a "boomer", and product of pop culture and classic rock, he was pondering why his generation seems to be lacking so much in great music.

During my "time", there was not much to do other than watch three television channels, play board games, or outside "games" like softball or dodge ball, OR play music or master an instrument. I think the great music of the '50, '60s, and 70's came out of young people being bored, and needing something to do, and therefore concentrating on playing music, writing songs, etc. Out of this came some pretty great stuff.

Then came PONG.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

But there are many examples of people who continue to produce interesting music, sell out shows, and influence others. A few examples:

Eric Clapton
Eminem
Willie Nelson
Rolling Stones

I think Adele is just getting started. Unless something happens to her voice she should be making great music for decades.

With the exception of Willie Nelson, I'm not so sure that most critics would agree with the inclusion of Eric Clapton or the Rolling Stones, Eminem has been around anywhere near the others mentioned.

For example, most would agree that Clapton's best work was when he was when he was with the Blues Breakers some have pointed out that after Cream his work has been rather pedestrian by comparison. I don't deny his great longevity but the work hasn't been getting better or more innovative over the years. (Also remember Cream only lasted 2 years).

As for the Rolling Stone's I don't know if they are a monument to creative music or just human survival, but they are a long way from Sticky Fingers.

[tijlover]

I worry not, anymore, if a particlar older rock group can't perform like they used to, the lead singer's vocal chords are worn out, as these Tribute Group rock bands, many of them, can, amazingly, bring them back to life with near-perfection or perfection.

They bring a number of these Tribute groups to Las Vegas, have seen a great number of them, and it always amazes me how another person can duplicate another's voice, and the accompanying music comes out so perfect. Close your eyes, and you're experiencing the real McCoy!

Some singers have held up better than others, and who knows, what causes the decline, biological or it could be a smoking addiction, drug use.

I was nervous about seeing Creedence Clearwater the first time, recently, and I was pleasantly surprised how well they've held up over the years, as well as 3 Dog Nite.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

With the exception of Willie Nelson, I'm not so sure that most critics would agree with the inclusion of Eric Clapton or the Rolling Stones, Eminem has been around anywhere near the others mentioned.

For example, most would agree that Clapton's best work was when he was when he was with the Blues Breakers some have pointed out that after Cream his work has been rather pedestrian by comparison. I don't deny his great longevity but the work hasn't been getting better or more innovative over the years. (Also remember Cream only lasted 2 years).

As for the Rolling Stone's I don't know if they are a monument to creative music or just human survival, but they are a long way from Sticky Fingers.

Clapton still sells out shows easily. And his focus on the blues over the last 10-15 years is important. Is it as seminal as his very early work? Probably not. But he is still experimenting (as his recent work with Wynton Marsalis shows) and he works with many a generation younger than him. I agree the Stones are not innovating any more. But people still want to hear them.

Eminem hasn't been around a very long time. But he is still relevant - not something that can be said about a lot of hip hop or rap artists. And he hasn't morphed himself into some kind of fashion icon.

It is sad today to see how few pop musicians are actually musicians. The heavy use of electronic vocal processing, a reliance on choreographed dance routines, and other gimmicks seems certain to doom these performers to short careers.

Amy Winehouse had potential.
Gotye could be interesting.
Duffy has disappeared.
???