Why do most rock musicians produce their best stuff when they're young,

[raccoon]

and after that....their music just isn't as good as their earlier stuff?

[HopeHoops]

1. Apathy of success.

Well, that and the unlimited sex, drugs, and alcohol and the endless travel and same sea of faces they used to call "fans".

[TommyO]

2. Because young people are willing to experiment and take risks

Once they've made it, experimenting risks alienating those who made them successful in the first place.

[Symarip]

3. Otherwise known as 'first album syndrome'

It really depends on the artist, but many do seem to suffer from the inability to live up to initial and/or early success in their careers. Plus, the media is less forgiving with an aging star. Still, some artists seem to fair well and may even get better with age so it's relative. Joe Strummer comes to mind.

[SteppingRazor]

5. My own theory, with regard to first album syndrome...

it's really very simple. As an up and coming band, you've had maybe five or six years, if not more, to put together the best stuff for that debut album. Afterward, you've got maybe two years to produce the next album and a far more hectic lifestyle, leaving you with way less time to come up with something.

That's also why bands that only come out with an album once every five or six years often maintain the quality level throughout their careers.

[Forkboy]

8. Exactly the theory I was going to give.

:)

[XemaSab]

16. I would add to that that young people are crazy

I know, I know, it's not a nice thing to say.

But I have a lot of friends who were TRAIN WRECKS when they were in their teens and 20s, and now that they're in their 30's they either died, became burnouts, or sobered up and started flying straight.

I would guess that being a TRAIN WRECK makes for some good music, and flying straight does not. :P

[RainDog]

23. agreed

plus the material for a first album may have been gestating for a while.

...I mean not just the band but the songs, the reason someone wants to say something, too. in case this sounded like... yeah, and yeah the exact same thing. lol

[alphafemale]

27. Agree.

Plus, if it's a band rather than an individual artist you have the stress of fame and egos added into what have may already been a so-so relationship.

Even the best of friends would find each others rough edges after a few months of touring in a glorified bus for months on end.

[CreekDog]

33. this explains why country music is on balance not as good as rock

in country, it wasn't unusual to put out an album a year.

[SteppingRazor]

34. On the other hand, country musicians often have a whole stable of songwriters...

cranking out work for them, as opposed to rock, where the songwriting is generally an internal matter. So, given that, you would think that country could maintain quality despite the increased output.

[CreekDog]

35. you'd think, but then the stable of songwriters often is churning so hard that...

they are producing material about as unique as those oh-so-cute ABC sitcoms of the late 80s/early 90s.

[SteppingRazor]

36. What choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

;)



Anyway, yeah, I do have to agree with you. Nashville songwriting, generally speaking, has more in common with assembly-line work than it does the creative process.

[CreekDog]

37. Lately it's had more in common with MadLibs than the creative process

:rofl:

oh, Bob McDill where are you?

[SoxFan]

12. The great ones endure

Mark Knoepfler. Steve Earle. REM. U2. Bad Lieutenant/New Order. All on the far side of 50, all still creating interesting music.

[TZ]

4. Because they become more interested in money

and fame and partying and less interesting in producing quality music? I guess the best way to sum it up is too much sex,drugs and Rock N Roll...

[guitar man]

6. Nothing to lose

Before all that fame and fortune sets in and they're trying to make it in the biz, they're more likely to let it all hang out. Later on, the managers, producers and the band themselves wind up trying to second guess what they should put out rather than letting it rip like they did early on.

That's my guess anyway, I really don't know, I never made it to the "fame and fortune" stage myself....

[wickerwoman]

29. I would guess the opposite...

like for novelists, it's a bitch getting your first book published. You spend forever trying to make it perfect, you have tons of people looking at it and giving you advice, you have to really work to convince publishers that it's worth investing in.

By the time you're Stephen King, they'll publish any old crap you come up with because they know it will make money.

So I would assume for musicians, the difficulty of getting that first album release filters out a lot of the pretentious drivel but once a musician is established, record companies will release just about anything with their name on it.

And honestly, how many *great* songs does any one person have in them? Short of a handful of absolute geniuses, most people probably are only capable of a limited number of great songs/movies/books, etc.

[hippywife]

7. Who says

that's always true? :shrug:

[Forkboy]

9. It's not always true, but it is common.

I can think of lots of bands that it doesn't apply to (Nomeamsno is in their early to late 50's and put out one of their best CDs ever in 2008). I can also think of many it does apply to though. More bands than not fade away instead of having long lasting careers, and it's because their best material is gone after the 1st or 2nd album. For every Rolling Stones there's a hundred bands that never got by album 3. By that point their best material is already used up and they fade into obscurity.

[raccoon]

30. Please read again, "Why do most rock musicians..." I didn't say it

was ALWAYS true.

[BurtWorm]

10. Why do most people in most professions do their best work early on?

I don't know, but I do know not all rock musicians cease being qualitatively creative as they age. Robyn Hitchcock is an example of someone who keeps writing surprising lyrics for intricately melodic rock songs. He's been doing it for 30 years at least. Alex Chilton, who just died, was also extremelty creative and able to reinvent himself as he went along. And Scott Walker just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

[rcrush]

11. OLD PEOPLE HAVE NO SOULS

Duh.

[jobycom]

13. I think sometimes it's that nobody buys their older music.

There are a lot of semi-talented rockers who make it for a while on passion and a few good ideas alone, so it's not surprise that they run out of steam at a young age. A lot of rockers are tremendous in their later years, but no one pays to make them superstars. Record execs are busy promoting the current version of teenage hotness (which doesn't mean lack of talent, always), and older rockers have to fight harder for attention.

Some, like Robert Plant or Stave Vai or Frank Zappa in his day, just decide they can't get the pop airtime, and they evolve into a more sophisticated and less marketable sound. They play with their art instead of trying to make the cover of Teen Beat. Others discover they really just want a lot of money again, and do reunion tours and play their old music or an imitation of it.

People don't explore enough. Robert Plant's duets with Allison Kraus were amazing. Even bands you wouldn't think of do interesting stuff. My daughter just bought me the last BeeGees CD (kids, you know). I listened out of love for my daughter, but was somewhat impressed. It wasn't something completely new for them, but it wasn't a replay of their old stuff, either. It's like they kept heading in the direction they liked and made a good album. It was never meant to top the charts or win Grammys, but it's still good work. There's a lot like that out there.

If you're just looking for the Eagles to put out some great new hits after being out of music for decades, you're going to be disappointed. They aren't in it for the music, they are in it for the money (not that I blame them). That's what reunion tours are. But there are a lot of 70s, 80s, and 90s bands still making good music. Some, like U2 or the Red Hot Chili Peppers, still get good airtime, but some have developed their own niche, and you just have to look for them outside the usual channels.

And don't forget, a lot of them suck now because they sucked back then, too, and yours and my musical taste just wasn't aware of it yet. :)

Just my random thoughts. No one likes my musical tastes, though. I like Lady Gaga and hate Rush and Steely Dan, so, you know. :)

[old mark]

14. Re: Plant - I read somewhere that Page remarked they could not compete

with their earlier selves. Their later albums were not getting the sales their earlier work continues to enjoy. They were competing against their youthful selves and losing.

Most bands who make it to the "reunion tour" stage do so to renew the copywrite on their material so they can continue to get royalties on it and keep it out of public domain.

I love some of those geezer bands, but I hate seeing them perform - reminds me that I was young when they were new.

I am just amazed that AC/DC and ZZ Top are still alive, much less still performing...


mark

[RandomThoughts]

15. Some artist make many good records.

However sometimes, the inspiration they get when struggling and writing for the love of writing music and sharing it with people, goes away for some when they start to get famous or rich.



How I see it is like this, when you got nothing to lose, you can get out there and be yourself, but sometimes success gives you something to lose, so you have to then, again, be willing to lose what you have to keep being true to what you believe.


I actually think some people are given things to break them, since once they start really liking something above their choice of values, or once they put some worldly thing above what is most important, then they become something different.

For instance, I really wanted to power through on the public option, but I would have to violate things I think are better ways, things like democracy, representative rule, free will, doing what is best, not what is most profitable, humility, and a few other things. So I couldn't power through a public option just because I think it is good, but can only advocate for it based on best argument.

And then I choose to respect the best decisions. Why? because it is the peoples job to get people elected, then once elected make what they do visible. Then next election the people can again elect people. The people don't write legislation. However they do make sure everyone knows what people think (rallies), and what is done in legislation.

However in worlds of propaganda or deception, then the same rules, in my belief, can be applied to them, however I choose not to use those methods, but have seen some of it done, so that adds complexity to it.

[trackfan]

17. Sex drive

[Chemical Bill]

18. Drugs...

eventually they quit. :evilgrin:

Bill

[rcrush]

21. This ^^^

[mcollins]

19. They sell out.

(good) Music and Poetry are not made by happy people. Both are about emotionally explaining what youa re feeling, and pain makes you want to express it. Feeling good bacause you have money, girls, and crap that goes with success weakens your drive to express your pain. Nirvana would have sounded like crap if they were all happy.

Curt's genius was that he expressed his pain well.

[datasuspect]

20. Because any great thing anyone ever does in life, they usually do before they're 30

after that, it's all downhill.

it's scientifically proven!

[miscsoc]

22. the reason is

that young people look nicer and are more glamourous. in terms of sheer musical quality people probably don't get worse, but rock music is so tied up with the theatrical, fandom aspect of performance that when a person gets old and haggard they don't produce the same excitement as young, virile people playing the same stuff.

[donheld]

24. Bonnie Raitt got better with time

[Lindsey]

25. I think steppingrazer hit it on the nail. They've been working on

their best tunes for maybe years and it all comes together resulting in an awesome album. Some that come to mind are The Counting Crows with August and everything after, The first Train album,and Bringing Down the Horse. I also believe that some people like Bonnie Rait really do get better as time goes by. And, of course, The Beatles just kept getting better and better. John Lennon did some of his best stuff even after The Beatles.

[Enrique]

26. everyone has a finite number of good songs in them

they write their good ones first.

[nutsnberries]

28. there's only one Young and that'd be

Neil.

:P

[hayu_lol]

31. Probably the best reason for a change in music...

is deafness. By middle age, many rockers have lost the most acute part of their hearing. Beethoven survived deafness...but most rockers aren't Beethoven.

Am a retired musician, deafness is an occupational disease caused by constant exposure to high decibel environments.

[MissMillie]

32. they get jaded by the industry when they get older

but I do think this is a generalization.

There are some musicians who become more thoughtful as they age. Their music may not be as feisty, but it's worthy of respect nonetheless.