Went the distance with:
The Grateful Dead, My first show was 1978, I knew of them way before that date. I had the very fortunate experience of being at the last 7 shows in which Jerry performed.
Leftover Salmon, Saw the last week with Keller and the Infamous String Dusters.
David Bromberg, Always Great!
Given up on:
Haven’t seen seen Jimmy Buffet in 20 years, love his old stuff, but then again, I’m old!
Have you tried Innuendo? It’s very Night at the Opera.
Sooner or later, EVERY artist (or band) who writes his/her own music, and who doesn’t die young, will start to run out of creative gas. It may take ten or fifteen years, maybe even 20. But eventually, everybody stops writing good new songs. At that point, the only questions are whether they still sound good playing their OLD songs and whether they’re comfortable with becoming a nostalgia act.
Singers and musicians who don’t write their own material can still make great records for decades if their voices or instrumental gifts hold up. But eventually, EVERY composer I’ve ever admired has hit a wall and could no longer write good new music. And it’s not just rock artists- most classical composers and Broadway composers eventually ran dry, too.
Dude, I think most folks would argue that their music got MUCH better during that period. I certainly think so. “I Want To Hold Your Hand” and all that poppy nonsense gets old. The pyschadelic stuff is timeless.
I always wondered why this occurs. How does one’s muse run dry? One theory is when a band stops doing drugs, it affects their output negatively. I mean, I don’t recommend heroin to anyone, but it certainly hasn’t hurt my record collection.
It happens because you only have so much to say, whether it’s one song or thirty albums’ worth. But, you have to keep making a living so you keep going to the recording studio. Beats real work…
Just piggybacking on jaycat’s post there. It really does boil down to a Scylla and Charybdis type dilemma, where you have to choose between continuing to mine the old & successful style, or evolving it towards some new set of standards. The former brings the danger of simply repeating yourself, perhaps eventually to the extent of (unintentional) self-parody, while the latter may mean you simply aren’t all that good at your new style (and said change may alienate your fanbase).
Consider mid-period classic Yes. I think there are some absolutely stunning cuts to be had there (Yours is No Disgrace, Starship Trooper, Close to the Edge, Roundabout, et al.). The problem is that each classic cut takes up “space” for another newer and similar cut to exist in. You can’t really just go and put on another 4-minute ending coda such as the one at the end of Starship Troopers, slowly building things up to an ending climax; it will likely just off as forced and inferior to the original. Close to the Edge likely stands as a shining example of that; they then tried to make an album out of 4 Close to the Edges, all of which pale to the 1st epic cut, precisely on those grounds.
The number of bands who could continue to evolve like that pretty much indefinitely is very small. There are a few more who stuck pretty closely to the original style and managed to at least stay somewhat interesting, but even they tend to run out of ideas eventually.
To use on example: the Moody Blues are among my favorite acts ever. Justin Hayward still sings as well as ever (John Lodge… not so well). But they haven’t made a good new album since the Eighties. I’m still happy to pay to hear them play their old stuff (and I will, next January), but I haven’t bought any recordings since “The Other Side of Life.”
If Justin wanted to record songs written by OTHER people, he’d still be great. But he ran out of new songs of his own decades ago. Almost everybody dies! Paul McCartney did, Brian Wilson did, John Fogarty did… really, how many people have continued to write good new music for more than 20 years.
Why should music be so different than writing? Some authors are able to be consistently strong over a lifetime, even taking different approaches. Or visual arts - painting, or film directing?
Not saying a musician ought not have a clinker album here or there, but why is music unique in having a finite well to draw from?
I don’t have anyone in mind, but imagine it might relate to a musician describing too narrow of a focus early on. If they set expectations one way, the base might object when they change drastically. Whereas if they are somewhat eclectic off the start - even 1 or 2 “different” songs per album, it might allow them more freedom to change and grow throughout their career.
Because language is a much richer medium than music. In strictly technical terms, in the vast majority of music that most people want to hear, there are fewer than 12 tones and the rhythms are based on either binary or ternary patterns. Not too long before you run into a wall, so to speak.
This might be the wrongest thing I’ve ever read anywhere.
Duran Duran: Been listening since they started in the early 80s, saw them four times on their most recent tour for Paper Gods. Fantastic shows. They play and sing better now than ever.
Went the distance with:
Kyuss. Only four albums, but I still enjoy all of them. I’ve also enjoyed the various post-Kyuss projects (Queens of the Stone Age, Hermanos, Slo Burn, Unida, Vista Chino)
Still going:
Fu Manchu
Godflesh
Electric Wizard