I agree. Also, most people have only so much genuinely to say. Jimmy Buffett can write another Margaritaville knockoff or he can write a heavy metal song for a change of pace, but he may as well just play Margaritaville.
Also, the creative “snow” is less untrodden in one’s youth. One may inadvertently plagiarize something because of ignorance of its existence, but as we become older and more familiar with the corpus of works, it becomes hard to write anything original without thinking “no, that’s already been done”.
Zappa was unique in that he was a serious composer who worked with rock bands because it was all he could afford. Late in his life, he was taken seriously enough that orchestras would perform his work without using it as an excuse to soak him financially. Also, digital musical instruments like the Synclavier allowed him to record his music without needing an orchestra.
Neil Young is another good call. No matter what you might think of Trans, he was trying.
Not sure McCartney belongs here. His project with Youth (Fireman) is surely very creative. At least he’s not necessarily resting on his past. And his Nirvana gig was pretty cool.
Wait…what?
Even by that definition Bon Jovi fails as “bad ass rock”.
I am the entertainer,
I come to do my show.
You’ve heard my latest record,
It’s been on the radio.
Ah, it took me years to write it,
They were the best years of my life.
It was a beautiful song.
But it ran too long.
…
So they cut it down to 3:05.
…
Ah, you’ve seen me in the papers,
I’ve been in the magazines.
But if I go cold,
I won’t get sold.
I’ll get put in the back
In the discount rack,
Like another can of beans.
This thread reminded me of The History of the Eagles on ShowTime, that I saw last week. There was a bit toward the end where Glenn Frey (what an utter douche-bag, by the way) goes on about how he and Don Henley can still write great songs like they used to and his example was “Get Over It” – which, I’m sorry, sounds like it was written by the kids in Jack Black’s School of Rock – and he thought it was some of his best work.
This is exactly what I am talking about. The Eagles best work was in the 1970’s and early 80’s…I don’t think anyone can really argue that. And I literally have no problem with dinosaur bands trodding the Earth and milking their previous works for all they are worth (Stones) while putting out new recordings that are utter dreck.
Pink Floyd did this too, although the re-configured Floyd had some mainstream success with their post-Waters recordings for awhile, which many people thought couldn’t happen. I don’t think the material is as strong as the stuff with Waters on it, but it isn’t terrible.
Metallica is an interesting example. I was (and remain) a HUGE fan of everything they’ve done up to and including the “Black Album” and I literally can’t stand everything after that, even though they were arguably more successful radio wise with their “Load”, “Re-Load” and whatever other crap they were cranking out then. The trick with seeing bands like that live is that they play enough of the songs that people connect to that they tolerate the newer material that by and large is contrived in one way or another with a collective “meh” while they wait for the next rendition of “Seek And Destroy”.
There are certainly bands that avoided this. I used McCartney as an example only because he still tours and puts out records. I loved Wings. I don’t think he’s put out much of anything worthy of note since then though.
I will say I think U2 as a band has managed to stay pretty fresh and put out pretty listenable new music for a long, long time.
Some long running bands are surviving on the music of the past, Moody Blues were mentioned. I saw Blue Oyster Cult a couple of years ago in a free Sunday afternoon show in the San Fernando Valley. Only 2 original members, but the new guys were all in the 40s. They played a great set…but it was also sad. Sad in the fact that this was an arena act and this gig was one step above, or below, playing the state fair circuit. There were no new tunes played.
The fact that are still playing, and playing well, speaks to the issue of creativity. Yes, they are playing songs that are upwards of 30 years old. But classically trained musicians play pieces that are hundreds of years old. No one is knocking their creativity. A lot of folks who are considered creative today are not writers but just performers (I was on the fence about using the word just) Performing IS creative.
So, are Eric Bloom and Buck Dharma still writing new music? Maybe. But what they are writing isn’t likely to appeal to the type of audience it used to. They are much older. their experiences are different, their perspective is different. The people willing to come see them are much older on average.
Has Kasim Sultan (57) lost his creativity? Has Rudy Sarzo (62) ? These guys have been working steady for for the past 40 years, still joining different groups and touring.
Genesis recorded and toured for better than 40 years. The principles have been slowed down, possible due to age and the fact that just ain’t hungry anymore…but these guys are still creating music and being creative in other ways.
That we may not* like* the direction they have taken doesn’t mean it is not creative.
Yes. Clapton’s decline began around the same time he quit heroin.
A couple of factoids I heard once but didn’t bother to verify today: Jethro Tull surveyed their fans back in the 80s, asking if they wanted the band to continue in the same style or move in new directions. New directions lost. And when asked why his songs were no longer angry and edgy, Bob Dylan replied, “It’s hard to be a bitter millionaire.”
Let’s take a couple of examples: Eric Clapton and Elvis. Clapton kept changing and growing, always finding listeners, and I think listeners “to the music”, not just fans of the Eric Clapton cult. Elvis was the first Rock’n’Roll God, but his unique style fizzled as he became a Las Vegas joke, Wayne Newton’s evil twin, so-to-speak. Age had nothing to do with either man’s career path. and though I liked what Eric did with Cream the best, I’ll admit, he always produced valid music, never falling into a caricature of himself.
Elvis, on the other hand, left reality behind and became his own satirical version of a disconnected cult figure with no creative or musically relevant substance left, except perhaps a pretty voice.
Age had nothing to do with it.
Here’s something sad to contemplate … Hendrix’s manager, and most of his ticket/album buying fans wanted to hear the famous hits over and over, meanwhile, Hendrix wanted to expand his sound to mesh with Jazz, and had plans for varied instrumentations and for collaborations with Miles Davis, for one. He died before he could kick his creativity up a notch. Wonder what the audience would have thought of his new ideas?
Some years back, during an interview of the reunited Black Sabbath, I heard Ozzy Osbourne and Tony Iommi say almost exactly the same thing. They, said, in essence, “When we started out, we were poor, angry kids from the worst section of Birmingham. We didn’t have indoor toilets til we were teenagers. Today, we’re rich. We stay at fancy hotels and eat at five star restaurants. How COULD we be the same people or have the same anger we once did?”
I heard Ozzy say something similar in an old interview promoting his solo album “No More Tears”. Again, he was describing the deep resentment and mistrust Black Sabbath felt towards authority, and how that inspired them to write “War Pigs”.
It was a very powerful quote, and I remember every word verbatim. He said to the interviewer, “Ueeeuurrr aim arnin faaack urn yerb werrbbly armmaggur wanslep errb gwaaan term fack fack arbin werrb urn yerb fack”.
As the principle songwriter in my own heavy metal band, that quote really resonated with me. So much so, that I now have it tattooed across my stomach.
:nodding: They also have nothing prove at that age. They already “made it” 30+ years ago, say, so whatever they make on new material -- if they do make – is gravy.
Rod Stewart, for example, recorded “The Great American Songbook” a few years ago. Hearing him croon old standards is bizarre, but hey, if he enjoys it, that’s all that matters.
That current Bon Jovi song on the radio (I don’t recall the title)? 20 or so years ago I probably would have liked it. It does a mindfuck because mentally I don’t equate that kind of music with Bon Jovi.
I don’t care. Then pick someone else who was popular 30 years ago and is still on the radio.
No matter how cool you think your favorite band is, in 20 years people will probably think it’s lame.
Sometimes when you let the dogs out, they don’t come back.
You just only have so many good ideas in you, and rock music happens to be a field where people will buy those ideas from you even if you’re young.
I think the anger-and-rebellion bit is part of it too, but I’d point out that the same general truism applies to MOST types of music, really. Pop music is generally done best by the young; Michael Jackson was 24 when he made “Thriller.” Soul music? Stevie Wonder was one of the greatest musical geniuses in the world in his 20s; in his 30s he made “I Just Called To Say I Love You,” God help us all.
I mostly agree with you on Metallica…except I can stomache some of their post Black Album stuff…mostly because I think they are still (even with Lars) a great Live band. The thing with Metallica (with me) is up through the Black Album they were breaking ground, they were the pioneers of their sound and leading the way. When Load came out, and ever since, they seem to be chasing the latest fad instead of blazing new ground. However, Some Kind of Monster was a great documentary to see a band completely disintegrating.
<Side rant>…please let Metallica tour with someone besides Lars. At The Big 4 show at Yankee stadium they had all four bands come up and do a cover of Motorhead’s Overkill. The first half of the song was played with lars on the main kit, and the others on just snare drums. Then they started to replay the song with the each of the other drummers taking over the main kit…and wow the difference is night and day with all of the other guys.
</Side rant>
I’m surprised with all the mentions of Metallica, Rush and Dream Theater that no one has mentioned Iron Maiden. After Adrian Smith and Bruce Dickinson left there were two pretty bad albums, but when they both came back and they turned into a six man band they released an amazing album with Brave New World. Since then, they’ve released three more strong albums with the same classic lineup plus Janick. Their tours are incredibly successful and all their shows I’ve been to in the past ten years have an impressive number of teenagers.
