I’ve never understood this phenomena. A group like the Rolling Stones does all these fantastic songs when they were in or around their early twenties; and yet, they like all other rock and roll performers, fizzle out with crummier and crummier songs as time goes by. I would think that logically, people would only get better and better because they just would.
Doesn’t it seem odd?
They’re done in by time and experience. If you’ve got what it takes to be world-famous in your twenties, and make it, it is only a matter of time before you have to start outdoing yourself. Not everybody can do that. Their songs get weaker and less substantial over time, and then what can they do? They’ve shot their wad. The well is dry. Consumption of drugs and alcohol can devastate a person’s talent. There are hundreds of examples.
The Stones continue to record because they’re the Stones. Not necessarily because they’re making any better music than they ever did (they aren’t, and never will again), but because they’re riding on their own coattails. They’re old, and they still have a job. Other musicians aren’t so lucky. They’re old and their royalties dried up years ago, and now they have to get a real job. You can’t stay on top forever, and after a career in the spotlight, it’s a helluva long way down.
No not really. As much as we hate to admit it, popular music (and rock 'n roll "popular music) is a fleeting fad from generation and what is “great” at one time is not necessarily that good at another. That a group like the the Stones or Beatles can turn out very good works for as long as they do (or did) is rather amazing when one considers the short attention span of most listeners.
Great OP- I’ve wonderd this myself. Another example, Sir Paul has the ability to write catchy hook-filled pop songs that top the charts from 1963 through the late 80’s I guess. After that, same guy, similar songs, yet they bomb. Sure times change, and what people listen to and like change, but gee whiz, nothing he’s written in the last 15 years has tickled the fancy of the masses?
A lot of rock 'n roll is sex appeal, songs that get you in the heart and the balls. . .it’s not easy to write those thing when your heart and your balls are failing.
No way could a 50 year old write a song like “If I could stick a knife in my heart. . .suicide right on stage. . .would it be enough for your teenage lust. . .would it help to ease the pain?”
That stupid shit means something to you when you’re young and dumb and full of cum (as someone’s granddaddy used to say).
Creativity can peak just like athleticism.
A lot of things that seem like they should get better with hit max creativity in the 20’s-30’s. . .mathematicians, chess players.
Or, what’s even weirder, how do you explain someone like Tom Jones or Tony Bennett who was wildly popular, had a decades-long lull in their career, then came back on like gangbusters? Did “mainstream” taste change, then shift back into something similar to what it was? Or is this strictly a manufactured marketing phenomenon, in which some bright ad executive asked, “how could we make a guy who only grandparents listen to seem cool again?”
There’s also the fact of the music business - the older and more famous you are, they more the labels had to pay you - they’d much rather sign a new band to a cheap contract and handcuff them to a 5-to-7 record lifecycle.
Also, as musicians age, radio stations are less likely to promote them. Madonna complained about how her latest CD Confessions on the Dancefloor, charted very high internationally but got no play in the U.S. Bon Jovi and Sheryl Crow are releasing country (or country-skewed) CD’s next because the general feeling is that that is where folks looking for a mainstream sound - e.g., like the Eagles or Fleetwood Mac back in the day - have gone to and country fans are “more loyal.” Sir Paul’s last CD, Chaos and Creation in the Backyard - produced by the producer of Radiohead and other top acts, Nigel Godrich - got strong critical reviews, but no airplay. People want their McCartney as a lovable moptop or Sgt Pepper, not a professional musician in his 60’s who still has great music to make…
So I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it simply due to the artist peaking young - that absolutely happens, and likely explains many/most one-hit wonders and bands that get bloated on their own success - but the ones that are built to last aren’t always in a position to show what they can do…
Fame, especially in today’s music scene, has its pitfalls. Without knowing the specifics of the Stones’ and others’ contracts and whatnot, there are a few scenarios I can imagine playing out:
They’re contractually obligated to release X number albums in Y number of years. That means they’re releasing recordings to meet a schedule rather than releasing them when they’re ready.
They can sell out stadiums based on who they are rather than their music, so why try hard?
They aren’t hearing honest critical feedback on their work from anyone (because they can still sell out stadiums) and have come to believe their own press – or what they’re hearing of it, anyway.
Life is good. They’re settled. So much of creativity is born from struggle, and they’re past struggling in their lives, at least for things us little people struggle for.
I can also cite plenty of music talents who have, in my opinion, continued to grow and improve. They’ve not always been on an upward trajectory, of course, but the overall trend is one of experimentation, technical mastery and innovation.
Agree with Trunk on the young sex appeal aspect, which means I can see how Carole King, Paul McCartney, Burt Bacharach, etc. have not themselves had a hit record in decades, but correct me if I’m wrong- they haven’t even written one for someone else, like Mariah Carey and the like. So I see how their physical appeal has lessened and no 16 year old want to buy an album with Sir Paul’s 64 year old puss on it, but its shocking to see that other people aren’t even scoring with their songs.
Word to what WordMan said, and I agree to some extent with what Trunk said. So much of what we hear through traditional music channels (mainstream radio in particular) is focused sex appeal and marketing rather than substance; how else to explain Ashleigh Simpson and those of her ilk? Hulk Hogan’s daughter is getting more press lately than thousands of genuinely talented, established musicians.
Moreover, this marketing panders to its main target demographic by validating and even insisting on the idea that only the young are cool. Like young people have a corner on angst and lust and those are the only things worth listening to songs about, anyway. Older musicians, famous or not, get a reception that’s more akin to listening out of respect for these old dinosaurs rather than out of an expectation that they have something worth listening to.
Then again I am married to an older musician, so I’ve got some personal stake in this, sort of.
This weekend, he played a really cool little gig in town that features round-robin style acoustic performances from musicians selected by the host (a music writer and musician himself). The performers were all in their 40s this week, except for a 20-year-old who hopped up on stage when one of the others had to head out to another gig. He introduced himself and then said, “I’ve always been afraid of getting old, but now I see you guys up here rockin’ and it’s really cool.” Of course the whole audience roared and he got shit over it for the rest of the night, but I think he encapsulated how younger people perceive older musicians, and how the music industry handles marketing to them.
Because rock n’ roll is so identified with youth (at least until recently), it’s become conventional wisdom to think that a rock talent’s creative peak is typically in his or her 20’s or early 30’s. However, if you examine the creative output of musicians, singers, composers, and lyrists of the musical eras before rock (e.g., the Jazz/Swing Era), you’ll find that the artistic peaks of these people were often also during their 20’s and 30’s. While it is true that many of these artists (except those who died young) continued performing or writing until old age, you’ll find the number of works they did that can be considered at least noteworthy decreases steadily after their 40’s.
Art can be timely or art can be timeless.
Rock art tends to be timely: the artist is completely in touch with the times and can perfectly express them in forms that speak to the people and the time.
Do the times create the artist, then? To an extent. The people that formed rock n roll were the ones who breathed rock music every minute of their young lives.
Once they were a few years older, however, they didn’t steep themselves in the new music of the times every minute. They were too busy living their lives. They had lives.
Rock isn’t about technique. Many rock musicians are obviously better at their instruments today than when they were younger. They know more about music and songwriting and singing too. This may work against them, as it takes away the raw edge of spontaneity and authenticity that audiences crave.
Rock stars learned every molecule of the music when they were young and could dedicate every minute of their lives to doing so. You can’t do that twice. You get stuck with all that knowledge of what you learned music was and it’s impossible to give it new DNA. You’d have to change yourself from the inside out.
The more timely your art is, the harder it is to change it for new times.
I think many of the reasons given here have merit. One I’ve heard is that our facility for creating music or poetry is at its peak in our teens and twenties, kind of like how our language acquisition skill is strongest in our preschool years.
I also think that success kills creativity, in most cases (there are some obvious exceptions). Maybe that’s why I can still write decent songs for a 44 year old geezer; success has yet to lay its grubby hands on my creativity… 
Dee Snider, frontman and primary writer for Twisted Sister, summed it up really well once. During a “Behind the Music” on the Sister he said, “One day I was sitting by my pool at my million-dollar house trying to write Twisted Syster lyrics, and I thought, ‘What the hell do I have to be angry about?’ That’s when I knew it was over.”
What makes rock’n’roll what it is is attitude. Rockers are pissed off, horny, frustrated, horny, scared shitless, horny, insecure, horny and full of bullshit. Oh, and did I mention horny? If they hit it big, they can satisfy the horny part – and that makes them less pissed off, frustrated, scared, insecure and full of shit. And, after awhile, they become even less horny. Rock – real rock’n’roll – is a young person’s music. You have to be young to make good rock. The Stones, Neil Diamond (who was never really a rocker, but did all of his best stuff before 1976) Elton John, even Bruce Springsteen, Aerosmith, AC/DC – these guys are just going through the motions.
My favorite rock band has been a soap-opera to watch. All kinds of drama and controversy, rumours and splits, but they always seem to defy the odds and ressurrect in some new incarnation. I think they generate some crazy rock magic from a flaming vag in the sky.
Their last effort sucked and I came to the conclusion that the band should never have cleaned up both literally and figuratively from their seminal punk, drug addled, intercessionary Goth roots. They’re all, like, L.A., intercontinental now Dude ! Lost the edge, lost the origin of their own originality.
I’m still looking forward to their next album, however. They still got that spark, musically, and will rock your balls everytime, but the artistry has lost that early inspiration, that spark. QUEST FOR FIRE.
Steely Dan has been around forever and they never went downhill. Two Against Nature, their “comeback” album (they never actually broke up but they went a while without releasing anything,) won 4 Grammys in 2000 and is an amazing album. Their next effort, Everything Must Go, is also extremely high quality. One more reason why Dan is one of the best and most underrated bands of all time, in my opinion.
I guess what I mean to say is, that a lot of bands get tighter with time, few looser.
I agree with all of this, except the bit about these last two albums being remotely near the quality of their earlier work. Hmm, guess I just agree with the last sentence.
well, I like steely dan a lot, but that’s not rock and roll. I’m down with the theory that some art forms are more about passion and raw emotion, and rock and roll is one of them. In some art forms an old guy can make up in polish and precision what they lack in emotional power, but rock ain’t one on them
I think we need to consider two different things here: creativity and talent. Performers might tend to lose their creativity but their talent usually stays at a pretty even level or even improves over time. People like Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, or Bob Dylan can still sing and play as well as ever (or as poorly as ever in Dylan’s case) but their writing has declined. I’d guess it’s evidence that people usually only have so many ideas - they get used up faster than new ones arrive, so at some point people run out of inspiration.