OT - creative wells running dry

[cartman]

The topic about Billy Joel got me thinking (and that's a mighty dangerous thing).

Why is it that many, if not most, musicians hit a creative peak, and can't produce anything comparable to their earlier works. Case in point, Billy Joel. Most people like his early songs, but starting with his Allentown/Uptown Girl songs, that stuff and after is not highly regarded.

Another example, REM. They've only had one or two good songs since releasing "Out of Time". Or U2. Joshua Tree is considered one of the all time great albums, but their records since have had one or two good songs apiece. Or most spectactularly, Michael Jackson. Those of us old enough to remember Thriller know that when that album came out, you couldn't go anywhere for a year afterwards without hearing some song off of the album somewhere. All of his stuff since then has been crap.

There are some examples that don't fit this mold, ie The Beatles. They didn't release a bad album and all of them (except Ringo) had successful solo careers. But there are many more of the first example than there are the second.

I'm interested in hearing others thoughts on this. Does quick money dull the creative juices? Too much instant fame cramp their style? Too much pressure trying to top their last creation?

Discuss amongst yourselves

[Ksyrup]

Longevity and vitality are two things that typically do not go hand-in-hand. You'll be hard-pressed to find an artist that has been around for a decade or three and still maintains the ability to produce quality popular music. Look at the band you championed for not fitting the mold - the Beatles, who put out albums for all of 7 years before breaking up. There's no doubt in my mind that they would have been no different than the Stones had they not broken up and Lennon not killed.

It's probably a number of issues coming together - the right music/style at the right time in history (and as the years go by, it becomes less and less of a fit); creative sparks that can run dry (or going to the well one too many times); complacency (money/fame); priorities (money/family); personal life changes/getting older (which are even more marked when you're talking about a collaborative effort as opposed to an individual), etc.

As a rule of thumb, I've noticed that many of my favorite artists have put out their best work as their second full-length release. Sometimes they nail it on #1, sometimes they don't hit their stride until #3, but rarely do I notice a band hitting on all cylinders by, say, album #6. It just doesn't happen.

[rkmsuf]

you can apply the same thing to actors and probably most other creative endevors...

[Drake]

U2 didn't go downhill - they just changed.

I won't argue on this point.

[CamEdwards]

same for R.E.M. I still like their new stuff, but in a different way. In fact, I find the older stuff almost unlistenable at times.

[sterlingice]

I suppose we really aren't talking about these, but one hit wonders are common in music for a simple reason. You spend your whole life working on stuff, and for what? To put most of it on your first album to try and actually "make it". But then you've got a really limited time (months relative to X years of your life) to follow that up and try to build off of that success with all new material.

SI

[Kodos]

I can't think of any clever replies for this.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I can't think of any clever replies for this.

Maybe we could discuss the fact that Def Leppard never had a creative peak. They just came out awful and never improved.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You spend your whole life working on stuff, and for what? To put most of it on your first album to try and actually "make it". But then you've got a really limited time (months relative to X years of your life) to follow that up and try to build off of that success with all new material.

This is why so many second efforts are poor. Many bands end up using stuff cut from the first recording along with some stuff they churn out as filler and bundle this as a second album. (or CD for the younger folks)

edit: at least, that is what the music review sites say.

[SplitPersonality1]

Another problem is the fact that for the first album, the artist is simply trying to get signed by a label and has an infinite amount of time to perfect a song. Once the record deal is signed, there are deadlines, higher expections etc..; things that are not very conducive to the creative process.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Prince

He had an amazing creativity run, hitting his stride in '82 and lasting thru '87. After that, he released albums that were uneven at best and many of the good songs he's released were written in the 82-87 period.

I'm not gonna touch Mike Jackson. Please someone else do him...

[Maple Leafs]

Here's my theory: in many cases, the artist doesn't change much at all. It's just that much of their appeal was based on their fans thinking they were part of some sort of exclusive club, and those fans turn on them once they reach a certain level of poularity.

You see it all the time. We've all known that guy who goes on and on about Band X, how they should be so popular but they're not because the man is holding them down and why can't everyone see how good they are and blah blah blah... Then one day Band X does hit it big, playing the exact same music they've always played, and your friend turns on them. They suck now. They sold out. It's not the same.

Actually, it is the same. It's just that there are an awful lot of people out there who only like their music (or actors or writers, etc) because they like to look down their nose at the mainstream. They like to feel special. And as soon as the artist they like has any sort of serious breakthrough success, they jump off the bandwagon and go looking for the next "unknown" they can bore their friends about.

It's one of the most predictable pop culture trends out there. You show me a cool, independent artist who's about to hit it big and I'll show you a guy you're going to claim to hate in about a year.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by SplitPersonality1

Another problem is the fact that for the first album, the artist is simply trying to get signed by a label and has an infinite amount of time to perfect a song. Once the record deal is signed, there are deadlines, higher expections etc..; things that are not very conducive to the creative process.

Actually, part of the problem is a reverse of this. Talent is not given a chance to develop anymore. 20-30 years ago many acts would put out a few albums that were ok to good, but not brilliant. Then there would be a change of producer or something and the group would peak, have a few amazing albums, then fade into relative obscurity. Today if your debut isn't a smash, you're done.

Groups & singers this theory applies to:

Spinners
O'Jays
The Jones Girls
The Temptations
Marvin Gaye

really there are too many to list here...

[SplitPersonality1]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Actually, part of the problem is a reverse of this. Talent is not given a chance to develop anymore. 20-30 years ago many acts would put out a few albums that were ok to good, but not brilliant. Then there would be a change of producer or something and the group would peak, have a few amazing albums, then fade into relative obscurity. Today if your debut isn't a smash, you're done.

Groups & singers this theory applies to:

Spinners
O'Jays
The Jones Girls
The Temptations
Marvin Gaye

really there are too many to list here...

Good point.

and great list BTW.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

I'm not gonna touch Mike Jackson. Please someone else do him...

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

you can apply the same thing to actors and probably most other creative endevors...

You could but that would be wrong, in the case of actors at least. Acting is a creative trade, but not to the extent that writing the play or screenplay to be performed is. Performing music is a creative trade but not as creative as writing the music to be performed. A veteran actor is likely going to be much better at acting then a he/she was when they were 16, just as a veteran musician is likely going to be a better performer than he/she was at age 16. That does not mean the musician will write better songs though.

For music (and probably poetry as well) it would probably not be controversial to say pain and hunger is often the impetus for the greatest created works. Once a person becomes a star the hunger and pain is usually a thing of the past, and so are the best songs. By hunger I mean literal hunger, maybe even poverty, as well as hunger for fame, getting laid, money, etc.. That kind of theory does not really apply to pure show biz "entertainers" like Sinatra for whom the performance was the art (he did not write his own material). You could accurately say that Sinatra's judgement of what creative material to use declined as he grew older much like the quality of songs written by the Rolling Stones, so there might be a certain connection still. Then there are those who might only like the last few Stones albums and genuinely think they are getting better. For those people there is no hope.

[Buddy Grant]

Dola

Originally Posted by Fritz

This is why so many second efforts are poor. Many bands end up using stuff cut from the first recording along with some stuff they churn out as filler and bundle this as a second album. (or CD for the younger folks)

edit: at least, that is what the music review sites say.

This is definately true in many cases, especially in the rock/pop world.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Here's my theory: in many cases, the artist doesn't change much at all. It's just that much of their appeal was based on their fans thinking they were part of some sort of exclusive club, and those fans turn on them once they reach a certain level of poularity.

You see it all the time. We've all known that guy who goes on and on about Band X, how they should be so popular but they're not because the man is holding them down and why can't everyone see how good they are and blah blah blah... Then one day Band X does hit it big, playing the exact same music they've always played, and your friend turns on them. They suck now. They sold out. It's not the same.

Actually, it is the same. It's just that there are an awful lot of people out there who only like their music (or actors or writers, etc) because they like to look down their nose at the mainstream. They like to feel special. And as soon as the artist they like has any sort of serious breakthrough success, they jump off the bandwagon and go looking for the next "unknown" they can bore their friends about.

It's one of the most predictable pop culture trends out there. You show me a cool, independent artist who's about to hit it big and I'll show you a guy you're going to claim to hate in about a year.

But I'm not sure that has anything to do with a band's popularity. Granted there is some alienation of the core fanbase but if that core fanbase was so big to begin with, why were they some two bit club band? If they really did have millions of cd buying fans, they would already have a recording contract with someone other than Slug Juice Records.

However, if you're looking at this from a purely business perspective, how does a band keep these millions of fans that bought their album when they "sold out"? As much as everyone has their favorite band or two that they liked before they "sold out", in a strictly cold numbers sense, those people are a drop in the bucket because if you ask everyone who their favorite "underground" artist is, it's different for everyone else.

So, I'm just curious, how do you keep those other fans, the ones who put you afloat financially. Because, begrudgingly, most of that core group will still buy your music (ie look at Metallica and the sales numbers or Load and Reload). It takes a couple of bad albums where you really pissed off your fans to alienate that core.

SI

[Buddy Grant]

Dola 2...

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Here's my theory: in many cases, the artist doesn't change much at all. It's just that much of their appeal was based on their fans thinking they were part of some sort of exclusive club, and those fans turn on them once they reach a certain level of poularity.

You see it all the time. We've all known that guy who goes on and on about Band X, how they should be so popular but they're not because the man is holding them down and why can't everyone see how good they are and blah blah blah... Then one day Band X does hit it big, playing the exact same music they've always played, and your friend turns on them. They suck now. They sold out. It's not the same.

Actually, it is the same. It's just that there are an awful lot of people out there who only like their music (or actors or writers, etc) because they like to look down their nose at the mainstream. They like to feel special. And as soon as the artist they like has any sort of serious breakthrough success, they jump off the bandwagon and go looking for the next "unknown" they can bore their friends about.

It's one of the most predictable pop culture trends out there. You show me a cool, independent artist who's about to hit it big and I'll show you a guy you're going to claim to hate in about a year.

That is certainly true about the popularity of an artist, but that explaination does not have anything to do with the quality of music created.

[jeff061]

I probably listen to some different music than most on this board. However, i believe both Primus and Tool are still putting out amazing albums after over 10 years. Primus hasn't changed much musically(though they go back and forth between two styles), but they still make great songs. Tool, on the other hand, evolves with each record released. I feel as a whole their last album, Lateralus, was easily their best of all, though Aenima had better singles.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by primelord

Maybe we could discuss the fact that Def Leppard never had a creative peak. They just came out awful and never improved.

Hey hey hey! I think it would be tough to argue that both Pyromania and Hysteria aren't among the very best albums in the pop-metal genre. They inspired countless imitators, and were one of the most influential players in a once-popular genre. If people don't happen to like that genre, or don't like it any more, so be it. But I don't think a reasonable argument can be made that Def Leppard wasn't one of the more talented groups in their brand of music.

I would argue that their virtually unknown album "Slang" is also a great album. It was their version of "Achtung Baby" where they took a drastically different direction from their previous successful albums. The problem was, the album never got any promotion from the label (it was released at the peak of the Grunge movement, and nobody gave a second thought to giving a "hair band" a shot), and only their core fans ever got to hear it. Also, the album alienated a lot of the core fans who wanted another Pyromania or Hysteria because it was such a departure. I'll admit that I didn't like Slang at first either, but it grew on me, and now I would place it on the same level as their more popular albums. Artistically, it is by far their best album.

I realize you were just having fun with me, primelord, but I thought I'd go ahead and defend my boys anyway.

Here's a link to Slang , if anybody is remotely interested.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

same for R.E.M. I still like their new stuff, but in a different way. In fact, I find the older stuff almost unlistenable at times.

I couldn't agree with this more.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Actually, part of the problem is a reverse of this. Talent is not given a chance to develop anymore. 20-30 years ago many acts would put out a few albums that were ok to good, but not brilliant. Then there would be a change of producer or something and the group would peak, have a few amazing albums, then fade into relative obscurity. Today if your debut isn't a smash, you're done.

Groups & singers this theory applies to:

Spinners
O'Jays
The Jones Girls
The Temptations
Marvin Gaye

really there are too many to list here...

Yes these artists took awhile to get an original sound, when they (the ones I am familiar with at least) began they were copying a sound or being fed material that did not fit them perfectly. One key here is that several or all of these artists did not write their own material when they began, so it's tough to use this as a comparision to saying that "U2 used to be better in the old days". The Rolling Stones did not write their own material when they began either, and when people say that the old Stones stuff was better they are usually not speaking of the first Stones album.

Although record labels will rarely develope artists these days, I think this does happen still in popular country music, and if that is the case then there are probably many country artists that would hit their creative peak after album #3 or so.

[Kodos]

Country artists have creative peaks?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I suppose we really aren't talking about these, but one hit wonders are common in music for a simple reason. You spend your whole life working on stuff, and for what? To put most of it on your first album to try and actually "make it". But then you've got a really limited time (months relative to X years of your life) to follow that up and try to build off of that success with all new material.

SI

This is exactly why the sophomore slump is generally so true. Usually the first album by a band is songs written of the course of years. So the first album will end up being the best group of songs written over a 5 year period. Then when album 2 comes 12 months later... you know you're pretty much getting "the best we could do in a few months of writing."

And about the beatles - keep in mind how quickly all of that material came out. We're talking about like a 7-8 year span in which all their material was released. Although they clearly evolved a ton, i think everything happened so fast that they never quite hit the "putting out a record just to tour" phase that many bands hit later in their careers.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Here's my theory: in many cases, the artist doesn't change much at all. It's just that much of their appeal was based on their fans thinking they were part of some sort of exclusive club, and those fans turn on them once they reach a certain level of poularity.

You see it all the time. We've all known that guy who goes on and on about Band X, how they should be so popular but they're not because the man is holding them down and why can't everyone see how good they are and blah blah blah... Then one day Band X does hit it big, playing the exact same music they've always played, and your friend turns on them. They suck now. They sold out. It's not the same.

Actually, it is the same. It's just that there are an awful lot of people out there who only like their music (or actors or writers, etc) because they like to look down their nose at the mainstream. They like to feel special. And as soon as the artist they like has any sort of serious breakthrough success, they jump off the bandwagon and go looking for the next "unknown" they can bore their friends about.

It's one of the most predictable pop culture trends out there. You show me a cool, independent artist who's about to hit it big and I'll show you a guy you're going to claim to hate in about a year.

I strongly disagree that the drop in quality is merely perception. For instance I can think of a band I really like - Pearl Jam. Most people like Ten and nothing more. I almost hate Ten at this point... but that's not my point here. I thought they peaked with Yield (and most long-term fans agree)... but it's clear the last two records (ESPECIALLY Riot Act) just aren't even close to the level of quality of prior works. IMHO, Riot Act is actually a pretty bad album on the whole - not even just a realtively bad album against a very solid catalog of work.