why do bands tend to get worse as time goes on?
- Thread starter Korg
- Start date
That's not valid. You cannot measure the intensity of how much a song or an artist resonates with me on a personal level - that is subjective. I can barely express it to myself, let alone have it objectively measured.
There are other factors involved in breadth of influence, such as marketing, advertising, exposure, style of music, trend, image, longevity, memetics - many things other than sheer artistic merit. So what are we measuring exactly, the success of the band's marketing strategy, or their artistic merit?
If we go by your method: the former, as there is no objective measure for the latter. Music as art is judged based on your unique emotional response - it cannot be replicated, equated, or calculated.
Really? Maybe that's why I said I'd bet on it.
Again, art isn't about making money. It's about creating something unique.
Yes, you can. By the number of artists/bands that cite them as influences. Obviously, Frank Sinatra is more influential than Rebecca Black. Actually, by your standards, if she says what she did was for art's sake, she's on the same level as Frank because "anything for art's sake is art". In this phrase, there is a heavy implication that all art for art's sake is on the same level since measuring art quality is subjective.
Appealing to masses is a fallacy when speaking about right and wrong, not quality. I'm appealing to a knowledgeable mass of musicians about the quality of an album or band. Not whether or not it's right or not.
A rebuttal to this argument that you've made could be the number of records that they've sold. Well, the number of records sold doesn't really translate into people that enjoyed the album. The opinion of a mass in this case holds more weight than the purchasing power of that mass. If I buy the record and then hate it, that means I hate it.
No, not how much is resonates with you. How many bands it influenced. How many people it inspired to play an instrument.
Did Hendrix Inspire Me? Yes.
See? It's a yes or no question. It's completely and totally 100% objective. There isn't any ambiguity in that. Seriously, if nobody still understands that concept I'm leaving the forums or something because it's way too simple to not understand.
It's all about the money man. After a certain point in time, bands have to make music that SELLS. They start to get fancy producers to make their music for them and they lose what makes them good to begin with *cough*Gym Class Heroes*cough*
bickelz I'm gonna help you out here.
Subjective means different people have differing opinions on what something should be. You just said hendrix inspired you and that's why he's good. That was 100% SUBjective, not OBjective.
Objective means there is a criteria that has nothing to do with anyone's opinion on what something should be. If I define R to mean the set of all real numbers, 5 is a part of the set R. That is completely Objective.
You cannot objectively declare music good or bad because there is no objective criteria that can be used.
Am I the only person in the world that liked radiohead better before kid A?
Radiohead?
More like GAYdiohead?
Right?
Right?
Am I the only person in the world that liked radiohead better before kid A?
Nope. I liked a couple of tracks on Kid A, but I liked The Bends and OKC far more. I've long since stopped listening to them though.
Bands need to change as time progresses. It can work out for better or worse though. Some bands get worse with time, and some get better!
Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails both had pitiful first albums with 2 or 3 great songs each. Their second and third attempts were amazing, and then they began to evolve into different styles, instruments, etc etc. Radiohead's gone more abstract, and Nine Inch Nails has gone more glitch-electronica, but I adore as much of their current stuff as their older stuff. The Beatles got more abstract with their music and gave us those amazing later albums. I can't listen to their old beginning pop-esque stuff at all.
Death Cab for Cutie is another band who started out making complete garbage (Something About Airplanes, We Have the Facts and We're Voting Yes) and then game out with some just glorious albums all the way through (Plans, Narrow Stairs).
Not to mention Aphex Twin and his alter-egos shifting from albums like Classics and I Care Because You Do to the crazy drums and braindancing stuff in Drukqs, Richard D James Album and Rushup Edge (under The Tuss).
Poor Zero 7 was absolutely amazing, but their % of amazing songs per album has gotten lower over the years. Mr McGee, The Road, Everything Up, and Ghost sYMbOL were great... the rest... hmmm... are alright or forgettable.
Ahhh... music...
Oh, and Amnesiac was Radiohead's best album. If you disagree, I'll crush your little soul.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0NHCyVqFOc"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0NHCyVqFOc[/ame]
Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails both had pitiful first albums with 2 or 3 great songs each. Their second and third attempts were amazing, and then they began to evolve into different styles, instruments, etc etc. Radiohead's gone more abstract, and Nine Inch Nails has gone more glitch-electronica, but I adore as much of their current stuff as their older stuff. The Beatles got more abstract with their music and gave us those amazing later albums. I can't listen to their old beginning pop-esque stuff at all.
Death Cab for Cutie is another band who started out making complete garbage (Something About Airplanes, We Have the Facts and We're Voting Yes) and then game out with some just glorious albums all the way through (Plans, Narrow Stairs).
Not to mention Aphex Twin and his alter-egos shifting from albums like Classics and I Care Because You Do to the crazy drums and braindancing stuff in Drukqs, Richard D James Album and Rushup Edge (under The Tuss).
Poor Zero 7 was absolutely amazing, but their % of amazing songs per album has gotten lower over the years. Mr McGee, The Road, Everything Up, and Ghost sYMbOL were great... the rest... hmmm... are alright or forgettable.
Ahhh... music...
Oh, and Amnesiac was Radiohead's best album. If you disagree, I'll crush your little soul.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0NHCyVqFOc"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0NHCyVqFOc[/ame]
I think that people have given several good reasons for why bands appear to lose appeal after initial success. I would say that it is difficult to pin down because there are internal and external factors in play which can contribute to supposidly "sub-par" work being produced.
Off the top of my head:
Internal
Success tends to decrease the energy someone puts into a project. Once success has been achieved, there is a tendency to lose a bit of the drive to "win".
Time and circumstances change. Other things become more important than just making music. They can aquire a spouse and kids which decreases the focus on the music.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Long time pursuit of something tends to make one more cynical and less inclined to have "fresh" or "novel" ideas about the project they are involved in. It takes considerable energy to remain focused on maintaining a genuine creative state.
People have a natural tendency to want to repeat something considered successful which leads to rehashing of the same type of material. Also there is a tendency to pigeonhole yourself into a particular style or routine which dulls the creative process.
External
Validation of one's music is dependent upon subjective means by a fickle population. What is considered "hip" or "great" can change faster than you change your underwear. There is no specific way to determine if indeed the music has gotten worse or the taste of the general public has changed to such a degree as to make the music seem bad.
There is less emphasis placed on promoting one's work after success has been achieved. Music is a business. Many times there is little effort to promote follow up albums. Marketing is an important part of ensuring commercial success.
In the case of bands, there are other individuals involved who may not hold themselves to the same creative ideals who damage the integrity of the music being produced. Conflicts can arise particularly regarding substance abuse.
The fan base also has a tendency to want to pigeonhole the artist into a particular style or brand which can cause subsequent work to be labeled a "failure" because it doesn't meet expectations.
I think there is a perception that bands loose something after a specific amount of time and that is a valid assumption. I think in general, there will always be those who are average and deserved their brief time in the sun versus those who are capable of establishing a career regardless of less than successful albums which may be produced.
Off the top of my head:
Internal
Success tends to decrease the energy someone puts into a project. Once success has been achieved, there is a tendency to lose a bit of the drive to "win".
Time and circumstances change. Other things become more important than just making music. They can aquire a spouse and kids which decreases the focus on the music.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Long time pursuit of something tends to make one more cynical and less inclined to have "fresh" or "novel" ideas about the project they are involved in. It takes considerable energy to remain focused on maintaining a genuine creative state.
People have a natural tendency to want to repeat something considered successful which leads to rehashing of the same type of material. Also there is a tendency to pigeonhole yourself into a particular style or routine which dulls the creative process.
External
Validation of one's music is dependent upon subjective means by a fickle population. What is considered "hip" or "great" can change faster than you change your underwear. There is no specific way to determine if indeed the music has gotten worse or the taste of the general public has changed to such a degree as to make the music seem bad.
There is less emphasis placed on promoting one's work after success has been achieved. Music is a business. Many times there is little effort to promote follow up albums. Marketing is an important part of ensuring commercial success.
In the case of bands, there are other individuals involved who may not hold themselves to the same creative ideals who damage the integrity of the music being produced. Conflicts can arise particularly regarding substance abuse.
The fan base also has a tendency to want to pigeonhole the artist into a particular style or brand which can cause subsequent work to be labeled a "failure" because it doesn't meet expectations.
I think there is a perception that bands loose something after a specific amount of time and that is a valid assumption. I think in general, there will always be those who are average and deserved their brief time in the sun versus those who are capable of establishing a career regardless of less than successful albums which may be produced.