why do bands tend to get worse as time goes on? | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

why do bands tend to get worse as time goes on?

Well, bands evolve over time and most early fans of the band will say this while the band progresses from their first few albums. "Oh, I wish they still sounded like they did off their first few albums".

Usually the first album you have 18 years to write and maybe 18 months to write the second one. Most bands don't make it past 2 albums. The third one, imo, is usually the best. They aren't under a whole lot a pressure, they have experience in the studio yet they still have some teen angst left.

I think most of the problem comes from a lack of evolution. Bands cannot stay stagnant. Once you do something, move on. Keep old influences but become inspired by new and obscure styles. Always evolving and experimenting.
 
Most bands really only came together to make one or two songs.


The rest of their activity was an attempt to escape this reality.


Some bands, however, came together to make music, or money - they tend to last better.
 
They get worse because they adapt, and you can't.
 
Korg said:
Participate in the discussion or fuck off. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

OK, so give me evidence that bands deteriorate with time and tell me what your standards are for music that is good and what you mean by getting worse.


Edit:

bands that have lasted for years producing staple music within their respected genres and only have become more popular with time.

Johnny Cash (country, rock)

Van Zant (country)

George Straight (country)

Third Day (Christian Alternative)

Coheed and Cambria (Grunge?)

DC Talk (Christian Rock)

Dream Theater (progressive metal)

Brooks & Dunn (country)
 
Last edited:
Barnabas said:
OK, so give me evidence that bands deteriorate with time and tell me what your standards are for music that is good and what you mean by getting worse.

sell me or fuck off
Click to expand...

Read the OP much? I answered those exact questions there, Barnabas. My standards, what it means to get worse, etc.

Here's my question to you: do you agree with my premise? Why or why not?
 
MikeA said:
They get worse because they adapt, and you can't.
Click to expand...

Well most bands plateu in technical ability and get writers block. The challenge is working through that. The best bands need their own "Kid A" moment.
 
Beatles are one and these guys are another. Their style changed over the decades, but to say they got worse over time is a blatant lie. Still making new, studio albums to this day.


1976

[youtube]YYSW73GWRUw[/youtube]

1981

[youtube]KNZru4JG_Uo[/youtube]

1985

[youtube]IYiFrb7tWEM[/youtube]

1991

[youtube]4wJtQzD_lXY[/youtube]

1996

[youtube]TVkpAtvX5as[/youtube]

2002

[youtube]su3zwzmUrxo[/youtube]

2007

[youtube]7S9uNxUI9ng[/youtube]
 
bickelz said:
Well most bands plateu in technical ability and get writers block. The challenge is working through that. The best bands need their own "Kid A" moment.
Click to expand...

What do you think Radiohead was drawing from during their Kid A era that most bands do not have access to?
 
Korg said:
Read the OP much? I answered those exact questions there, Barnabas. My standards, what it means to get worse, etc.

Here's my question to you: do you agree with my premise? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Not really, the bands that I listen to have remain constant in their quality and ability to play. I don't see much deterioration in them.

Also yeah I did read your op, my only thought is that not all music or bands hit hit this magnificent high for a decade or so and then fall. Take George Strait, that man has been had more number one singles then just about anyone and he's been around for just around three decades.

edit:

DC Talk and News Boyz were the same way, even after DC Talk split both vocalist became chart toppers on their own and News Boys are one of the oldest Christian Alternative bands around, and they are still producing quality music.
 
Last edited:
Korg said:
What do you think Radiohead was drawing from during their Kid A era that most bands do not have access to?
Click to expand...

Well, it's not just about what they draw from more so a change in direction and/or fighting through writers block. Their first three albums are pretty straightforward but then they just said "fuck this". I think I remember Thom Yorke saying that he didn't like what they'd done, like they'd become some corporate machine instead of creating art and experimenting.

U2 had something like this with Achtung Baby where they were having writers block too. And then Edge was able to join a couple guitar sections and One was born. The rest of the album just kind of fell into place after that. Well, not really but you get my drift.

It can be anything from drawing influence from middle eastern music to just stripping a mix down and creating something simple, powerful and emotive that keeps the band inspired and believing in what they do. Most bands don't have... a certain I don't know what to call it. Maybe it's purpose but it seems like the everlasting bands/artists create music that carries real weight to it. It inspires and connects. Most bands never get there.
 
Barnabas said:
Not really, the bands that I listen to have remain constant in their quality and ability to play. I don't see much deterioration in them.

Also yeah I did read your op, my only thought is that not all music or bands hit hit this magnificent high for a decade or so and then fall. Take George Strait, that man has been had more number one singles then just about anyone and he's been around for just around three decades.

edit:

DC Talk and News Boyz were the same way, even after DC Talk split both vocalist became chart toppers on their own and News Boys are one of the oldest Christian Alternative bands around, and they are still producing quality music.
Click to expand...

Well, the amount of number one singles you have doesn't really have to do with the quality of the music. That's like saying the highest grossing movie should always win Best Picture at the Oscars.

It's also not about technical ability. You can become more able but it's the creativity and the art that matters. How relevant you are and how much you inspire matters more than technical ability.

Take Hendrix for example. There are faster guitarists. More technical. Better singers than he. But he's hands down the greatest guitarist of all time just because his influence is by far the greatest of anybody else. So many people have picked up a guitar because of him and they, in turn, have inspired even more.

Quality of music is always going to be subjective so we need other, more objective, measures. It's about advancement creatively and artistically, influence and connection to the music.
 
I see nothing but points that disproves this concept.
Choosing to ignore these points as valid does not make them any less valid.
In fact, choosing to ignore these points even strengthen my point that you are non-accepting of change.
MikeA said:
They get worse because they adapt, and you can't.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bickelz said:
Well, the amount of number one singles you have doesn't really have to do with the quality of the music. That's like saying the highest grossing movie should always win Best Picture at the Oscars.

It's also not about technical ability. You can become more able but it's the creativity and the art that matters. How relevant you are and how much you inspire matters more than technical ability.

Take Hendrix for example. There are faster guitarists. More technical. Better singers than he. But he's hands down the greatest guitarist of all time just because his influence is by far the greatest of anybody else. So many people have picked up a guitar because of him and they, in turn, have inspired even more.

Quality of music is always going to be subjective so we need other, more objective, measures. It's about advancement creatively and artistically, influence and connection to the music.
Click to expand...

The problem then becomes a matter of clarification, if you have nothing concrete to show that some music is good and that other music is garbage then there no way show that music deteriorates at all.
 
Barnabas said:
The problem then becomes a matter of clarification, if you have nothing concrete to show that some music is good and that other music is garbage then there no way show that music deteriorates at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suggested that the size of influence someone has is a measure of how good they are. And even though saying which music is garbage is subjective, opinions en masse about how good a band is does matter. For example, Nickleback sucks. I honestly don't care if this is someone's favorite band, they just suck. I listened to them a bit in middle school. Just no. There are other bands like that too.


MikeA said:
I see nothing but points that disproves this concept.
Choosing to ignore these points as valid does not make them any less valid.
In fact, choosing to ignore these points even strengthen my point that you are non-accepting of change.
Click to expand...

Who are you talking to right now? This isn't directed at anybody. If you're talking about Korg's op, many bands do deteriorate for many reasons.

Change isn't always good. Bands need to grow, not just change. Maybe like Korg, I'm non-accepting of bad change but many bands do start out decent and then are no more.

Evidence: Every one hit wonder and every band that never made it past two or three albums.
 
bickelz said:
isn't directed at anybody.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and it doesn't have to be. Directing ones post at specific individuals only makes ones point subjective and risk fallacy, which in return will get nobody nowhere.
 
Yeah, I agree with Mikey, here. Bands get worse over time because it's so cool to say "Psht, I like their old stuff better."

The Beach Boys got better over time, I guess, and so did Ladytron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back