All the bands I loved in my life went stale

axisus

Thinking back over my life, all the bands that I really had a big love affair with changed and produced boring albums after a while - except one (who I will mention later).

Quite possibly as much me changing as them I guess, but I wonder why it is so hard to stick with a band forever?

So ... favourite bands:

They almost don't count as a fave band, but the first album I ever bought was ELO Out of the blue. I loved the singles that invaded the charts when I was mid-teens, bought the album and it was amazing. However, by the next album (Discovery) the magic was gone. Everything that came after seemed pants. 

My first big love affair was Queen. For me their first 7 albums were, and still are pure gold. I was so into the band, but then they did that terrible Flash soundtrack, which inexplicably was marketed as a 'Queen album' rathe than a soundtrack (not good enough!). The first 7 albums all said 'nobody played synth', but for Flash Roger bought one, and then they were used from then on. The game just sounded like the wrong production to me, the next album was DIRE (Hot Space) and although the Works was sort of OK, they lost me. I have never even heard the last few albums.

At 6th form I discovered Yes, Genesis and Pink Floyd. Yes, I loved everything up to Going for the one (their best for me). Drama and 90125 were OK, but everything since - terrible. Genesis, loved everything until Steve Hackett left, don't own any albums after that. Pink Floyd, It's about the middle stuff for me - Meddle to The final cut.

Rush were one of my most important bands, I love all the early and middle stuff, I HATED Hold your fire, and I find every album after that boring - approx half of their career! What went wrong!?! How did the band that produced amazing albums like Hemispheres, Permanent waves, Moving pictures, 2112, Signals etc go so wrong!?!? I still love the guys, I own ALL the albums, I just never choose to play the latter ones.

Next up was Marillion, boy did I love them! But 4 albums in and it was over, Fish left. I bought another 8 albums but there is no magic in any of them for me. I really wanted to still like the band, but they changed so much 

I then discovered Dream Theater, and they were fantastic. I was a total fanboy up to Octavarium, but after that for some reason I just found all the albums boring. I still bought albums but haven't got the last few. Done with them.

So that's pretty much all of my fave bands over the decades, not including bands with just a few albums. I went off all of them, which seemed unthinkable when I was at the height of my fandom. I still love the 'classic' albums of course, but everything from a certain point on - horrible. Only one band has made it intact my whole life, and that is highly unfashionable prog outfit Pendragon. For me all their albums are gems - yes some much brighter than others - but to this day they are still ticking all the boxes. Their last album just before the pandemic, was superb, and their best seller since the height of their fame, they have also just released a lovely mini-album. I say 'band' but it is totally the baby of guitarist/singer/sole songwriter Nick Barrett.

So, bands don't generally last for me, they go stale at some point. Is this the case for everyone or do you stick with bands for life?

LionAquaLooper

You don't like the beatles?? 

S56035

It must be hard when you're in a big band, do you keep playing the same stuff over and again or try something different.  As a metaller Slayer are an example of almost never changing since day one, all that has happened is the production has got better.  They must have been bored as shit by the end of it.  Then you have Metallica who have gone more in the other direction and everyone moans about not being like the first four albums.  Bands can't win.

Shrews

Why do people set out for a career in the music industry. I guess fame and fortune as a starting point.

But when it comes, what's next? It can't be that enjoyable to keep playng the 'same old' night after night, but, well, the songs still make you a fortune and people seem to like them.

The record company's will also be pushy. Contract you to produce when you just want to take a backseat and get some inspiration. 

Most stories of musical inspiration seem to come from having tough times in some way, but when life comes easier financially that surely quietens the inspiration a little I guess. 

Many band members can't handle it and leave early in the band's career, perhaps just craving a normal life. So they lose that edge too and a replacement comes in who has to adapt. Although they might be an excellent musician they may not have that edge the original band member, perhaps because the original member had an understanding of the lyrics and energy behind them.

Some bands go and do better when their expertise becomes more competent and they have more time to devote to it. So I would guess that there as many that improve as there are who take a downturn. 

blobb

"Don't foget the songs that saved your life, when you lay in awe on your bedroom floor ...."

Funkfingers

If bands churn out similar material for decade after decade, it becomes repetitive. If they evolve over time, some of the early fans lose interest. The bands can not win.

I recall seeing Pendragon opening for Marillion at Hammersmith Odious on their 1984 Fugazi tour. By 'eck, I'm old.

axisus

Funkfingers said:

I recall seeing Pendragon opening for Marillion at Hammersmith Odious on their 1984 Fugazi tour. By 'eck, I'm old.

Happy days! I remember that tour, saw them in Norwich. I'd love to time travel back to that!

Kittyfrisk

I felt like this about Bread.

viz

Some of Rachmaninov’s best stuff was at the end - check him out. Symphonic dances, 3rd symphony, paganini variations. 

RocknRollDave

Totally get where the OP is coming from.

Trying to think of my own exceptions to the rule…failing so far.

EricTheWeary

Kittyfrisk said:

I felt like this about Bread.

When they replaced Joey? 

LastMantra

Nothing lasts forever. 

mort

The only band I can think of who got better with each album is Mott the Hoople, with their last album being arguably their best.

Winny_Pooh

Get on the Tom Waits train

Philly_Q

I do agree with the basic hypothesis that nearly all bands go stale.  Even if they carry on producing "pretty good" material, it never has the magic of the old stuff and never really catches on with the fans.  Most long-running bands seem to go through a phase where they get pissed off with the fans for not liking the new stuff, then they eventually realise the battle is lost and re-embrace the old songs.

I'm quite a collector-ish person, and there are a number of bands I still buy every new release from, even though they're not what they were - Wishbone Ash, Scorpions, Robin Trower, AC/DC and I suppose Metallica.  There are one or two I've given up on e.g Aerosmith, Def Leppard.  King's X?  I'm not sure if I've given up on them or not.

We've done the Rush debate several times, and I agree that they had a bit of a lull starting with Hold Your Fire and continuing through the next couple of albums, but I think they returned to form on Counterparts and everything which came after.  They're probably the only one of my favourite bands who I think were as good at the end as they were at their peak.

Iron Maiden have a different kind of "stale" - they've been working with the same producer for too long and making "samey" albums, but there are still a lot of really good songs and I think their career's been more gentle ups and downs than any long downward slide.

One band I'm not sure about is Clutch.  I've loved them for a long time, but somehow I've struggled to get enthused about the last two or three albums although they've had good reviews and I think they're still good... in that case I think it is down to me, not them.

This is an I-could-go-on-forever subject... I'm mostly thinking about bands who've been going for 40+ years, but there are others who lost it after only a couple of albums, and conversely others who've been consistently good but have had relatively short careers.  And how much of it is purely subjective?

stickyfiddle

The basic assumption is that every artist keeps going to one of 3 outcomes; eventually they either quit, someone dies or they get shit. I can think of very few exceptions. 

Bowie - changed a huge amount over his career and I can't be doing with the 90s stuff but his last couple of records are among his very best.

Radiohead are similar - still going but slowing down and still doing interesting things when they do work together. 

I could've made an argument for U2 but their last couple have been meh and certainly not a patch on their best work. 

Jason Isbell is getting better with age as far as I can tell, but he's not even 50 yet. 

prowla

axisus said:

Rush were one of my most important bands, I love all the early and middle stuff, I HATED Hold your fire, and I find every album after that boring - approx half of their career! What went wrong!?! How did the band that produced amazing albums like Hemispheres, Permanent waves, Moving pictures, 2112, Signals etc go so wrong!?!? I still love the guys, I own ALL the albums, I just never choose to play the latter ones.

Well, I like a lot of Rush albums, including their 80s/90s work and they finished off with Clockwork Angels, which I think is one of their best (after Moving Pictures, Grace Under Pressure, and maybe Power Windows).

The only downsides for me are I think Feedback is a duffer and I never got into Snakes and Arrows.

Tannin

This is just normal.

Get used to it because it applies to every creative endeavour - music from classical through jazz to pop and metal, literature, drama on both stage and screen, visual arts, sport from cricket through golf to football, chess, science and engineering ... you name it. People start out not-so-great, they get better at their trade, they become masters of the art, then they fade away and in almost (but not quite) all cases their last works are perfectly competent but not to the standard of the work they did at their peak.

It is very rare to see someone producing their best work in late-career. 

So who *did* produce stuff equal to their best at the end of a long career? A few who come to mind are Haydn, Bach, possibly Bowie (though Bowie had so long off doing nothing much that I'm not sure we should list him in that company), Bradman, maybe Jimmy Anderson (watch this space!), Pelé ... There are others, but they are rare enough to be able to list them  individually.

In contrast, look at some of the giants who faded out and produced sub-standard work toward the end of their careers. Dylan, Beethoven (controversial view there but one I'll defend - his best work was in the mid-period), Terry Pratchett, Mozart (was in magnificent all-time-best form when he died, but he died very young), Einstein - in short, practically everyone. 

scrumhalf

All bands should disband or change personnel after their third album unless there's a very good reason not to

DuploLicks

If it spans many years & decades then cultural tastes change as well. There’s no way murmur by REM would enjoy any success today but it’s one of my favourite albums. They are a band that rode the wave fairly well & when they went off track took a break to re-orientate & did their brilliant back-to-roots gigs in Dublin (fantastic double CD)

REM also suffered when Bill Berry left the band which also lies to the dynamic that might be there early on does change one way or another over time  

GoFish

The Universe tends towards entropy. Everything goes stale, or we do.

I think its notable that the very few exceptions are single people rather than whole bands. Easier to re-invent or keep fresh without the added complications of group dynamics. No-one can keep it up at the same pace and style  ... and what would be the point ?