So, some bands start mediocre, but build up, and get real good. Some start with a bang. And then fall off as quickly. Pretty much start to slide eventually.
So, why does this happen? And more interesting. Have you, who've followed so many bands, started working out a theory of this.
Is there an optimal age / album no. for a band. Does the pattern vary with genre. eg. Rap acts mature and decline faster than rock which are faster than jazz? Why should this be?
― phil, Saturday, 15 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
A band's sell-by date on the
outside is determined by its sell-
by date on the
inside.
awwwwwwww
― Keiko, Sunday, 16 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
Possible answers: genres which require a high level of technical
proficiency*, such as jazz, give back bone and support to the more
ephemeral qualities such as creativity or expressiveness. Take a
band like the Raincoats, who I think are a good example of a band who
successfully made music without much apparent skill as
instrumentalists. Nevertheless, they didn't put out too many
recordings, did they? Anything I've heard aside from the core two
haven't impressed me much. I think some people without strong
technical skills can temporarily overcome their limitations through
focus, through exuberance, through reckless experiment (and through
paying attention to the results of their experiment), but somehow I
don't think this can be sustained for very long. I think that in the
long run, the artist with good technique has an advantage over the
artist without. The artists without may arrive at some places that
the more trained artist wouldn't have, but overall I think technique
increases possibilities. Also, the challenge of overcoming the
difficulties involved in making a music which is challenging to make
may itself generate energy which keeps the creative process alive.
Funny, I sound like a real jazz apologist here, but I don't listen to
much of it myself. (Though to drone on boringly, the old school
Arabic music I listen to features artists who had similarly extended
careers, and requires quite a bit of technical skill, particularly on
the part of the singers.)
I expect this post to be ruthlessly attacked.
I can imagine entirely different explanations: rock and hip-hop as
genres have in-built concepts of fashion that are different from
those in jazz. They are more about youth, while jazz, if it was ever
closely associated with youth, stopped being about that a long time
ago. Of course, rock and hip hop are also more tied in to changes in
technology than jazz is (and hip hop moreso than rock), but it's hard
to see why a group couldn't make the leap to the next wave of
technology. (And yet, this often does seem to be a problem. How
does a group changes its sound, in response to new technological
possibilities, while maintaining its identity as the same group? A
group's signature sound may be closely tied to a particular phase of
technology and when that becomes dated, the group itself may be
stigmatized by virtue of that fact.)
*--I suppose I should cover myself by saying "a high level of
technical proficiency along traditional lines (e.g., instrumental
skill)," but I seriously doubt that either rock or rap requires any
form of technique as elaborate as what jazz requires.
― DeRayMI, Sunday, 16 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
Three or four albums are enough for most artists, after that they
either get repetetive or crap most of the time.
― Marc, Sunday, 16 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
On the other hand, if I heard a comparably inventive band as the
Raincoats (now playing, to remind myself what they sound like) with
comparably bad singing, I probably wouldn't be too interested.
― DeRayMi, Sunday, 16 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
I wonder...which magazine/media pundit has the authority to go through and stamp an expiration date on a musicians neck like some clerk at the grocery store. And does this "curdling" of musical talent explain why old, "out-of-style" acts are called "cheesy?"
Does the pattern vary with genre. eg. Rap acts mature and decline faster than rock which are faster than jazz? Why should this be?
High end physicists, mathematicians and archeologists are starting to say that "time
itself is accelerating"; this is why
- Classical lasted for centuries,
- Jazz lasted nearly 75 years
- Rock lasted roughly 50 years
- Punk had two stabs of greatness (lasting 2-3 years apiece)
- Grunge lasted about a year and a half
- and the Swing Revival and Latin Pop "eras" barely lasted 9 months apiece.
Our lust for novelty increases at the same speed as our attention span decreases.
― Lord Custos v2.3, Monday, 17 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
If that was true, Nu-metal should have gone away by now.
It hasn't:
A 21 piece Nu-metal band just formed and began gigging around my town.
Called 'White American'.
― Andrew, Tuesday, 18 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)