You would think that bands would only get better as they age, but it seems like for pretty much every band you can say "their early work was their best."

I mean this song by Queen is amazing in so many ways:


But songs on their later albums, like The Miracle album just feel so completely uninspired.

two reasons -

first, the first music that you hear by a band sets your impression of them and what you think in your mind they should sound like. when they progress later on into something else, it doesnt sound as good.

second, people have only so many good ideas, and tend to use them up first. then, later on they have to grasp at their lesser ideas to continue to put stuff out.


there ARE some bands that get better, though. often its with a lineup change, though. newer amorphis beats out some of the older one, imo. not that its not all good, but they started to stagnate and get not so good for a cd or two. then they got a new singer and revitalized their sound becoming better than ever.

so it does happen, its just rare.

The general opinion about Pink Floyd for instance is that their 8th, 9th and 11th studio album are the best so that band didn't go downhill.

I highly disagree but that's a different story.

age

I think this partly stems from bands that become more mainstream and corporate. When an artist becomes a servant to the label, the creativity gets sucked out. Having said that, I think what you are saying isn't really a general rule of thumb like you make it sound like it is. I think it's a side effect of listening to music that has been "corporatized" for lack of a better word. "Real" artists usually develop their skills over time and in many cases produce work equal or "better" than their previous works. This topic is laden with so much opinion though. That's how I see it. I don't seem to have this kind of issue with most music I listen to at least.

Money makes you numb.

I think it's got more to do with growing up as both people and as musicians. I've heard a lot of artists say that after they write a certain record, they've no desire to continue to write that record over and over for many years. I guess it has to do with finding yourself as a performer and as a songwriter.

Tom Waits once said that an artist's first two records are a collection of his influences, it's the third record that really defines his own voice.

not writing the same album doesnt mean you have to suck, though. you could write an even better one.



i agree with this though. i can think of a lot of metal bands that all started with fairly similar death metal influences, but then after a few cds branched out into their own, totally different sounds.

Different styles of music and wanting the music to appeal to the audience rather than to themselves.

It is not always this - bands like Maiden for instance are constantly striving for fresh material - and sometimes, that means breaking the mould or stereotype and going outside the box. It's not always for fame or popular culture, alot of the time it's simply wanting to do something slightly different, go in a new direction etc.

Real fans of bands don't bitch and cry about selling out - they accept that after xxyears a band is entitled to want to fan out, spread the fanbase, generate new interest or just plain try something new.