Why can't bands keep their level

I am with Logan, creativity seems to be strongest in the early age.

I found a lot of meaningful thoughts in all your comments. Which leads to the assumption that there is not just one simple reason.

Edited by The Unifaun - September 07 2018 at 01:57

Is it also the case that rock music was in its infancy in the 60's and 70's?  There were lots of new avenues to explore, lots of low hanging fruit to be picked?

You both probably right. There is nothing really groundbreaking anymore. But there is still some good music. Maybe not as many as in the past, but from time to time, there is a light in the darkness ;-)

I think this has infinitely more to do with the ears of the beholder than the actual artist in that we all prefer different things. I know folks who adore The Final Cut and really can't stomach Ummagumma while I'm the complete opposite. Who's right? What is the real 'level' and when did they hit it?
Swedish band called Dungen that I really really dig and these cats have never released a dud imho - and going on 20 years I think that is quite the feat. Are they groundbreakingly innovative? Nope but I love the music.

But sure most longlasting artists have slums and duds according to one's tastes, but how many people stay on top throughout their careers swarming with crisp ideas and infinite gusto?
Then again some times you need the really bad times in order to grow as a musician/person/chili.

Edited by Guldbamsen - September 07 2018 at 10:16

^ I see that as a case of apples and oranges. Ummagumma or Atom Heart Mother never had the popularity of Fragile or CTTE, and are roughly from the same era.

Mea culpa. I recall a time when popularity was directly related to how good the music was.

Guldbamsen wrote: I think this has infinitely more to do with the ears of the beholder than the actual artist in that we all prefer different things. I know folks who adore The Final Cut and really can't stomach Ummagumma while I'm the complete opposite. Who's right? What is the real 'level' and when did they hit it? Swedish band called Dungen that I really really dig and these cats have never released a dud imho - and going on 20 years I think that is quite the feat. Are they groundbreakingly innovative? Nope but I love the music. But sure most longlasting artists have slums and duds according to one's tastes, but how many people stay on top throughout their careers swarming with crisp ideas and infinite gusto? Then again some times you need the really bad times in order to grow as a musician/person/chili.

I agree. I think Red Krayola is really genius, but also really underrated band. But is it just me who´s thinking that way? I know they have many other fans than me too, but anyway I do not know anyone else in Finland who love them.

I don't think this is actually the case really.

-Pink Floyd... all their later stuff I thought was the work of sheer genius. It was their early stuff I thought was trash, particularly More, Ummagumma, and Obscured by Clouds.

-Styx only improved and got better with time, sans Kilroy.

-StarCastle, I thought improved with every album, except Reel to Real, but that wasn't bad either, just a decent pop/hard rock album vs prog.

-Boston was universally amazing in every album

------------------

I don't view music based on maturity or whatever nonsense. I view it based on:

1. Technical skill
2. Enjoyability

Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, Atomheart Mother, Meddle, The Wall etc are all highly enjoyable, and are bloody works of genius and technical virtuosity (and I judge virtuosity based on musicality, not how flashy people are).

I dislike YES, Rush, and quite a few others because they are just flashy technical show offs. Whereas take Gilmour's solo on Comfortably Numb, one of the single most emotional and gorgeous solos ever performed, imo. Similar to why I don't listen to much ELP (even though I love them, I need to be in the right mood for that).

Thus, a lot of times, for me, their later output ends up being what I consider the greatest, because they are expressing sheer virtuosic and gorgeous music, without needing to be show offs, and have a 10 minute solo that is really unnecessary and wears out its welcome after the first 50 seconds.

Solos aren't necessary. 10 minute expositions aren't necessary.

What is necessary is good music. And too often we prog fans get all high and mighty when someone lets a bit of pop into their music, even though the music is still excellent and still prog. Or we lose it because they don't have 20 minute long solos that take up a whole side of a vinyl. Oh the shame. The world is ending because an artist decides to expand their horizon and explore their music.

That is what prog is about. It is about exploring music and musical ability. And exploration doesn't mean always having to have 20 minute solos, changing key signatures and time signatures 500 times (Dream Theater...).

Taste is generally a subjective thing. I can see why people dislike Momentary Lapse, I personally consider it better than most of the early output. But that's life, diversity in taste.

I think that solos need to fit the music. For example, Pink Floyd "Echoes" I consider a pinnacle of art rock and prog, particularly because it never lets the solos take precedence over the musicality of the piece. It has great keyboard, electric guitar, and slide guitar solos. There are shining moments for all the band members, great atmospherics etc.

But it never takes a break from the sheer brilliant writing and musicality for "show off the musician time."

10 minutes of instrumental genius can be amazing when done in a way that isn't disruptive and, like you said, just to show off.

Echoes - Pink Floyd
Dogs - Pink Floyd
Atom Heart Mother - Pink Floyd
Before the Fall - Babylon
Rime of the Ancient Mariner - Iron Maiden
Devil's Triangle - King Crimson
Lady of the Lake - StarCastle
First and Second Movements - Quill

All sheer genius. And throw a dart at Magma's discography and find 20 minute long works of brilliance just waiting on half their bloody output.

Music is about the journey and the exploration. Solos help us with that exploration, but only when they are actually going somewhere and taking us with them. When people are just showing off, there is no journey happening.

That is why I love David Gilmour on Comfortably Numb in particular. Those solos are filled with so much emotion, that they just drag us into the song, into the tearing and screaming mind of Pink.

I feel like I am sounding like a passionate music teacher, whose losing his mind at a white wall lol.