Why can't bands keep their level

I am also passionate music lover, this place is great when there are others too (at the moment I haven´t got any really close friend that is as passionate with music as I).

First of all: It is all in the eye of the beholder, or rather the ear of the listener; the bands would probably not agree. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Pink Floyd was mentioned, and for me that's a good example of a band that was very creative in their youth, and later on got too predictable and commercial for these ears. The music became more conservative, and studies do show that people generally become more conservative as they age since they are less likely to take risks and try new things. That said, the refinement that can come with age is not necessarily a bad thing at all. Experience matters, and a veteran can have a better sense of what works.

I definitely think that some artists/ composers (classical music has been mentioned) can continue to make great and influential music throughout their lives. Beethoven's glorious 9th wasn't composed until he was in his 50's as I recall (he died a few years later). Those who take composition very seriously and are well trained in it refine and learn as they get older -- the best art I think tends to come from not only those who continue to try new things, but are always learning, always seeking, and striving to improve. They are open-minded people, at least in their fields, who never completely lose the passion, the desire to be creative and to push themselves.   The music may be less innovative or edgy and more conventional as they become older, but experience is gained. There are many novelists who put out their greatest works when they were older -- some didn't get published until they were older. With many bands, I think the experience tends to leave these people more tired, in a rut, as well as less willing to take risks and experiment (music may become overly formulaic and they're just going though the motions). I find it sad when you get these old music artists who are just playing their old stuff -- reliving their "glory years" for nostalgic audience members who look back fondly on their youths, often at the cost of not growing and expanding one's tastes and enjoying the present to the the fullest potential. For a time I was living in an old age home. I was young, but it was because of my job, and I found the old-time music selection for old-timers quite depressing. Sure some very old people revert back to memories of their youth, but I felt that this was sad and not helping to keep these people living in the present moment and for today. I'm already at the point (I'm only in my 40s) of becoming too nostalgic and reverting to childhood passions.

philipemery wrote: Solos aren't necessary. 10 minute expositions aren't necessary.

Some of the creativity burst in the beginning was due to bands competing against each other!  This is well documented...Yes, King Crimson, ELP and Genesis etc. were out to prove who could play faster, more complex pieces and draw more attention. 

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.

Yeah, but Pink Floyd is a weird case, since (at least for me), just about all of their albums are at least good. And they have so many fans that some will easily like the sound of one era, while not really being able to get into the sound of another (some love them because of their pop sensibilities, some love them because of their experimentation, some love them because of their long musical instrumental passages). However, I dare you find someone who likes Heaven & Earth (or Tormato, Union, The Ladder) more than Close to the Edge, Fragile, or The Yes album (yeah yeah, I know, there's tastes for everyone and you might actually find someone out there who does like H&E better).

siLLy puPPy wrote: Always exceptions of course, Frank Zappa seemed to have a big enough following through all his phases of his existence, but of course, he was an exception and not the rule.

To me Zappa is one of the biggest examples how creativity is great in the youth, but low when you get older. I think Zappa made genius records in the sixties, but right in the begin of seventies started to just recycle his old ideas. Most of the seventies albums are ok, but just ok, they lack the greatness of those sixties albums. I listened quite recently the whole Joe´s Garage first time and about it "humour" I have to say he really was those in this rock business who has really big macho ego, that I really haven´t ever find anything great.

I also don't hold with the idea that creativity is a function of youth. Most jazz musicians get better with age. You get more experience, more ideas, as you get older - some times. It's not black and white, some musicians get better, some get lazy and worse. Jazz tends to be a musical genre with non static personnel, though. 

One additional thing - bands tend to stick together. The drummer is rubbish, the bass player is a one trick pony, but you stay together as you're friends or contracted to do so. Or it all ends in "creative differences" and bad output, anyway. Sometimes, when you're trying to play with other people, you have to accept that what you're producing is a joint effort and you don't always agree about the way someone's done something. Unless you play all the instruments yourself, that's what's going to happen. 

One of the problems is building on ideas. You can release an album which works perfectly: the next idea sounds great in theory but turns out bad in practice. By the time you've started recording, you're somewhat committed to it and it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to change direction. There also used to be the idea that you'd release an album once a year, when albums should have been released when the artist was ready.

Then, you have a music company who are paying a group of long haired weirdoes to sit around smoking dope rather than producing "product", going on tour and making money for them. So pressure is put on to churn some stuff out.