Why can't bands keep their level

There were no signs of decline whatsoever in Art Zoyd's output until
Armageddon (Armageddon itself is a strange album that surely doesn't qualify
for the highest ratings but that's because of its concept and function, not
because of diminishing powers); I just ordered Phase V and have no reason to
expect anything else than something great. It's so sad that Hourbette dies
recently; I think he still had lots to offer.

I saw Holger Czukay live in 2009 at the age of 71 and he was still creative
and sharp as a musician; he played quite a bit of new material that was
great, but hardly anything of this was ever released (a small bit is on
"Eleven Years Innerspace", I think). Ageing comes in thrusts and I think he
had a tough job caring for his longtime ill wife then, and aged strongly
himself before his death in 2017, but as long as he could, he was going
strong.

I just listen to 2005 music of contemporary composer Alvin Curran, born 1938
(as Czukay) and he's absolutely on 100% there; I heard newer stuff and he
still is; he still does live things occasionally and doesn't come across as
getting old and tired at all. Stockhausen was pretty bonkers at the end but
his music was still innovative. It's totally possible.

Fred Frith and John Zorn are still doing well. Being more avantgarde and
oppositional seems to help.

I'm pretty sure that drugs and alcohol play a big role in some people's
(incl. many rock musicians) ageing before time. Sober does better in the long
run (despite probably missing out on something at 20ish).

Because I have started this thread, I have to admit, that my question might have not been accurate enough. The question should have been, "Why does some progressive rock bands can't keep their level?"
So, yes, it's true - there are some who kept their level. To a certain extend. But did anyone with a big name made his best work in the later years? I don't think so.
And I believe we collected a lot of reasons why this is the case. I have found a few reasons in this discussion that makes most sense to me - so for me, my question is answered.

siLLy puPPy wrote: Mortte wrote: 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 have to disagree. While Joe's Garage never did much for me, and his canon is surely a spotty affair, i find albums like Thing-Fish and Too Late To Save A Drowning Witch to be utterly brilliant. Granted the earliest stuff was some of the best but Zappa held up in the creativity department even if it didn't appeal to everyone whereas bands like Yes, Genesis and the other suspects turned into the worst possible crap you could imagine. Zappa had turkeys from the beginning. Cruising with Rueben and the Jets was not very good IMHO. One thing that made Zappa more interesting for me is that he always changed the band members up to add more creative juices to flow. I think new chemistry is the key. Just my take on it. Many others can't stand the newer Zappa stuff but i've always loved it myself.

I like Cruising With Ruben, althought don´t think it´s his sixties genius albums, just like I don´t also think Freak Out! to be although like it too. I believe Cruising was not meant to taken seriously already in the beginning, it´s more just "let´s have fun with the old times"-album (I believe that´s the reason it´s released originally under pseudonym).

Edited by Mortte - September 10 2018 at 02:57

That music artists write a lot of music that ends up being recorded for future use when they are only in their early teens is a very common occurrence such as Greg Lake's Lucky Man, for example. After the initial creative drive, many dry up in their late 20's, which is also very common. Hence the rise and decline of the artist's music, especially in the 70's when many artists took off early on in the decade.

Edited by SteveG - September 10 2018 at 06:46

Some bands simply have a shelf life and once they hit that, they are done creatively. Sometimes, they implode due to personal issues between the members, sometimes members perish, sometimes they just run out of ideas. 

Maybe fans should be allowed to reassign prog band members into new bands, to foster innovation?