Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Why do prog artists peak out?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhy do prog artists peak out?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
Message
tarkus1980 View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: March 29 2010
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Points: 233
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:00
"Ok, many was an exageration, but there are more than you mention, imo. 'Throwing it all away' 'Anything she does' 'No reply at all' 'Alone Tonight' and even the verses of 'Fading Lights' (great song all the same). I think Collins even covered 'Behind the Lines' on a solo album"
 
"Throwing it All Away" - Rutherford ballad, Collins had little to do with it.
"Anything She Does" - Banks song, Collins had little to do with it.
"No Reply at All" - Way, WAY too awkward and bizarre (in a good way) to fit in on a Collins album.
"Alone Tonight" - Rutherford ballad, Collins had little to do with it.
"Fading Lights" - Again, I was referring to pre-WCD songs
"Behind the Lines" - Collins "covered" the song by removing everything interesting about it
 
"But, the whole character of the bands sound and approach to songwriting did change, and one of those principle changes was a relative simplicity in the arrangements which when married to that horrible production, came across as pop music which was a million miles from their prog output. "
 
What Genesis did in the first half of the 80's was refract their natural prog instincts through 80's New Wave, larging taking it upon themselves to be the godfathers of synth pop, pushing in the weirdest directions it could go.  This idea that the band somehow abandoned its progressive ideas, when they were still putting out weird stuff like "Duke's Travels," "Dodo/Lurker," "Home by the Sea," "Domino," "The Brazilian" and others is just bizarre to me.
 
The production doesn't bother me until IT; the albums before it sounded way too classy for me to complain about them.
"History of Rock Written by the Losers."
Back to Top
thellama73 View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:04
I've often thought about this question, and my answer is that age isn't the problem but rather fame a fortune. Most classical composers were rather poor and unknown at the time of their death, whereas rock artists make a lot of money and get a lot of critical praise. This probably makes them lazy and uninspired. Anyway, that's my theory.
Back to Top
OT Räihälä View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2005
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 514
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:34
Henry, Friso (and a few others) have had many good points.

Basically, in classical music and jazz, composers/musicians are individuals, whereas prog bands (or any bands) are usually collectives. If they are not, they break up, or the leader continues with changing line-ups.

One point that to me seems quite important is the nature of the music, especially what comes to classical/contemporary art music. It takes a lifetime to learn to do things, and apart from quite few child prodigies (Mozart, Mendelssohn, Prokofjev, Shostakovich) most musicians have matured slowly, and at some cases they find their feet only in later years. A prime example is Leos Janacek, who had written a few quite successful works, and then hit the jackpot with his late works, when already aged over sixty.

In rock/pop music and prog people very seldom push the borders to the extreme. They rather work on paths, that have already been stamped by somebody. In such cases it is very hard to make really lasting, original art, as it is hard to do anything original in general.

Just my tuppence worth...
Back to Top
lazland View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13173
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 11:54
I was listening to Hackett's new album on the way home from work tonight, and I would venture to suggest that here is one artist who has most certainly not peaked out. The composition & musicianship is supreme. There are other examples - Marillion, for example, consistently come up with fresh & ezxciting material, whilst the last two IQ albums have been, IMO, the peak of a long career.

As ever, it depends upon the artist(s). The references to Gabriel are a little unfair, I think. Up was a great album - I just wish he could produce a new original work to prove all the doubters wrongWink
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 12:26
Originally posted by lazland lazland wrote:

I was listening to Hackett's new album on the way home from work tonight, and I would venture to suggest that here is one artist who has most certainly not peaked out.

Hackett did go through a slump phase where he tried to make more commercial accessible albums, but fortunately got over it. Big smile

But yeah, there are a lot of musicians that were around in the '70's and made great prog for a while, but seem a lot less inspired these days.  So if I were to explain it, after an inspired burst, sometimes they just lose it.
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
BaldFriede View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10256
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 12:58
Originally posted by Isa Isa wrote:

Why is it so common (and we all know it is) that so many of even the greatest prog bands and composers get better, peak out, then slump in their discography? Wouldn't your compositional skill improve with age?

I ask this because in my studies in music history, most of the classical greats, especially Beethoven, Bach, and Handel, only got better at composing as they got older, and many released their most profound works just before they died.

This seems even true for most of the great jazz artists, like John Coltrane, Miles Davis (before he sold out), and Herbie Hancock, all who continuously put out highly acclaimed works and played with great groups their whole lives.

I'm certainly not trying say these two genres are superior to prog. I'd say prog is anything as diverse and innovative in composition techniques as they are.

But why do prog bands, even the greatest and most commercially successful, burn out overtime, almost seemingly more often than not? Certainly there are some exceptions, but it seems more a general rule to peak at a certain point in the band or composer's career and the several albums after that never get better.

Maybe prog bands tend to have more friction between members? Then why not the jazz groups? Does prog try so hard to be unique and innovative that composers run out of their innovative ideas to fast? It's certainly a relevant and interesting question.

I don't think this can be generalized, but the answer is quite simple: (though I would not call it "burnout"). You have to develop as an artist. if you don't develop then what you have is stagnation, and that#s the real problem, not burnout. Some people, including musicians, are afraid of the changes that come with developing.


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 15:07
Originally posted by Isa Isa wrote:

Why is it so common (and we all know it is) that so many of even the greatest prog bands and composers get better, peak out, then slump in their discography? Wouldn't your compositional skill improve with age?
 
In general yes.
 
However, you have to consider the context ... a Guernica makes no sense by itself, except a weird/damaged mind. But in the middle of the Spanish Civil War ... it's another story! The same with music. And film. I actually find that surrealism as exemplified by Dali/Bunuel was much more of a snapshot of the war in Spain than anything else ... where else are you going to see such savage imagery except in the middle of dead bodies and animals?
 
The atmosphere helps define a lot of things. The atmosphere in London, artistically, is one of the biggest reasons for it all to happen, and it had its start in the 50's in film and theater, and it kinda "ended" with the progressive and excessive nature and ... drugs! Everyone loves Epitath, and it is one of the biggest anti-war anthems ... and it makes massive sense when you find out that it was written right in the middle of the IRA stuff and massive anti-VietNam demonstrations in London ...
 
Compositional skills don't always improve with age. And the best example I can give you is the very bands listed here ... barely a handful of them did more in time, than just repeat themselves. And that is the best example I can give you. Sometimes "fame" stinx.
 
Quote I ask this because in my studies in music history, most of the classical greats, especially Beethoven, Bach, and Handel, only got better at composing as they got older, and many released their most profound works just before they died.
 
Music in those days, was vastly different. It had not, and would not, and did not, consider or use a lot of "popular" works per se ... and this is something that the 20th century brought to the table. The radio, LP, Cassette and CD, busted the definitions of music and will continue to do so for the next 50 years ... no longer will EVER music be define by the "elite" standards that have been their staple for hundreds of years. You have to see that bigger picture ... the history of music and where rock/jazz/popular blew out the old stuff is much more visible and linear if you draw the line on the blackboard ... and you can write down ever 50 years some musical specialties ... you can see where the formula for music was breaking down even more in the 20th century ... and I really think that jazz, rock and blues were the most important factors in that equation.

Quote This seems even true for most of the great jazz artists, like John Coltrane, Miles Davis (before he sold out), and Herbie Hancock, all who continuously put out highly acclaimed works and played with great groups their whole lives.
 
While there are very nice things, these folks are no different than any other composer or musicians when it comes to repeating themselves. Miles' greatest asset was that he didn't care where he went ... and his bad boy attitude helped create some very nice musical moments.
 
Quote I'm certainly not trying say these two genres are superior to prog. I'd say prog is anything as diverse and innovative in composition techniques as they are.
 
Superiority is only in the mind of the moron that is defining it -- because he thinks that savages, or others,  don't do music! Sometimes I really think some of these "progressive" boards are this insensitive, because no one from Mexico, Colombia or Chile can do "progressive" music, but a band that is 3rd rate in London can!
 
Quote But why do prog bands, even the greatest and most commercially successful, burn out overtime, almost seemingly more often than not? Certainly there are some exceptions, but it seems more a general rule to peak at a certain point in the band or composer's career and the several albums after that never get better.
 
The only way you can "burnt out" is when you are not doing something that is the true you, and an image of yourself. The day you have to change your "image", you and I are not going to like it and they are no longer "progressive (for example), and that is the biggest issue. In general, one of the reasons why I never considered ELP "progressive" was exactly that ... it became an image of themselves and their fame, and the music was not the focus anymore ... their fame was ... and that is the biggest example of what megalomaniac and egocentric behavior will do for you!
 
Genesis is the same thing, even though the massive interview with Peter Gabriel as he left was quite honorable, and had more to do with artistic reasons and freedom of expression than anything else. Without saying it, the seeds were already set for "fame" ... and he wanted the freedom more than the fame at the time. What he didn't tell us is that he just wanted to do his own material, not anyone else's! And his own material was not any more progressive, though it did a little more with external musicians and world folks, which is nice. And was certainly more "with it" and educated than what Genesis did from that point on with watered down lyrics and songs.
 
Quote Maybe prog bands tend to have more friction between members? Then why not the jazz groups? Does prog try so hard to be unique and innovative that composers run out of their innovative ideas to fast? It's certainly a relevant and interesting question.
 
Friction is everywhere. And it is one of the things that helps create good music in a group sometimes. When the group is not willing to work beyond their personal stuff, the friction kills the group.  But you must remember that music history has been about "one composer" and in the past 75 years it has been almost exclusively to a "group" ... and this is also going to change the concept of "composition" and "creativity" ... all of a sudden "mozart" is not one person ... it's 4 and is called "beatles" or "genesis" ... or whatever!
 
"Peak'ing" is an illusion that is more for the commercial benefit of "fans" than a reality. I have been writing poems for 30 years. I have a favorite or two. But there is no "peak" in what I do. To me that's even "stupid" and only shows how much someone does not know the arts ... and are only considering the commercial aspects of it all!  --->>> The same fault that befals the list of the top 100 in this board!!!
 
From my point of view you're going to have problems with the idea and concept if you don't define the old concepts compared to the new concepts in music. There are very few "single" composers today, and you are not discussing Mike Oldfield, Vangelis Papathanassiou, Riuichi Sakamoto or Klaus Schulze, which means you are walking into an academic trap.


Edited by moshkito - July 15 2010 at 15:21
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
WalterDigsTunes View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 11 2007
Location: SanDiegoTijuana
Status: Offline
Points: 4373
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 15:21
^

You've been blabbering on and on for ages, yet all of your posts are equally  -->>> "unreadable"... and pointless!
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16045
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 15:24
Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

^

You've been blabbering on and on for ages, yet all of your posts are equally  -->>> "unreadable"... and pointless!
 
With all due respect you are only showing your commercial and unartistic side. Ohhh , excuse me  ... your 3 minute song side! How progressive of you!
 
You could never appreciate War and Peace anyway ...


Edited by moshkito - July 15 2010 at 15:26
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
KingCrimson250 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 29 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 573
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 16:36
Originally posted by OT Räihälä OT Räihälä wrote:

Henry, Friso (and a few others) have had many good points.

Basically, in classical music and jazz, composers/musicians are individuals, whereas prog bands (or any bands) are usually collectives. If they are not, they break up, or the leader continues with changing line-ups.

One point that to me seems quite important is the nature of the music, especially what comes to classical/contemporary art music. It takes a lifetime to learn to do things, and apart from quite few child prodigies (Mozart, Mendelssohn, Prokofjev, Shostakovich) most musicians have matured slowly, and at some cases they find their feet only in later years. A prime example is Leos Janacek, who had written a few quite successful works, and then hit the jackpot with his late works, when already aged over sixty.

In rock/pop music and prog people very seldom push the borders to the extreme. They rather work on paths, that have already been stamped by somebody. In such cases it is very hard to make really lasting, original art, as it is hard to do anything original in general.

Just my tuppence worth...


I also think that it has to do with the fact that once you're in a band, you're more or less shackled to one or two particular sounds. Most of the jaaz and classicals mentioned here would often get new inspiration from checking out something else, either they'd go to a foreign nation and hear something cool, or some new fad would catch their eye, etc. The problem is that as soon as you're in a band setting, you've got to be able to convince the other people you're playing with that your new inspiration is something worth chasing after.

"Hey guys, I just got back from France on vacation, and some of the bands there are doing these amazing things with jazz/prog metal!"
"French fusion? Go to hell, man. We don't play that kind of thing."

This is kind of how I imagine it when bands try to re-invent themselves.

Disclaimer: I have no idea if French bands are actually making amazing jazz/prog metal or not.
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Online
Points: 25891
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 17:02

A lot of what is regarded as classic prog was recorded in the early seventies. This was a natural time for innovation and pushing boundaries. Technology was moving forward quickly and there was a hunger for progressive music. Bands were inspired and competed with each other to produce that jaw dropping masterpeice.

This created almost a distorted view of prog and the musicians involved. Once you get past the seventies the whole ball game changes as progressive music becomes less in demand. Bands seem to be more consistent but less inspired. So there is more of a plateau affect rather the crashing over the edge of a cliff (creatively speaking) that happened to a number of bands at the end of the seventies.
Back to Top
Marcusmax View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 18:45
Again, some very interesting reading here. In simple terms, I agree that the issue is probably mostly to do with the group vs. the individual. It's very hard to sustain real quality of artistic output when that output depends on several individuals collaborating, because relationships are forever changing and the resulting dynamics are not always suited to the creative process. There are several individual composers within the broad spectrum of progressive music who have continued to produce good work through the years. Many have been mentioned already but I would also add Kate Bush (I think Aerial is a masterpiece), David Sylvian and probably David Byrne among others. Emerson's latest CD, mostly composed by himself with some collaboration from Mark Bonilla, was brilliant in my view. Some of these started as members of bands, like Gabriel too, but had the strength/commitment/talent to keep composing as solo artists. I do think it's down to the fact that composing music is mostly a solo affair just like other art forms. Imagine a group of people trying to write a great novel or screenplay, paint a picture etc. These things rely on the individual. Of course in modern music there have been great examples of collaborative creativity such as all the bands we know and love but I think this by its nature is doomed to be short-lived whereas an individual can keep going for years if so inclined. Also, the collaborative thing probably works best when you're younger. The older we get the more fussy, particular and idiosyncratic we generally become, making collaboration more difficult. 

Hope I'm not doing too much pointless blabbering here! Ouch  Wink 
Back to Top
Progosopher View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2009
Location: Coolwood
Status: Offline
Points: 6393
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 19:09
Could it be, maybe, just possibly, that many of our exalted artists are not the geniuses our fanboy tendencies make them?  That they have a certain talent the pursuit of which offers some rewards?  Rock is a popular medium and even though some artists we celebrate on this site are not willing to sacrifice quality for commercial sales I will wager there is not a one of them (or at least very few such as Syd Barrett but then again he went off the deep end) who would not be overjoyed at becoming a commercial success.  In the world of popular music, Prog is the exception rather than the rule.  If it had not become popular 40 years ago very little of what is listened to on this site would exist today.  So a musician may be talented, but not a genius. 
 
I reject the notion that Prog artists lose their compositional edge as they age.  Maybe their inspiration, yes, and inspiration counts for much in Rock, but some of the more recent releases by Vangelis, Hackett, and Oldfield, for three examples, have displayed to my ears a great deal of compositional skill they did not have earlier in their careers.  Vangelis' Mythodea is generally not highly rated by members of this community, but it has a maturity to it that only comes with time.  I think it is the best piece of music he has ever recorded.  It is not, however, my favorite.  Artists who have tasted success in the past tend to want to maintain it, if not increase it.  Thus, the music they release moves with the times to greater or lesser success commercially and artistically.  Take Ian Anderson for example, poster boy for the burned-out has-been, resting on his laurels.  Yes, he has rehashed a lot of old music recently, but compare the way he plays flute now to his playing in the 70s.  Much, much better.  Compositions like Griminelli's Lament were just not within his grasp thirty-five years ago, both as a player and as a composer.  Unfortunatley, the old stuff sells better.
 
So, are we listening to the music from the perspective of a writer/composer/musician, or are we listening as a fan?  The two are really very different.
The world of sound is certainly capable of infinite variety and, were our sense developed, of infinite extensions. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty"
Back to Top
Marcusmax View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2010
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 27
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2010 at 20:02
Originally posted by Progosopher Progosopher wrote:

Could it be, maybe, just possibly, that many of our exalted artists are not the geniuses our fanboy tendencies make them?..... So a musician may be talented, but not a genius. 

Yes I agree with this. When I say 'masterpiece' etc in relation to e.g. a Kate Bush album I mean that as a relative term. Of course compared to a Bach, Stravinsky or Debussy our prog 'composers' are not in the same league by any stretch. However, it's important to compare like with like and in the limited world of a particular genre of music we can possibly allow ourselves a little licence, no? So in the world of modern broadly popular music Peter Gabriel or Steve Hackett or whoever could be considered a genius by the side of some fluffy latter-day pop star who churns out yet another commercial hit according to the latest formula. Hopefully we know here that our 'geniuses' can only be regarded as such in a very limited context. Big fish in a small pond? (I know pop ain't prog but at the end of the day it's all related.)       
Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 04:25
Originally posted by tarkus1980 tarkus1980 wrote:

"Ok, many was an exageration, but there are more than you mention, imo. 'Throwing it all away' 'Anything she does' 'No reply at all' 'Alone Tonight' and even the verses of 'Fading Lights' (great song all the same). I think Collins even covered 'Behind the Lines' on a solo album"
 
"Throwing it All Away" - Rutherford ballad, Collins had little to do with it.
"Anything She Does" - Banks song, Collins had little to do with it.
"No Reply at All" - Way, WAY too awkward and bizarre (in a good way) to fit in on a Collins album.
"Alone Tonight" - Rutherford ballad, Collins had little to do with it.
"Fading Lights" - Again, I was referring to pre-WCD songs
"Behind the Lines" - Collins "covered" the song by removing everything interesting about it
 
"But, the whole character of the bands sound and approach to songwriting did change, and one of those principle changes was a relative simplicity in the arrangements which when married to that horrible production, came across as pop music which was a million miles from their prog output. "
 
What Genesis did in the first half of the 80's was refract their natural prog instincts through 80's New Wave, larging taking it upon themselves to be the godfathers of synth pop, pushing in the weirdest directions it could go.  This idea that the band somehow abandoned its progressive ideas, when they were still putting out weird stuff like "Duke's Travels," "Dodo/Lurker," "Home by the Sea," "Domino," "The Brazilian" and others is just bizarre to me.
 
The production doesn't bother me until IT; the albums before it sounded way too classy for me to complain about them.
ClapClapClap


Edited by Chris S - July 16 2010 at 04:28
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Back to Top
friso View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 24 2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 2505
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 05:52
Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

^You've been blabbering on and on for ages, yet all of your posts are equally  -->>> "unreadable"... and pointless!


Luckily we have nice forum members like you who can revive these discussions with great comments.
Back to Top
Cactus Choir View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 26 2008
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1035
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 08:41
I think age has an effect on energy and creativity levels. It's easier for a jazz or classical musician to age gracefully than a rock musician, especially if they make high energy music like ELP or Yes. Genesis were always a bit more sedate so maybe time is kinder to them.

Eric Clapton said that when you get to around 35 you've got something that you lose, and I certainly can't think of any of the rock bands I like making their best music after that age.


"And now...on the drums...Mick Underwooooooooood!!!"

"He's up the pub"
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 11:49
Originally posted by Cactus Choir Cactus Choir wrote:

I think age has an effect on energy and creativity levels. It's easier for a jazz or classical musician to age gracefully than a rock musician, especially if they make high energy music like ELP or Yes. Genesis were always a bit more sedate so maybe time is kinder to them.Eric Clapton said that when you get to around 35 you've got something that you lose, and I certainly can't think of any of the rock bands I like making their best music after that age.


There's some truth in that, although there are exceptions for me. Porcupine Tree spring to mind.
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
el böthy View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 27 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 17:05
It´s certainly interesting, and I have a related question.

How come a lot of great musicians, whom in their youth released and wrote a ton of music as they get older just stop doing it... What happend? How come great musicians of their day just don´t care anymore to keep on writing? Is it just a fluke? Don´t they feel the need to make new music? It seems everytime these legendary artist do put out a new album it´s years apart from the latest and I can´t but help the record company had much to do with that.

I guess some do get tired but, and yes, you can relax when you are in your 60´s and 70´s... but a lot just fully stop, ar maybe just tour old material. I can´t wrap my head around that way of seeing things, it´s as they don´t care that much anymore. It´s a bit harsh what I say but... c´mon Waters, pick up a guitar and write some more songs, Fripp seems to be always active but ...with what? Bowie, I´m waiting!

It has something to do with the main question of this thread, but instead of lesser quality I ask about lesser amount of music produced.
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
Back to Top
el böthy View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 27 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 16 2010 at 17:10
Originally posted by thellama73 thellama73 wrote:

I've often thought about this question, and my answer is that age isn't the problem but rather fame a fortune. Most classical composers were rather poor and unknown at the time of their death, whereas rock artists make a lot of money and get a lot of critical praise. This probably makes them lazy and uninspired. Anyway, that's my theory.


Yeah, I think there is something there.
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.195 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.