When has a band or artist had their day ?

Post Reply New Topic

I know there are bands or artists today who still perform after a number of decades they've been around and that makes them even more admirable but I don't always like the berating they get sometimes because of their age. I mean the Rolling Stones get that because now they now in their 70s or early 80s, Sir Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and Cliff Richard are about the same age, Iggy Pop probably gets detested from some younger people because he still performs in his 70s showing off his bare torso. I watched him once at Glastonbury on TV and quite enjoyed his performances despite thinking as a teenager that he was ''a bit old'' to do that. I've heard of artists who made massive come-backs 10, 15 or 20 years later such as Tiny Turner who a number of hits in the 80s in her mid to late 40s and even when Freddie Mercury performed with Queen at Wembley in the 80s despite being big in the 70s there was a huge resurgence in them at the time. I also seem to think that even much younger artists are frowned upon because it seems to them that they have had their day according to them. I mean I remember someone talking about Madonna and her performances today and saying people berate her for her physique because she is not quite the same as she was in the 80s and even said that from as early as 35 she was persuaded to kind of give up on it.

[opinion=mine]

When the amount of time they were "on the charts" is far shorter than the time since their last hit recording.

"One-Hit Wonders" are particularly good examples.  "Brandy" by Looking Glass was arguably the twelfth most popular song of 1972; but 50 years later, it is still the group's only charted hit.

You can safely say that Looking Glass has had their day.

[/opinion]

1. When few are willing to pay to see them in concert

2. When they are physically unable to perform.

There are plenty of Classic Rock/hits/Soul/Oldies acts that have not charted in decades but their concerts sell out.

Long-running bands and artists are in a Catch-22 situation. The audience only wants to hear the early hits that made their reputation, and gets restive if there's too much "boring new crap" in the show. But at the same time, everyone sneers at them for only playing old material: "they're just their own tribute act nowadays. Sad."

When Kerry King is the only remaining founding member.

Also, when Dave Mustaine is the only remaining founding member.

I got to thinking about the opposite, and so many who went out way too early, and way too many by suicide

Most recently, Avicii, who barely exceeded the requirements to join the 27 club*, all of whom I wish had hung around longer. 2/3 of the Whitlams too.

So many more.

Wish Leonard Cohen had too, but I'm pretty sure he was ready to go.

*
"Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and Jim Morrison all died at the age of 27 between 1969 and 1971. At the time, the coincidence gave rise to some comment,[13][14] but it was not until Kurt Cobain's 1994 death, at age 27, that the idea of a "27 Club" began to catch on in public perception"

Leonard Cohen (who I adore) is an interesting case. Never quite what you'd call a mainstream star, more a cult figure, so he was able to keep putting out fresh records long after most popular musicians would've been trapped in back-catalogue hell. He was forced back into touring in his old age after his manager swindled him out of his rights. To everyone's surprise, including his, he absolutely loved it and so did the audiences. I've only seen video footage as tickets were beyond my means at the time. But I don't think I've ever seen a musician look quite so chuffed to be out on stage. He died on tour, doing something he loved at the end of a long and eventful life.

Yeah, I know. I was lucky enough to see him once, it was just amazing.

You really got a sense of him as a humble man, having fun, and uh words escape tonight.



Had mainly only listened to studio recordings before, so hadn't picked up all the self-deprecating humour like there about his 'golden voice'.

Paul Kelly was the opener, who is an Aussie who also is a way better writer & composer than actual singer, but like Leonard is a such a great entertainer anyhow.

He really fitted in to, also quite modest yet so talented.

I have a imperfect theory on this.

It seems to me that when artists start to create music they do so out of compulsion. They might not have mastered their instruments yet and they haven't perfected a method. Because of this the music has an urgency, a vitality, that elevates it.

Later in their careers the compulsion to create is gone, they're just perpetuating their careers. They've become skilled at playing and polished in their craft. The result is music that sounds too polished, less 'real'.

David Byrne was once asked about his poor singing. He replied that the better someone sings the harder it is to believe what they're saying. I think there's something to that and I'd extend it to the musicians ability to play and their understanding of music.

I think that's the threshold artists cross and the point at which their music becomes less interesting.

Yeah not a bad point, and I think probably pretty accurate for most artists.

That early fiery intensity of creation burns down or out; or gets subsumed by fame, success, or just the fact that life is no longer such a struggle.

Of course with notable exceptions.

I think the last few comments have raised some interesting points in that they make me thinknof my own hobbies and interests which though not music related, do follow "Patterns" innthe same way, except in these patterns I seem to have gone in a kind of circle in a way, and grasped back to re-invent where I was in the past but adding the years of experience into them.
An example is in model railways where I, like many others had a quest as I grew up and aged for models that had greater and greater realism and worked smoother, but now, I have taken a different "Stance" on this because I was not enjoying it, because perfection was a goal that I personally could never achieve. I worked out why some new ultra detailed models made my older models look outdated and yet I never noticed the old models were outdated before! It was all in the lack of consistency!
Then model prices doubled, and have more or less doubled again and then one can add the price on top of that again of where this sentence started to the price again to show where they are now, and that is in just 20 years. Not even in the high inflation of the 1970's to '80's did I see such inflated prices which are many times inflation as the two main manufacturers started taking loans and grants and tried taking over everyone else (And we the customers are left to foot the bill).
So I changed my angle of approach and got out of the mainstream buying market and started to make my own in a different scale instead, and I have gone back to low detail but "Fun" stuff which I enjoy the most!
(Have had a similar "Turn around" in my thoughts and views of bicycles as have been in and out of the bicycle trade in different positions during my life so I have "Been there, done that" and have (If they still fit me) "Got the tee shirt(s)" (Rather given the tee shirts for doing well etc). And my approachnon what works best, and what I like and disslike has had a turnaround where I am no longer interested in re-inventions of modern cycling technology as they re-invent things "Claiming" that they are "New" when they are certainly not! And yet the technological fashion comes in and dies a death several years later for th3 exact same reasons it came in and died a death in the past! So my approach to what I prefer and like and dislike causes me to almost be a traditionalist, after the many years of repairing, servicing, riding and working with the things, I know what works and works well and I know what best to leave out... And my now old but re-invented little bicycle fleet reflects this).

But going back to music. Music is a subject that is also always changing but one "Theme" I see which kinda mirrors a similar pattern is old being re-invented again and again, but also, a settling down to the traditions (Whatever they may be) because it works best for them.

As far as the singers themselves as individuals are, they are past it when their voices have seen better days.
I do realize that it is hard to sing new songs again and again as new ideas either flow or they don't flow, and it can take time before the next idea comes along and meanwhile one needs to practice the old incase one is called to play it.
So I really appreciate the work that goes in to stay out there as it ain't easy at all!
But I would say that it is when it stops becoming fun and starts becoming a burden is when one needs to take an break and put the brakes on! But this does not mean one has to say "No" for the future.
I for one have found in my two main interests is that I have re-invented them by stepping back into the past and adding my depth of knowledge learned over the years to be able to take the past and bring the past on into the present and hopefully the future in ways that improve the past to be better then the present currently offers, as I have personally been involved with all the various aspects of alterations and technicalities and I jolly well know what works and what stores up problems, and I can avoid the ones that are problems and hold onto those that work, and work well.
Musicians likely have a similar approach.

It reminds me about the cycle of life when a young person will leave the education system with whatever they have achieved, and enter life in work and explore whatever direction they take, and if they are doing well, will get a mortgage on a small "Starter" house and hopefully marry and start a family. They progress further and hopefully pay off the mortgage and trade up to a bigger house and repeat this cycle until when they retire they find all they need is that small basic starter house that was easier to keep clean and tidy and did not require vast amounts of work or effort to keep, so they sell off or give away all their multitudes of weathy assets to live simply again in a little house they find which feels back where they started, but they have the experience to know that it is best, and it is what they need! They are still managing and coping and enjoying life, which is what it is all about isn't it?

I used to take a guy on my train as a passenger regularly. He had been in a famous rock band that was later abandoned as the musicians had spent years in their youth hitting the charts, but he ended up in his later 40's or early 50's when I saw him enjoying life just doing a few gigs at clubs and pubs, and he said that when they were in the charts, it was all work and travelling and though they were earning lots of money and had lots of fame it just slipped through their fingers. Was all that work and not much enjoyment. And yet he said that today just doing the occasional gig a week or every other week he was enjoying himself and was having fun again, and was earning enough to get by on so he was happy!
And he had been there, done that! He was happy when he found that point where he was enjoying life again!
Success is NOT neccessarily when one is famous. Success is when one has found that point of enjoyment and staying there and earning enough to survive. One does not have to be rich. Just enough to be happy.

But the key is that if their voices are no longer as great as they were, isto have new songs that suit their voices better. That way they can continue and enjoy! The key is to enjoy!