Why do the bands I fall in love with crap out?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

It seems like I just start getting into them and then the new crappy stuff starts being released.

With very few exceptions.

Is it just me?

[itrainmonkeys]

I think that most of the time we expect something new to be great and if it doesn't meet our expectations immediately then we start to classify stuff as "crap".

Personally, I remember not being a big fan of the newest Cold War Kids album. I liked it but thought it wasn't as good as the first two (the first album is amazing IMO). I listened for a week or so and put it away. Then a few months later I put it on again and I was amazed at how much I liked and/or missed hearing these songs. It was a different experience.

My main point is that the early stuff is what got us into the band and we've spent more time with it. We've likely seen the bands play it live and have fallen in love with certain parts. Then new stuff comes out and it can't live up to the old stuff but I'd suggest giving it some time and revisiting albums that you felt weren't that high quality.

Also, seeing songs live will drastically change how I feel about it. For example, I used to always skip the Felice Brothers song "Goddamn You Jim" because it's slower and brooding and I didn't care for the album version. Then....I saw it live and it was so powerful, so much energy that it became one of my favorites.


What are some examples of bands you've felt this about? I can't think of too many off the top of my head. For me i'd say maybe Wolfmother (who's debut album was a favorite of mine for a while). Though I do understand the band has gone through some changes.

[bartel]

FOR EXAMPLE?

for me kings of leon, black keys (to an extent), band of horses, muse... the list goes on.

[itrainmonkeys]

Kings of Leon are another one I'd agree with. I loved their first 3 albums but since then i've typically only REALLY liked half the songs they put on albums. I do still dig their older stuff but I used to be a much bigger KOL fan.

Black Keys I can kind of see. I love all their material but it's definitely more grungy and loose on the older stuff.

I haven't heard much of Muse or Band of Horse's newer stuff so can't really judge those.

[bold992006]

I think it has to do with a lot of factors.  Mostly bands of our generation are just not that good.  I mean a band can put out a good album but see where that band is 3 albums from that.  Most likely you are not going to be interested anymore.   Even MMJ for me...I lost a lot of interest in them since Z.   There are very few bands that can keep it going and change enough to keep people interested. 

Felice Brothers are one band that have definitely kept my attention.  Their last studio album was a lot different and I thought I wasn't going to be into it as much but it really grew on me and I love it now.  Wilco will always be a band for me that when they put an album out I'm interested because you just don't know what kind of album it will be..they can do country rock to noise rock.   The Black Keys I'll always have interest because I jut think they kill live and they make solid albums.  I think things for them got stale around Magic Potion but they did exactly what you need to do..they changed their sound and it helped them get bigger.  I don't like the music as much as their earlier stuff but I respect that they went out and mixed it up.  You look at the great bands of the past..they were constantly changing.  Coming up with new sounds, ideas...those are hard to find these days. 

[itrainmonkeys]

Felice Brothers are one band that have definitely kept my attention.  Their last studio album was a lot different and I thought I wasn't going to be into it as much but it really grew on me and I love it now.

This makes me so happy to hear  . It's a fantastic album and in many ways is the "first" Felice Brothers album (Ian sometimes calls it that because it's the first studio album they made since his brother Simone left the band). I absolutely love that they switched things up and added some interesting production work. It's a great full album.

Also agree with Wilco. I'm a huge fan of most of their stuff.

[Ruckus]

I think the biggest thing is that a musician's creative juices flow beyond our comfort zones in taste.  We fall for albums that fall in our wheelhouse of taste and so long as it is replicated to some extent, we remain happy with the band.  In general, our subjective tastes tend to be less flexible.  When a band leaves our comfort zone, there are many there to take it's place that are doing the sounds we like better.  Of course there are many exceptions to that rule.  For me, MMJ's first 4 albums and RUSH's first 9 albums are very diverse but I love all of them.  Then they just went into areas that were not comfortable for me but to get 13 albums from two bands that I love is remarkable.

You guys bring up the example of the Felice Bros.  While I enjoy their earlier music, Celebration, FLA is my favorite because it comports most with my tastes.

I fall in line this way with most of my interests, particularly food.

[exist10z]

Because they sell out... Nah, just kidding, sort of.

I think a lot of what Ruckus said is true, the idea that you have a style or type of music that you like best, and when bands are 'fitting in' to that style most, is when you like them best.  I would (and have in another post on the old 'new' board, specifically in relation to people liking newer MMJ less) make the case that it's also about psychology, and where you are in your life when you hear the music. 

Sometimes a certain sound or feeling or style will resonate with where you are in your life at a particular time.  Sometimes you will match up with a particular band for an album, or three, and then the match just won't be there, even if the band is making essentially the 'same' music.  Of course they never actually make the same music, which makes the likelihood of carrying on a long relationship with a band even less likely.  You're changing, they're changing, the chances of you changing together aren't that great over a fairly long period of time.

This is all complicated by the fact that 'selling out', is a real thing.  I don't think it's quite as egregious as we - as music fans, make it out to be for the most part, but it is a factor.  After a band has some success, becomes 'known', there is a chance (likelihood) that instead of simply making music for themselves, they are making music they think others might want to hear.  Sometimes it may be about making more money, it might often be about that, but it may be less about that and more about wanting to continue to be pleasing to the people who've enjoyed them in the past.  Whatever the case, it can't be great for the creative process.  I think it's a rare band who can get past that, past the 'expectations', and continue to simply make the art that they actually have inside them.

I read an interesting article about Grizzly Bear a few days ago, specifically about how 'little' money they actually make despite critical success (I think it was in New York Magazine), and one of the guys mentioned this idea.  He didn't dismiss it, but simply said they couldn't continue to make music if they thought about what other people wanted to hear.  I found this refreshing (although you may doubt its veracity) and hopeful, but I don't think this is necessarily a statement most bands could make with any conviction.

Think about the many bands and artists, where their first album is their best album.  It's a fair number, more than I think you might expect from a perspective that would assign additional experience and practice as an advantage.  Sometimes all the best ideas, all the feeling and emotions, that give the work heft, substance and connection is displayed in the early work.  Obviously there are exceptions.

To use an example we are all familiar with, MMJ, I don't see Z as the start of a downward trajectory, but as a zenith of sorts.  Frankly some (admittedly small) portion of the earlier work is a bit amateurish and derivative - to me, and Z seems a sort of creative high point.  However, this backs up what I said at the start, because Z was the first MMJ I experienced, and it hit me at a time when it fit perfectly with what I wanted to hear, there was an emotional fit.  Just as the earlier albums may have been a perfect fit for others when they heard them.

I have more to say on this, but I've already written too much...

[bold992006]

Selling out..whatever that is these days is always going to be a factor.  The ultimate example for this for me will always be Neil Young.  I can't think of anyone who has not sold out in a way besides Neil Young.  The guy would go out and make albums just to piss off record companies.  It is also a longevity thing.  If you are around long enough to make 20-30 albums some of them are going to suck.  It is just a fact but in those cases usually the greats, their first 4 or 5 albums are really good.  So when you have bands nowadays putting out bad 2nd and 3rd albums you can't have a lot of faith that they are going to be around for the long haul and that you are going to be interested in them.

There are also those bands, like with MMJ for people, that you just automatically feel connected to and feel loyalty to.  Most people if they are that into a band from the start are going to like whatever that band puts out...or at least give it more of a chance.  I'm kind of like that with DBT.  I used to be a huge fan and I haven't liked their last few albums but I'm more likely to go back and give them a chance over some other bands that I hear an album from and just don't like it immediately. 

[Jon T.]

I like ruckus' point. And exis10z or however u spell it. 
I'd also like to throw out an artist's (or band's) pressure to keep evolving. As the artists they are they need to keep growing, and exploring, for all of our benefit (and theirs).  Eventually theyre going to put out some duds. It happens. But, theyll give us some gems, too 

I use M. Ward as an example. All of his albums are enjoyable, but you pretty much know what you're goIng to get at this point. If MMJ put out ISM II and ISM III, we would complain (eventually).  We can't have our cake and eat it too.

I'm too drunk to say what I'd like, plus you guys know more about music than I'll ever know, but if you look at all of the great bands of the past, it's nothing new.

"it's evolution, baby"

[johnnYYac]

I think this is more elementary.

If you fall in love with a band, its likely they're good.  They have talent, write and perform great songs, and have achieved success, perhaps.  With success may come longevity. 

Pink Floyd
Rolling Stones
Grateful Dead

With longevity comes the increased likelyhood that the well will run dry.  They may remain a great band, but the new stuff is less, they get into a rut, or lazy, or bored.

They "sell out".

Or fuck up.

Or die.

Or become reborn...

[el_chode]

My theory with bands like KOL and Muse is they got the wrong kinds of attention and succumbed to their egos.

If you ask me...over the grand scheme of things, and with a few exceptions, most artists/bands seems to have a 4 album max of power-house, exceptionally well-done, can't-ignore music. Then they go one of two ways: making fan-appreciated but not-nearly-as-groundbreaking stuff that is by no means bad but not likely to make you fall in love as hard (e.g. Pearl Jam, Flaming Lips) or they just need to stop because the juices are all squeezed out/they sold out (KOL, Beck (that might piss some people off)).

[Fully]

I'm not sure KOL ever had any juices to run out of. I think they fired Ethan Johns who was responsible for their sound on the first three albums. Once he was gone, they started sounding like Coldplay lite because all they really care about is money/fame/drinking/models. For other bands, I think there's truth on what all of you are saying.

[el_chode]

I should add: Given my 4-album max theory, MMJ is set. Which is why I don't need them to make a groundbreaking album again. I'm content if they still make solid albums, even if the album itself never actually gives me the tinglies again like the first time I heard the band.

This is why I love this band, because even their "less-appreciated" albums from a fan's point of view (EU, Circuital) are so fucking awesome if you look at them in the context of music-at-large. They only seem lesser because the tingles didn't necessarily last as long as other albums.

[kotchishm]

There are only two favorite bands of mine that I've loved everything released

MMJ and the Walkmen. 

[Jaimoe]

Most decent to good artists only have a few commercial albums in them, capitalize on said success and then ride out the remainder of their careers rehashing past glories. It's ok. Shelf-life is short-lived as is remaining relevant; and I do think reading press clippings and ego play a part, as does the taste of $$$. The great ones such as Neil Young, Jack White, Wilco, Sonic Youth and even Prince are always looking for new ways of expression and thus remain at least relevant and/or interesting. Historically speaking, in terms of rock, the genre nor its stars have ever aged particularly well. Sucks, but it's just the way it is.

I love that MMJ continues to take lots of chances that keeps us guessing. I'm not sure they've jumped the proverbial shark yet or not, but I admire their cahones and can't wait for their next project.

[tomEisenbraun]

Because they sell out... Nah, just kidding, sort of.

I think a lot of what Ruckus said is true, the idea that you have a style or type of music that you like best, and when bands are 'fitting in' to that style most, is when you like them best.  I would (and have in another post on the old 'new' board, specifically in relation to people liking newer MMJ less) make the case that it's also about psychology, and where you are in your life when you hear the music. 

Sometimes a certain sound or feeling or style will resonate with where you are in your life at a particular time.  Sometimes you will match up with a particular band for an album, or three, and then the match just won't be there, even if the band is making essentially the 'same' music.  Of course they never actually make the same music, which makes the likelihood of carrying on a long relationship with a band even less likely.  You're changing, they're changing, the chances of you changing together aren't that great over a fairly long period of time.

This is all complicated by the fact that 'selling out', is a real thing.  I don't think it's quite as egregious as we - as music fans, make it out to be for the most part, but it is a factor.  After a band has some success, becomes 'known', there is a chance (likelihood) that instead of simply making music for themselves, they are making music they think others might want to hear.  Sometimes it may be about making more money, it might often be about that, but it may be less about that and more about wanting to continue to be pleasing to the people who've enjoyed them in the past.  Whatever the case, it can't be great for the creative process.  I think it's a rare band who can get past that, past the 'expectations', and continue to simply make the art that they actually have inside them.

I read an interesting article about Grizzly Bear a few days ago, specifically about how 'little' money they actually make despite critical success (I think it was in New York Magazine), and one of the guys mentioned this idea.  He didn't dismiss it, but simply said they couldn't continue to make music if they thought about what other people wanted to hear.  I found this refreshing (although you may doubt its veracity) and hopeful, but I don't think this is necessarily a statement most bands could make with any conviction.

Think about the many bands and artists, where their first album is their best album.  It's a fair number, more than I think you might expect from a perspective that would assign additional experience and practice as an advantage.  Sometimes all the best ideas, all the feeling and emotions, that give the work heft, substance and connection is displayed in the early work.  Obviously there are exceptions.

To use an example we are all familiar with, MMJ, I don't see Z as the start of a downward trajectory, but as a zenith of sorts.  Frankly some (admittedly small) portion of the earlier work is a bit amateurish and derivative - to me, and Z seems a sort of creative high point.  However, this backs up what I said at the start, because Z was the first MMJ I experienced, and it hit me at a time when it fit perfectly with what I wanted to hear, there was an emotional fit.  Just as the earlier albums may have been a perfect fit for others when they heard them.

I have more to say on this, but I've already written too much...

I'm so glad that someone has stepped up and into the tl;dr shoes in my absence. :)

That said, I'm going to extend your point, and bring in some of what Jaimoe pointed toward as well. But first I have to back up a minute.

There are a few different types of musical expression in the "popular" music realm (this being pretty much anything that isn't written to be played in a classical setting, though contemporary composers have been more and more frequently blurring these lines and thank God).

This is a bit of a scatter-brained point. I hope you forgive me.

Essentially, there are certain relevances. There bands that fit a cultural context so immediately and perfectly that it's of their nature to also lose that relevance as soon as things change. It's no longer summer 2012; "Call Me Maybe" isn't in the top 5 anymore. In another year, references to that song will be dated. In 10 years, we may have all but forgotten about it and be unable to imagine how someone could defile an oldie in such a manner. In ten years, the Eurythmics will be "oldies." This happens to everyone who is no longer relevant, but who actually exhibited some manner of genius in their work in their time.

Gotye may be slightly different. This is all based on personal bias. I bought his second album, Like Drawing Blood, after hearing the single "Heart's a Mess" about four years ago. What he did in that song was tap into some basic human troubling, which is key, but he did it in such an unconventional manner, and with such delicate hurt that the effect was hair-raising. Not to mention, he sampled the percussion from Harry Belafonte's "Banana Boat Song" in such a way as to introduce a ghost into the song. Seriously, go watch the video: https://vimeo.com/1579540

What Gotye has is real talent. The rest of his album shows his incredible skill as a sampler, producer, and also percussionist. He even breathes some new life into Phil Collins' signature gated reverb. It's pretty exciting in a lot of ways, and also very engaging on an emotional level. This all sounds very dry to analyze it. Let's move on.

There's a great book I'd recommend reading. It's called The Advanced Genius Theory and it's written by a guy named Jason Hartley. He introduces some ideas that are a little basic, but only so in retrospect. I think the book can be reduced, though, into a couple main points. One is that there are a few different types of musician, but that there are some who deserve to be called geniuses. One of the requisites for this is a proven 15 years or so of solid output, in which a musician proves to be more than simply "good," but actually ahead of his or her time. They are the people who are seeking a new aesthetic, who are making music because they hear sounds that no one else has head yet, and if they don't make those sounds, there's a distinct possibility that no one will. And it's a responsibility, then, to themselves and the people who might listen, that they make this music.

Remember, though, they're ahead of their time.

So at first, we're intrigued. But a musician ahead of his or her time (I'm going with his, just to make pronouns easier, not to offend any sensibilities), will get bored when time catches up with him. And so he's constantly listening forward. Hartley uses both Bob Dylan and Lou Reed to great effect in his book, looking at albums like Blood on the Tracks and Metal Machine Music as examples of ahead-of-their-time-ness. These were almost exclusively rejected by fan bases for being too strange, or to out there. Reed himself said that he hadn't been able to listen to the entirety of Metal Machine Music. And if you find him to be a musical genius, you understand that he made that album because he felt he needed to. And if he hadn't, we wouldn't have that weird hiccup in his career to point to and say, "Look, he's absolutely fallible and not all of this is incredible, but he was willing to take risks with his own work regardless of audience reception."

All this introduces Miles Davis pretty nicely. Though he was "jazz," he nearly killed the genre in the 70s by being as fascinated by Hendrix as he was with Dizzy Gillespie. He understood when tropes had been played out. He changed the face of jazz four or five times by never settling on a sound, by relentlessly seeking out the next thing. He employed studio manipulation, a trick he picked up from Hendrix, on "jazz" records, ran his trumpet through an Echoplex, recorded Bitches Brew with two drummers and panned them hard left and hard right in the mix. He was so willing to take risks with his recordings that those thirty-year-old records are still hair-raising for their inventiveness. And at the helm of it all was a trumpeter who understood the importance of the electricity between musicians, assembling a group of the most brilliant musical minds he could find and pushing them beyond their limits to craft a new sonic environment. But this isn't a biography.

I guess what this is, then, is a challenge to how you listen, and who you listen to. I think the real problem isn't that we change and that musicians change, but that both we and the musicians refuse change. Maybe we don't grow and so we have trouble hearing something new, or maybe every member of Rage Against the Machine is over 40 years old, and no matter how much we want to see a reunion show and relive that experience, it's going to look a little sad to see fully grown men yelling about 20-year-old cultural problems. And then there are always those of us who will boo down the Eagles as they rework "Hotel California" because they, as performers, are tired of playing the same arrangement and the same solos note for note forty years after the song was released.

So there are as many different musicians as there are fans, I guess. The big question as a listener is: "What are you listening for?" I don't think there's a wrong impulse as a listener. There are people who are absolutely fulfilled with "Call Me Maybe" or "Love In This Club" or a steady diet of Insane Clown Posse. How do they work? I'm not so sure anymore, because I did my work to grow out of a steady diet of one band (and part of the work was simply a process of burning myself out on My Morning Jacket and all things alt-country for a good while).

What I can say, though, is that when the question that spawned this thread comes into play, it may be time to start questioning your motives as a listener, what it is you're listening for, and if perhaps you're seeking the sound of something fleeting in the wrong place. That impulse that music fulfills is ultimately something that only music will gratify, which is why we lifelong music lovers won't stop listening. The difficult thing is that the same music will fulfill that less and less. So what is it that you're listening for? Not simply the instruments, or the genre, or the timbre of a singer's voice, or (and I think we've all been guilty of this) just the reverb. But what is it that your favorite music does to you that these bands keep disappointing? What's the emotion it catches, or riles up in you?

Jim James could only write one "Steam Engine," could only write one "Dondante," one "If It Smashes Down," and the rest is up to us to seek out as listeners, to add into our listening contexts. Hopefully someday we each might be able to imbue the wind itself with such lyrical meaning as to be able to be moved to tears by it. But I learned the disappointing way that over 4 gigabytes of live bootlegs and demos would never move me more than the first time "Steam Engine" hit me. Music has its power over us in anticipation. We'd all be better listeners if we approached the entire spectrum of sound with the sole expectation that we'd find ourselves surprised. Because when we want music to do something particular, it'll manage to let us down even as it fulfills that desire. We don't really want the same sound, we want the surprise of newness that we've attached to the memory of a certain sound. The best musicians are constantly seeking to surprise themselves; it's inevitable that they'd sweep us along with them.

Best thing I ever did was figure out how to enjoy Deerhoof. They taught me that lesson without the need for so many words. You may find it in an entirely different place. Who knows? What's important is that you keep searching. Hopefully all the above self-contradictions stir up some resonant considerations.

[Jaimoe]

Good points.

I also believe its great for relevance and importance to get in and get out in a relative short period of time. We've all seen what happens when a band or individual artist hangs around too long: their legacy ends up getting tarnished. Of course, integrity often doesn't pay well and often means more to fans. Why do boxers hang around well past their prime/come out of retirement? It's all they know and/or they need another pay check, regardless of the cost. Of course there are several exceptions, but they are the elite of the elite, talent-wise (I'll throw Iggy into the mix; he'll alway remain important and edgy).

On a related note, I admire David Bowie for retiring. He's done and knows it. I wish The Who's last final go-round was in 1989. The Beatles did it right. I also love that David Byrne has lots more in the tank, same with Patti Smith. You know, the acts that didn't care about hits and did whatever they wanted and found a lasting fanbase. Kind of like cult movies and TV shows.