Radiohead and the decline of musical creativity

[Tracy 2112]

So, as I pined for another OK Computer or KID A, I was disappointed (but not suprsied) with the new Radiohead album and it got me thinking: Is their "best" music behind them? Then that got me thinking: I wonder what band(s) have put out "classic" albums after 10 + years into their career? I know there are exceptions like The Rolling Stones coming close with Some Girls, 14 years into their career or Neil Young with Freedom 20 years into his career, but are there others I can't think of?

And then that made me think if MMJ was going down the same path. I don't listen to EU and Z as much as I listen to At Dawn. Are they on the cusp of mediocrity (mediocrity = music that is not "on par" with their earlier releases), as seems to be the norm with rock and roll music?

Thoughts? Ideas? Donations?

[Sticky Icky Green Stuff]

It seems to me that most musicians peak between the ages of 23 to 40years old.

[jones]

It's over.

[sweatboard]

I think Sonic Youth and Built to Spill's last albums are as good as anything they've done.  I've thought the same things you have Tracy about Radiohead and MMJ.  The new Radiohead is not disappointing to me, I think it's fantastic and reminds me of the best things about Amnesiac and In Rainbows but I'm not sure they broke any new ground.

As for MMJ, I think Z is a great record but I was also a little worried about what it meant as far as the direction they were taking the band.  Evil Urges is a record that I still find new things I like about almost every time I listen.  It also seems like something's missing, not crazy about the production and I think it changes directions a bit too much.  Of course that's when comparing it to their previous albums, especially At Dawn which is a perfectly constructed album in my mind.  I think this next MMJ album will go a long way in answering this question.  Everything I've read about the recording process and the mindset up to this point has me Very hopeful.  The omnichord was fun for a while but unless it's a masterpiece I could do without it showing up on record again for a while

[EasyRyder]

And then that made me think if MMJ was going down the same path. I don't listen to EU and Z as much as I listen to At Dawn. Are they on the cusp of mediocrity (mediocrity = music that is not "on par" with their earlier releases), as seems to be the norm with rock and roll music?

The contrast between TTF/AD/ISM with Z/EU is the reason why I love My Morning Jacket. I will say that the sound and vibe of those first three are favorable to me too; however, without any newness or genre recreation the whole spirit that is MMJ would be underrepresented.
Z and EU represent their potential for genius-level musicianship better than the 3 preceding major releases (even if you don't like the departure from that silo-sound).

That being said, I think that MMJ went went through a growing phase upon the incorporation of Carl and Bo into the lineup. This upcoming album and tour will be the only answer to your question, ultimately!

Personally, I don't really give 2 sh*ts about studio albums if the live experience continues to be mind-blowing. And I think music in general has gone through a rough growing phase over the past 2 years and that 2011 will be memorable.

[Tracy 2112]

Personally, I don't really give 2 sh*ts about studio albums if the live experience continues to be mind-blowing.

I appreciate that point b/c as much as I love At Dawn, ISM and Z translate better live than At Dawn.

[Ruckus]

To your first question, I'd argue that Dylan's Blood on the Tracks, RL Burnside's Come on In, , Pink Floyd's The Wall, and much of Coltrane and Davis' post 1960 work and even Meatloaf's Bat Out of Hell II are examples of works that pass the decade classic test.

That said, your point is well taken.  The bands that you point out, Stones and Young, were in many ways the "pioneers" of rock n' roll from an era where possibilities seemed more endless.  (Please take that with a grain of salt)  During their prime eras, the rock n' roll idea market was far from fully saturated and avenues for ingenuity seemed limitless so that making a classic record well after the band's genesis was a much greater possibility.  Though a little digging may reveal some exceptions, I'd argue that a modern rock band operates amongst much denser competition (resulting in greater overlap and stylistic similarities between other bands) with a dwindling well of new ideas that does not resort to either new music technologies or the unique talents of a lead vocalist as the basis for establishing an identity.  Under those constraints, it's all the more likely that a band's classic records will be their initial few when their sound is still novel to the modern audiophile. 

It's through that lens that I view both Radiohead and MMJ and their stunning accomplishments.  When they both broke through, they were so unique that they set the bar ridiculously high even for themselves to match and/or surpass.  Yet if we were to take a step back and imagine either Z or In Rainbows being each respective band's debut album, those would be considered classics that would be hard pressed to match even if they would have attracted a different initial fan base.

And it is through this cop out, relativist perspective that I say that MMJ will never repeat the masterpiece that is At Dawn.  What do I know because the general public LOVES EU much more than that crappy lo-fi album.

[touchingmept2]

"What do I know because the general public LOVES EU much more than that crappy lo fi album."
Sarcasm, right ruckus? :-\

[el_chode]

At first I was all like "aw hell no" and then I was gonna be all like "oh no you dint" with that "Z" is mediocre thing. But then I realized that as far as albums go, I RARELY put Z on. However, as far as concerts go, as mentioned earlier...those songs translate incredibly well. Earlier songs expand live. Z songs sort of take on a different life. It's strange. I still think they're hitting their Phish-like stride where the studios are going to underwhelm most fans no matter how good they are.

I think it is worth noting that for a lot of bands, the inability to withstand the test of time is less of a musical obstacle and more of a physical one. What would we say about Hendrix today? Would he have gone the way of Crapton and become straight to light fm sad bastard music?

Personally, as a non-radiohead fan, I think they're trying too hard. That last album totally underwhelmed me and I couldn't get into it. Probably because they're comfortable and they've got nothing to lose. I remember being in high school when the various classics came out and it was that moment in the fight where they had to land the next few punches or lose the fight. As a non-radiohead fan, even I gotta say they landed those punches.

To end my missive, I think when it comes to this next MMJ, it will be important to not listen to it expecting it to be the album you wanted them to make. It'll never be that. If you do, it'll be like watching a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon - the voices in the cartoon would always disappoint because they'd never compare to the voices you create in your head when you read the comic. Except music is different - they're giving us the voices, and we go and create some other expectation. Every time Jim says "it's like our earlier stuff" we're going to go and expect another At Dawn or TTF. And then they're going to give us something that sounds nothing like it. And we'll bitch and moan about how it's nothing like the earlier stuff, except that's not the band making the album.

So I have to wonder if we confuse creativity with breaking new ground to build a foundation, and then we just go on expecting a band to make 10 foundations in a row and never actually build anything versus building a solid foundation, taking a step back, and looking at the sum total of the various constructions. After all, we don't view the Stones in terms of albums, we view them as the goddamn Stones, even with She's So Cold and Start Me Up. It's the big picture that makes a band endure, or else they become known as that band with the album or two (a fate I think will be had by Hold Steady)

[Tracy 2112]

I never said Z was medicore. I never said ANYTHING that MMJ has done is medicore. I asked if they are on the cusp of mediocrity, like something they may be transitioning in to like most bands do.

Thanks

And I do view the Stones in albums, ie, I view the Stones as not putting out anything relevant, listenable or even catchy in over 30 years. I honestly cannot name a Stones song, off the top of my head, released after 1981. They are a band surviving on a skeleton of what they once were. As much as I love The Who, same goes for them, too.

[johnnYYac]

I think you need to seperate fan acceptance or success from creativity.  What is most refreshing about MMJ's music is that it never seems to be about selling albums or filling stadiums.  They make the music they want and you can follow it if you want or not. 

That's when a band is great.  They do something surprising, brave, even stupid, but solely driven by themselves, not some focus group.  This next album will be driven by Jim's songwriting and whatever inspires the boys' along the way.  If they start thinking in terms of sales or fame, they'll become KoL, I suppose.  I think the Stones are an example of that, as well.

[el_chode]

I never said Z was medicore. I never said ANYTHING that MMJ has done is medicore. I asked if they are on the cusp of mediocrity, like something they may be transitioning in to like most bands do.

Thanks

And I do view the Stones in albums, ie, I view the Stones as not putting out anything relevant, listenable or even catchy in over 30 years. I honestly cannot name a Stones song, off the top of my head, released after 1981. They are a band surviving on a skeleton of what they once were. As much as I love The Who, same goes for them, too.

I don't think you're insulting Z or anything. I'm agreeing with you after all...of all the albums that I put on, I put on TTF/AD/ISM way more often than Z, even though I have no beef about anything with Z.

And the Stones/Who, and not even being a Who fan, I still think of them less in the context of "band with good albums x, y, and z" and just as bands. Whereas with Crapton, he's someone that I feel has ruined his good name with a lot of truly mediocre crap

On the flip side, I think Kings of Leon prove the opposite of all this too - a band whose "classics" or at least "good" albums will look laughable in the success of their worst efforts - where the lack of creativity is what gets rewarded and then duplicated

[wolof7]

Not to distract from the current discussion in this thread but I believe the main points addressed is what I was trying to get at in a topic I posted in the Music section, "How to prepare for a new MMJ album" (or something along those lines). 

Can we be objective or does the influence of past releases cause us to define a band, what we like about them, and what we expect from them. What's more, is how to detach from those preconceptions and come to a place of acceptance and adoration of the progression a band makes even if it destroys our previously held concepts and moves in a different direction we may not like or be accustomed to. Do we conform to the progression or do we tend to desire/prefer what we like?

For me I can respect what radiohead has done with the King of Limbs but I won't deny it was somewhat of a dissappointment. Now that's ok bc of their track record and I have come to expect each of their releases to be an evolution of sorts. However, as far as listenability, for me, King of Limbs will be one I go back to infrequently, especially compared to their other releases.

With MMJ the quality has never been a concern. Listenability, however, for me, there is a ranking, and it is based on what kind of mood I am in...and of the greater population, what kind of fan is listening. I introduced a close friend of mine last year to MMJ and his favoirte is EU no matter how much I try and persuade him to listen ot AT Dawn or It Still Moves(my personal favs). However, I remember when Z came out (prob the first release I was a fan for) and thought it was the best thing they had done. I had thought this for several years and only after a lot of time did my preferences go back to AD and ISM. I guess it's all relative to the individual and arbitrary in the grand scheme of things.

[BH]

I've always been of the belief that certain bands are able to overcome this so called "late life mediocrity" by never resting on their laurels and always trying something different.  It's rare that a band is creative enough OR ambitious enough to always try something new.   I think Pink Floyd successfully achieved this and I think up to this point, MMJ have achieved this.   If they kept trying to repeat At Dawn over the last three albums, they would not be the band that we know and love.   If you go into the new MMJ album "expecting" something, no matter what that is, I think you are setting yourself up to be disappointed.   The only thing I'm expecting is to be surprised, AND THAT is why Jim's music will NEVER be a mediocre.

[Ruckus]

I've always been of the belief that certain bands are able to overcome this so called "late life mediocrity" by never resting on their laurels and always trying something different.  It's rare that a band is creative enough OR ambitious enough to always try something new.   I think Pink Floyd successfully achieved this and I think up to this point, MMJ have achieved this.   If they kept trying to repeat At Dawn over the last three albums, they would not be the band that we know and love.   If you go into the new MMJ album "expecting" something, no matter what that is, I think you are setting yourself up to be disappointed.   The only thing I'm expecting is to be surprised, AND THAT is why Jim's music will NEVER be a mediocre.

Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't do BH!  ;D

I think the only way to avoid this so called mediocrity is if you are introduced to a band for the 1st time later in it's career where all of it is new to you. 

I mean it's like marriage right?  Not that I would know.  You still love her but she isn't getting any more attractive and the yearning in the loins dulls a bit (completely)...no?  Is that mediocrity?  Nope. It's still great but just too much of the same thing. ;) :-X

[ManNamedTruth]

Evil Urges is my least favorite and Z is their masterpiece IMO. I think my biggest problem with Evil Urges is the production, so basically I still have faith in MMJ to continue writing great songs in the future. I thought many of the songs from EU translated better live (Highly Suspicious for example). I think a decline in making great albums becomes inevitable for any band that's been around for awhile. Either they try to change things up too much and experiment, or they become a parody of themselves, trying to repeat the old formulas for what made their early stuff so good. I also believe a band can bounce back after an average album or two. Radiohead's In Rainbows was a great comeback album for them, and is one of my favorites from them. So if the question is do i think MMJ is on the verge of studio recording mediocrity -  then no I don't think so, or at least I'll hold my opinion until the next album.

[e_wind]

My problem with this conversation is this: many bands can be past their peak And still write brilliant records. Z is no ISM for me, but it I'd 110% brilliant for me. Riot Act is one of my favorite records of all time, but it's no ten or Vs. Then on the other hand the Beatles wrote sgt pepper and the white album toward the end of their career. Though they had a very short career. I get whats being said in here, but I think its discrediting many artist who continue to shine past their peak record.

[Ruckus]

My problem with this conversation is this: many bands can be past their peak And still write brilliant records. Z is no ISM for me, but it I'd 110% brilliant for me. Riot Act is one of my favorite records of all time, but it's no ten or Vs. Then on the other hand the Beatles wrote sgt pepper and the white album toward the end of their career. Though they had a very short career. I get whats being said in here, but I think its discrediting many artist who continue to shine past their peak record.

Are we reading the same thread here?  I don't think anyone is discrediting any artists and people have cited albums by artists such as Sonic Youth, Built to Spill, Pink Floyd and RL Burnside as bands that have produced classics well into their careers.

If a band is still capable of making a "brilliant" record, would they not still be considered at their peak then?

[bowl of soup]

Evil Urges is my least favorite and Z is their masterpiece IMO. 

I agree with this 1000%.  Z seems to take a fair amount of abuse around these parts for some reason and I've never gotten it.  That being said I do agree to a point that most things burn less brightly after ten years and there are few examples of greatness coming from bands in their later years.  Tracy, I would say that Husker Du was at its best at the end (or right before the end) and Bob Mould's best work came after the Huskers broke up - Copper Blue/Beaster is just monster work and he never came close to it before or after.

Same could be said for Greg Dulli.  The last three Afghan Whigs albums were beyond great (1965 is soooo unappreciated), but Blackberry Belle and Powder Burns from the Twilight Singers are works of sublime inspiration.  Blackberry Belle was a tribute to Ted Demme, so maybe that explains the artistry..

I also hate side-projects.  They just have to take away from the intensity devoted to the main thing.

[pawpaw]

Is this a trap?  ;D

The only problem I have with the latest Radiohead album is that it's too short. Otherwise, I think it's really good, and is about 3-4 solid songs from being another "classic" for them. There's nothing about The King of Limbs that makes me believe that Radiohead isn't capbale of future greatness. We're kind of "dancing about architecture" here though, aren't we... ;)

I'd bring up David Bowie, Tom Waits and Alejandro Escovedo as three guys who made some of their best music mid-way or even late in their careers after early greatness, and they were just off the top of my head because they're three of my favorites. I understand your point Tracy, but Radiohead and MMJ are exceptional bands with hugely talented songwriters who I think have plenty of great music left to create.

Creativity and musical reinvention are overrated anyway. All these bands think they need a new sound to grow as artists. Pfff. We want to rock, we want to dance, a chorus we can sing along to, a couple rippin' guitar solos, and a ballad or two for the ladies. That'll do. They mastered this back in the early 70s, and it still doesn't get much better.  ;D