Is Longevity a Good Thing?

[Rick N. Backer]

Something that was posted in another thread about The Cars' Shake it Up got me thinking. Great bands that are active for long periods of time usually have some incredible highs, but they also tend to release a real stink bomb or two. The same band that released Let it Bleed also released Dirty Work (I can enjoy Dirty Work because I'm a fan, but I can't deny it's not a great album). The same band that released Moving Pictures also released [insert what you think is Rush's low point here]. The same band that released Number of the Beast released Virtual X. You get the picture. By contrast, for me, The Police, The Cars, The Beatles, Van Halen with Roth (the first time through) and a few others with shorter discographies didn't have a single down album. VH doesn't have a single track I skip.

 

Is it a good thing for a band to go on for 20 - 30 years with respect to their recorded output? Or is there a shelf life for a great band to record great albums?

[RushFanForever]

Talk Is Cheap by Keith Richards is the greatest album the Stones as a band didn't make.

[Lorraine]

I remember watching a Police documentary a few years ago. I think it was Sting who said that - must've been during the Synchronicity tour - when they played at Shea Stadium (I think it was Shea) and he looked out at 70,000 fans wildly cheering for them and then he thought they hadn't had a bad album yet and had gone from success to success - once they got back to the house they were renting on Long Island after the show, they all had realized there was only one way for them to go now - DOWN. So, they disbanded at the height of their fame.

 

I have mixed thoughts about your question. I'm more prone to say, yes - creativity is not something you can produce at will. I know myself when I used to write a lot of short stories when I was younger, I often had to put a story aside for a time. I couldn't force it. It had to come naturally.

 

I can't imagine what it must have been like in the old days when these bands were expected to go into the studio, tour, and then go back into the studio and tour some more - repeat process endlessly. No wonder so many of them got burned out so young. No one can withstand that pressure without consequences.

 

Then there is the voice - no one sounds the same after they reach a certain age. The voice goes.

If you're a drummer, you lose strength in your arms as you age.

If you are a guitarist, your fingers are not as dexterous.

 

It is best to go out on top and in a blaze of glory, but I understand why that is hard to do for most bands.

Edited October 26, 2019 by Lorraine

[Rick N. Backer]

I remember watching a Police documentary a few years ago. I think it was Sting who said that - must've been during the Synchronicity tour - when they played at Shea Stadium (I think it was Shea) and he looked out at 70,000 fans wildly cheering for them and then he thought they hadn't had a bad album yet and had gone from success to success - once they got back to the house they were renting on Long Island after the show, they all had realized there was only one way for them to go now - DOWN. So, they disbanded at the height of their fame.

 

I have mixed thoughts about your question. I'm more prone to say, yes - creativity is not something you can produce at will. I know myself when I used to write a lot of short stories when I was younger, I often had to put a story aside for a time. I couldn't force it. It had to come naturally.

 

I can't imagine what it must have been like in the old days when these bands were expected to go into the studio, tour, and then go back into the studio and tour some more - repeat process endlessly. No wonder so many of them got burned out so young. No one can withstand that pressure without consequences.

 

Then there is the voice - no one sounds the same after they reach a certain age. The voice goes.

If you're a drummer, you lose strength in your arms as you age.

If you are a guitarist, your fingers are not as dexterous.

 

It is best to go out on top and in a blaze of glory, but I understand why that is hard to do for most bands.

 

I've been listening to a lot of Def Leppard lately. Live, they STILL sound great. But aside from a song or two, at most, how much from X, or Euphoria, do they play live these days? Their set is largely comprised of songs released 30 plus years ago.

[Mithrandir]

You forgot the greatest band ever. ZEP. I do not skip any Zep tracks.

 

I digress. While it is fantastic when a band releases only great music due to a shorter lifespan, it is also fantastic that bands keep on making records (even crappy records) and tour, because like the Def Leppard mention, we can still see them perform their old great songs.

[Rick N. Backer]

You forgot the greatest band ever. ZEP. I do not skip any Zep tracks.

 

I digress. While it is fantastic when a band releases only great music due to a shorter lifespan, it is also fantastic that bands keep on making records (even crappy records) and tour, because like the Def Leppard mention, we can still see them perform their old great songs.

 

I actually thought about Zeppelin and Ozzy fronted Sabbath when I was starting the thread. But for a lot of people both had two down albums (Zep's Presence and ITtOD and Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die!).

[Lorraine]

I remember watching a Police documentary a few years ago. I think it was Sting who said that - must've been during the Synchronicity tour - when they played at Shea Stadium (I think it was Shea) and he looked out at 70,000 fans wildly cheering for them and then he thought they hadn't had a bad album yet and had gone from success to success - once they got back to the house they were renting on Long Island after the show, they all had realized there was only one way for them to go now - DOWN. So, they disbanded at the height of their fame.

 

I have mixed thoughts about your question. I'm more prone to say, yes - creativity is not something you can produce at will. I know myself when I used to write a lot of short stories when I was younger, I often had to put a story aside for a time. I couldn't force it. It had to come naturally.

 

I can't imagine what it must have been like in the old days when these bands were expected to go into the studio, tour, and then go back into the studio and tour some more - repeat process endlessly. No wonder so many of them got burned out so young. No one can withstand that pressure without consequences.

 

Then there is the voice - no one sounds the same after they reach a certain age. The voice goes.

If you're a drummer, you lose strength in your arms as you age.

If you are a guitarist, your fingers are not as dexterous.

 

It is best to go out on top and in a blaze of glory, but I understand why that is hard to do for most bands.

 

I've been listening to a lot of Def Leppard lately. Live, they STILL sound great. But aside from a song or two, at most, how much from X, or Euphoria, do they play live these days? Their set is largely comprised of songs released 30 plus years ago.

 

They may sound great, but he can't sing the way he used to either. The songs, especially from Pyromania, weren't designed to be sung by a 65 year old man. Maybe he could still do it if he had never toured, but touring for decades singing those songs takes its toll.

 

Speaking of Def Leppard, I remember in their documentary Joe saying how in the nineties when they were in their forties I guess they realized they couldn't continue doing the things they used to do when they were in their twenties and thirties. They were starting to cancel shows or show up late, and he realized their fans paid good money for tickets and they, as a band, owed it to them to put on a good show. So they changed their lifestyles completely.

 

By the way, you left out the Moodies and their "core-7" albums with Mike Pinder. They may sound dated today, but they were blockbusters back in the day. :)

[Rick N. Backer]

I remember watching a Police documentary a few years ago. I think it was Sting who said that - must've been during the Synchronicity tour - when they played at Shea Stadium (I think it was Shea) and he looked out at 70,000 fans wildly cheering for them and then he thought they hadn't had a bad album yet and had gone from success to success - once they got back to the house they were renting on Long Island after the show, they all had realized there was only one way for them to go now - DOWN. So, they disbanded at the height of their fame.

 

I have mixed thoughts about your question. I'm more prone to say, yes - creativity is not something you can produce at will. I know myself when I used to write a lot of short stories when I was younger, I often had to put a story aside for a time. I couldn't force it. It had to come naturally.

 

I can't imagine what it must have been like in the old days when these bands were expected to go into the studio, tour, and then go back into the studio and tour some more - repeat process endlessly. No wonder so many of them got burned out so young. No one can withstand that pressure without consequences.

 

Then there is the voice - no one sounds the same after they reach a certain age. The voice goes.

If you're a drummer, you lose strength in your arms as you age.

If you are a guitarist, your fingers are not as dexterous.

 

It is best to go out on top and in a blaze of glory, but I understand why that is hard to do for most bands.

 

I've been listening to a lot of Def Leppard lately. Live, they STILL sound great. But aside from a song or two, at most, how much from X, or Euphoria, do they play live these days? Their set is largely comprised of songs released 30 plus years ago.

 

They may sound great, but he can't sing the way he used to either. The songs, especially from Pyromania, weren't designed to be sung by a 65 year old man. Maybe he could still do it if he had never toured, but touring for decades singing those songs takes its toll.

 

Speaking of Def Leppard, I remember in their documentary Joe saying how in the nineties when they were in their forties I guess they realized they couldn't continue doing the things they used to do when they were in their twenties and thirties. They were starting to cancel shows or show up late, and he realized their fans paid good money for tickets and they, as a band, owed it to them to put on a good show. So they changed their lifestyles completely.

 

By the way, you left out the Moodies and their "core-7" albums with Mike Pinder. They may sound dated today, but they were blockbusters back in the day. :)

 

I must admit I know next to nothing about the Moody Blues. I know you love them though. :)

 

Anyways, I wasn't really thinking about live performances so much. Aging unquestionably affects how you sound and play. I was thinking more about just the process of recording new music.

[Mithrandir]

You forgot the greatest band ever. ZEP. I do not skip any Zep tracks.

 

I digress. While it is fantastic when a band releases only great music due to a shorter lifespan, it is also fantastic that bands keep on making records (even crappy records) and tour, because like the Def Leppard mention, we can still see them perform their old great songs.

 

I actually thought about Zeppelin and Ozzy fronted Sabbath when I was starting the thread. But for a lot of people both had two down albums (Zep's Presence and ITtOD and Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die!).

I know people do think those 2 albums are "down " albums. But the reality is that both hit #1 and sold 3 million and 6 million records. ITTOD was more Jones and Plant so it sounded different than the previous Zep, but the songs are still great. Zep fans who don't like Presence confound me (like Rush fans who don't like AFTK :) ). Presence has 4 epic songs, but I think those that view the album as a less than a classic album, feel that the 3 shorter songs aren't up to Zep standards. But i love all 3 of those songs.

[HemiBeers]

I've said this referring to Rush before, but every band will be compared to it's best albums. If newer material is not superior, then they lose fans.

[RushFanForever]

Cream and The Police are two of the most dysfunctional rock trios in history.

 

The rhythm section (Baker and Bruce/Copeland and Sumner) always bickered at each other and the guitarist (Clapton/Summers) was stuck in the middle.

 

Why neither band covered 'Stuck In The Middle With You' by Stealers Wheel, I'll never know.

Edited October 26, 2019 by RushFanForever

[Rick N. Backer]

You forgot the greatest band ever. ZEP. I do not skip any Zep tracks.

 

I digress. While it is fantastic when a band releases only great music due to a shorter lifespan, it is also fantastic that bands keep on making records (even crappy records) and tour, because like the Def Leppard mention, we can still see them perform their old great songs.

 

I actually thought about Zeppelin and Ozzy fronted Sabbath when I was starting the thread. But for a lot of people both had two down albums (Zep's Presence and ITtOD and Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die!).

I know people do think those 2 albums are "down " albums. But the reality is that both hit #1 and sold 3 million and 6 million records. ITTOD was more Jones and Plant so it sounded different than the previous Zep, but the songs are still great. Zep fans who don't like Presence confound me (like Rush fans who don't like AFTK :) ). Presence has 4 epic songs, but I think those that view the album as a less than a classic album, feel that the 3 shorter songs aren't up to Zep standards. But i love all 3 of those songs.

 

I feel the same way about Tech Ex and NSD! But I love Sabbath. A more casual fan I think views them much differently.

[Rick N. Backer]

I've said this referring to Rush before, but every band will be compared to it's best albums. If newer material is not superior, then they lose fans.

 

True, although I didn’t really mean to suggest that a great band can ONLY have a highest peak. I like Fair Warning more than WaCF, for example. I meant a significant drop off, like Let it Bleed to Dirty Work.

[laughedatbytime]

Is there any drop in history steeper and quicker than from Moving Pictures to Presto?

[goose]

Is there any drop in history steeper and quicker than from Moving Pictures to Presto?

2112 to AFTK

[Mithrandir]

You forgot the greatest band ever. ZEP. I do not skip any Zep tracks.

 

I digress. While it is fantastic when a band releases only great music due to a shorter lifespan, it is also fantastic that bands keep on making records (even crappy records) and tour, because like the Def Leppard mention, we can still see them perform their old great songs.

 

I actually thought about Zeppelin and Ozzy fronted Sabbath when I was starting the thread. But for a lot of people both had two down albums (Zep's Presence and ITtOD and Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die!).

I know people do think those 2 albums are "down " albums. But the reality is that both hit #1 and sold 3 million and 6 million records. ITTOD was more Jones and Plant so it sounded different than the previous Zep, but the songs are still great. Zep fans who don't like Presence confound me (like Rush fans who don't like AFTK :) ). Presence has 4 epic songs, but I think those that view the album as a less than a classic album, feel that the 3 shorter songs aren't up to Zep standards. But i love all 3 of those songs.

 

I feel the same way about Tech Ex and NSD! But I love Sabbath. A more casual fan I think views them much differently.

Difference is those two Sabbath albums didn't even crack the top 50. Both Zep albums went to #1.

[HemiBeers]

Is there any drop in history steeper and quicker than from Moving Pictures to Presto?

Yes Moving Pictures to Hold Your Fire, the satan-shit album that spawned Tai Shan. Hold Your Nose is 4 albums downhill from MP.

[HemiBeers]

Is there any drop in history steeper and quicker than from Moving Pictures to Presto?

2112 to AFTK

[HemiBeers]

In the case of Rush, longevity gave them a chance to end on more of an upswing after Neil's hiatus.

 

Seriously, would anyone prefer they ended after Testicles for Echo instead of Clockwork Angels?

[Nova Carmina]

It is great to be able to see some acts still on the road, but I'm voting for shorter being better for higher quality output.

 

So many bands (I'll put Def Leppard on this list) are basically just nostalgia acts, putting out new music -- if they do -- as an excuse to go out and play the hits from years ago. Like acts at the Grand Ole Opry, Branson, or Vegas. Dare I add Metallica?

 

This is one of the reasons I love the bootlegs so much -- to hear Led Zeppelin or Rush at their creative peak, even if each show was not all that great or memorable.

 

I think musicians are like authors (or any other creative type, but since authors is what I do, that's my go-to analogy here). A writer can have a run of several works that make the canon, but nobody stays on top for thirty or forty years*. Shakespeare's works cover a span of about fifteen active years, Dickens was a little longer, but up and down. Hemingway's best work is like 1926-1940.

 

The Beatles, Cream, The Police -- all good examples of burning out rather than fading away. No, to answer another question upthread, I would not have liked Rush to peg out after Test For Echo, but I think we also have to admit that if all we had of Rush was the post-Vapor Trails stuff, Rush would not be a legendary band; it was just a good finish to a great career.

 

 

(*Don't come at me, Stephen King fans -- his books may still sell well, but 100 years from now, it'll be his earlier stuff [the drinking and drugs stuff, if you'd rather] that people will still read)

Edited October 26, 2019 by Nova Carmina

[Rick N. Backer]

You forgot the greatest band ever. ZEP. I do not skip any Zep tracks.

 

I digress. While it is fantastic when a band releases only great music due to a shorter lifespan, it is also fantastic that bands keep on making records (even crappy records) and tour, because like the Def Leppard mention, we can still see them perform their old great songs.

 

I actually thought about Zeppelin and Ozzy fronted Sabbath when I was starting the thread. But for a lot of people both had two down albums (Zep's Presence and ITtOD and Sabbath's Technical Ecstasy and Never Say Die!).

I know people do think those 2 albums are "down " albums. But the reality is that both hit #1 and sold 3 million and 6 million records. ITTOD was more Jones and Plant so it sounded different than the previous Zep, but the songs are still great. Zep fans who don't like Presence confound me (like Rush fans who don't like AFTK :) ). Presence has 4 epic songs, but I think those that view the album as a less than a classic album, feel that the 3 shorter songs aren't up to Zep standards. But i love all 3 of those songs.

 

I feel the same way about Tech Ex and NSD! But I love Sabbath. A more casual fan I think views them much differently.

Difference is those two Sabbath albums didn't even crack the top 50. Both Zep albums went to #1.

 

I doubt Sabbath’s albums ever sold anywhere near Zeppelin’s. FWIW, I think Tech Ex and NSD! blow Zeppelin’s last 2 albums away. But I think every Sabbath album does that. I was talking more about how people who aren’t passionate fans of a band view later albums.

[treeduck]

It is great to be able to see some acts still on the road, but I'm voting for shorter being better for higher quality output.

 

So many bands (I'll put Def Leppard on this list) are basically just nostalgia acts, putting out new music -- if they do -- as an excuse to go out and play the hits from years ago. Like acts at the Grand Ole Opry, Branson, or Vegas. Dare I add Metallica?

 

This is one of the reasons I love the bootlegs so much -- to hear Led Zeppelin or Rush at their creative peak, even if each show was not all that great or memorable.

 

I think musicians are like authors (or any other creative type, but since authors is what I do, that's my go-to analogy here). A writer can have a run of several works that make the canon, but nobody stays on top for thirty or forty years*. Shakespeare's works cover a span of about fifteen active years, Dickens was a little longer, but up and down. Hemingway's best work is like 1926-1940.

 

The Beatles, Cream, The Police -- all good examples of burning out rather than fading away. No, to answer another question upthread, I would not have liked Rush to peg out after Test For Echo, but I think we also have to admit that if all we had of Rush was the post-Vapor Trails stuff, Rush would not be a legendary band; it was just a good finish to a great career.

 

 

(*Don't come at me, Stephen King fans -- his books may still sell well, but 100 years from now, it'll be his earlier stuff [the drinking and drugs stuff, if you'd rather] that people will still read)

Yeah King was good in the 70's and the 80's not so good since. In fact I'd advise people to skip everything after 1991 and don't waste their time. It might even be a case that by now King has actually damaged his legacy with an endless series of heavily padded books, full of mediocre stories and frequent passages where King does something like spend 50 pages describing the contents of a matchbox.

[Fordgalaxy]

In the case of Rush, longevity gave them a chance to end on more of an upswing after Neil's hiatus.

 

Seriously, would anyone prefer they ended after Testicles for Echo instead of Clockwork Angels?

 

Yes.

 

To answer the OP, I think the more hard core fans of a band would hope they'll play until they drop dead on stage, but more casual fans would think they should have stopped "years ago". Every band has a clunker song or 3 and if they are around long enough, will have an album that isn't up to par. The beauty of that though, is the clunker for me may be a high point for someone else.

[goose]

Is there any drop in history steeper and quicker than from Moving Pictures to Presto?

2112 to AFTK

:P

 

 

Torn apaaaaaaart!!!!!

[goose]

In the case of Rush, longevity gave them a chance to end on more of an upswing after Neil's hiatus.

 

Seriously, would anyone prefer they ended after Testicles for Echo instead of Clockwork Angels?

 

Yes.

 

To answer the OP, I think the more hard core fans of a band would hope they'll play until they drop dead on stage, but more casual fans would think they should have stopped "years ago". Every band has a clunker song or 3 and if they are around long enough, will have an album that isn't up to par. The beauty of that though, is the clunker for me may be a high point for someone else.

No band is better at that than RUSH.