Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why do bands and singer/songwriters fade from the music biz?

I think there’s a great deal of cultural and sociological weight behind these acts. They were at the height of their fame during a period that saw big social changes in the West, and they had a cohort of fans who have remained loyal for decades, because these acts hold significance for them. This in turn means successive generations are exposed to them.

I’m not a particular fan of any of them, to be honest. I like the idea of the Stones, and they did some good tunes, but even their best period (with Mick Taylor) I’d be hard pressed to last a whole album. But they are the archetypal rock band.

Clapton, while I admire his guitar playing ability and sound, is more difficult to like. I like his work with the Bluesbreakers, but Cream tended to the overblown and I think Bruce was the songwriting talent, and his stuff since then has been MOR and meh.

Elton John, I’ve never been a fan of. He has great tone to his voice and his phrasing is immaculate, but I just don’t really like his songs. And some of the big ones (Benny and the Jets and Tiny Dancer for example), take for ever to get to a hook, and are just dull.

But editor said something interesting about time not being kind to a lot of 80s stuff. I love the 70s production sounds. But there’s absolutely no way I’d try to emulate a lot of the 80s sounds. Gated snare, over compressed guitar, all that. Even artists whose music I love. Miles Davis, for example: his 80s music just sounds far more dated than his 70s stuff. I rarely turn to his 80s output, and when I do the production slaps you in the face and detracts from the music. Something that doesn’t happen with his 70s records.


Benny and the jets from GBYBR and Tiny dancer from Madman across the water are two of my favourite Elton tracks. Funeral for a friend/Love lies bleeding is also excellent.
 
It certainly is harder now, but easier if you do make it. Instant worldwide exposure.
That's not true either because there's zillions of other acts who can also take advantage of 'instant worldwide exposure.'

Then factor in the fact that a hit album will only generate a near microscopic fraction of the earnings that a similarly successful album from the 1970s would and it's no surprise bands struggle.

In the 70s, a songwriter could buy a house from a big number one hit. Now you can get to number one with less than 17,000 sales and scrape tiny fractions of pennies for every play through streaming services.
 
This book answers your question - with many examples given - there's not one thing but a combination of problems that plague the music industry.

Even the bands that "make it" can have a rough time with the touring and the macho nonsense around drugs and booze, etc. Many fall prey to mental illness problems too.
9780571364183.jpg
 
Its an interesting question, with likely many different answers depending on who what where when. So many variables.

I very often come across an electronic dance producer with massive talent who hit the nail squarely on the head a good few times across a couple of years with significant enough recognition and then absolutely zero ever comes out from them again. It stands out to me as such a waste of talent.

Then there are bands also talented who produce one successful album and again, nothing ever after.

I find it less hard to imagine why people who are good but mediocre end up packing it in whenever, but its when people seem exceptional that it really stands out.

I've a huge amount of respect for those musicians/performers who have managed to keep grinding on for thirty, fourty years without necessarily making big money out of it, and have kept their energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness up. Harder than it looks I bet.
 
Cos they get shit and boring and fall back on playing their old hits instead of playing new interesting stuff
 
Besides a mention of Miles Davis, there's plenty of black artists still top of their game but so far absent from this thread.
I dont understand your comment. Do you mean as in 'Lets think of people who havent quit and are still good? There are endless examples.... I think the thread is about something different though, the opposite, namely why musicians (especially very talented ones) bail.
 
I dont understand your comment. Do you mean as in 'Lets think of people who havent quit and are still good? There are endless examples.... I think the thread is about something different though, the opposite, namely why musicians (especially very talented ones) bail.

Sorry, tend to get riled when Eric Clapton gets acclaimed.
.
Bands, imho, bail because of competition, audience getting older/younger, being obscenely rich, desperately broke, a changed industry, not having the experience that the older bands have etc.
 
Sparks still going because they enjoy the music and have channelled their cynicism into art.
I recommend the Sparks/Franz Ferdinand collaboration that I totally missed when it came out but discovered last year. It's cunningly named FFS, and has a song called 'Collaborations don't work', so you get the impression they're still having fun.
 
I recommend the Sparks/Franz Ferdinand collaboration that I totally missed when it came out but discovered last year. It's cunningly named FFS, and has a song called 'Collaborations don't work', so you get the impression they're still having fun.
Oh yes! Picked it up a year or two back for next to nothing, it's a great collaboration.
 
Back
Top Bottom