Quality improves or lowers with more albums?

[SymiMetycal]

Hello everybody.

I want to see what other people think about band's quality of music as they "age" or release more albums over the years.

Personally, I find that many bands start off rather unstable sounding, but show promise of improvement over time. Usually bands do begin to sound better and more talented as time goes by. However in a few cases, they may start to sound worse as they drift more and more towards today's profit-oriented society and they begin to sound - not necessarily bad - but exactly like everybody else. For me, this is a shame, since I see music as a unique art, with individual artists and styles.

I'd like to know what others think, and what bands you think fit this profile. Here are some questions to consider and discuss here:

-Is this just evidence that practice makes perfect?
-Is this only because they get better equipment and technology?
-Is this utterly untrue?
-Is this right on the money?

Thank you, and I look forward to discussing this topic with you.

 

[Frederik Magle]

Well, I think it varies from band to band. One thing that very easily leads to a downward spiral (and not the Trent Reznor kind of ) is the orientation towards pure profit. That will burn out a band quickly.

I'm almost 100% sure better equipment and technology is a non-factor. Either way. Some of the best albums have been made with equipment that would make any decent home-studio-owner laugh today... Practice does make better (but not necessarily "perfect"). However, when a band gets its breakthrough chances are they already have a lot of practice.

One thing I've noticed though is that usually it takes one or two albums before the band really breaks through. But there's one other factor to consider - maybe it takes that long for the audience to catch on? Also, often when a band goes down it has something to do with internal problems. Animosity between the members and sometimes frequent replacements, etc.

Hmmm.... very interesting discussion! What does rock history tell us? (not rhetorical, I'm really interested in the answer)

 

[SymiMetycal]

Yes, when bands play music purely for profit it seems to show up in their sound...

I can only think of a few bands which went sour upon large-scale notoriety (which is why I started this thread, to see if it's isolated or if others have seen this throughout their own music patronage.)

Well thanks for the input! I'm always happy when somebody posts in a thread of mine, especially when it's on the subject. Any other input from anybody?

 

[Kaizen]

I also agree that it depends on what the band wants to portray. If a band rushes to create a new album because they want to "cash-in" then surely the quality of their music will represent the rushed creation of it. But on the other hand if a band takes it time and creates music for the pleasure of making music, then im sure the quality will express that as well. It's all a matter of rushed or not in my opinion.

 

[Krummhorn]

Notariety and fame will come in due course and in due time. I think any group realy needs to focus first on their total sound, listening intently to each other, trying to blend their instruments while building a great clientelle, and then s-l-o-w-l-y ease into the recording market. By that time, the band will be playing as 'one' and not as a group of individuals. Burn out is avoided, and the end result could be more profitable, in more ways than just the monetary aspect.

Kh

 

[StuckOnBandaid]

I truly think it depends on the band. There are some bands that started off good and are still as good. I have to agree that bands start to slide when they get greedy, or their handlers get greedy. They also seem to produce lower quality music (in all aspects) when they're overworked. Maybe it's just me, but I find that if they're pumping out album after album it all sounds the same.