Why do Bands Start to SUCK later in their career

I had this very conversation with a friend today
First answer man just think how hard it is to make one great album
Then maybe you do Get years of great albums that's takes major talent not saying hasn't been done but damn to come up with years of good material
2nd answer after you've made it the drive is not as strong maybe or if you were one of the very talented few to have years of great albums it has to take a toll on you I mean this is a tough biz jmo
Hell I like to have one great song a year lol

I also think that truly creative people try hard not to repeat themselves...and that alienates the people that fell in love with the first vision they had. I've been listening to Bowie a bunch since his passing...and it's amazing that he remained at such a high level for so long.

I'll tell you from a songwriter with some somewhat underground success point of view; it ain't there as much anymore.
Creative juices go away. Family trumps everything. Work in the studio and the restaurant drains me. Life takes turns I never knew were so involved.
Back in the day I could sit and play music with my friends for hours. Nowadays I gotta pick up my son from school and then make homework entertaining, feed him, talk about minecraft, etc... that takes some creative energy. Well worth it but nonetheless when I finally get a few hours to 'play' I am kinda shot.
At my peak I was busting out 8 songs a year, albeit; I'm far more the Leonard Cohen style of take your time and make every word and note count even if it takes 8 months. I also won't release or play anything I think is just okay. I sold a ton of stuff (much of it without my knowledge) to different European film agencies who own it completely. Like I can't ever say it was mine even though it says written by "" in the credits. There was a time when labels did this to their own artists. Myself and others more successful got screwed. That'll burn some permanent juices.
Nowadays I might struggle on and off for months on a song but like I said with my music im completely ocd, and so there is a ton of songs I have never released because they floated below that invisible line.
I get some soundtrack work now and again. Mostly documentary films. Some commercials. That stuff is also completely draining. It often takes days to put together 15 minutes and its by no means my best work. Whatrugonnado eh?.
I'll die playing music and writing songs and it keeps me going to remember that Leonard Cohen was 37 when he made his first radio hit and his albums (minus the last two) just got better. Tom Waits wasn't a young pup either. Both of those guys are huge influences. Wasn't this one of the reasons Cobain did himself in? It wasn't "there" and "its better to burn out then fade away"?

For a lot who make it big in the early days the songs and performance evolved in front of a live audience, that had no problem letting them know what works and what sucks. As you make it big there is a lot less time to work on new stuff and the honest filter of strangers dissapears.
It always amazed me showing up for tour rehearsals that nobody had the guts to at some point say this new stuff isn't you! Or it sucks!

Problem is everybody with a record contract thinks they Lennon and Mcartney!

Ask John!

There's a lot of factors in this PERCEPTION....one being that the more artistic CLOUT one gets, the less their work will be liked by the public. This isn't a popular notion among artists, for honest reasons...but, there IS a reason sausage tastes so good AND no one wants to see how it's made. Once you have the clout to simply serve your grass fed beef tartar with a sprinkling of chili pepper panache, you just took away the love of the hamburger and hot dog loving public--they WILL perceive your "old music as better than that new stuff". Right or wrong.

But, the largest is this idea that performers are writers are performers. If anyone wants to argue that Clapton sung and played better in his youth than now, I'm calling utter bullshit. Now--has he penned another Layla or Wonderful Tonight lately? Gonna go with no. So, was he a "better artist" in the early 70s? You can say that if you want...but, really, you're only commenting on his writing. I can ASSURE you he sings and plays better now--including the performance of those now old and gotta be boring to him classics. His band is far more tasteful AND accomplished. His recordings SOUND a million times better.

Anyway--this IS about writing as artistry. Not about musical artistry, which I've nearly never seen decrease in potency until maybe we get into the stage in life where the body starts to functionally get in the way. To have this conversation be meaningful, you need to sub "pop music songwriters" for "artist" or "bands". Bands, you can't equate/follow in large part. I don't know many who have managed to stay remotely intact....and that's fodder for a whole other thread.

The early albums are the best of a decade's worth of audience-tested songwriting.

Maybe. Maybe they would be more inclined to cut outside songs if the publishers weren't sharecropping them...but there seems to be this myth that you can't be a real artist if you don't write 125% of your songs...(along with your college roommate)

Yet I like the Ryan Adams cover of her Album!

One thing I notice is that often the best writing doesn't happen completely alone, collaboration is key. And as we get older a lot of people (because of the way life works) are less able and inclined to collaborate as often and as readily as when they were younger and leading a younger person's lifestyle.

I think the point about the early albums (we all love so much from the bands when they were young) is tied into the fact that you also were young back then and music was super important in your life and made a big impact on you.

Then nostalgia kicks in when you and they are older.

I went to see U2 many years ago and even back then about 20 years ago when they were touring Ashtung Baby, everyone of the 80,000 people in the audience
just wanted them to quickly get through the new material and get on with playing the raw youthful hit's like Sunday Bloody Sunday etc.

Yes, this point isn't the whole story but looking at the bands I love I can hear that later albums were great peices of work but just lacked the connection with my own youth
and energy those early albums had.

There's an old saying: You've got 20 years to write your first album - 6 months to write your next.

Even with that said, "time of your life" by Green Day - arguably one of their biggest hits - is a song written from their Kerplunk days - before Dookie was even a thought, and then released 3 albums later.

Usually you can get 2 or 3 albums out of the songs from one era where you're writing a lot, but then you eventually have to write more stuff while dealing with modern stresses that happen - kids, spouse, management, touring fatigue.. But everyone's right, that people are signed for one sound, but then nobody wants to be known for their "one sound", just like nobody wants to be known as that band that writes "3 chord wonders". Writers that have written 50-100 songs in one style and then try to branch out to a new sound end up trying to do something that they haven't practiced as much. When regular rock bands go and try to write their "concept album", they've never written such a thing before, and a lot of times it'll come out like anyone's first attempt at something. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't! Mostly it doesn't!

I get chided all the time about my music not sounding the same anymore like it's a bad thing. Newsflash - it's on purpose. My drummer gave me a task the other day though - write a song like I used to write and see if it's as good as the old ones were. Who knows, maybe pop punk isn't dead much longer?