- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why do some bands have multiple hits in a short period then continue for years without any
Posted on 7/20/25 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 7/20/25 at 3:09 pm
I was watching a special called Mr. Blue sky, about Jeff Lynne and ELO, and one of the narrators said,” Jeff continues to make music day after day.”
This got me thinking about why, many bands in fact, have a period of time where they create multiple hits, then they keep playing for years after, never producing another?
How can a band that was capable of turning out multiple hits in a short period of time, fail to produce even one hit though they continue writhing music for years after their initial successes?
Do they just lose inspiration or is it more a case where good songs they create later aren’t pushed and marketed by radio stations and producers as they once were?
This got me thinking about why, many bands in fact, have a period of time where they create multiple hits, then they keep playing for years after, never producing another?
How can a band that was capable of turning out multiple hits in a short period of time, fail to produce even one hit though they continue writhing music for years after their initial successes?
Do they just lose inspiration or is it more a case where good songs they create later aren’t pushed and marketed by radio stations and producers as they once were?
19
Posted on 7/20/25 at 3:22 pm to Revelator
quote:
good songs they create later aren’t pushed and marketed by radio stations and producers as they once were?
I think it's mostly this.
Posted on 7/20/25 at 4:01 pm to Revelator
Lots of different reasons. Some bands burnout, some lose inspiration. Some first album releases are ten years worth of work and they can't write the follow up. Hit music making is a young man's game; Flavor of the Month. So there can be some ageism involved too.
Posted on 7/20/25 at 4:16 pm to Mizz-SEC
quote:
Some first album releases are ten years worth of work and they can't write the follow up.
This is true, but with 10-20 years of playing after, you’d think they could come up with one more.
Posted on 7/20/25 at 4:20 pm to Revelator
Popular music evolves quickly and is marketed to the younger generations.
Posted on 7/20/25 at 4:58 pm to Revelator
No one wants intelligent, well-written music (or movies) anymore.
It's either rap, teeny-bopper crap, or superhero movies.
It's either rap, teeny-bopper crap, or superhero movies.
Posted on 7/20/25 at 5:27 pm to Revelator
This is a pretty artistic question really.
Is it genre related? Maybe it’s the ambition without pressure to write great songs. Ambition: high, pressure: low.
Make a big showing and it becomes: ambition medium, pressure: high. ?
Is it genre related? Maybe it’s the ambition without pressure to write great songs. Ambition: high, pressure: low.
Make a big showing and it becomes: ambition medium, pressure: high. ?
Posted on 7/20/25 at 7:03 pm to Havoc
Many artists aren't chasing the shiny happy rainbow and would rather their music be about music.
Posted on 7/20/25 at 7:09 pm to Mizz-SEC
Some bands try to hard to make each album better than the one before.. Boston is a perfect example, their 1st album was such an iconic album there was no way they were ever gonna top it or even match it.
Posted on 7/20/25 at 9:14 pm to Revelator
Mostly because of exhausted talent.
Posted on 7/20/25 at 10:37 pm to Revelator
Once an artist has a few hits and has made a bunch of money, they can do what they want to do and that is generally not what the average person wants to hear.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 2:51 am to Revelator
(excuse the book below... I'm a verbose egghead musician/music fanatic)
Tastes change... and the public's listening habits change (or stop, frozen in time for most individuals).
For sociological purposes, I remember a "generational cohort" being set at 8 years... that was a span where people were kind of molded by the same events and cultural things. I know we brand generations by 20 or 25 year stretches, but then they subdivide them into groups of smaller cohorts ("early Gen X" vs "late Gen X")...
Anyway, a genre of music is generally popular for about 8 years before it loses popularity and is replaced by something else (though certain acts can get big enough to stay popular beyond their contemporaries).
Think of, say, "hair metal," which started really dominating record sales in rock in about 1980 (if we count AC/DC and Van Halen in the genre, which at least they heavily-inspired) then it began to run out of gas around 1988-89... or "grunge and Alternative Rock," which we can lump together because their fanbases were pretty much the same people, or could stand each other... it became a huge thing (getting its own commercial radio station formats aside from college radio) around 1989-90 (R.E.M.'s "Out of Time" record being the giant multi-platinum breakthrough damsmasher, followed a few years later by the Red Hot Chili Pepper's "BloodSugarSexMagik" and some album called "Nevermind" by Nirvana)... and it started fizzling out around 1998... replaced as a radio format by nü-metal and modern rock (Creed, etc).
So were the same people going along on those different trends?
No, not for the most part.
What happened was that hair metal caught the ears or kids in junior high in the early 80s... and by 1988 those kids had increasingly "aged out" of buying records and going to concerts because life got more complicated... they had jobs and/or families, increasingly, so that fan base starts shrinking... and it starts being replaced in the market place by a new batch of junior high kids, who are into different things.
I noticed a long time ago that people "like" music from around age 12 until 21, or whenever they stop hanging out with their peer group all the time. Music is a social soundtrack for most people; they like what their friends like BECAUSE their friends like it. And whenever life disperses their peer group they stop liking new music, for the most part, and just listen to what they liked in those years and maybe stuff from earlier in their childhood that reminds them of their parents and happy times. They don't even want to hear new songs by the bands they liked in that time frame; they just want the old hits they listened to with their friends. That's all the music most people listen to over and over until they die.
LOUDWIRE: Psychology Explains Why You Still Love the Music You Loved As a Teen
With streaming now comprising most people's music listening, this has been proved... streaming service users stream music that was popular in their teens... every age group past early 20s today overwhelmingly streams music that was popular in their teen years.
ELO was a side-project of a popular band in Britian called The Move. They started releasing records around 1970 and really had their huge superstar period from 1975-1981... then they started to lose popularity... they still had hits, but they increasingly weren't considered "cool" and concert attendance was falling fast... so Lynne dissolved the band in about 1983, and switched to being a record producer with great success.
But then, about a decade later, all those fans who'd dropped out of being music listeners were freed up by life (working their way up the ladder of employment to have more time and money, kids grown and more out of their hair) and start buying old albums they'd lost...ESPECIALLY on CD in that period when the world was replacing its vinyl collections with Compact Discs... and then they'll pay a lot for concert tickets to hear the old hits, so the band can do very successful tours in arenas. But they won't buy a new record, at least not by the millions like in the past. And radio probably would not play a new single from an older band if they did... even Fleetwood Mac put out a new record in 2003, which made it to number 3 on the charts, but radio wouldn't play the singles... though their classic songs are still played to death and re-enter the charts every few years when they get used in a Tik Tok vid or something.
I remember reading something in the late 90s with one of the guys in Aerosmith being asked about why 70s bands seems to have had better careers than 90s bands, and he said "well... I mean, our career in the 70s lasted about 7 or 8 years, then we fell off and lost popularity for a bit then were lucky enough to get a second life. My kid loved Weezer when he was in junior high... they didn't put out a second record until he was finishing high school. I said 'hey Weezer's got a new record coming out'... and he said 'I don't know if I like those guys anymore...' They waited half of our 70s career-length to put out another record. We got screamed at when we didn't have one ready every year. I think things take so long to get out now that the audience moves on before bands can follow things up."
Tastes change... and the public's listening habits change (or stop, frozen in time for most individuals).
For sociological purposes, I remember a "generational cohort" being set at 8 years... that was a span where people were kind of molded by the same events and cultural things. I know we brand generations by 20 or 25 year stretches, but then they subdivide them into groups of smaller cohorts ("early Gen X" vs "late Gen X")...
Anyway, a genre of music is generally popular for about 8 years before it loses popularity and is replaced by something else (though certain acts can get big enough to stay popular beyond their contemporaries).
Think of, say, "hair metal," which started really dominating record sales in rock in about 1980 (if we count AC/DC and Van Halen in the genre, which at least they heavily-inspired) then it began to run out of gas around 1988-89... or "grunge and Alternative Rock," which we can lump together because their fanbases were pretty much the same people, or could stand each other... it became a huge thing (getting its own commercial radio station formats aside from college radio) around 1989-90 (R.E.M.'s "Out of Time" record being the giant multi-platinum breakthrough damsmasher, followed a few years later by the Red Hot Chili Pepper's "BloodSugarSexMagik" and some album called "Nevermind" by Nirvana)... and it started fizzling out around 1998... replaced as a radio format by nü-metal and modern rock (Creed, etc).
So were the same people going along on those different trends?
No, not for the most part.
What happened was that hair metal caught the ears or kids in junior high in the early 80s... and by 1988 those kids had increasingly "aged out" of buying records and going to concerts because life got more complicated... they had jobs and/or families, increasingly, so that fan base starts shrinking... and it starts being replaced in the market place by a new batch of junior high kids, who are into different things.
I noticed a long time ago that people "like" music from around age 12 until 21, or whenever they stop hanging out with their peer group all the time. Music is a social soundtrack for most people; they like what their friends like BECAUSE their friends like it. And whenever life disperses their peer group they stop liking new music, for the most part, and just listen to what they liked in those years and maybe stuff from earlier in their childhood that reminds them of their parents and happy times. They don't even want to hear new songs by the bands they liked in that time frame; they just want the old hits they listened to with their friends. That's all the music most people listen to over and over until they die.
LOUDWIRE: Psychology Explains Why You Still Love the Music You Loved As a Teen
With streaming now comprising most people's music listening, this has been proved... streaming service users stream music that was popular in their teens... every age group past early 20s today overwhelmingly streams music that was popular in their teen years.
ELO was a side-project of a popular band in Britian called The Move. They started releasing records around 1970 and really had their huge superstar period from 1975-1981... then they started to lose popularity... they still had hits, but they increasingly weren't considered "cool" and concert attendance was falling fast... so Lynne dissolved the band in about 1983, and switched to being a record producer with great success.
But then, about a decade later, all those fans who'd dropped out of being music listeners were freed up by life (working their way up the ladder of employment to have more time and money, kids grown and more out of their hair) and start buying old albums they'd lost...ESPECIALLY on CD in that period when the world was replacing its vinyl collections with Compact Discs... and then they'll pay a lot for concert tickets to hear the old hits, so the band can do very successful tours in arenas. But they won't buy a new record, at least not by the millions like in the past. And radio probably would not play a new single from an older band if they did... even Fleetwood Mac put out a new record in 2003, which made it to number 3 on the charts, but radio wouldn't play the singles... though their classic songs are still played to death and re-enter the charts every few years when they get used in a Tik Tok vid or something.
I remember reading something in the late 90s with one of the guys in Aerosmith being asked about why 70s bands seems to have had better careers than 90s bands, and he said "well... I mean, our career in the 70s lasted about 7 or 8 years, then we fell off and lost popularity for a bit then were lucky enough to get a second life. My kid loved Weezer when he was in junior high... they didn't put out a second record until he was finishing high school. I said 'hey Weezer's got a new record coming out'... and he said 'I don't know if I like those guys anymore...' They waited half of our 70s career-length to put out another record. We got screamed at when we didn't have one ready every year. I think things take so long to get out now that the audience moves on before bands can follow things up."
Posted on 7/21/25 at 3:07 am to shutterspeed
quote:
Popular music evolves quickly and is marketed to the younger generations.
Yep. And as I discussed above, older people don't generally want new things to listen to...at least not on the million$-scaled world that the corporations who own the major record labels and broadcast radio stations care about...
but you look at some bands who know how to build a faithful large audience on a level just below that... Wilco, for example.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 7:06 am to Revelator
A lot of the hits you hear today from some of the biggest artists are all written by the same people.
I think a lot has to do with marketing with who is widely popular.
Like Chappel Roan. She made that song some years ago but is blowing up now. Her albums she’s putting out now uses the same writer as Olivia Rodrigo.
Sabrina carpenter and swift using the same writers would be another example.
While many artists may top the pop charts, a single writer may have multiple songs at the top of the charts from multiple artists.
I think a lot has to do with marketing with who is widely popular.
Like Chappel Roan. She made that song some years ago but is blowing up now. Her albums she’s putting out now uses the same writer as Olivia Rodrigo.
Sabrina carpenter and swift using the same writers would be another example.
While many artists may top the pop charts, a single writer may have multiple songs at the top of the charts from multiple artists.
This post was edited on 7/21/25 at 7:13 am
Posted on 7/21/25 at 7:24 am to Revelator
quote:
This got me thinking about why, many bands in fact, have a period of time where they create multiple hits, then they keep playing for years after, never producing another?
How can a band that was capable of turning out multiple hits in a short period of time, fail to produce even one hit though they continue writhing music for years after their initial successes?
Posted on 7/21/25 at 7:51 am to Revelator
Most songwriters peak in their mid-20s. Most acts find their niche with a certain age group, typically high school/college. Then, whatever it is they do becomes (perceived or actually) old, stale, music belonging to an "earlier" time (4 to 6 years ago).
Obviously, some acts get a longer run or second/third careers. But, just taking a very specific example - everything the Beatles did was in their 20s. That's it. They turned 30 and the Beatles were no more. They all had varying degrees of success after that (Maca particularly), but nothing like that phenomenon.
Plus, success does rob you of a certain degree of hunger, that desperation that is sometimes essential in the creation of works of art.
Obviously, some acts get a longer run or second/third careers. But, just taking a very specific example - everything the Beatles did was in their 20s. That's it. They turned 30 and the Beatles were no more. They all had varying degrees of success after that (Maca particularly), but nothing like that phenomenon.
Plus, success does rob you of a certain degree of hunger, that desperation that is sometimes essential in the creation of works of art.
This post was edited on 7/21/25 at 7:52 am
Posted on 7/21/25 at 8:56 am to Lee B
quote:
(excuse the book below... I'm a verbose egghead musician/music fanatic)
Good book. Well written and very accurate.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:19 am to Revelator
quote:
How can a band that was capable of turning out multiple hits in a short period of time, fail to produce even one hit though they continue writhing music for years after their initial successes?
IDK if its this for every band, but I feel like some try to recreate their hits instead of writing music in the way you were when you created the hits in the first place.
I also think there is only so much a band can do musically before the well is pretty much dry in terms of hits. Some bands with versatility have a higher cap (Beatles, Stones, Bowie) but at some point you're going to put out stuff that sounds a lot like your old stuff in a new package.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:57 am to Revelator
Newer, younger acts, tend to sign bad deals that are more lucrative for the big wheels in the business, so they get promoted most.
Older acts that don't self-destruct, establish a loyal following.
They will always sell a certain amount of music, even without much help from the labels. They are still profitable, so keeping them on the label is a no brainer. Competing labels are also willing to sign them, because they are still profitable at a predictable margin.
However, they have grown smarter and negotiate better deals for themselves, taking away incentive for the promoters and shysters to be involved with them. So they do their thing, the way that they want, with people they can trust.
Now, for what I call "super acts", like Swift, Beyonce, Elvis, Tim McGraw, Reba Mcentire etc., they gain an immense amount of power in the industry and crossing them is career suicide, so they keep getting promoted, until they jump the shark somehow and fade into the background themselves.
They start their own promotion/management companies and begin playing the same games that were played with them, when they were younger. Still raking in the money.
The older, normal, established acts that keep it together, continue to make great music, but with lower production budgets, promotion, tighter oversight and such.
Since they are no longer raining money on everyone around, there are no reasons for the wheels to convince the public that they are the greatest thing ever.
Older acts that don't self-destruct, establish a loyal following.
They will always sell a certain amount of music, even without much help from the labels. They are still profitable, so keeping them on the label is a no brainer. Competing labels are also willing to sign them, because they are still profitable at a predictable margin.
However, they have grown smarter and negotiate better deals for themselves, taking away incentive for the promoters and shysters to be involved with them. So they do their thing, the way that they want, with people they can trust.
Now, for what I call "super acts", like Swift, Beyonce, Elvis, Tim McGraw, Reba Mcentire etc., they gain an immense amount of power in the industry and crossing them is career suicide, so they keep getting promoted, until they jump the shark somehow and fade into the background themselves.
They start their own promotion/management companies and begin playing the same games that were played with them, when they were younger. Still raking in the money.
The older, normal, established acts that keep it together, continue to make great music, but with lower production budgets, promotion, tighter oversight and such.
Since they are no longer raining money on everyone around, there are no reasons for the wheels to convince the public that they are the greatest thing ever.
Posted on 7/21/25 at 1:29 pm to Revelator
Like others have said you have your entire life to make your first album and once you are hot or make it you gotta ride the wave. Record companies force or hurry the second album to just to cash in.
Jamey Johnson has a good article about him coming out with his first studio album in 14 years. This quote stood out to me…
“I didn’t write unless I absolutely had to write. And that was taking a page out of Roger Miller’s book,” he says. “Roger told Willie [Nelson] years ago that if you’re not writing, it’s because your well is empty, and you need to go out there and live some and fill up your well. And that’s what Willie told me. I think it just took me a long time to get my well full.”
Billboard article about Jamey Johnson
It All Begins With A Song is a good watch on Amazon Prime. It’s about song writing and a group of people who write hits for top country artists.
Jamey Johnson has a good article about him coming out with his first studio album in 14 years. This quote stood out to me…
“I didn’t write unless I absolutely had to write. And that was taking a page out of Roger Miller’s book,” he says. “Roger told Willie [Nelson] years ago that if you’re not writing, it’s because your well is empty, and you need to go out there and live some and fill up your well. And that’s what Willie told me. I think it just took me a long time to get my well full.”
Billboard article about Jamey Johnson
It All Begins With A Song is a good watch on Amazon Prime. It’s about song writing and a group of people who write hits for top country artists.
This post was edited on 7/21/25 at 3:07 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News