5 ms·

That’s what “style” is. A great musician develops and cultivates a new style and then mixes and mashes it along to make new songs within that style. Each song i

That’s what “style” is. A great musician develops and cultivates a new style and then mixes and mashes it along to make new songs within that style. Each song is an expression of their unique style. It’s why a lot of artists can’t continue to make great music. They’ve exhausted their unique style and are unable to progress it further or cultivate a coherent successor style.

coldtea 4y ago
>It’s why a lot of artists can’t continue to make great music. They’ve exhausted their unique style and are unable to progress it further or cultivate a coherent successor style. I'm not sure it's that they "exhausted their style", as often even after a band stars making duds, other bands can continue to make great new music in the same style. And for many bands the style wasn't really "theirs" or unique to begin with (e.g. it was typical rockabilly or garage rock stuff or techno or whatever), but those bands did made some good tunes before they started to making duds. It's more about the ability to write good or bad songs, than about the style still having "unexmplored" corners. People can write good new song in the most established styles and manners - including good new traditional-sounding folk, blues, gospel, etc. I think for bands that stop making good music, it's more that they exhausted their own inspiration, rather than exhausting the potential of their (unique or not) style. And usually also that other stuff, like addiction, animosity between members, boredom, middle age concerns, despiriting lack of money/success (or too much money/success to focus on music), came into play.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  I think you are conflating style and genre. Within a genre and sub-genre an artist carves their niche with their personal style. They have “a sound”, or at least the very good ones so. And they are able to develop their sound until they exhaust it. They can keep working it (The Ramones for example) or identify they have exhausted it and evolve their style. Metallica is a good example of this. They started in a sub-genre of Rock named Metal and pioneered a sub-genre of that called “Thrash”. There were other thrash bands and they each had their distinct style of thrash. Metallica developed their style over the 1980’s and by their 4th album had determined they had exhausted their style as it got to the ultimate, complex expression of it. They could continue seeing minimal returns by pumping out the same thing or try and evolve their style. They evolved their style out of the Thrash genre and possibly out of the Metal genre and had their most successful album in terms of listeners. A huge risk really. They kept developing this style for the next decade. And then as you pointed out, life happens (addiction, money, fame, etc in their case) and they released a total dud. They’ve since cultivated yet another style they’ve been developing since 2008. Firmly back in the metal genre. Point being the “good” thrash metal bands were all playing in the same genre but they each had distinct styles. So although one band exhausts their style, other bands can continue to cultivate theirs and new bands can introduce new styles and even create sub-genres.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Not conflating, rather I don't think style is as relevant as genre to the discussion. The overall genre is more important, because it imposes more constraints to the songwriting. Style is basically just spice on top, nothing you can't change at will based on different playing, production, and orchestration. The problem with tired bands isn't that they exhausted their style, but that they can't come up with decent new songs. Other bands in the same genre (or even different genres) can and do however come up with new songs - and if the former band was able to write them (exactly the same as the second band has), then changing them to their own style would be super easy, barely an inconvenience. For example, to take two bands in the same genre, if the Rolling Stones couldn't write decent songs in 1988-1998, and Black Crowes could (they put out a series of good records then), it was not because the Stones exhausted their style and Black Crowes still hadn't exhausted theirs. It's just that the Stones had no inspiration, whereas the Crowes could still come up with good songs. The difference in style isn't really important, as the same same songs could trivially be turned to the style of the other band. (Hell, even complete different style && genre songs can be turned into the genre and style of a band covering them, just need a different orchestration, production, and small stylistic flourishes - the core of the song, the chords, melody, lyrics remains the same).

coldtea 4y ago

>It’s why a lot of artists can’t continue to make great music. They’ve exhausted their unique style and are unable to progress it further or cultivate a coherent successor style. I'm not sure it's that they "exhausted their style", as often even after a band stars making duds, other bands can continue to make great new music in the same style. And for many bands the style wasn't really "theirs" or unique to begin with (e.g. it was typical rockabilly or garage rock stuff or techno or whatever), but those bands did made some good tunes before they started to making duds. It's more about the ability to write good or bad songs, than about the style still having "unexmplored" corners. People can write good new song in the most established styles and manners - including good new traditional-sounding folk, blues, gospel, etc. I think for bands that stop making good music, it's more that they exhausted their own inspiration, rather than exhausting the potential of their (unique or not) style. And usually also that other stuff, like addiction, animosity between members, boredom, middle age concerns, despiriting lack of money/success (or too much money/success to focus on music), came into play.

nemo44x 4y ago
I think you are conflating style and genre. Within a genre and sub-genre an artist carves their niche with their personal style. They have “a sound”, or at least the very good ones so. And they are able to develop their sound until they exhaust it. They can keep working it (The Ramones for example) or identify they have exhausted it and evolve their style. Metallica is a good example of this. They started in a sub-genre of Rock named Metal and pioneered a sub-genre of that called “Thrash”. There were other thrash bands and they each had their distinct style of thrash. Metallica developed their style over the 1980’s and by their 4th album had determined they had exhausted their style as it got to the ultimate, complex expression of it. They could continue seeing minimal returns by pumping out the same thing or try and evolve their style. They evolved their style out of the Thrash genre and possibly out of the Metal genre and had their most successful album in terms of listeners. A huge risk really. They kept developing this style for the next decade. And then as you pointed out, life happens (addiction, money, fame, etc in their case) and they released a total dud. They’ve since cultivated yet another style they’ve been developing since 2008. Firmly back in the metal genre. Point being the “good” thrash metal bands were all playing in the same genre but they each had distinct styles. So although one band exhausts their style, other bands can continue to cultivate theirs and new bands can introduce new styles and even create sub-genres.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Not conflating, rather I don't think style is as relevant as genre to the discussion. The overall genre is more important, because it imposes more constraints to the songwriting. Style is basically just spice on top, nothing you can't change at will based on different playing, production, and orchestration. The problem with tired bands isn't that they exhausted their style, but that they can't come up with decent new songs. Other bands in the same genre (or even different genres) can and do however come up with new songs - and if the former band was able to write them (exactly the same as the second band has), then changing them to their own style would be super easy, barely an inconvenience. For example, to take two bands in the same genre, if the Rolling Stones couldn't write decent songs in 1988-1998, and Black Crowes could (they put out a series of good records then), it was not because the Stones exhausted their style and Black Crowes still hadn't exhausted theirs. It's just that the Stones had no inspiration, whereas the Crowes could still come up with good songs. The difference in style isn't really important, as the same same songs could trivially be turned to the style of the other band. (Hell, even complete different style && genre songs can be turned into the genre and style of a band covering them, just need a different orchestration, production, and small stylistic flourishes - the core of the song, the chords, melody, lyrics remains the same).