I'm speaking of course strictly about Rock, R&B, and contemporary style music. Are there any artists who actually create better albums as they get older?

I always seem to enjoy rock acts when they bust on to the scene or when they've been doing it for about 10 years max. After that, I tend to grow tired of them. I'm pretty sure much of it is due to my own bias having developed expectations based on older material, but I'm not so sure. It seems many people feel artists do their best when they're younger even as they technically get better as they age.

Your thoughts?

MJ. His Motown material was shit compared to what was going to come

Nick Cave

Peter Murphy

Led Zeppelin

Red Hot Chili Peppers

The Clash

Caetano Veloso

Patti Smith

Frank Zappa

Tom Petty

I forgot Tom Waits

I'd say Dylan & Tom Waits

Maybe not better than their classic stuff, but mature and worthy of their names.

I'm not a Neil Young fan, but he has had some well loved albums later in his career.

Also Radiohead. Again, maybe not better than the classic stuff, but still very good.

R.E.M

Weird Al. The production got better than early stuff like I Love Rocky Road, too.

^ Good call.

lazycrockett said:

^ Good call.

the list is way too long because they all have records in their career

Bob DYlan

Paul McCartney (after the 80's)

Elton John (since 2000)

REM (all career)

John Mellencamp (fucking brillant)

a-ha (after they reunited in 1999, all albums were perfection)

u2 (great albums sprinkled all through their career)

Prince (has done alot of better albums)

just to name a few alot of others have albums later in their career that are stellar works, i dont buy the age thing because u just cant compare say a 25 year old writer with a 55 year old one.

Green Day

Neil Young

Marvin Gaye

The Beatles

MJ is a great example

Though I always knew Madonna was great, she pleasantly surprised me with the material on her 00's albums. I could play Confessions start to finish and most of American Life and Hard Candy, I hadn't been able to do that for years.

N of course the Pet Shop Boys.

aardvark15 said:

MJ. His Motown material was shit compared to what was going to come

Eh, I think that Michael and maybe Stevie Wonder too are bad examples to use. Stevie was writing and producing some of his sixties material but overall he was still largely controlled by others. Michael didn't really start writing/producing until after he left Motown.

Michael's Motown era is a completely different thing than what he did after he left. At Motown you were not hearing Michael's vision you were hearing what his writers/producers wanted to do.

Swing Out Sister are quite consistent with the quality of their albums. Their last one, Beautiful Mess, I enjoyed a whole lot more than the few previous ones.

Todd Rundgren's output over the past two decades has been hit or miss with me (considerably more hit than miss). 2004's Liars I'd rank among his best work. Honestly, I didn't think he had it in him anymore.

Kip Winger gets a lot of shit hurled at him for numerous reasons I can't relate to. But I think he's an outstanding writer and continues to put out phenomenal albums with his band (and as a solo artist) since the "1980's hair metal" scene that he will forever be associated with but has long moved on from.

That's all I can think of right now.

I think there are very few artists that produce their best work later in their careers, particularly in the genres suggested by the original poster.

A big reason for that is probably because when most artists are starting out they are really plugged in to the zeitgeist. As great as Bob Dylan's recent albums have been they do not connect to the public the way his music of the sixties did. Eventually people move on and new artists come along and take their place. I think there is something very unique about most artists material during the first five-ten (maybe fifteen-twenty for a fortunate few) years, after that they almost always start to get stale and the later material pales compared to the earlier.

There's probably also something to be said for the vitality of youth. As they age many artists claim that they are much better writers/musicians than when they were young. That may be true but I think they often lose the drive that made their earlier work compelling. As they age their music tends to become much slicker and more polished.

There may be some examples but I can't think of anyone in "popular" music that I would rather hear the second half of their catalog as opposed to the first half (unless it is someone like Sam Cooke or Otis Redding who died very young).

Only one person who got better musically with their age is none other than

Another good example is Sting. Desert Rose came out of nowhere and I mean that in a good way. Santana had his biggest success in 1999/2000 though it's arguable whether that is his best work or not.

not sure if this has been posted, but LotusFlower is well written IMO! Colonized Mind ALONE!!!

JabarR74 said:

Only one person who got better musically with their age is none other than

Eh, I don't think that many people prefer Conversation Peace and A Time To Love over Talking Book and Innervisions.

If you are comparing sixties Stevie to seventies Stevie then, sure, he got better with age but that's not necessarily a fair comparison. Most people, Stevie included, view Where I'm Coming From as his first "adult" album. In the sixties he was still to a large degree under the thumb of the writers/producers he was working with. As the decade wore on he became more and more independent and I don't think it makes much sense to compare the twelve year old Stevie of the early sixties to the twenty-one year old Stevie of the early seventies.

"Year Zero" is my favorite NIN album after "Pretty Hate Machine", and there's 18 years between their releases.

rialb said:

aardvark15 said:

MJ. His Motown material was shit compared to what was going to come

Eh, I think that Michael and maybe Stevie Wonder too are bad examples to use. Stevie was writing and producing some of his sixties material but overall he was still largely controlled by others. Michael didn't really start writing/producing until after he left Motown.

Michael's Motown era is a completely different thing than what he did after he left. At Motown you were not hearing Michael's vision you were hearing what his writers/producers wanted to do.

Yeah they are better than they were as kids, but they were not better as middle aged men than they were as young men.

B-52's

Militant said:

"Year Zero" is my favorite NIN album after "Pretty Hate Machine", and there's 18 years between their releases.

I haven't heard Year Zero but it is on its way.

I'm curious, which album (excluding remix/live albums) would you say is their worst?

NDRU said:

rialb said:

Eh, I think that Michael and maybe Stevie Wonder too are bad examples to use. Stevie was writing and producing some of his sixties material but overall he was still largely controlled by others. Michael didn't really start writing/producing until after he left Motown.

Michael's Motown era is a completely different thing than what he did after he left. At Motown you were not hearing Michael's vision you were hearing what his writers/producers wanted to do.

Yeah they are better than they were as kids, but they were not better as middle aged men than they were as young men.

To me Stevie's music got worse when he got older. It was alright during the '80s because he was still inspired but by the late '90s not so much. I guess when you focus on other activities, you start to neglect the thing you love the most.

Honestly, the only ones I can come up that wrote better as they aged were David Bowie, Todd Rundgren and Trent Reznor. That's about it.

I didn't think the Beatles got any better after their separation.

[Edited 2/5/12 11:21am]

rialb said:

Militant said:

"Year Zero" is my favorite NIN album after "Pretty Hate Machine", and there's 18 years between their releases.

I haven't heard Year Zero but it is on its way.

I'm curious, which album (excluding remix/live albums) would you say is their worst?

Ghosts. It's beautiful, but it drags and there's way too many tracks, many of which are very similar. I can't listen to it.

That aside, I like the whole catalog but I probably like "With Teeth" the least. I think Trent was finding himself after taking a long break and getting clean, and it shows. There's some brilliant songs on there, like "The Hand That Feeds" and "Every Day Is Exactly The Same" but overall I'd say it's the weakest.

I think "The Fragile" could have been edited down to an absolutely killer single disc, but that's pretty much always the case with double disc albums.

Militant said:

rialb said:

I haven't heard Year Zero but it is on its way.

I'm curious, which album (excluding remix/live albums) would you say is their worst?

Ghosts. It's beautiful, but it drags and there's way too many tracks, many of which are very similar. I can't listen to it.

That aside, I like the whole catalog but I probably like "With Teeth" the least. I think Trent was finding himself after taking a long break and getting clean, and it shows. There's some brilliant songs on there, like "The Hand That Feeds" and "Every Day Is Exactly The Same" but overall I'd say it's the weakest.

I think "The Fragile" could have been edited down to an absolutely killer single disc, but that's pretty much always the case with double disc albums.

I've only got Broken, The Downward Spiral and The Fragile.

Year Zero I found pretty cheap but it hasn't arrived yet. I know, I have to get Pretty Hate Machine. Is there anything on the deluxe version of The Downward Spiral that a casual fan needs to hear?

Sorry for steering this a bit off topic. Carry on.

rialb said:

Militant said:

Ghosts. It's beautiful, but it drags and there's way too many tracks, many of which are very similar. I can't listen to it.

That aside, I like the whole catalog but I probably like "With Teeth" the least. I think Trent was finding himself after taking a long break and getting clean, and it shows. There's some brilliant songs on there, like "The Hand That Feeds" and "Every Day Is Exactly The Same" but overall I'd say it's the weakest.

I think "The Fragile" could have been edited down to an absolutely killer single disc, but that's pretty much always the case with double disc albums.

I've only got Broken, The Downward Spiral and The Fragile.

Year Zero I found pretty cheap but it hasn't arrived yet. I know, I have to get Pretty Hate Machine. Is there anything on the deluxe version of The Downward Spiral that a casual fan needs to hear?

Sorry for steering this a bit off topic. Carry on.

Not really, it's just B sides and remix's, i think i've listened to it once. if you have it already there's no need to get it again (IMO) The Slip is good but it was free to download anyway and i think it's only available to buy as a special edition with a dvd (i think).

rialb said:

Militant said:

Ghosts. It's beautiful, but it drags and there's way too many tracks, many of which are very similar. I can't listen to it.

That aside, I like the whole catalog but I probably like "With Teeth" the least. I think Trent was finding himself after taking a long break and getting clean, and it shows. There's some brilliant songs on there, like "The Hand That Feeds" and "Every Day Is Exactly The Same" but overall I'd say it's the weakest.

I think "The Fragile" could have been edited down to an absolutely killer single disc, but that's pretty much always the case with double disc albums.

I've only got Broken, The Downward Spiral and The Fragile.

Year Zero I found pretty cheap but it hasn't arrived yet. I know, I have to get Pretty Hate Machine. Is there anything on the deluxe version of The Downward Spiral that a casual fan needs to hear?

Sorry for steering this a bit off topic. Carry on.

Pretty Hate Machine has been remastered but is not endorsed by Trent so get the normal version.

rialb said:

I think there are very few artists that produce their best work later in their careers, particularly in the genres suggested by the original poster.

A big reason for that is probably because when most artists are starting out they are really plugged in to the zeitgeist. As great as Bob Dylan's recent albums have been they do not connect to the public the way his music of the sixties did. Eventually people move on and new artists come along and take their place. I think there is something very unique about most artists material during the first five-ten (maybe fifteen-twenty for a fortunate few) years, after that they almost always start to get stale and the later material pales compared to the earlier.

There's probably also something to be said for the vitality of youth. As they age many artists claim that they are much better writers/musicians than when they were young. That may be true but I think they often lose the drive that made their earlier work compelling. As they age their music tends to become much slicker and more polished.

There may be some examples but I can't think of anyone in "popular" music that I would rather hear the second half of their catalog as opposed to the first half (unless it is someone like Sam Cooke or Otis Redding who died very young).

gotta disagree, there are many, i think people tend to hold on to "heydays" more because its nostalgic to them, this is why people get up and go to the bathroom when an artist plays a new song at a concert, its got nothing to do with material, we just dont grow with them. John Mellencamp is clearly one on my list that blows this analogy apart, the part of his career from 1979 when he put "i need a lover" and even up to his explosion with "jack and diane" and the American Fool, John has grown 100% more than anyone around him has, he in his later 40's and 50's brought out the blues influences, folk,etc...John Cougar never did that, because he wasnt developed yet. another group i listed was a-ha, now they are unknown in this country but their work from 2000-2010 is light years more interesting than the days of "take on me", because they grew as writers and players and artists. NOT that everyone is gonna hit a homerun, but someone like Elton JOhn to me has been on a roll since "Songs from the West Coast", yes he made amazing albums in the 70's and a few bad ones in the 80's and 90's but since 2000 its been stellar work. But its impossible to compare the mind of a 50 year old writer to a 25 year old one, Van Halen just did possibly one of their best albums in 25 years, proving all the skeptics wrong, Paul McCartney after horrendous albums in the 80's has done really great stuff like "flaming pie" and "chaos" which to me were album of the year contenders in their respective years, and overlooked. And my greatest example Rick Springfield, dude is 64 and since 1998 every album has gotten better anyone that heard his record "Shock Denial Anger Acceptance" and "venus in overdrive" albums in 2004, and 2007 clearly would say he is much better now than the 1980's rick springfield. so i cant go along with this statement that artists DONT produce their best work after they age, i mean no one ever says this about ACTORS, do we look at Tom Hanks and his later work and say WOW "why cant he do something like Turner and Hooch or Man with One Red Shoe again".