I totally agree about the Faces. I say the same thing...in the words of A Mighty Wind..."wha happan?" Both Rod and Woody as well.

I was thinking about this sort of thing recently and I came to the conclusion that one of the only bands to be great in the 60's and make it at least to the early 80's without looking like an oldies act was The Kinks. Even though I don't love a lot of their 70's stuff as much, I was struck by the fact that they made it to and through the new wave and punk era by staying sort of current without looking/sounding like they were too old to be doing what they were doing. They stayed sort of relevant up to the "Do It Again" days.

One of the worst offenders of "what happened?" is also one of my ultimate favorites: The Beach Boys. Brian Wilson's hot streak of 1962 to 1966 was unbelievable. So much amazing music, both successfully and artistically. After that, though there are a few spotty moments of curious brilliance, the band's output, both with Brian at the helm and without, was pretty embarrassing in the 70s, and especially in the 80s.

Roger

Ben Folds (solo) comes to mind. Ben Folds Five was AWESOME. WTF?

Yeah, I've gotten every solo album.... Who else did us piano players have to look up to? Landed is an alright song. Don't get me wrong, I'd still go and see him live just because, but I really don't listen or really like much of what he's been doing lately, the whole sensitive singer songwriter schtick. Heard anything off the new one next month, Jim?

I have heard conversations and seen articles about a theory that has musicians being looked at like athletes, hitting their peaks in their late 20s-late 30s and then going down hill from there. I don't know if I truly believe this, but I do believe that there is a limit to the amazing output and I believe this can be hard and causes the artist to try to hard to get back to their former self, thus causing crappy music. Most of us can't be great at what we do for ever or even that long. Think about the artists or athletes or anythings that we idolize. It is usually for limited, but amazing, output.

My theory is that being poor and miserable makes you more creative. I mean, once these people achieve some level of success and comfort it's like they can't relate to us. They've achieved what they set out to achieve so why try as hard as they used to? Like Duncan said, they get complacent. They're comfortable. And I, for one, can't relate to that.

There are exceptions though....

Sometimes I try and think about the artist progressing. It's their art, not ours. Like Tim Buckley's dramatic transformations through his career. But when there were standards set and it's obvious that they are only releasing material just for dollars. It's a let down. As is the case with a lot of the bands discussed, I think drugs definitely have a lot to do with it.

It must be very tough to be a popular musician with the ebb and flow of your career.One minute you have a number one hit and the next you can't scrape the Hot 100. Then where are you? If you follow your art and your heart, in the Kinks case, it meant commercial obscurity. Can you believe Shangri-La didn't chart in 1969 in the UK? Then the record company is telling you to release something single worthy. Such as Clive Davis suggesting the Kinks release a disco record the late 70s. There is so much pressure from fans and the record company. The fans want product of high standard, while the record company wants you to trend hop to make dollars.
'You'll try and you'll try again but you know You Can't Win"