Psean wrote
I don't think it's age either. I just think that it's rare for bands to put out really great work over many decades; the one that stay around for more than a decade or so seem to have at least one peak period whether it's early in their career or in later years. The Stone's are just not at that peak anymore but are carrying on nonetheless.
Well yes. A lot of artists have a peak, and often it comes early on. And often they carry on, which is their right, or their financial necessity.
I think there are artists who sustain their creativity a lot longer. I was going to say that it seems to be lesser known artists, but really I can't see a rule or pattern to this. Paul Simon actually peaked well into his career, I thought, his solo albums were actually much better than the S&G stuff, and Graceland, 14 years after he had his first solo hit with "Mother and Child Reunion" was a very strong record. I'm inclined to think he's finally run out of steam, but I've heard some good reports of his latest album (and others that say it's not so good).
Robert Plant's solo career has now run much longer than Led Zeppelin, and his last three albums (at least) have been very strong and his live shows, by all reports, have been tremendous.
I'm not a big fan, but Tom Jones has done his most interesting work relatively late in his career, and his performance at the Jubilee celebrations showed how good a vocalist and performer he still is.
There's others I wish would just shut up and count their money.
