Why do all bands turn to sh**?

To be quite honest I can think of numerous bands more creatively stagnant than AA. They just aren't as good.
 
I quite liked Addicted. Devy's next album is meant to be much heavier, something along the lines of Physicist, so hopefully that will be pretty crushing.

I get where you're going with Opeth. Watershed wasn't the best. Ghost Reveries had 2 or 3 decent songs and the rest was filler.

I guess bands get sick of writing/playing the same old styles and want to try something new, which is understandable.
 
The obvious answer, which has already been mentioned, is that they simply run out of ideas. This is true for a lot of cases, but I think if bands consciously try to keep things fresh and challenge themselves, then they can potentially find a source of inspiration for new ideas. But then there's also this problem: After a while most underground metal bands will get sick of their bosses at the local Cinnabon telling them to get a haircut, so they start having fantasies of leaving their day job. But usually the only way that's possible is to start making stuff that can sell at least enough to pay some bills. And there you go. Both of these problems together ensure that every good metal band that makes more than 2 or 3 albums ends up sucking after a while.
 
They are developing their sound and your taste stands still at the same old self.

I think this is the closest to nailing it. Surely some artists do run out of ideas, but I think it's more that their tastes change over time and they just want to do something different, and you just might not dig it. I don't see it as the great tragedy some of you seem to. There is plenty of great music out there, so if a band is no longer appealing to you, why piss and moan about it? Just move on.

I too am disappointed in the direction Opeth is taking. They used to be my favorite band. But, times change and I stll greatly enjoy the "middle-period" albums, so I'm content with that.
 
Aside from obvious reasons like lack of inspiration, ideas etc...

I think a large part of this has to do with the fact that fans do not share the same point of view as the band. When a band is in it's early stages, people will naturally develop their perception of what the band is and should be/sound like. But often a band's early releases do not represent what the band is actually striving for...hence why bands will often say that their new album is their best one, while the fans will vehemently disagree. Bands over time will become better and more competent at playing their instruments so they put more value in their improvement as a musician as opposed to the other factors that fans may look for.

Bands also evolve and experiment with new things that are not always welcomed by fans, though I generally prefer this route. Conversely, bands sometimes strip away experimentation and go for a more direct and "refined" sound, which I don't really like. I lose interest in bands if they become stale and predictable.

Again, this is just my opinion but I think an album's production can also play a small part. The production on each new album will generally "improve" - by this I mean cleaner, louder production that people accept and associate with being "good" and "well produced". However, I think the modern techniques of producing albums can affect the music negatively, giving the album a more generic and sterile sound that makes the music tiring to listen to. I don't really like loud albums and I certainly don't like it when every hit of the drums sounds the same, like a series of repetitive clicks on a typewriter. I'm not saying this makes or breaks an album for me but to an extent it plays a part. I often find that a band's older albums/style has a certain charm to it that is partially due to the way the album was produced.

I think this is the best answer you will find.

I think also some bands who have produced a great level of awesomeness in their music do not stick with that formula but try to go in the opposite direction as they try to "evolve" but they only end up shooting themselves in the foot.

One of the best examples: Carcass. Swansong is garbage I'm glad they called it quits.
 
2Pac would never be a part of this pussypop rap that is going on today, he was all real with meaningful lyrics and dark beats. But all rappers have they're more light shit that makes me sick.
 
Soilwork are still a great band imo

as far as Devin Townsend ive enjoyed all his albums except Synchestra(only good song is Triumph w/ Steve Vai) he's an amazing artist. Even Addicted has quite a few good songs imo.

You haven't given Synchestra enough listens then. I prefer it to Terria or Physicist. Vampolka/Vampira is enough to make it a great album.
 
First Opeth. God damn, Watershed is a terrible, terrible album. Well, to be accurate, Deliverance already marked the beginning of their decline, I think.

Honestly I feel that every album since Still Life has basically been the same.
 
Several bands seem to hit their high point around albums 3-5. The first album or two they're still learning who they are musically and making mistakes. They may not have the best recording quality etc. Then they have a few amazing albums- then they either run out of ideas or get bored and start pumping out experimental music that more often than not ends up being shit.

I don't blame them for it. It's just a rather natural progression of a band.
 
You haven't given Synchestra enough listens then. I prefer it to Terria or Physicist. Vampolka/Vampira is enough to make it a great album.
Unfortunately i have gave the album enough listens, i can't see how you prefer it to Ocean Machine, Terria or Accelerated Evolution which are all masterpieces imo.
 
Opeth is all rather samey. They are the Deathspell Omega of fake prog metal. But BWP is sometimes pretty good for nostalgic reasons.

If Opeth is samey I'll like to know what band's aren't samey. You can excuse them of being too repetitive at times (they are no more repetitive than most black metal bands) but there's no way Opeth doesn't change their sound significantly from album to album.
 
2Pac would never be a part of this pussypop rap that is going on today, he was all real with meaningful lyrics and dark beats.

If 2pac was around today he would have have even more commercialized music but he would probably be making Rap metal by now, lol.

But all rappers have they're more light shit that makes me sick.

Even grindcore bands have "more light shit".
 
2Pac would never be a part of this pussypop rap that is going on today, he was all real with meaningful lyrics and dark beats. But all rappers have they're more light shit that makes me sick.

2Pac was a dumb bigoted cunt, and he would probably be another tool like anyone else in that stupid fucking scene.

"Thug Angel" my ass.
 
If Opeth is samey I'll like to know what band's aren't samey. You can excuse them of being too repetitive at times (they are no more repetitive than most black metal bands) but there's no way Opeth doesn't change their sound significantly from album to album.
It's not that that bothers me, but the pacing. Pacing is very important to me, and their compositions are way too drawn out.
 
Personally, I like stuff that's drawn out 8-15 minutes...

Bands either change their style (Cryptopsy :erk: ) and it doesnt go over well with their old fans, or they keep playing the same sounding stuff and the fans get bored with it. (Cannibal Corpse)

Some bands manage to pull those off and keep all their fans. The Melvins are pretty well loved and constantly evolving... and Bolt Thrower have been playing the same style of apocalyptic warfare grooving death metal for years.