Maybe the majority of musicians don't compromise as they grow older, and you haven't noticed simply because they're less famous. And there are many even among the famous who have carried on being creative, resisting superstardom blandness, such as Frank Zappa, Scott Walker, Bjork, and many jazz musicians, like Ornette Coleman. Your focus seems to be on progressive rock, which I'd argue has a natural tendency to degenerate into uninteresting stadium rock when the big money comes along. This might apply to rock music generally, and I think rock music is an essentially commercial blip in the history of music based around the sale of albums.

Yes, music has gone from being art to simply being a product to sell. While there were groups that started out with their own original sound and then commercialized their music to make a buck, it seems that today all the music that comes out is in order to make a buck. There is no originality any more. There's just simple music for simple minds.

Rock music has pretty much died and rap and hip hop have taken over. I think that rap and hip hop have begun to use up their originality now and are on their way down. Me and the people I talk to are constantly looking for new music, or new sounds, with new lyrics about new stories. There may come a day not far off where originality comes back and is what sells. Musicians will then be incentivized to experiment and come up more original stuff, where music will then experience a new golden age.

But all that may be complete fantasy if we allow ourselves to be dumbed-down as a society by expecting less from ourselves, which is a path I see us being led down.

Fame corrupts the mind. It's unavoidable, almost to the point of absolutism. Necessity is the mother of invention (sorry Frank et al), and fame removes necessity.

So early brilliance turns to what sells, what appeals to the majority.
By contrast the composers of the past demonstrate a continuing evolution and improvement, right until death. — charleton

I think the same thing happens to writers. Probably all artists. I think it's not so much that they sell out as that they have some wonderful ideas that they get 20 years to think about. All the experience of a young life. After that, it gets harder. They have to come up with new inspiration every couple years. Even really wonderful writers run out of stuff to say. Some of my favorites - John LeCarre, Alan Furst, Stephen J. Gould, Alan Watts, Robert Frost - their early books are their best. Really good writers like these maintain high quality and inspirations for decades, but eventually they run out. Sometimes they come back. Sometimes not.

Also - think of bluegrass and similar types of musicians - no one really complains if they don't make deeply inspired music with brand new ideas every time. They can play 100 years of good music written by others along with their own as long as they maintain their musicianship and heart.

Vikings had rap battles. Called Flyting.

I know writers that kept getting better, though many run out of ideas.
And on the matter of composers of the past such as Beethoven it was progress all the way.
Genre musicians as you say 'bluegrass[, "country' there is no where to go.

Fame corrupts the mind — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed.

Your focus seems to be on progressive rock, which I'd argue has a natural tendency to degenerate into uninteresting stadium rock — jamalrob

There is no 'natural tendency', here. King Crimson continued to change and evolve. I do not see why a genre would necessarily have to do that.

The reason is simple: there is no 'one rule fits all' and the greats are the exceptions to all rules. What about Radiohead? Also bands are bands, not single individuals; the dynamic involved with multiple creative egos is difficult to sustain. If the market has no use for what an artist produces, or they have no interest in, or are not effective at, marketing themselves, then you won't have heard of them. How much good stuff might be produced that the public never gets to hear or see?

All artists are unique individuals, so there is no general rule. Not all great poets, artists or composers produce their best at the end of their life. Think of Wordsworth or Samuel Palmer, for example.

I do agree though, that fame has a tendency to corrupt any artist's creative process; the weight of expectation is upon them to produce what other's love and expect. If a famous artist defies that expectation they risk losing their popularity, or even their livelihood. Livelihood is no small consideration for anyone.

Producers in any art form can not continually break new ground over their careers. The most inspired artists have a limited capacity for creation. We all have limited capacity, no matter what field we work in. I am not sure that the forms of art themselves can continually break new ground over time.

Take a long view of painting: In the 19th century, there was a shift from various styles of more or less realistic representation to non-realistic representations, and eventually to the works of people like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko. Note, I used the word "shift" and not "progress" or "deterioration". But where does one go after one has reached dribbling paint or paintings which are one solid color?

Over the long run, music presents a similar situation, and individually musicians run out of new ideas. How could it be otherwise? J. S. Bach's warehouse of composition wasn't uniformly original. Were each of Haydn's 100+ symphonies totally novel? No, they weren't. Would Mozart's output have included totally novel approaches had he lived another 30 years?

Many musicians are one hit wonders, even though they produce much more. Lots of groups flash in the sky, turn out several great albums, then break up -- good for them. They won't be spending the rest of their lives disappointing the fan base.

And the fan base is part of the problem: We and the performers have a mutually dependent relationship. No fans, no income. No income, no groups.

This is what I said:

Your focus seems to be on progressive rock, which I'd argue has a natural tendency to degenerate into uninteresting stadium rock when the big money comes along.

But sure, there are many exceptions. Although note that King Crimson is now focused on the back catalogue rather than new stuff. Anyway, I'm not denying that many musicians continue to evolve, in fact that was my main point.

Producers in any art form can not continually break new ground over their careers. — Bitter Crank

It very much depends on exactly what you mean by "breaking new ground". There is one sense in which an artist cannot fail to break new ground. The question is over the significance of the "breaking".

If the premise is that music isn't as good as it used to be, then you've not a very expansive music taste.

I think that's what Harry Hindu was saying at least, and I agree with you: there is an overwhelming profusion of interesting new music. The sentiment that "music ain't what it used to be" often seems to be just a nostalgia for the big rock groups of the seventies like Pink Floyd and Genesis, combined with a refusal to listen to anything else. It's not music that's got worse, but their taste.

There is so much great music available today -- in the various media -- that one need never listen to anything third rate. From early medieval to yesterday, there are tons of choices, and many of the choices are among suburb alternatives.

I dont think its a matter of the composers so much as the era. Two well known art critics, Clement Greenberg and Arthur Danto, both believed that interesting art had ended by the pop art era. They had different explanations but came to the same conclusion. I think the same thing happened to what used to be called serious music(classical to modern, from Beethoven to Schoenberg, Cage and Boulez). Just like with art, it had reached a dead end, and new iterations became increasingly stultifying. I think it is now happening with pop.

Once an an art-form or genre is self-consciously understood by its practitioners to be a progressive history, then it's days are numbered.

Genre musicians as you say 'bluegrass[, "country' there is no where to go. — charleton

A bit snooty. Where do you need to go but good?

What about Radiohead? — Janus

They were great. Where are they now?

A bit snooty. Where do you need to go but good? — T Clark

It's boring, predictable and formulaic.

PT in the TPF house!

Constantly changing, evolving, and melting faces off, thus creating open minds:

Last album 2016, still great IMO...where do you think they are now?

There is literally an unbelievable amount of forward-thinking music being made right now, especially for prog fans like yourself. The music is evolving, just as your favorites were evolving from what came before them. (don't miss the first bandcamp link, one of the craziest pieces of music put out in the past few years)

https://tles.bandcamp.com/track/tassel-composed-by-anna-meredith

Anything from New Amsterdam records, who put that ^ record out, is going to be challenging and engaging. No Lands, Daniel Wohl, and Roomful of Teeth are some highlights.

Other stuff:

Insane deconstruction of the "pop hook":

https://aaronrochemusic.bandcamp.com/track/like-why-i

From 1991, but if you're not familiar with this record, you definitely should be. Headphones on, lights off!

Ok, I'm done, I promise

Genre musicians as you say 'bluegrass[, "country' there is no where to go. — charleton

I beg to differ. Dead South fuses bluegrass with metal inspirations very well. So does Justin Cross.
Shaky Graves is absolutely awesome. Dark Country is finally becoming a legit musical style rather than just another soundtrack for a Red Dead Redemption sequel.

Also, seems that your definition of modern music is fairly myopic. Classic Rock and prog rock, and that's it. I mean, look at stuff like God is an Astronaut, This Will Destroy You, Tangerine Dream...

Tangerine Dream... — Akanthinos

Yeah, even within the range of the glory years of classic rock and prog, there were so many other things happening. Eno's proto-ambient records Discreet Music and (no pussyfooting), his collab with Fripp, are possibly my favorite records in general from that era.

It very much depends on exactly what you mean by "breaking new ground". — Janus

To be honest, I don't know exactly what I mean by "breaking new ground". Louis Moreau Gottschalk broke new ground in the 19th century with pieces that in retrospect have many aspects of the later ragtime and jazz. Ragtime and jazz, on the other hand, broke new ground in source, rhythms, melodies, style of performance, etc. Bluegrass descended from Appalachian folk music rooted in the British Isles, but it still broke new ground with instrumentation, and new songs. I don't think the banjo was much used in UK.

Elvis Presley and Company broke new ground in creating Rock and Roll from its predecessors. R&R fused with prior forms and morphed several times. Then heavy metal, grunge, rap, etc. All these breaking new ground.

So, lots of ground was broken. Some musicians had to break new ground for themselves in order to adopt new styles, but their efforts didn't constitute breaking new ground for the genre.

A lot of music, from medieval to whatever is hot off the press at show time tonight, sounds alike. It's not bad that a lot of music sound alike, but it does indicate a plateau has been reached, or a vein of creative ore has been exhausted. This isn't a failure, it's just life. Gregorian Chant lasted for centuries without much change, and that's a sign of chant's strength--its enduring continuity.