Two premises, three questions regarding creativity.

brianlux

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Great thread Brian. I think about this all the time.

Many good points throughout too..It mostly depends on the individual obviously.
BUT, I have found two things recently about creative juices.

1. as a hobby writer and a part time musician who writes a lot of lyrics, the right environment has quite a bit to do with it. I used to live in a shitty old house in a bad neighborhood. I had a great setup for writing and a great set up for my band. It was easier back then. I moved to a bigger house in a better neighborhood, but i havent found a good nook in the house to spill it all out. (yet)

2. You know how time goes by faster as you get older? This is a creative problem for me. When I take a step back and lose the responsibilities I've managed to accumulate, I can get the creative juices flowing. But I find it harder as I get older to change gears from work to creative mode (and its exponentially harder if you have the wrong environment.)

Thanks, Jonny. I know what you mean about time speeding up. I have a simple theory about that. When you are four years old, one year is 25% of your life. At fifty, one year is only 2 % of your life. :shock:

Great posts everyone. Thanks for the input. I do still think that most well known creative people seem to run out of steam earlier on. But of course this isn't always true. Oh, and don't think I'm picking on older people because... a-hem.... I'm not so young myself. Personally, I've found some areas of my own creativity have increased. I started playing guitar in 1967 and never got much past strumming chords until a few years ago. In the last few years I've learned to play in open tunings, play some fairly complex pieces and improvise much more creatively. But on the other hand my writing has become more precise and less creative. Go figure.

Oh and I also wasn't picking on the gods named Neil and Bob, PJ etc. They are some of my biggest heroes.

brianlux

chadwick wrote:

this is why i put chairs, speakers and a door on the ceiling and put a writing desk in the pantry. always, always, and i mean always every single time do the oddest shit you can think of. you will inspire yourself (and others) and you will reach newer heights of creativity

i have a television i am going to turn into a flower pot or something for the garden, maybe a birdbath of sorts

Spoken by a truly creative person.

musicismylife78

i certainly hope creativity doesnt die out as we age, i was late to the game myself, started writing creatively, painting, drawing etc.. around age 26. And I plan on continuing on as long as I live. Its also a question of following the muse, and refusing to follow convention. Theres always going to be people saying you are too old, or that you dont have talent or that its fruitless and pointless, and alot of it is also our own internal voice and critic telling us these things. To be an artist, of any age, whether 10 or 100, you have to ignore these and JUST DO THE WORK.

plus I think in many ways you are doomed creatively if you write more for others as opposed to writing/painting/singing for yourself. So I dont think the idea of creativity dying out is even a valid idea in that respect. You can be a 70 year old having a blast singing and making music, does it really matter if that music isnt as well received by critics or the public, as your previous work when you were a 20 year old? Plus i honestly dont think Neil, Bob, Bruce, DDL, Deniro, or any other artist truely cares if we enjoy their previous work more than their current work. Plus its reason to keep working. If your best work is behind you and you are never going to equal that film you were in back at age 19, when you won the best actor award, what incentive is it to continue working at the craft and to continue appearing in films when you are 30 or 40 or beyond?

We all want our creative works to be well receieved but ultimately I think most artists would agree we have this disposition of NEEDING to get these feelings and ideas out. And they will come out. If they dont come out we die. That speaks to the creative mission or calling. You create art because you have to.

brianlux

musicismylife78 wrote:

i certainly hope creativity doesnt die out as we age, i was late to the game myself, started writing creatively, painting, drawing etc.. around age 26. And I plan on continuing on as long as I live. Its also a question of following the muse, and refusing to follow convention. Theres always going to be people saying you are too old, or that you dont have talent or that its fruitless and pointless, and alot of it is also our own internal voice and critic telling us these things. To be an artist, of any age, whether 10 or 100, you have to ignore these and JUST DO THE WORK.

plus I think in many ways you are doomed creatively if you write more for others as opposed to writing/painting/singing for yourself. So I dont think the idea of creativity dying out is even a valid idea in that respect. You can be a 70 year old having a blast singing and making music, does it really matter if that music isnt as well received by critics or the public, as your previous work when you were a 20 year old? Plus i honestly dont think Neil, Bob, Bruce, DDL, Deniro, or any other artist truely cares if we enjoy their previous work more than their current work. Plus its reason to keep working. If your best work is behind you and you are never going to equal that film you were in back at age 19, when you won the best actor award, what incentive is it to continue working at the craft and to continue appearing in films when you are 30 or 40 or beyond?

We all want our creative works to be well receieved but ultimately I think most artists would agree we have this disposition of NEEDING to get these feelings and ideas out. And they will come out. If they dont come out we die. That speaks to the creative mission or calling. You create art because you have to.

Excellent points here, musicismylife78.

As I've been thinking about this it also occurred to me that maybe some artists early work stands out more because it has more overt energy while the later work becomes more subtle. I have to admit I crave ingenuity and freshness in art. I takes a little more work to appreciating more subtle,mature work but there is often something deeper in that work.

I'm, thinking of a couple of good example of this later work by artists. I saw John Lee Hooker when he was quite old. His hands were gnarled with arthritis and after the first few songs I was thinking "Well, I'm just paying homage being here." But as he loosened up things started cooking. By the end of the show everybody was on their feet and it was like a church blues revival- incredibly moving! Oh, and it didn't hurt that Carlos Santana was sitting in!

The other example is Rembrandt. In his last years Rembrandt was nearly blind and broke and yet he used what he had to create some of his most emotional work- not technically his best, but it was art full of the wisdom of his years and it's my favorite period of his. Sadly, he was buried in a pauper's grave. I've learned a lot about aging more gracefully from his work.

But when I need a kick start- it's rock 'n roll, baby!

musicismylife78

brianlux wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

i certainly hope creativity doesnt die out as we age, i was late to the game myself, started writing creatively, painting, drawing etc.. around age 26. And I plan on continuing on as long as I live. Its also a question of following the muse, and refusing to follow convention. Theres always going to be people saying you are too old, or that you dont have talent or that its fruitless and pointless, and alot of it is also our own internal voice and critic telling us these things. To be an artist, of any age, whether 10 or 100, you have to ignore these and JUST DO THE WORK.

plus I think in many ways you are doomed creatively if you write more for others as opposed to writing/painting/singing for yourself. So I dont think the idea of creativity dying out is even a valid idea in that respect. You can be a 70 year old having a blast singing and making music, does it really matter if that music isnt as well received by critics or the public, as your previous work when you were a 20 year old? Plus i honestly dont think Neil, Bob, Bruce, DDL, Deniro, or any other artist truely cares if we enjoy their previous work more than their current work. Plus its reason to keep working. If your best work is behind you and you are never going to equal that film you were in back at age 19, when you won the best actor award, what incentive is it to continue working at the craft and to continue appearing in films when you are 30 or 40 or beyond?

We all want our creative works to be well receieved but ultimately I think most artists would agree we have this disposition of NEEDING to get these feelings and ideas out. And they will come out. If they dont come out we die. That speaks to the creative mission or calling. You create art because you have to.

Excellent points here, musicismylife78.

As I've been thinking about this it also occurred to me that maybe some artists early work stands out more because it has more overt energy while the later work becomes more subtle. I have to admit I crave ingenuity and freshness in art. I takes a little more work to appreciating more subtle,mature work but there is often something deeper in that work.

I'm, thinking of a couple of good example of this later work by artists. I saw John Lee Hooker when he was quite old. His hands were gnarled with arthritis and after the first few songs I was thinking "Well, I'm just paying homage being here." But as he loosened up things started cooking. By the end of the show everybody was on their feet and it was like a church blues revival- incredibly moving! Oh, and it didn't hurt that Carlos Santana was sitting in!

The other example is Rembrandt. In his last years Rembrandt was nearly blind and broke and yet he used what he had to create some of his most emotional work- not technically his best, but it was art full of the wisdom of his years and it's my favorite period of his. Sadly, he was buried in a pauper's grave. I've learned a lot about aging more gracefully from his work.

But when I need a kick start- it's rock 'n roll, baby!

I think that hits the nail on the head, brian, about subtlety. Thats what I was hinting at earlier. I love James Dean, early Brando, early period dylan, Jimi, and that youthful energy is always a great inspiration, but the ones who lived, and made it through, changed their work. Dylan isnt creating songs like Subterranean or Tombstone Blues. The sort of rapid fire surreal imagery isnt in the world of Dylan in 2012. And thats fine. He creates fine records and has changed his sound, explored other avenues. If youve seen dylan live in the decade plus, he's always changing the sound of his songs, even the well known ones, morphing them. I dont think he'd say he's slowed down, or that he's less creative than in the 1960's. His work is more subtle. Even Jimi, near the time of his death was moving away from the behind the back, playing guitar with teeth, burning his guitar type stuff and was going towards more subtle sounds and territory, he was playing more blues and slower tempo songs. Brando's passion of On the Waterfront and Streetcar, had changed by the time Godfather hit, or Last Tango. Again, as you say, more subtle. But subtle as you say, doesnt mean shallow or meaningless, its just different, a new theme, a new form, new territory. I dont think thats true of all artists though. Im still in disagreement with the premise that young artists create the best work and that as you age things slow down, or you arent as successful anymore. I just think like anything, your craft and approach, may change or alter.

Neil Young is about as prolific as they come, seems like he has an album out every single year, and the guys gotta be nearing 70.

musicismylife78

also surprised no ones mentioned PJ. They are a little different because they willingly pulled back, but the PJ of Ten is wildly different than the PJ of 2012. You wont see Ed jumping into the crowd or diving off balconies, or climbing scaffolds like in those videos. And I think in general all of the members of the band have calmed down. Watch an interview of ed back in 1992 or so. The guy has energy floating around him. Or watch them on Unplugged. That sort of passion has calmed a bit. Of course, they can still rock and put on a great show in 2012, but they arent who they were back then. Ten and vs and vitalogy are their most beloved works. But they still continue on.

brianlux

musicismylife78 wrote:

Im still in disagreement with the premise that young artists create the best work and that as you age things slow down, or you arent as successful anymore. I just think like anything, your craft and approach, may change or alter.

Neil Young is about as prolific as they come, seems like he has an album out every single year, and the guys gotta be nearing 70.

I guess it really does depend on the artist and the point of view of the viewer/listener. I was thinking that the Ramones were a good case of a band loosing it's creativity after the first three or four albums- but to make 2263 gigs in of itself is an accomplishment hard to beat- but the creative side had pretty much run it's course for them earlier on. Maybe driving Tommy off had something to do with that.

But what about genre creative peaks or creative bursts? I think an argument could be made that genre breakthroughs within various art forms usually start with young artists.

catefrances

musicismylife78 wrote:

also surprised no ones mentioned PJ. They are a little different because they willingly pulled back, but the PJ of Ten is wildly different than the PJ of 2012. You wont see Ed jumping into the crowd or diving off balconies, or climbing scaffolds like in those videos. And I think in general all of the members of the band have calmed down. Watch an interview of ed back in 1992 or so. The guy has energy floating around him. Or watch them on Unplugged. That sort of passion has calmed a bit. Of course, they can still rock and put on a great show in 2012, but they arent who they were back then. Ten and vs and vitalogy are their most beloved works. But they still continue on.

its called getting older.

musicismylife78

brianlux wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

Im still in disagreement with the premise that young artists create the best work and that as you age things slow down, or you arent as successful anymore. I just think like anything, your craft and approach, may change or alter.

Neil Young is about as prolific as they come, seems like he has an album out every single year, and the guys gotta be nearing 70.

I guess it really does depend on the artist and the point of view of the viewer/listener. I was thinking that the Ramones were a good case of a band loosing it's creativity after the first three or four albums- but to make 2263 gigs in of itself is an accomplishment hard to beat- but the creative side had pretty much run it's course for them earlier on. Maybe driving Tommy off had something to do with that.

But what about genre creative peaks or creative bursts? I think an argument could be made that genre breakthroughs within various art forms usually start with young artists.

well ive always agreed with the idea all great things arise from youth ala Not For You, so i in essence agree somewhat with your argument. I think there is something to be said for genre creative peaks or creative bursts. The beatles middle period could be an example of maybe THE textbook definition of creative peaks or bursts. That was maybe 65-67 and they were maybe 25-27 years old.

The power of youth and that youthful created art is important and powerful is something im in complete agreement with. The indie subculture thats swept the nation these last few years is youth created and sustained. So i agree. I go to hundreds of concerts a year, and the ones over the years that have stood out, are the ones that involve some sort of youthful energy onstage.

I just think its all muddied by public perception and whats deemed a hit and whats not. As you pointed out many of the old masters in painting died broke and unknown and only years later found success. Its all so arbitrary in a way.

I just dont think its across the board true that those creative peaks or highs come only or primarily with new/or young artists of any medium. For every young person who created major works of art then disappeared, we can come up with another example of a solid, accalimed artist who sustained and enhanced their craft throughout their careers and lifetimes.

I think you may be confusing or unsure about "losing creativity". All creativity is chasing the muse, but you seem to be suggesting the idea that public acceptance of a work of art equals the artist being abundant in creativity, and that if an work of art isnt accepted or is panned or is a bomb then creativity has lessened or is dead. I disagree with that premise. It could be that all the Ramones were actually happier with their latter works than the first few records. Thats generally what drives all creatives, the chance to better themselves. Theres a reason why most times you ask an artist their favorite film theyve done, or their favorite album theyve done its nearly always the most recent one.

I think its entirely possible to be extremely creative and be penniless and or not have your work be praised. And I think its possible to be extremely successful and have 5 stars in all the magazines, but to not be happy with your creativity and feel blocked.

It varies so much with each artist, its hard to say definitively.

If your measurement of creativity being lessened is if the public views your current work as being inferior to your earlier youthful work, then you are probably right. But I dont think thats the true nature of it all. The publics acceptance of art has no bearing on creativity in the true sense of the term. An artist can feel at their creative peak and feel like they just appeared in their best film yet, or wrote their best book yet, but the public may pan the work.

brianlux

musicismylife78 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

Im still in disagreement with the premise that young artists create the best work and that as you age things slow down, or you arent as successful anymore. I just think like anything, your craft and approach, may change or alter.

Neil Young is about as prolific as they come, seems like he has an album out every single year, and the guys gotta be nearing 70.

I guess it really does depend on the artist and the point of view of the viewer/listener. I was thinking that the Ramones were a good case of a band loosing it's creativity after the first three or four albums- but to make 2263 gigs in of itself is an accomplishment hard to beat- but the creative side had pretty much run it's course for them earlier on. Maybe driving Tommy off had something to do with that.

But what about genre creative peaks or creative bursts? I think an argument could be made that genre breakthroughs within various art forms usually start with young artists.

well ive always agreed with the idea all great things arise from youth ala Not For You, so i in essence agree somewhat with your argument. I think there is something to be said for genre creative peaks or creative bursts. The beatles middle period could be an example of maybe THE textbook definition of creative peaks or bursts. That was maybe 65-67 and they were maybe 25-27 years old.

The power of youth and that youthful created art is important and powerful is something im in complete agreement with. The indie subculture thats swept the nation these last few years is youth created and sustained. So i agree. I go to hundreds of concerts a year, and the ones over the years that have stood out, are the ones that involve some sort of youthful energy onstage.

I just think its all muddied by public perception and whats deemed a hit and whats not. As you pointed out many of the old masters in painting died broke and unknown and only years later found success. Its all so arbitrary in a way.

I just dont think its across the board true that those creative peaks or highs come only or primarily with new/or young artists of any medium. For every young person who created major works of art then disappeared, we can come up with another example of a solid, accalimed artist who sustained and enhanced their craft throughout their careers and lifetimes.

I think you may be confusing or unsure about "losing creativity". All creativity is chasing the muse, but you seem to be suggesting the idea that public acceptance of a work of art equals the artist being abundant in creativity, and that if an work of art isnt accepted or is panned or is a bomb then creativity has lessened or is dead. I disagree with that premise. It could be that all the Ramones were actually happier with their latter works than the first few records. Thats generally what drives all creatives, the chance to better themselves. Theres a reason why most times you ask an artist their favorite film theyve done, or their favorite album theyve done its nearly always the most recent one.

I think its entirely possible to be extremely creative and be penniless and or not have your work be praised. And I think its possible to be extremely successful and have 5 stars in all the magazines, but to not be happy with your creativity and feel blocked.

It varies so much with each artist, its hard to say definitively.

If your measurement of creativity being lessened is if the public views your current work as being inferior to your earlier youthful work, then you are probably right. But I dont think thats the true nature of it all. The publics acceptance of art has no bearing on creativity in the true sense of the term. An artist can feel at their creative peak and feel like they just appeared in their best film yet, or wrote their best book yet, but the public may pan the work.

Your points about public acceptance are well taken. But, oh gosh, first off I don't pay much attention to what the public at large thinks. If I like a popular band- say The Rolling Stones or Pearl Jam- it has nothing to do with mass appeal. Some of my favorite musicians and bands are ones that never received large general public acclaim- New York Dolls, Early Ramones, The Replacements, Mission of Burma, Minutemen, Sandy Bull, Albert Ayler, Sun Ra, Cecil Taylor, Larry Coryell- to name a few. And true, these artists (the ones that survived) created/are creating great excellent works later on in their careers but it seems to me the work that most of them did that had an impact music (even if the public at large never saw it directly) happened in the early years of their career.

Earlier you mentioned Pearl Jam. Personally I don't find them to be as creative in the second half of their career as a band as in the first (again, to me their middle period is peek) but that certainly doesn't mean I don't respect them. I just don't see them forging much new ground. And for me that's ok- they're still doing it after 20+ years.

Neil Young has sort of managed to forge ahead in reverse with Crazy Horse's latest album- going back to roots Americana and spicing those songs with the sound of the Horse. There's really nothing new there but the combination of old songs and fairly typical Horse make for a great album- at least I think so. But I'm not sure I ever get to hear something as fresh and powerful as hearing him do "Down By The River" at Winterland in 1970.

But in any case I think you make a good point in that the artists themselves can be at a creative peak later in their career and not have as big an overt influence on culture or craft.

JonnyPistachio

brianlux wrote:

Thanks, Jonny. I know what you mean about time speeding up. I have a simple theory about that. When you are four years old, one year is 25% of your life. At fifty, one year is only 2 % of your life. :shock:

Well, I'd never thought of it that way...puts it into real perspective.

brianlux wrote:

Great posts everyone. Thanks for the input. I do still think that most well known creative people seem to run out of steam earlier on. But of course this isn't always true. Oh, and don't think I'm picking on older people because... a-hem.... I'm not so young myself. Personally, I've found some areas of my own creativity have increased. I started playing guitar in 1967 and never got much past strumming chords until a few years ago. In the last few years I've learned to play in open tunings, play some fairly complex pieces and improvise much more creatively. But on the other hand my writing has become more precise and less creative. Go figure.

Oh and I also wasn't picking on the gods named Neil and Bob, PJ etc. They are some of my biggest heroes.

I think the more well known creative people have this the hardest because if they're really successful, how does your life NOT change drastically? Its hard to think Eddie didnt change to some degree from when he was pumping gas compared to sliding down his firepole in his nice new house. :P

Man, I'd love to jam with you sometime Brian! Its funny how one aspect of creativity can thrive and another suffer...I've felt that too.

catefrances

brianlux wrote:

Great posts everyone. Thanks for the input. I do still think that most well known creative people seem to run out of steam earlier on. But of course this isn't always true. Oh, and don't think I'm picking on older people because... a-hem.... I'm not so young myself. Personally, I've found some areas of my own creativity have increased. I started playing guitar in 1967 and never got much past strumming chords until a few years ago. In the last few years I've learned to play in open tunings, play some fairly complex pieces and improvise much more creatively. But on the other hand my writing has become more precise and less creative. Go figure.

Oh and I also wasn't picking on the gods named Neil and Bob, PJ etc. They are some of my biggest heroes.

theyre not gods. stop that right now.

i guess it depends on why those 'well known' people do what they do and why they got started in the first place. who is it youre speaking of when you say those 'well known' peopl ehave run out of steam early on? and by whose measure do we decide those peoples body of work has declined in quality?

_

There are so many variables. Like, premise 2 is a variable of premise 1 - so many premise 1 is not true in & of itself but is just a consequence of premise 2. I also agree with whoever said that, in premise 1, creativity is possibly being confused with popularity.

Regarding premise 2... that certainly is what we are taught to believe, I think. And I think it holds some truth, largely because (a) if we believe we've missed the window of creativity opportunity from our youth, we're less like to try to be creative, and mostly because (b) we have more responsibilities as we get older, which limits our ability to be creative. Kids are a big variable here. And I know that having a "real"/day job seems to have stifled what little creativity I had in my early/mid-20s because I can no longer stay up late at night & sleep late & lazily get out of bed. When I was younger, these are the times when I would do my best thinking. Now I hardly do any thinking at all. Also, I spent a lot of time around creative people back then, but this mostly occurred late at night (e.g. at gigs), but now I rarely go out that late because I have to be up early for work, so I'm no longer part of that scene.

Good/interesting questions though.

brianlux

catefrances wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Great posts everyone. Thanks for the input. I do still think that most well known creative people seem to run out of steam earlier on. But of course this isn't always true. Oh, and don't think I'm picking on older people because... a-hem.... I'm not so young myself. Personally, I've found some areas of my own creativity have increased. I started playing guitar in 1967 and never got much past strumming chords until a few years ago. In the last few years I've learned to play in open tunings, play some fairly complex pieces and improvise much more creatively. But on the other hand my writing has become more precise and less creative. Go figure.

Oh and I also wasn't picking on the gods named Neil and Bob, PJ etc. They are some of my biggest heroes.

catefrances wrote:

theyre not gods. stop that right now.

Right! Legends might be much closer to what I was thinking. And "heroes" was a bad choice of words too. "Inspirational figure" might be more accurate. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

catefrances wrote:

i guess it depends on why those 'well known' people do what they do and why they got started in the first place. who is it youre speaking of when you say those 'well known' peopl ehave run out of steam early on? and by whose measure do we decide those peoples body of work has declined in quality?

[/quote]

"Run out of steam". Another bad choice of words. "Run out of new ideas" might be a better way to put it. I don't mean to imply that for any musician or band who has been influential on music has necessarily lost quality of work. Often the opposite is true. I think that often the creation of fresh ideas, new ways of doing something, gives way either to refinement (greater quality) or stagnation. I'm not going to say which musicians fit into which category that way because that's mostly a matter of opinion, but I do think one or the other happens.

brianlux

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Man, I'd love to jam with you sometime Brian!

We should make that happen!

pandora

brianlux wrote:

Premise one:

The highest quality, most creative output of well known creative people happens before the first half of their career.

My impression is that this is generally true. As examples in music I would cite the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, The Who, R.E.M., Ramones and, yes, Pearl Jam. I think the same is true of many writers- John Steinbeck, Truman Capote, Tom Robbins and even Kurt Vonnegut.

Premise two:

The most influential and creative music has been made by young musicians.

To my way of thinking, most ground breaking work in the arts has been created by relatively young people. I was thinking about this last night while listening to Television's "Marquee Moon". Jimi Hendrix is another good example.

The Questions:

1. Do you agree with the premises?

2. If so, why is that so?

3. What examples can you think of that run counter to these premises?

Who's making the judgements?
I certainly do not feel Ed's work was at all better when he was young ...
creativity speaks to the individual heart that is allowing it entry.
Individual is the key word.

These premises seem way to generalized for me,
also seem to disregard the personal growth of an individual
in their life and creative work. Sometimes it takes another person of the same type
of life growth to relate. It really comes back to what one thinks is good or better
and why, again too individual.

I can only imagine if Miss Janis were here still making music at almost age 70
she would be even more amazing to me.

DewieCox

When it comes to successful artists it often comes down to how much they let outside influences affect their work.

I can look through my itunes library and with most artists there's a build up to a point and then a pretty drastic dropoff if you go by general thinking. I would guess probably 3 out of 4 follow a pretty similar career trajectory. A good album or 2>a run of unquestionable greatness>below the early album standard....Some of my favorite albums come after an artist's so-called peak, but I can also see the other side of the coin that the artistry and impact across the board is slipping. That doesn't make me enjoy the tunes any less, unless I just don't enjoy them.

Nobody think Bob Dylan or Neil Young's current stuff can touch the stuff from their heydays.

Even Zeppelin, Floyd and the Beatles pretty well sputtered out at the end of their careers.

It's not a popular opinion around here, but I think PJ has really been missing that x factor for the last couple albums. Hell generally speaking PJ peaked with their first few albums and have been on a downward slide since.

Tool's last album seemed like the most successful of their career, but to me it was an obvious step backwards or at the very least sideways for a band that prides themselves on moving forward.

Who's to say what causes it? If those bands I mentioned were never among the most successful acts ever they'd have a totally different career. The success can give a band confidence to spread their wings or a reason to make the same album over and over. I think the best ones can ignore the outside influences and the success and still make music that has a huge impact on alot of people whether they sell millions of records or thousands.

justam

I wouldn't be surprised if people sometimes seem to stagnate later in their careers because as they are creating music they are worried about making "mistakes" by trying things that their fans won't like. There's more on the line for people who are already well-known than there is for people who are unknown. There seems to be less tolerance for growth if there's a big machine attached to the artist.

musicismylife78

justam wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised if people sometimes seem to stagnate later in their careers because as they are creating music they are worried about making "mistakes" by trying things that their fans won't like. There's more on the line for people who are already well-known than there is for people who are unknown. There seems to be less tolerance for growth if there's a big machine attached to the artist.

for me i just dont see that, or maybe the people i respect in all art mediums just dont conform to that reality. You cant get more famous than Tool or Radiohead. Beck. other bands like The Mars Volta.

Its like I said prior, it seems a general way artists do it nowadays is to do mainstream work, commercial work, make some money, get well known, and then as a result, they can do several things
1. do whatever project they want because they can finance it themselves without having to rely on a major studio, a record label, a publisher etc...

2. Can be picky and choosy. If an actor, they can make films at their own pace and only when they feel the project is great, if a musician they can take several years breaks between records, can tour whenever they want, and arent tied to any sort of schedule.

3. Have built up enough of a reputation for quality art that they create, that commercial interests trust them and dont tell them what to do, and trust them to do what they do. So in this scenario the major label, studio, publisher may even finance and back this artist because they know even though the art is experimental, or "odd" they know that the artist is respected, talented and has a core dedicated fan base.

This way of doing things is way more common than the Fugazi way of just never selling out or doing anything you dont want to do...ever. Thats why theres only been one band like that.

I gave the example of Clooney being someone who flat out says thats why he does the commercial studio films..so he can finance the films he really wants to do, on his own.

It makes a great deal of sense. These people have respect and proven track records, and then sort of make off with that money and respect and can do whatever they want.

If anything i'd argue its young artists who are more scared of trying new things. Because they arent yet established, dont have finances to do whatever they want, and if they make a mistake, or make an album that isnt a huge hit, or are in a film thats a flop they know the studios and labels can drop them.

Radiohead is maybe our generations greatest example of a band who are ridiculously popular and have the freedom to do whatever they want, and have created some of the oddest and most bizaare music of modern times. Yet they have everyones respect, from critics, to fans to everyone in the industry. They certainly are not afraid to do something that may be odd or weird.

JonnyPistachio

brianlux wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Man, I'd love to jam with you sometime Brian!

We should make that happen!

:thumbup:

Meet in the middle? Tx? haha