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.
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.
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?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
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.
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.
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.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Example of an artist who is producing better work now than earlier? ME!
Hehe, seriously though I mean it. My art has evolved and I have more creativity now than I did 20 years ago without a doubt. I also have less fear of my work being rejected and less desire to conform to the norm or expected. But that's because of my life experiences up to now. It has shaped who I am and what my art is.
As for being successful - success is relative, but I expect that success to happen now, whereas earlier I was too worried about other's opinions.
I think sometimes an artist will have their best years be their early ones, or as others have said, sometimes we relate to the words or pictures that we see from people at a certain point in our lives and for us it correlates to that being their best work because when they change we can't relate so well. But others see the change as better work, so it's completely subjective.
My sister once said to me that Coldplay is the biggest band in the world because of their record/merchandise and ticket sales, as well as radio airplay. I disagreed because 1- they aren't, and 2-I don't listen to the radio and I don't really like too much of their music, so how can they be the biggest band in the world if not EVERY SINGLE person thinks that? Is that adding up their entire catalog of experience or is it just the here and now? It's all totally subjective. How we perceive an artist's work depends entirely on our own personal experiences up to and including that point in our lives. Our experiences will shape how we see that work, and that dictates whether we think it's their best work.
Age really has little to do with it in the end. A person will produce work that some will say is their best, and others will say is their worst. It's human nature to disagree and we'd all be pretty damn boring if it was otherwise. All that matters in the end, is whether the artist producing said work is happy with it. If they are, then who is to say it's their best or worse but them?
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.
this goes back to what we were discussing last night, about what constitutes lessening creativity. I would argue every single artist you mentioned is seemingly as creative as they were in their peak years. You could even argue for some of them, like Dylan, they are CURRENTLY in their peak years right now.
Every band you mentioned, PF, Zep, The Beatles, are no longer around, but I dont think the players in the band were becoming less creative by the end of each bands run. Roger Waters and David Gilmour have had extremely successful solo careers, last I heard Roger was doing some opera thing, so he's certainly trying new things. Robert Plant has his own band and has been recording music and touring since Zep broke up, John Paul Jones was in Them Crooked Vultures, and Page does solo stuff and other projects. With the Beatles, I think it had less to do with creativity lessening than with they had gone through so much together, they were getting married and had relationships and had grown tired of each other. Plus they couldnt have done much more as a band, they were and are the greatest band of all time, maybe they got bored. Paul and John released solo records almost immediately. George certainly wasnt feeling tired when he released the 3 disc All Things Must Pass, and Ringo has done everything from tv shows, and he still tours to this day. Paul still has a damn successful solo career.
Its been what, 6 years since the last Tool album, but im sure if you talk to Maynard or Adam or Danny theyd say they are in the best creative spot they've ever been in. Critical reaction or acceptance has never even been in their vocabulary. They are among the most popular bands in the world, but i think they could care less what the public or critics think or expect. Maynard especially seems as creative as he ever has been, he's got so many projects going on, and the wine making as well, which I think to him is just another creative avenue.
I also think artists expand, not only in sound, or idea, or themes, but also into new areas. Just because an artist hasnt put out an album in 5 years, or an actors last movie wasnt seen by many people, for all we know, that artist is trying their hand in other artistic avenues. An artists creativity isnt defined by one single avenue. Dylan is most famous as a musician, he's also a poet, an actor, has written songs for films, paints, writes childrens books, writes screenplays, directs, etc... Its limiting to suggest an artist dropped off, because we dont know the full story. For all we know an artist could drop off in quality because they are making films instead of playing music.
Dylan and Neil are about as respected as anyone could be right now. Everyone adores and admires and respects them. And both are relentlessly creative, Dylan tours every single year, record out or not, and as I said Neil seems to release records every single year now. Neil's records never were huge hits, but Dylan's last 4 or 5 albums are most definitely as respected and admired as his early period stuff. I like both of them because you never know what the next record will sound like.
Example of an artist who is producing better work now than earlier? ME!
Hehe, seriously though I mean it. My art has evolved and I have more creativity now than I did 20 years ago without a doubt. I also have less fear of my work being rejected and less desire to conform to the norm or expected. But that's because of my life experiences up to now. It has shaped who I am and what my art is.
As for being successful - success is relative, but I expect that success to happen now, whereas earlier I was too worried about other's opinions.
I think sometimes an artist will have their best years be their early ones, or as others have said, sometimes we relate to the words or pictures that we see from people at a certain point in our lives and for us it correlates to that being their best work because when they change we can't relate so well. But others see the change as better work, so it's completely subjective.
My sister once said to me that Coldplay is the biggest band in the world because of their record/merchandise and ticket sales, as well as radio airplay. I disagreed because 1- they aren't, and 2-I don't listen to the radio and I don't really like too much of their music, so how can they be the biggest band in the world if not EVERY SINGLE person thinks that? Is that adding up their entire catalog of experience or is it just the here and now? It's all totally subjective. How we perceive an artist's work depends entirely on our own personal experiences up to and including that point in our lives. Our experiences will shape how we see that work, and that dictates whether we think it's their best work.
Age really has little to do with it in the end. A person will produce work that some will say is their best, and others will say is their worst. It's human nature to disagree and we'd all be pretty damn boring if it was otherwise. All that matters in the end, is whether the artist producing said work is happy with it. If they are, then who is to say it's their best or worse but them?
i would certainly agree with that general premise that what matters most in any art, is that the artist themselves are pleased with the work. Certainly every artist wants their work to be recieved well and liked, but first and foremost artists create and are creative for themselves, and not for the public. And I think that if you are catering your art to appeal to an audience, to the widest possible audience, I think you censor yourself, and it ends up being less personal and real.
Example of an artist who is producing better work now than earlier? ME!
Hehe, seriously though I mean it. My art has evolved and I have more creativity now than I did 20 years ago without a doubt. I also have less fear of my work being rejected and less desire to conform to the norm or expected. But that's because of my life experiences up to now. It has shaped who I am and what my art is.
As for being successful - success is relative, but I expect that success to happen now, whereas earlier I was too worried about other's opinions.
I think sometimes an artist will have their best years be their early ones, or as others have said, sometimes we relate to the words or pictures that we see from people at a certain point in our lives and for us it correlates to that being their best work because when they change we can't relate so well. But others see the change as better work, so it's completely subjective.
My sister once said to me that Coldplay is the biggest band in the world because of their record/merchandise and ticket sales, as well as radio airplay. I disagreed because 1- they aren't, and 2-I don't listen to the radio and I don't really like too much of their music, so how can they be the biggest band in the world if not EVERY SINGLE person thinks that? Is that adding up their entire catalog of experience or is it just the here and now? It's all totally subjective. How we perceive an artist's work depends entirely on our own personal experiences up to and including that point in our lives. Our experiences will shape how we see that work, and that dictates whether we think it's their best work.
Age really has little to do with it in the end. A person will produce work that some will say is their best, and others will say is their worst. It's human nature to disagree and we'd all be pretty damn boring if it was otherwise. All that matters in the end, is whether the artist producing said work is happy with it. If they are, then who is to say it's their best or worse but them?
the idea about the biggest band in the world being a subjective idea is true. nowadays with so many options and so many bands, so many albums, its much harder and pretty much impossible for a single band to dominate like Led Zep in the 70's, or The Beatles in the 60's. I would agree with your sister though, that preNapster it was pretty common for bands to be indeed the biggest bands in the world. U2 around the time of Joshua Tree and again after 9/11. Coldplay around 2002-2004, when clocks came out. Nirvana certainly when Teen Spirit hit. Part of the reason was because MTV and radio were our main ways to find out about bands, and thats all we had. And both those would work in tandem, youd see Teen Spirit 100 times a day on mtv and hear it 100 times a day on the radio. People had access to less bands, you couldnt spend all day researching and downloading every single obscure Bolivian jazz band, you only heard a few bands, and those were the bands on mTV and the radio. The lessening idea of a biggest band on earth is most recently illustrated by Arcade Fire winning the Best album of the year at the Grammys in 2010. They are well respected and are popular but arent HUGE.
that said there certainly are artists out there right now who are stars on another planet and enjoy success even successful musicians would find unfathomed: Adele comes to mind, Beyonce, Gaga.
this goes back to what we were discussing last night, about what constitutes lessening creativity. I would argue every single artist you mentioned is seemingly as creative as they were in their peak years. You could even argue for some of them, like Dylan, they are CURRENTLY in their peak years right now.
Every band you mentioned, PF, Zep, The Beatles, are no longer around, but I dont think the players in the band were becoming less creative by the end of each bands run. Roger Waters and David Gilmour have had extremely successful solo careers, last I heard Roger was doing some opera thing, so he's certainly trying new things. Robert Plant has his own band and has been recording music and touring since Zep broke up, John Paul Jones was in Them Crooked Vultures, and Page does solo stuff and other projects. With the Beatles, I think it had less to do with creativity lessening than with they had gone through so much together, they were getting married and had relationships and had grown tired of each other. Plus they couldnt have done much more as a band, they were and are the greatest band of all time, maybe they got bored. Paul and John released solo records almost immediately. George certainly wasnt feeling tired when he released the 3 disc All Things Must Pass, and Ringo has done everything from tv shows, and he still tours to this day. Paul still has a damn successful solo career.
Its been what, 6 years since the last Tool album, but im sure if you talk to Maynard or Adam or Danny theyd say they are in the best creative spot they've ever been in. Critical reaction or acceptance has never even been in their vocabulary. They are among the most popular bands in the world, but i think they could care less what the public or critics think or expect. Maynard especially seems as creative as he ever has been, he's got so many projects going on, and the wine making as well, which I think to him is just another creative avenue.
I also think artists expand, not only in sound, or idea, or themes, but also into new areas. Just because an artist hasnt put out an album in 5 years, or an actors last movie wasnt seen by many people, for all we know, that artist is trying their hand in other artistic avenues. An artists creativity isnt defined by one single avenue. Dylan is most famous as a musician, he's also a poet, an actor, has written songs for films, paints, writes childrens books etc... Its limiting to suggest an artist dropped off, because we dont know the full story. For all we know an artist could drop off in quality because they are making films instead of playing music.
Dylan and Neil are about as respected as anyone could be right now. Everyone adores and admires and respects them. And both are relentlessly creative, Dylan tours every single year, record out or not, and as I said Neil seems to release records every single year now. Neil's records never were huge hits, but Dylan's last 4 or 5 albums are most definitely as respected and admired as his early period stuff. I like both of them because you never know what the next record will sound like.
As good as it may be, there are few people that cite Dylan's modern work as his peak. Walk up to 100 people on the street and ask them the best Dylan song and maybe 2 of them are naming something from the last 20 years. Ask them the best album and 100 of them are naming an old one.
Nobody puts Waters, Gilmour's, Page's, Plant's, Lennon's, Macca's, or Harrison's solo work up with the best of their respective bands as a whole. All Things Must Pass is the obvious exception, but alot of that was stuff stockpiled while he was in the Beatles. I still don't think a very high percentage would put it up there with the likes of Revolver, Sgt Pepper or Abbey Road. While all those bands ended on a pretty high note they were really an album or 2 past what the majority of people view as their creative peaks.
I don't think it's fair to say that Paul McCartney is as creative as he once was b/c he still has successful albums and tours. I think most people around this board, myself included, could admit to buying some fairly crummy music b/c Eddie Vedder played on it, or it was recorded Stone Gossard's studio. I get the point that certain artists have earned respect, but they've also often earned a pass of sorts from people unwilling to dislike anything from said artist. I've seen it with every respected band and I've done it with bands.
As for Tool, I'd say 1/3 of the riffs from 10k Days are rehashed ideas from better albums in Aenima and Lateralus. Maybe they are in a comfortable place, but that doesn't always make the best art. This is more a personal thing, but I find some of MJK's other stuff to be fairly awful. I appreciate the whole vision of Tool and have alot of respect for what they've accomplished artistically as a whole, but I do feel the driving force, the music, slipped pretty hard with the last album. I dig every song on there, but I also know the in's and outs of Tool's music like I know no other bands and there's just alot of repeated ideas, imo.
Indeed Dylan and NY are as respected as anybody, and rightfully so, but it's largely based on a handful of albums released 40-50 years ago. Not to overlook their recent work, b/c they both have been able to keep trudging along and making important music late into their lives. It's more a tribute to how amazing their early work is.
Of course there is alot of generalization here, but I think a big part of successful art is how impactful it is. Whether it hits a few people like a ton of bricks or if it's more widespread but maybe not as heavy an impact on each person. Like I said. I'm not saying any of the albums I'm referring to are garbage or bad in any way.
Alot of it is relative to the artist as well. Take all the examples in this post, Dylan, NY,Zep, Beatles, Floyd, Tool....All those bands have made landmark albums and they all have great albums that aren't generally seen as perfect albums, that by any other standards would be among the best. It's always a laugh when you look at greatest album lists and there are 4 from the Beatles and Dylan, and a 2 or 3 from Zep, Floyd, and Neil, maybe a Tool album depending on the publication. I'll be damned if alot of their other work isn't better than almost all the other albums on those lists. "Perfect" albums can be the bane of a band when it comes to how their viewed critically and amongst their fans/potential fans.
this goes back to what we were discussing last night, about what constitutes lessening creativity. I would argue every single artist you mentioned is seemingly as creative as they were in their peak years. You could even argue for some of them, like Dylan, they are CURRENTLY in their peak years right now.
Every band you mentioned, PF, Zep, The Beatles, are no longer around, but I dont think the players in the band were becoming less creative by the end of each bands run. Roger Waters and David Gilmour have had extremely successful solo careers, last I heard Roger was doing some opera thing, so he's certainly trying new things. Robert Plant has his own band and has been recording music and touring since Zep broke up, John Paul Jones was in Them Crooked Vultures, and Page does solo stuff and other projects. With the Beatles, I think it had less to do with creativity lessening than with they had gone through so much together, they were getting married and had relationships and had grown tired of each other. Plus they couldnt have done much more as a band, they were and are the greatest band of all time, maybe they got bored. Paul and John released solo records almost immediately. George certainly wasnt feeling tired when he released the 3 disc All Things Must Pass, and Ringo has done everything from tv shows, and he still tours to this day. Paul still has a damn successful solo career.
Its been what, 6 years since the last Tool album, but im sure if you talk to Maynard or Adam or Danny theyd say they are in the best creative spot they've ever been in. Critical reaction or acceptance has never even been in their vocabulary. They are among the most popular bands in the world, but i think they could care less what the public or critics think or expect. Maynard especially seems as creative as he ever has been, he's got so many projects going on, and the wine making as well, which I think to him is just another creative avenue.
I also think artists expand, not only in sound, or idea, or themes, but also into new areas. Just because an artist hasnt put out an album in 5 years, or an actors last movie wasnt seen by many people, for all we know, that artist is trying their hand in other artistic avenues. An artists creativity isnt defined by one single avenue. Dylan is most famous as a musician, he's also a poet, an actor, has written songs for films, paints, writes childrens books etc... Its limiting to suggest an artist dropped off, because we dont know the full story. For all we know an artist could drop off in quality because they are making films instead of playing music.
Dylan and Neil are about as respected as anyone could be right now. Everyone adores and admires and respects them. And both are relentlessly creative, Dylan tours every single year, record out or not, and as I said Neil seems to release records every single year now. Neil's records never were huge hits, but Dylan's last 4 or 5 albums are most definitely as respected and admired as his early period stuff. I like both of them because you never know what the next record will sound like.
As good as it may be, there are few people that cite Dylan's modern work as his peak. Walk up to 100 people on the street and ask them the best Dylan song and maybe 2 of them are naming something from the last 20 years. Ask them the best album and 100 of them are naming an old one.
Nobody puts Waters, Gilmour's, Page's, Plant's, Lennon's, Macca's, or Harrison's solo work up with the best of their respective bands as a whole. All Things Must Pass is the obvious exception, but alot of that was stuff stockpiled while he was in the Beatles. I still don't think a very high percentage would put it up there with the likes of Revolver, Sgt Pepper or Abbey Road. While all those bands ended on a pretty high note they were really an album or 2 past what the majority of people view as their creative peaks.
I don't think it's fair to say that Paul McCartney is as creative as he once was b/c he still has successful albums and tours. I think most people around this board, myself included, could admit to buying some fairly crummy music b/c Eddie Vedder played on it, or it was recorded Stone Gossard's studio. I get the point that certain artists have earned respect, but they've also often earned a pass of sorts from people unwilling to dislike anything from said artist. I've seen it with every respected band and I've done it with bands.
As for Tool, I'd say 1/3 of the riffs from 10k Days are rehashed ideas from better albums in Aenima and Lateralus. Maybe they are in a comfortable place, but that doesn't always make the best art. This is more a personal thing, but I find some of MJK's other stuff to be fairly awful. I appreciate the whole vision of Tool and have alot of respect for what they've accomplished artistically as a whole, but I do feel the driving force, the music, slipped pretty hard with the last album. I dig every song on there, but I also know the in's and outs of Tool's music like I know no other bands and there's just alot of repeated ideas, imo.
Indeed Dylan and NY are as respected as anybody, and rightfully so, but it's largely based on a handful of albums released 40-50 years ago. Not to overlook their recent work, b/c they both have been able to keep trudging along and making important music late into their lives. It's more a tribute to how amazing their early work is.
Of course there is alot of generalization here, but I think a big part of successful art is how impactful it is. Whether it hits a few people like a ton of bricks or if it's more widespread but maybe not as heavy an impact on each person. Like I said. I'm not saying any of the albums I'm referring to are garbage or bad in any way.
Alot of it is relative to the artist as well. Take all the examples in this post, Dylan, NY,Zep, Beatles, Floyd, Tool....All those bands have made landmark albums and they all have great albums that aren't generally seen as perfect albums, that by any other standards would be among the best. It's always a laugh when you look at greatest album lists and there are 4 from the Beatles and Dylan, and a 2 or 3 from Zep, Floyd, and Neil, maybe a Tool album depending on the publication. I'll be damned if alot of their other work isn't better than almost all the other albums on those lists. "Perfect" albums can be the bane of a band when it comes to how their viewed critically and amongst their fans/potential fans.
interesting discussion. i guess ill just agree to disagree. And for sure, I have favorite albums and art i prefer by those bands over other work theyve done, but
for me when i talk creativity, i mean the energy force, thats compelling these bands or actors, or writers to make the music. whatever compels a band to spend years honing songs and music. that thing. I dont think that thing, whatever it is, that energy force, lessens. its there. We as artists relentlessly chase it, but its always there. An artists success or failure certainly has effects but those are almost always individual, ego ideas. A band who previously was the biggest band in the world releasing an album deemed a bomb, that may effect the band, but the creativity exists, reguardless of the hurt or mental anguish the artist may indeed rightly feel as a result. Dylans going to be a creative until he dies, as are every person and band you mentioned. Thats creativity and the creative calling. Whether you feel Tempest is Dylans best or Highway 61 is, is somewhat irrelvant. Creativity isnt something that changes or disapates. Its a steady companion. You choose to hear the muse or not. Creativity, meaning the act itself, whether or not you feel Waters, or Gilmour, or Lennon or Mccartney, or Plant replicated their previous success, no doubt, creativity is still with these people and artists. Thats where i think the discussion got mixed up. Im arguing for a recognition of creativity as its own force, seperate from success or failure or album sales or critical consensus. Whether people like Wings better than the Beatles, or whether they like Le Noise better than Harvest, they created art beyond that, meaning they were creative, and thus creativity didnt lessen nor did it disappear. I sort of feel like I respect all art, by anyone, because they took the time to create it. I dont think Lennons solo work or Gilmours solo work is any less of a work of art than Revolver or Wish You Were here. Its all art.
... 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.
you can PM me and we can have a nice casual chat around the campfire about it.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
neil and dylan are great examples because they arent respected because they had a few albums 40 years ago, they are respected for their whole body of work. Dylan trudges along every single year, touring. From Time out of Mind 1997 to now, his albums get rave reviews, and many view the work as among his strongest and best. Neil's work never was that big success wise, but of course its mindblowing work. Neil isnt just a big deal because he wrote Rust never Sleeps all those years ago, he's a big deal because he has literally done whatever he wanted his entire career. Including an album of vocoder stuff, and an album of feedback. Sued by his own label for making "un neil young like records". He's changed his style over and over again. These 2 guys are not lamenting about the past, and never have. Neil's recent work from 2000 on hasnt been panned either, he's continuing to release strong material. its just different from Harvest and Rust. Speaks to what I was talking about days ago. Its hard for the public to see an artist grow and change. They want Old Man, and Masters of War. Despite the fact the material both is creating right now is great stuff. It would have been boring had dylan made the same album over again. Same with Tool. Radiohead. The Beatles. Everyone we mentioned had one thing in common-they stretched their creativity and tried new things.
Part of being an artist is accepting failure. Some stuff works, some stuff doesnt. But failure is important. We learn things. You arent going to be a muscisian for 50 years and not have some albums that are deemed flops. But i dont think Dylan and Neil or any of the artists weve talked about really pay any mind. Making risky and wierd, odd, stuff/art is about that dividing line, straddling failure and being happy with it. I think thats how artists grow, and its also resulted in any artistic breakthrough throughout recorded history, the idea of making something you havent done before.
Dylans lyrics arent the same, nor are the sounds he creates, his voice isnt the same. But that really has nothing to do with creativity in the sense people are using it in this thread. He's creative, and will always be creative, thats why he's the best songwriter in history. He refuses to care if anyone dislikes his 80's period, or his early 90's stuff. he was willing to try stuff out, fail, and continue on. Thats the artist.
Part of being an artist is accepting failure. Some stuff works, some stuff doesnt. But failure is important. We learn things. Making risky and wierd, odd, stuff/art is about that dividing line, straddling failure and being happy with it. I think thats how artists grow, and its also resulted in any artistic breakthrough throughout recorded history, the idea of making something you havent done before.
he was willing to try stuff out, fail, and continue on. Thats the artist.
This is very true and applies to all creative endeavors. You've summed up very succinctly what it means to be an artist in any arena and where the truly great stuff comes from.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
Well, I'd never thought of it that way...puts it into real perspective.
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.
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?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
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.
Good/interesting questions though.
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.
[/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.
We should make that happen!
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.
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.
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.
:thumbup:
Meet in the middle? Tx? haha
Hehe, seriously though I mean it. My art has evolved and I have more creativity now than I did 20 years ago without a doubt. I also have less fear of my work being rejected and less desire to conform to the norm or expected. But that's because of my life experiences up to now. It has shaped who I am and what my art is.
As for being successful - success is relative, but I expect that success to happen now, whereas earlier I was too worried about other's opinions.
I think sometimes an artist will have their best years be their early ones, or as others have said, sometimes we relate to the words or pictures that we see from people at a certain point in our lives and for us it correlates to that being their best work because when they change we can't relate so well. But others see the change as better work, so it's completely subjective.
My sister once said to me that Coldplay is the biggest band in the world because of their record/merchandise and ticket sales, as well as radio airplay. I disagreed because 1- they aren't, and 2-I don't listen to the radio and I don't really like too much of their music, so how can they be the biggest band in the world if not EVERY SINGLE person thinks that? Is that adding up their entire catalog of experience or is it just the here and now? It's all totally subjective. How we perceive an artist's work depends entirely on our own personal experiences up to and including that point in our lives. Our experiences will shape how we see that work, and that dictates whether we think it's their best work.
Age really has little to do with it in the end. A person will produce work that some will say is their best, and others will say is their worst. It's human nature to disagree and we'd all be pretty damn boring if it was otherwise. All that matters in the end, is whether the artist producing said work is happy with it. If they are, then who is to say it's their best or worse but them?
this goes back to what we were discussing last night, about what constitutes lessening creativity. I would argue every single artist you mentioned is seemingly as creative as they were in their peak years. You could even argue for some of them, like Dylan, they are CURRENTLY in their peak years right now.
Every band you mentioned, PF, Zep, The Beatles, are no longer around, but I dont think the players in the band were becoming less creative by the end of each bands run. Roger Waters and David Gilmour have had extremely successful solo careers, last I heard Roger was doing some opera thing, so he's certainly trying new things. Robert Plant has his own band and has been recording music and touring since Zep broke up, John Paul Jones was in Them Crooked Vultures, and Page does solo stuff and other projects. With the Beatles, I think it had less to do with creativity lessening than with they had gone through so much together, they were getting married and had relationships and had grown tired of each other. Plus they couldnt have done much more as a band, they were and are the greatest band of all time, maybe they got bored. Paul and John released solo records almost immediately. George certainly wasnt feeling tired when he released the 3 disc All Things Must Pass, and Ringo has done everything from tv shows, and he still tours to this day. Paul still has a damn successful solo career.
Its been what, 6 years since the last Tool album, but im sure if you talk to Maynard or Adam or Danny theyd say they are in the best creative spot they've ever been in. Critical reaction or acceptance has never even been in their vocabulary. They are among the most popular bands in the world, but i think they could care less what the public or critics think or expect. Maynard especially seems as creative as he ever has been, he's got so many projects going on, and the wine making as well, which I think to him is just another creative avenue.
I also think artists expand, not only in sound, or idea, or themes, but also into new areas. Just because an artist hasnt put out an album in 5 years, or an actors last movie wasnt seen by many people, for all we know, that artist is trying their hand in other artistic avenues. An artists creativity isnt defined by one single avenue. Dylan is most famous as a musician, he's also a poet, an actor, has written songs for films, paints, writes childrens books, writes screenplays, directs, etc... Its limiting to suggest an artist dropped off, because we dont know the full story. For all we know an artist could drop off in quality because they are making films instead of playing music.
Dylan and Neil are about as respected as anyone could be right now. Everyone adores and admires and respects them. And both are relentlessly creative, Dylan tours every single year, record out or not, and as I said Neil seems to release records every single year now. Neil's records never were huge hits, but Dylan's last 4 or 5 albums are most definitely as respected and admired as his early period stuff. I like both of them because you never know what the next record will sound like.
i would certainly agree with that general premise that what matters most in any art, is that the artist themselves are pleased with the work. Certainly every artist wants their work to be recieved well and liked, but first and foremost artists create and are creative for themselves, and not for the public. And I think that if you are catering your art to appeal to an audience, to the widest possible audience, I think you censor yourself, and it ends up being less personal and real.
the idea about the biggest band in the world being a subjective idea is true. nowadays with so many options and so many bands, so many albums, its much harder and pretty much impossible for a single band to dominate like Led Zep in the 70's, or The Beatles in the 60's. I would agree with your sister though, that preNapster it was pretty common for bands to be indeed the biggest bands in the world. U2 around the time of Joshua Tree and again after 9/11. Coldplay around 2002-2004, when clocks came out. Nirvana certainly when Teen Spirit hit. Part of the reason was because MTV and radio were our main ways to find out about bands, and thats all we had. And both those would work in tandem, youd see Teen Spirit 100 times a day on mtv and hear it 100 times a day on the radio. People had access to less bands, you couldnt spend all day researching and downloading every single obscure Bolivian jazz band, you only heard a few bands, and those were the bands on mTV and the radio. The lessening idea of a biggest band on earth is most recently illustrated by Arcade Fire winning the Best album of the year at the Grammys in 2010. They are well respected and are popular but arent HUGE.
that said there certainly are artists out there right now who are stars on another planet and enjoy success even successful musicians would find unfathomed: Adele comes to mind, Beyonce, Gaga.
As good as it may be, there are few people that cite Dylan's modern work as his peak. Walk up to 100 people on the street and ask them the best Dylan song and maybe 2 of them are naming something from the last 20 years. Ask them the best album and 100 of them are naming an old one.
Nobody puts Waters, Gilmour's, Page's, Plant's, Lennon's, Macca's, or Harrison's solo work up with the best of their respective bands as a whole. All Things Must Pass is the obvious exception, but alot of that was stuff stockpiled while he was in the Beatles. I still don't think a very high percentage would put it up there with the likes of Revolver, Sgt Pepper or Abbey Road. While all those bands ended on a pretty high note they were really an album or 2 past what the majority of people view as their creative peaks.
I don't think it's fair to say that Paul McCartney is as creative as he once was b/c he still has successful albums and tours. I think most people around this board, myself included, could admit to buying some fairly crummy music b/c Eddie Vedder played on it, or it was recorded Stone Gossard's studio. I get the point that certain artists have earned respect, but they've also often earned a pass of sorts from people unwilling to dislike anything from said artist. I've seen it with every respected band and I've done it with bands.
As for Tool, I'd say 1/3 of the riffs from 10k Days are rehashed ideas from better albums in Aenima and Lateralus. Maybe they are in a comfortable place, but that doesn't always make the best art. This is more a personal thing, but I find some of MJK's other stuff to be fairly awful. I appreciate the whole vision of Tool and have alot of respect for what they've accomplished artistically as a whole, but I do feel the driving force, the music, slipped pretty hard with the last album. I dig every song on there, but I also know the in's and outs of Tool's music like I know no other bands and there's just alot of repeated ideas, imo.
Indeed Dylan and NY are as respected as anybody, and rightfully so, but it's largely based on a handful of albums released 40-50 years ago. Not to overlook their recent work, b/c they both have been able to keep trudging along and making important music late into their lives. It's more a tribute to how amazing their early work is.
Of course there is alot of generalization here, but I think a big part of successful art is how impactful it is. Whether it hits a few people like a ton of bricks or if it's more widespread but maybe not as heavy an impact on each person. Like I said. I'm not saying any of the albums I'm referring to are garbage or bad in any way.
Alot of it is relative to the artist as well. Take all the examples in this post, Dylan, NY,Zep, Beatles, Floyd, Tool....All those bands have made landmark albums and they all have great albums that aren't generally seen as perfect albums, that by any other standards would be among the best. It's always a laugh when you look at greatest album lists and there are 4 from the Beatles and Dylan, and a 2 or 3 from Zep, Floyd, and Neil, maybe a Tool album depending on the publication. I'll be damned if alot of their other work isn't better than almost all the other albums on those lists. "Perfect" albums can be the bane of a band when it comes to how their viewed critically and amongst their fans/potential fans.
interesting discussion. i guess ill just agree to disagree. And for sure, I have favorite albums and art i prefer by those bands over other work theyve done, but
for me when i talk creativity, i mean the energy force, thats compelling these bands or actors, or writers to make the music. whatever compels a band to spend years honing songs and music. that thing. I dont think that thing, whatever it is, that energy force, lessens. its there. We as artists relentlessly chase it, but its always there. An artists success or failure certainly has effects but those are almost always individual, ego ideas. A band who previously was the biggest band in the world releasing an album deemed a bomb, that may effect the band, but the creativity exists, reguardless of the hurt or mental anguish the artist may indeed rightly feel as a result. Dylans going to be a creative until he dies, as are every person and band you mentioned. Thats creativity and the creative calling. Whether you feel Tempest is Dylans best or Highway 61 is, is somewhat irrelvant. Creativity isnt something that changes or disapates. Its a steady companion. You choose to hear the muse or not. Creativity, meaning the act itself, whether or not you feel Waters, or Gilmour, or Lennon or Mccartney, or Plant replicated their previous success, no doubt, creativity is still with these people and artists. Thats where i think the discussion got mixed up. Im arguing for a recognition of creativity as its own force, seperate from success or failure or album sales or critical consensus. Whether people like Wings better than the Beatles, or whether they like Le Noise better than Harvest, they created art beyond that, meaning they were creative, and thus creativity didnt lessen nor did it disappear. I sort of feel like I respect all art, by anyone, because they took the time to create it. I dont think Lennons solo work or Gilmours solo work is any less of a work of art than Revolver or Wish You Were here. Its all art.
you can PM me and we can have a nice casual chat around the campfire about it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Part of being an artist is accepting failure. Some stuff works, some stuff doesnt. But failure is important. We learn things. You arent going to be a muscisian for 50 years and not have some albums that are deemed flops. But i dont think Dylan and Neil or any of the artists weve talked about really pay any mind. Making risky and wierd, odd, stuff/art is about that dividing line, straddling failure and being happy with it. I think thats how artists grow, and its also resulted in any artistic breakthrough throughout recorded history, the idea of making something you havent done before.
Dylans lyrics arent the same, nor are the sounds he creates, his voice isnt the same. But that really has nothing to do with creativity in the sense people are using it in this thread. He's creative, and will always be creative, thats why he's the best songwriter in history. He refuses to care if anyone dislikes his 80's period, or his early 90's stuff. he was willing to try stuff out, fail, and continue on. Thats the artist.
This is very true and applies to all creative endeavors. You've summed up very succinctly what it means to be an artist in any arena and where the truly great stuff comes from.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14