When do musicians peak

They seem to burn bright and quick, like a massive star would literally. I think this boils down to a bit of a generalization as sure you can name plenty of huge acts who seem to peak in their youth, but if you really looked you could likely find plenty that have just kept improving with age. This is definitely a fascinating conversation. Alan, I agree with you in many of your statements about the 20s being the creative peak.

There are only a handful of musicians that fall into the category of fame over Yes, the Malcolm Gladwell topic on the 'Tipping Point' discussing 10, hours to become a professional is relevant to this discussion and to many other industries. Yet I think the most important factor is the ability to take risks. It is hard after the age of 30 to take risks like one did when they are young due to financial burdens, starting families, and a whole bunch of other reasons pertaining to 'growing up'.

Those that take risks when they are young especially pertaining with music can find the success they look for. Lets take another example of art, like a Film Director. The reason why this is different and similar is because this certain person took a risk when they were young by going into film.

Maybe starting off at the bottom of a chain and slowly learning more and gaining more experience to soon be able to direct a great film late 20's to even 80s years of age.

The risk is the essential part in becoming successful in the arts. Yet it just so happens that music is a profession where success can be reached much earlier than other art professions in now a day's modern art culture. Although image and being young does play a huge factor in music, as it always has. The attractiveness in a person translates through the music.

From a guesstimation not experience I would say that for the majority of people attractiveness in character and physicality is lost with age, thus loosing an audience, and ones inner drive. Risk is all with art. When you are willing to take it is what determines ones path. I think context is missing from this discussion. When an artist establishes themselves, they are then forever measured against their 'groundbreakers', and they will never be measured again by the sameccriteria.

No one can be incredible every time, an inevitably there will be ups and downs, but rhe downs will win because of the precedents. Yup, always a fascinating discussion. If you listen to musicians like Ian Anderson and Peter Frampton, arguably artists that most might say have 'aged gracefully' I. When playing Rocksmith along with Santana tracks from his early days and a more recent one, damn the new stuff is hard — not just the licks, but the musical transformations. Surely everyone thinks that Timbaland peaked at least a decade ago and has fallen off madly since?

Byrne is probably a prime example of another aspect of this, as someone who's continually been refining his aesthetic to suit his own increasingly specific sensibilities, at the expense of it suiting the sensibilities of many other people.

Which could be both a cause of and also caused by the audience losing interest, since his work exists in less and less of a well-defined cultural milieu that would allow the audience to better understand and appreciate what exactly he's doing. I don't think literature is exempt from this.

Most of my favorite authors are better at writing now than when their big breakthrough books came out, having written for a long time, but either rehash their old ideas and themes or their newer ideas aren't as compelling. About the gap between later album releases: I've always thought that creative people in general have several points in their life where they have to adjust to their creative process if you want to improve or even just stay as good as you were, and I think for most people that involves slowing down; many people will say the challenge gets harder and harder.

You hit a wall and start realising that what was good enough a year ago isnt good enough now. I cant speak with any authority on these people or their creative processes, but my guess is that Scott Walker takes his time and makes sure he works hard enough with genuine desire to get somewhere new or new enough with his creativity. I think Morrissey kept using the same old formula expecting it to work the same way it used to. I think if you are going to keep growing and stay vital, you need to accept that you might need to change your way of doing things drastically.

But some people make a living off their art and possibly cant afford to take as much time as they need or work under new conditions they need.

Then there are types of things maybe epic films that really cant be done without support; and those supporters might not be willing to give you all the things you need to make it well. I really feel sorry for people who need a very specific situation and level of often financial support to create what they want. I also find it scary that for only such a short time have lots of forms of creativity had a chance of reaching an audience.

No one's mentioned how life's pull changes dramatically for an artist. When you're young and single, you can focus all your energy into your art and touring and honing your craft.

Starting a family, feeling the need to make money, caring for your children, spouse, parents or siblings, all dramatically cut into just the number of hours you can focus on the creative process. I read something today that seems to have bearing on this, from a SF convention where Samuel Delany interviewed Joanna Russ:. SD: [Asks about the "double bind situation" — the economic realities of a writer trying to make a living writing. People in that bind never do great stuff again.

SD: Yes, I can remember my first five books in three years, and I ended up in a mental hospital. Any thoughts on changing it? JR: No. There were niche markets, eighty-five different little magazines all doing something different. It seems like being an odd-looking alcoholic and dating a series of hot women has some ability to counteract the early-peaking effect, see Serge Gainsbourg, Mark E.

Literature is a difficult one, for every Don DeLillo, who definitely peaked pre, there's a Philip Roth who put out three or four near masterpieces right at the end of his career.

Perhaps of interest, here's a cool infographic that explores the ages at which great novelists write their masterpieces:. As a guitarist and musician myself, this issue is really troubling me. Within my first 5 years of playing the guitar, back in High School, I came up with a ton of song ideas.. I was able to create compelling tunes in genres I didn't even listen to.. The guitar fretboard was an endlessly thrilling universe of wonder and new surprises..

But after that glorious initial spark, my composing abilities mysteriously fizzled. I would sit and play for hours and hours and nothing interesting would come out.. I decided to focus on learning music theory, and that only further forced me into a creative regression.. As an artist, this is something of a nightmare for me : The whole thing really bums me out, because I was looking forward to finding a career as a musician..

I'm still not sure what went wrong.. I wish there was some way to erase the musical preconceptions I've inadvertently formed in my mind and start back at scratch.. Maybe each artist has their own unique, finite window for creativity, and after you cash in your creative hours, your mind's creative potential becomes depleted..

Painting and music are completely different. People who appreciate opera and classical like to hear the same sounds, repeatedly. People who like popular music are mostly always searching for something new and fresh. Paul Weller is a great example. As does the ability to really experience it IMO. This despite making massively popular music initially — without the help of thier teenage buddies.

Most great albums have hopefully got more than 3 pertinant tracks too. Agred that visual artists generally ply their trade for much longer before finding success — but this isnt always at odds to the music industry. Middle answer: pop music lives and dies in reference to its cultural context. People coincide with that, so it means something at to them at the time they really engage with it.

Longer answer: pop music is, as well as being necessarily defined by its place and time, usually more about the performance than the inherent content. Classical music is defined by the composer first and then the performance. And, in the majority of cases, no-one listening to it was alive at the time it was written and first performed. Even jazz — the first music of the modern era — is increasingly becoming time bound. There are plenty of people who only ever composed one good thing, just as there are plenty of pop musicians who wrote only one good song or album of songs.

Anyway is pop music meant to be long lived? Why not? Just look at the back-catalogues of Stax, Motown, Atlantic Records, etc. I think sometimes artist just play it safe, instead of going for what excites them they go for what they know will sell, what their established fanbase will buy. Like Status Quo, for example. Im not sure. If you took a current Weller album and went back in time, I very much doubt people would enjoy it any more than do currently.

More, or less?.. But if anything I find myself increasingly open to new genres and styles, and rediscovering albums that I once thought were not for me — and finding that they are brilliant after all. I have recently been move to tears of joy at certain gigs, by bands I previously barely knew of. Not necessarily but the energy that makes some music much more exciting than other stuff helps.

I think that energy fades with age. Some of the most exciting music ever made is pretty thin on technique and full of imperfections but overflowing with attitude. As a composer or painter your ability to execute your art improves just as it usually does as you become a more experienced musician and that trumps not having so much to say. Compare punk rock and symphonies.

Statement and attitude vs beautiful harmonies, melodies and arrangements. I definitely do! Of course, its all completely subjective. I agree with the original premise and I'll take it a step further and say that most musicians also put out their best work in their 20's, maybe early 30's.

That's when musicians have the most fire, most creativity and work the hardest. This is in general, as there are always exceptions Cheevyjames , Feb 15, TSWisla , moodyxadi and Zoot Marimba like this. Szeppelin75 , Kingsley Fats and John Adam like this. Frosst , BluesOvertookMe , ianuaditis and 3 others like this. Zoot Marimba likes this. Location: Central NY. StarThrower62 , Feb 15, MoonPool , royzak , moodyxadi and 3 others like this. Location: Madison WI.

DJ LX , Feb 15, Jazzmonkie , moodyxadi and Cheevyjames like this. I'm talkin strictly instrumentalists, Chris Squire being the example. You can watch him on youtube in but he seemed to be doing pretty much everything in It amazes me one can be that advanced at a young age.

His story is that he basically woodshedded for about 6 months in the mid 60's. I suppose a lot of it has to do with the style of music. Location: Ohio. Location: Mahwah, NJ.