An age-old question

[videoheadcleaner]

Is 35 the cut-off age for musical talent? Triple J (Australian radio station) have a monthly magazine and I found this article interesting.

Is age a barrier for talent? Is the best work done when younger? Was Bob Dylan's Time Out Of Mind (released when he was 56) better than Blonde On Blonde (Dylan was 25)? Most would say no. But he still knows how to write songs so did he stop trying?

Or do we look at biggest; what acts have released their biggest effort after 35? Tom Waits, Tina Turner, Tony Bennett? Once upon a time, U2 wanted to be the biggest band in the world. They got there with a run of successful albums but since then, the output has been less than memorable. Michael Jackson wanted to be King of Pop; he did that early in his life and flitted away quickly.

The article also talks about success stifles creativity (R.E.M.) and the reporter Richard Kingsmill also says: " I've had a long-held theory that to be great you have to make five killer albums. To be a legend, you have to make more. Maybe very few are simply incapable of such a feat. Those that can, pack out stadiums well into their sixties."

Discuss.

[Richie Hunt]

I dont think there is a cut off age but there surely is a peak for individuals and their product - I figure there probably is a rough guide and 35 sounds good enough for me but it comes down to what is being produced - ie poetry, painting, music and then the subset genre. Like age may not be as important in folk as it is for punk something along those lines.

I read a study that was conducted on financial investments and age. At the end of the study, it was the younger age group who performed best with higher returns on their investments. A possible reason was that younger people were more willing to take risk and therefore achieve greater returns.

So maybe this would be similar for art. Younger people take more risks, push the boundaries and create something new and exciting and maybe the best albums in their career.

Another example would be RF's chart. He takes the least risky option of selecting his bestever chart based on a consensus of music critiques best ever albums. He is older and therefore not at his creative peak say compared to harkan whose chart has some personal flavor, which i refer to as 'harkan juice'.

[videoheadcleaner]

[cartoken]

[telefunker]

a number of factors could be responsible for an apparent decline in creative output after a certain age. these could be:


- often to establish yourself in a highly competitive market, a great effort may be needed one way or the other.. simply, it's easier to market your 2nd album as everybody already knows you.. if you check the statistics, it's often the 2nd or 3rd albums which have the biggest "first week" or "first year" sales, but they're often not the most highly regarded in retrospect.. but this may explain the "it's all downhill after the debut album" phenomenon to some extent..

- those already established may get bored of music, or find they have nothing left to offer as an opinion.. they might also tire of fame (or with higher levels of self assurance, find their hunger for fame dissipates) and may have already accrued enough wealth as they see it

- increase in age may lead the subject to seek approval of his/her peer group as opposed to that of the generation below, as is often the case with 'popular' music

- popular music is primarily a youth indoctrination tool. something for them to associate adolescence with. they seek indoctrination from the generation before them, too bigger discrepancy in age between fan and artist in this particular art form can make it hard for the listener to relate.. also, since so much of 'popular' music is essentialy just sex (dancing is a mating ritual, most pop songs are about love one way or the other) then it makes sense that the image of the artist is sexy or has some degree of allure.. up until age 35, you probably have more of it.. unless you're james bond


as for that twat who said you're not great until you've made 5 great albums, i don't know of any artist that has produced 5 great albums.. michael jackson may just about get there in my book, but even that is stretching it

one great song is a lot more than 99.999999999% of artists are capable of.. in my opinion, if you produce a great album, that is really an outstanding acheivement
_________________
no fat chicks

[Kiki]

Also to consider is that a lot of journalists and people may pin on one of the above factors to band, regardless of whether it is true or not, to explain why the album is bad rather than admitting they personally don't like a bands new sound.

I personally don't believe there is an age barrier on talent

[Norman Bates]

Neil Young, Robert Wyatt

'nuff said.

[purple]

[quote="cartoken"][quote="harkan"]
and the reporter Richard Kingsmill also says: " I've had a long-held theory that to be great you have to make five killer albums. To be a legend, you have to make more. Maybe very few are simply incapable of such a feat. Those that can, pack out stadiums well into their sixties."
[/quote]

that's not exactly true. Nirvana for example: 1 masterpiece and one very good album, that's only 2 albums, and Nirvana are one of the Legends of rock music.[/quote]

Seconded with My Bloody Valentine, Stooges, and countless others. of course these aren't as popular, just legends to music people.

There's also a long standing argument that creativity is often paired, and likely the result of, dementia. People naturally want to socially "fit" so they have eliminated their awkward, demented, creative qualities by that age, and 35 seems to be a good estimate. This could attach to the 'popularity destroys creativity' argument, because once you are popular, you likely either strive to embrace it or repel it, and either way you're trying to fit into a subgroup, whereas before you were this unbounded, awkard, crazy-as-hell genius, and that again destroys your own special dementia and therefore your creativity. Of course there are exceptions, as bates pointed out, but just an idea.

[purple]

[quote="telefunker"]as for that twat who said you're not great until you've made 5 great albums, i don't know of any artist that has produced 5 great albums.. michael jackson may just about get there in my book, but even that is stretching it

one great song is a lot more than 99.999999999% of artists are capable of.. in my opinion, if you produce a great album, that is really an outstanding acheivement[/quote]

Also seconded, if a band produces just two amazing albums or three great albums, or some combination of amazing and great albums, they're going down in my book as legends in their own right. Thinking back on it, I don't believe I've ever listened to any album and not been tempted to skip the occasional song every now and then. There definately is no perfect album in my book, and there definately are no untouchable musicians out there either (cough, Beatles).

[maxperenchio]

I would say 35 is even too old- I think most great rock is made by twenty somethings, usually around 25. There is a inherent dilemma in the question itself though- because an overwhelming majority of artists start in their early twenties. If the band is even slightly relevant at 35, it is usually because they put out classic albums in the past... in their twenties. Most bands need no more than 3 or 4 albums to refine whatever it is they are trying to do as a band. So we are talking about a system that is basically set out to peak right around 25-30. Sure you could talk about risk, wide-eyed-wonder, or ruthless experimentation associated with youth, but I think its almost mathematical given social and music industry norms.