5 ms·

I've wondered a lot about the relationship between creative output and age in terms of musicians. Across all genres, it seems that many talented musicians lose

I've wondered a lot about the relationship between creative output and age in terms of musicians. Across all genres, it seems that many talented musicians lose their ability to compose or take part in creative works as they get older. Sting talked about this (1); at some point in his mid-40s after writing and releasing new albums every few years the creative well seemed to dry up (he got it back later, and recently helped write and score a play). Other musicians shift to performance mode or give up creating new works altogether. However, with many well-known authors it seems to be more mixed. At one end of the spectrum you have people like Walter M. Miller Jr. and Harper Lee who write a great work and then seem to stop publishing by the time they reach their early 40s, and then at the other, there are people like Ursula K. LeGuin and Stephen King who are machines for more than 50 years. 1. http://www.npr.org/2014/10/03/351545257/how-do-you-get-over-writer-s-block http://www.npr.org/2014/10/03/351545257/how-do-you-get-over-...

gt_ 9y ago
Sharp observation. See my comment above. This general takeaway makes fine sense when you calculate the scope of the lifestyle differences. Here's my loose take: Music is a unique beast; especially these days. It remains the most scientifically fleeting artforms. The reasons why are sensory/media based for the most part, and usually entail a long-winded conversation because of the sheer abstraction of where the power lies in the medium. The conversations a musician has with it's audience actually seems to correlate more with what we consider childishness. In short, it's highly intuitive. Having this type of conversation briefly with rooms full of fans does not quite exercise the 'theory' end. Older musicians whose flame is still burning will usually have a deep and nuanced relationship with their art and practice that only those close to them can begin to understand. Maintaining that is rare.
sliverstorm 9y ago
We need artists who started older, to compare. Alternative hypothesis- many artists come to prominence with one great contribution, but they can't do it repeatedly. Not because they are getting older but because they had one grand idea and failed to deliver another. See, one-hit wonders if all ages. See, The Beatles and Eric Clapton, both famous for continuous reinvention.
archagon 9y ago
And yet, classical composers (Bach!) have often produced their best work in their later years. I think the key is always having somewhere to (creatively) dig. For example, artists who vary genres and instruments seem to do better than those who pick a style and then stick with it for decades. Always head towards unexplored ground; always be reinventing yourself.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  Cezanne.
q845712 9y ago
Mozart's requiem, Beethoven's late string quartets, ... here's an entire Slate article. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2011/11/famous_classical_composers_the_last_piece_they_wrote_before_they_died_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2011/11/famous_... I think there are actually very few masters in any age- most of the people whose works we celebrate and enjoy just aren't that brilliant. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with enjoying whatever we enjoy, or that it's trivial or worthwhile to try to spot the timeless master among the many skilled and successful artists. Just that I think you need a different lens.
coldtea 9y ago
>I've wondered a lot about the relationship between creative output and age in terms of musicians. Across all genres, it seems that many talented musicians lose their ability to compose or take part in creative works as they get older There are too many counter-examples in classical, blues and whatever for this to be true. Sting was never in it for the pure love of music in the way someone like Miles Davis, or BB King, or Tom Waits and Elvis Costello for that matter, he got distracted by the jet set lifestyle (Bob Gedolf is an ever worse example of that).
bitwize 9y ago
And then there's "Weird Al" Yankovic, who started out able to hold his own with many of the pop stars he parodied and put out more consistently brilliant work as he got older.

gt_ 9y ago

Sharp observation. See my comment above. This general takeaway makes fine sense when you calculate the scope of the lifestyle differences. Here's my loose take: Music is a unique beast; especially these days. It remains the most scientifically fleeting artforms. The reasons why are sensory/media based for the most part, and usually entail a long-winded conversation because of the sheer abstraction of where the power lies in the medium. The conversations a musician has with it's audience actually seems to correlate more with what we consider childishness. In short, it's highly intuitive. Having this type of conversation briefly with rooms full of fans does not quite exercise the 'theory' end. Older musicians whose flame is still burning will usually have a deep and nuanced relationship with their art and practice that only those close to them can begin to understand. Maintaining that is rare.

sliverstorm 9y ago

We need artists who started older, to compare. Alternative hypothesis- many artists come to prominence with one great contribution, but they can't do it repeatedly. Not because they are getting older but because they had one grand idea and failed to deliver another. See, one-hit wonders if all ages. See, The Beatles and Eric Clapton, both famous for continuous reinvention.

archagon 9y ago

And yet, classical composers (Bach!) have often produced their best work in their later years. I think the key is always having somewhere to (creatively) dig. For example, artists who vary genres and instruments seem to do better than those who pick a style and then stick with it for decades. Always head towards unexplored ground; always be reinventing yourself.

Applejinx 9y ago
Cezanne.

q845712 9y ago

Mozart's requiem, Beethoven's late string quartets, ... here's an entire Slate article. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2011/11/famous_classical_composers_the_last_piece_they_wrote_before_they_died_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/music_box/2011/11/famous_... I think there are actually very few masters in any age- most of the people whose works we celebrate and enjoy just aren't that brilliant. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with enjoying whatever we enjoy, or that it's trivial or worthwhile to try to spot the timeless master among the many skilled and successful artists. Just that I think you need a different lens.

coldtea 9y ago

>I've wondered a lot about the relationship between creative output and age in terms of musicians. Across all genres, it seems that many talented musicians lose their ability to compose or take part in creative works as they get older There are too many counter-examples in classical, blues and whatever for this to be true. Sting was never in it for the pure love of music in the way someone like Miles Davis, or BB King, or Tom Waits and Elvis Costello for that matter, he got distracted by the jet set lifestyle (Bob Gedolf is an ever worse example of that).

bitwize 9y ago

And then there's "Weird Al" Yankovic, who started out able to hold his own with many of the pop stars he parodied and put out more consistently brilliant work as he got older.