Why don't great rock talents get better with time?

[theman1632]

Obviously that should have been Paul McCartney not Paul Simon.

[benny73]

Thanks everyone for the GREAT responses!!

I gotta hit the sac in a few but will read 'em all later. Goodnight!!

[John_DiFool]

@mr. jp

Too much nonsense in this thread.

If music critics have any kind of say at all, it’s obvious that most musicians get worse as they age.

I think it’s caused mainly by decreased creativity and increased lazyness. There are also other minor factors. perhaps something about appreciation of rock music. In general, old people don’t listen to rock music nearly as much as young people.

I think most artists are caught on the horns of a dilemma.

If we assume the artist/band in question truly created something special, interesting,
and relatively unique in their heyday (thus commercial considerations are set aside
here), they have two choices:

1. Continue to try to mine that successful style…

2. Or try to reinvent themselves.

The danger in #1 is that the repetition of their by-now familiar motifs leads to
creative ennui if not death as they get stuck in a rut and perhaps start to pander
too much to their core fanbase. The danger in #2 is that they lose precisely those
qualities which made them so awesome and special in the first place, thus alien-
ating their core fanbase in the process and losing their raison de etre as well. Very
few bands in my experience have been able to successfully reinvent themselves
like this. I have arguments with other fans of the Aussie band The Church
because IMNSHO they’ve lost all the qualities which I originally fell in love with
over 20 years ago. They may still be making decent/good music but it’s stuff I
have no interest in.

[Quercus]

@theman1632

This, to me, kind of goes beyond just rock and roll, and really is a question that can pertain to all creative endeavors. It seems that in any genere, with music just being the most obvious example, artists tend to peek, usually sometime between 20 and 40 and then the quality of thier output tends to slowly decline. I recognize that there are exceptions to this rule, Patrick O’Brian, for instance didn’t really hit his stride until his 50’s. But for every example like his, there are dozens like the Stones, or Francis Ford Coppola, or Herman Melville, who peaked and then kind of declined from there.

One explanation for this is the mathematical concept of regression to the mean.
Or in other words, assume every artist produces mostly mediocre stuff, with a small chance at any time of making something great. The ones who are lucky enough to produce something great near the beginning of their career are famous and well-known. Eventually, luck runs out and they’re back to normal mediocrity. The ones who start out mediocre lose their chance to become famous, and even if they manage to produce a great work in their later years, nobody is going to know about it.

@theman1632

Paul Simon, in 30 years of trying, hasn’t been able to write another “Yesterday” or “Hey Jude.”

Or even write the first “Yesterday” or “Hey Jude” for that matter! Personally, I thought “Graceland” topped “Sounds of Silence”

[theman1632]

@Quercus

Or even write the first “Yesterday” or “Hey Jude” for that matter! Personally, I thought “Graceland” topped “Sounds of Silence”

Thats funny because the reason I made that mistake is thinking of examples of musicians who bucked that trend and he was the one whe came to mind, hence the flub.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@NDP

you’ll find that the artistic peaks of these people were often also during their 20’s and 30’s. While it is true that many of these artists (except those who died young) continued performing or writing until old age, you’ll find the number of works they did that can be considered at least noteworthy decreases steadily after their 40’s.

Definitely Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, and Jim Hendrix were in seriously steep declines by the time they hit their 30s.