Explain something to me...

[freak show]

No, not Clapton!

 

[love]

 

The other day I was admiring "Space Oddity" by David Bowie, and it struck me that he wrote that song in his early 20's. In my opinion that's a "fairly impressive" accomplishment for someone so young.

 

Then I started to think about all of the great songs written by Page/Plant, Gilmour/Waters, Jagger/Richards, Neil Young, etc. and how the best stuff is all from their early years. Basically, these guys were all at their peak before the age of 35.

 

And I can't think of any Rock musician who has gotten "better with age". Some may have become more proficient players, as they grew older, but the new songs are never as good as the earlier stuff.

 

I can't think of any other art form where this is the case: In Painting, Literature, Classical Music, etc. artists usually become better with time. Why is it different in Rock music?

 

Any theories?

 

[sgbass]

Paul McCartney and Eric Clapton are the couple I think of. Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and Janis Joplin were 27.

[daveinspain]

Most of the famous Rock giants we all know and love started out young and inexperienced armed with nothing more than a passion for music. There was nothing clouding their minds, no boundaries, no rules. What they did came from the heart. Later as one ages life gets complicated and it reflects in the music ... In many cases the biggest hits were just a combination of three or four chords, simple melodies that stuck in your head. As the knowledge of music increases so does the complexity. The natural tendency would be to move away from simple catchy songs an create more intricate and technically superior pieces. In Rock less is more and as an artist ages more becomes less commercial.... That's how I see it anyway....

[badbluesplayer]

Most people are more creative when they're young.

 

I'm 53 and my future's all behind me now.

 

[saturn]

I know what you're saying, but can't explain it either.

 

It's like, the songs start to sound forced. Like you can hear them trying to match the lyrics to the rythym and the chord changes don't seem to flow as naturally etc.

 

Maybe they've written so many songs that they've used up all their good ideas. I wonder what would happen if a real creative person waited until they were 35 or 40 to start writing rock songs?

[ShredAstaire]

Older people stop drinking and taking drugs.

[DanvillRob]

 

Any theories?

 

 

 

My grandfather, (who would turn 121 tomorrow if he were still alive), used to tell me:

 

"Some people, the older they get, the smarter they get.....other people, the older they get, the older they get."

[NeoConMan]

I'm 53 and my future's all behind me now.

That would explain your obvious exasperation and despair' date=' childish rants and such...

 

 

[biggrin']/

[Bowdiddley]

Most people are more creative when they're young.

 

I'm 53 and my future's all behind me now.

 

 

Thats horrible! We are about the same age and my life has just begun.

 

It's all in how you look at it.

[tulsaslim]

No' date=' not Clapton!

 

 

The other day I was admiring "Space Oddity" by David Bowie, and it struck me that he wrote that song in his early 20's. In my opinion that's a "fairly impressive" accomplishment for someone so young.

 

Then I started to think about all of the great songs written by Page/Plant, Gilmour/Waters, Jagger/Richards, Neil Young, etc. and how the best stuff is all from their early years. Basically, these guys were all at their peak before the age of 35.

 

And I can't think of any Rock musician who has gotten "better with age". Some may have become more proficient players, as they grew older, but the new songs are never as good as the earlier stuff.

 

I can't think of any other art form where this is the case: In Painting, Literature, Classical Music, etc. artists usually become better with time. Why is it different in Rock music?

 

Any theories?

 

 

 

 

 

Well, that depends. Mozart and Beethoven had a couple of symphonies under their belt by their early '20s.

[pohatu771]

I don't think it's so much that the artists are better when they're younger, but the style changes and people are set on this artist sounding exactly like this. Paul McCartney, in my opinion, is still writing very good music - but it's not Beatle music, and a majority of people just want Paul to play Beatle music.

 

Even the "simple" stuff, as some have argued, isn't what people want to hear. There's a lot of good stuff on Memory Almost Full and Electric Arguments, but it isn't Can't Buy Me Love, so many people aren't interested.

[jameslucascalvert]

I'll be 32 here in a few weeks, and every time I start to feel down about my accomplishments as a musician, I hold onto this---I've already lived longer than a lot of my musical heroes!!!

[retrosurfer1959]

Depends on what you define as better look at Knopfler, Haynes, Prince, Wonder and others that are all doing great stuff as they age and the styles they play change and grow with them. Some just keep playing the old songs over and over because we as fans demand our old favorites we as fans and customers probably limiot them more than anything else.

 

And the drugs probably helped.

[Cruznolfart]

One word; relevance.

[Murph]

There is a video of Skynyrd opening for the Stones in England and I was amazed at the maturity the boys played with that day. Several songs punched out with near perfection and they were very young. Three lead players and nobody EVER steps on anybody.

 

[FirstMeasure]

I think it has a lot to do with Expectations. When an Artist is young, he/she is pushing his/her vision on the record company and the audience. After the artist is popular, the record company and the audience are pushing their vision of what the Artist Should be on the Artist. They often loose sight of the music that is in their head, and start writing to fulfill expectations.

 

Remember, very few Artist have any Artistic Freedom once they sign record contract. That part of the industry need to change before, then maybe artist could actually grow.

 

Take Billy Armstrong and Green Day. He writes Green Day songs for Green Day, but he has a Side Project that play small venues so he can write from his heart, as well. We'll probably never hear any of that Billy Armstrong.

[freak show]

Well' date=' that depends. Mozart and Beethoven had a couple of symphonies under their belt by their early '20s.

[/quote']

 

That's quite true, but my original point wasn't that artists in other fields don't produce great works in their younger years. I was trying to say that in other fields, the artist often becomes better with age.

 

Mozart only lived to be 35, so we'll never know, if he would have gotten better with age.

 

Beethoven wrote the 9th in his 50's (shortly before his death), which leads me to believe his was still at the top of his game right up until the end.

 

In Rock music it's usually different. For example Page, Gilmour, Richards, Townshend, etc. have been "over the hill" for decades. None of their new stuff matches what they achieved before the age of 30.

 

Someone did, however, mention Mark Knopfler. That too would have been my "exception to the rule". Knopfler has been making great music for several decades, a truly astounding feat!

 

Others have mentioned the Industry as a possible factor. I think there's truth in that.

 

I guess I'll just never understand how some 20 year old can write "Space Oddity" or "Needle and the Damage Done" or "Time" and then be unable to top that in later years when he is "older and wiser". One would think that the art would profit from the age and experience of the artist, but that is seldom the case...

[tulsaslim]

Me, along with thousands of others, often wonders what Hendrix would've done had he not cashed it in at 27.

[deepblue]

Clapton more or less ripped off other peoples tunes, so did Elvis, and for the most part alot of early

Zeppelin was all other peoples songs.

[zigzag]

Me' date=' along with thousands of others, often wonders what Hendrix would've done had he not cashed it in at 27.[/quote']

 

An early death was his destiny.

 

As far as Clapton, Elvis, and Led Zepplin ripping off other artists, some of that was done, but most was original. That's like saying the Beatles ripped off other peoples' songs when they did Isley Bros., Buddy Holly, and Carl Perkins' tunes. Beethoven and Mozart often borrowed existing melodies in some of their works.

 

I would agree that artists seem to produce most in their youth. I believe it is truer for some than others. IMO, I think it is because youth has more energy and inspiration. Most people will tell you that Mozart's best stuff was his later stuff, same for Beethoven. Picasso was great for a long time, as were most noteable painters and sculptors.

 

I'm not so sure that most artists lose their edge as they mature as much as they just become more refined.

[FirstMeasure]

There's a difference between "Ripping Off" and "Covering"

 

Clapton, Elvis, and Zeppelin "Covered" many a Great Tune to Great Affect.

 

Vanilla Ice took Queens "Under Pressure", added a note and tried to claim it as his own, That's "Ripping Off".

[LPguitarman]

They used up all of their knowledge and creativity when they were young and probably high. As they got older they grew wiser with the drug issues and stopped destroying their bodies and minds, but they had already used up all of their ideas and could not come up with anything new. JUST KIDDING ;)

[Dom_JEM]

this guy gets better and better