The Lifespan of Creativity

I was thinking about musical artists tonight. It seems that many that have produced great music have a streak of incredible work and then it stops.  I think of the Stones as having incredible longevity and their greatest work spanned maybe 20 years.  With 50 records maybe Miles Davis exceeded that time frame.

Is an artist no different than an athlete?  A friend of mine loved baseball and statistics determined that 28 was, on average, the peak year for a ball player, when the combination of knowledge an fitness were maxed.

Do you know examples of artists who produced great work over their entire life, or even very late in there life? Do you get a finite burst of creativity in your lifetime to use up, or is creativity a talent that you never lose?

I like some of Bob Dylan's newer stuff. Not quite as angry and cynical as his older stuff, but still good writing (as you'd expect).

I don't know man, I just think the public (as a mass) craves originality. Artists with a new or different sound are celebrated more than artists with the same sound, even if they get better and better at what they do.

The Stones have always just fitted their sound to the currently popular sound at the time. When they first came out, they were original, but their music in the 80s sounded like the Stones doing 80s music, that music they released in the 90s sounded like U2, etc. Hell, they even put out a country album (which sounded like the Stones doing country). One way to longevity is just to adapt your music to the current sound (speaking of U2, they did that same thing with that album they released with all that electronic music on it). Another example of this is Santana, just adding guitar licks to the popular music of the time & just recording with the popular artists and producers of the time.

I think the longevity of someone like Miles Davis or BB King (who never really changed their sounds, just came up with new and interesting ways to do their thing) might be more impressive (I even liked that BB King/Clapton album because I thought it was a good combo of their styles). I prefer it when artists "remain true to themselves" or whatever, but they never achieve the popularity of the shapeshifters, because they don't draw in as many new fans.

Generally, I think that every artist (every person?) has a voice. The masses like certain voices as originals, and they like certain voices because they mirror the popular voice of the time in some way. I've always appreciated the originals more. I think the Beatles drove the currently popular sound at the time - leaders, not bandwagon jumpers. I think John Lennon would have kept doing that if he lived.

Okay, with that, I'm off to Okemo.

It strictly subjective and in the eye or in this case EAR of the beholder ..

Technically there is only so much you can do with music . oh yeah you can morph rhythm and to some degree sound with EFFECTS generators , but progression is still somewhat limited to interpretation.

As an example as a guitarist i can add / subtract multiple or  stand alone or co generated guitar  Effects , morph rhythm , add syncopation   But that is not limitless ...   I

Strictly a guess but the. Greats have a style of playing or a timbre of voice that simply with minor adjustments over time using the latest in " technical " enhancements or as i call them " trick boxes" to alter sound "  withstands the skitzophrenia  of the market 😈 .

But then again what the hell do i know !!!!.. I can tell ya this tho there are often fantastic street musicians or subway buskers who would be awesome IF DISCOVERED AND HYPED !

What does my man ithe drummer in the Catskills think? Cmon D  you guys been gigging for decades

Even thought I didn't mention him, Lennon was on my mind when I posted this.  He was a force to be sure.

I was once told that music changes every 5 years.  It's roughly the length of a high school career as kids of that age are the ones who buy the most records (or at least did).

Some great albums, in my mind, that were made when singers/bands were "older" include Paul Simon's  Graceland (mid 40's), Blackhawk (country band/early 40's), Buena Vista Social Club (Cuban) and anything Springsteen, especially the Wrecking Ball (aged 53) and The Rising albums (aged 42).

Also, having worked in a startup once, I was told that 29 was the ideal age to start a business.  Supposedly it's the ideal point between having enough life experience but not having too many commitments.

I think you may be confusing creativity with popularity. Lots of bands come and go, but many musicians keep on keeping on long past their peak popularity. Think about how many bands become the "voice of their generation", make a lot of money, then turn everyone off with their albums that fail to capture the teen angst/zeitgeist that made them popular--they grow, mature, play music, produce other artists, but they never make the top 40 again.
Lots of visual artists are creative throughout their lifetimes, too.
At least, that's the way I see it.

I think creativity might come in waves for some people and others might just run out of it after a brief burst when they're young but for most people (normal people maybe) it's something that has to be developed and maintained over time like a muscle. If you don't actively practice and foster it, it's gonna disappear.

Harvey wrote

 

Do you know examples of artists who produced great work over their entire life, or even very late in there life? Do you get a finite burst of creativity in your lifetime to use up, or is creativity a talent that you never lose?

I can't speak from experience because I'm about as creative as a doorknob. That said I can tell you about a friends experience in the music industry. He's been playing/singing/performing his entire life. Started in his teens. It wasn't until he reached his mid 40's when his career as a musician truly took off for him with a Grammy Nomination. From there it's been nothing but great things for him. I think he'd tell you the same thing that it's more about being in the right place at the right time. It's not that he got any better, rather he finally got noticed and took full advantage of it. Luckily for all of us he's still just a good ole country boy  

Oddly enough I watched the documentary, RUSH - Time Stand Still last night. I admit that I'm 100% biased as RUSH is my fav rock band of all time. Their career/creativity spans 40 years, no band has played as many live shows as they have not to mention to a sold out crowd. In the documentary the band gives all of their success to their fans. I guess having incredibly loyal fans will directly effect the lifespan of creativity.

I highly recommend to anyone who is a fan of music to watch the movie.

I never knew anything about Geddy Lee until I saw this recently. Sitting in for Chris Squire who passed.



I think Chris would be pumped.

No doubt he would be pumped. If I recall correctly I believe RUSH inducted YES into the HOF.

For those not familiar with RUSH take a listen at 1:34 and you'll hear what they mean to the music world.

Ozzy Osbourne has one heck of a run. Everything from Black Sabbath was pretty good imho.

There's that saying...."You have your whole life to produce your first album and then after that nothing will be as good" or something along those lines. I thought that was the deal for Pearl Jam but now Eddie Vedder has done what I think is the best stuff he's ever been involved with in his middle aged years as a solo artist.

Someone mentioned the Stones and ya, those guys are like pillars of rock music. I mean shit, just look at Keith Richards longevity!

What about Neil Young? He's had a damn good run.

Someone also mentioned popularity vs. lifespan. Just the other day I learned that Cindy Lauper is still making music and I've been told that it's really good. I had no idea! I think for a lot of musicians they follow a certain format to make it big, make their money to later fall away from the limelight into obscurity and then get to really create things that their hearts might be more into? Maybe?

I love Rush and Yes...

All the World's a Stage is my Fav..I was blown away by it , I first started seeing Rush in 1980 ..
FWI I saw Yes front row at MSG in 1979..Still have the stub to prove it..

And Getty is a nice Jewish boy from Toronto to boot..

Camp , you should read Neil Peart' s book Ghost Rider...So heart wrenching..He is as good a writer as is a drummer..

JasonWx wrote

I love Rush and Yes...
 

Me too!!

JasonWx wrote

I love Rush and Yes...

All the World's a Stage is my Fav..I was blown away by it , I first started seeing Rush in 1980 ..
FWI I saw Yes front row at MSG in 1979..Still have the stub to prove it..
 

So hard for me to pic a Fav --- 2112, I guess? I'll change my mind tomorrow ----- 1984 was my first show

Front row at MSG, in1979???? Whoa --- hard core rocker right there

JasonWx wrote

 

Camp , you should read Neil Peart' s book Ghost Rider...So heart wrenching..He is as good a writer as is a drummer..

Thanks --- I'll def get it. He's a mysterious kinda dude. I bet the book is great.

Some good examples of musical longevity in this thread.  Also the point about creativity vs popularity is key I believe. But I wasn't really trying to push this to be a music thread.

It actually came about because I had a good idea about ten years ago.  It allowed me to get as good (better really) results as some of the bigger agencies with less work.  (Understand that this idea has not been adopted by other companies that I know of and it is still considered heresy by most. I'm not getting rich off it, just producing good work/results efficiently.)

In any case it had me wondering if I might have another idea that was a good. Then I started thinking about other creative endeavors. Music was one where it seemed that some or many had a spurt and then stopped producing new work.

To me it sounds like you should be getting rich off your idea, Harv. Same/better results with less work?? That certainly would be a homerun in my book!

Camp my idea is heresy in our business. It would be like recommending that rock bands refrain from including an electric guitar.

My idea was born out of necessity as I was one person trying to do the work of 2 or more.  At the time I didn't realize it was counter to all conventional wisdom (hmmm, maybe a message there huh).  When I'd call Google for help with this or that, they'd look at my numbers and say wow how the hell are you doing that?  But none of them every really looked deeply into my method to tell me it was "wrong." I learned a few years ago that none of the big agencies do it my way.

I have a client now doing a huge project. He almost didn't give it to us, because we are "too small." He's all about "efficiency" but would not allow us to use our method. PITA but it definitely jacked the pricetag on the job.

I don't see working to monetize this, and for all I know there may be a good reason not to do it my way. I will say I have thought about it quite a bit and don't SEE a reason.

Thanks for listening, if you did!

I listened, and it sounds to me like your onto something. Your method works for you, you understand how it works, so if YOU can't see a reason not to monetize it why the heck don't you do it? Do you have more to lose that gain? If so, I could understand that, but if it's the other way around.....go for it!

It sounds like the same idea that motivated your secrets of the salesman thread is still in the back of your head germinating slowly. I think I would ask is your new way of approaching your business something that can be protected legally or is it something that, once you explain it, other people could easily copy? If it's easily/legally copyable, I can certainly understand why it's hard to monetize. It's hard to sell something you can't safely explain