A few weeks I posted some new David Byrne collaborations, and David N commented that he was a good example of that strange cultural phenomenon that makes the young the most artistic and creative. Why is it that so many artists in many different arts become less vital, less exciting once they reach thirty? What happens to their brains? Do they become comfortable because of money? Do their expectations change? Are they tired of constantly challenging themselves? Does this make them lazy? So many questions.
I do feel that in the last few years the music industry has become less obsessed with youth, but only because they have realised that the grey consumer has disposable income and is a lot less likely to download illegally. It doesn't mean that 40, 50 somethings have become more creative, just that there is money to be made. I do think there are some exceptions though, and Byrne is one of them. I have loved his last two albums, and while they are obviously not as good as his early material with Talking Heads, that doesn't mean they are not tremendous. I will be writing about some of these exceptions in forthcoming posts, and would welcome your own nominations. To get the ball rolling: Tom Waits, Bjork, Caetano Veloso. What say you?
David Byrne - The Great Intoxication (live) (From the new album, Live From Austin TX)
I do feel that in the last few years the music industry has become less obsessed with youth, but only because they have realised that the grey consumer has disposable income and is a lot less likely to download illegally. It doesn't mean that 40, 50 somethings have become more creative, just that there is money to be made. I do think there are some exceptions though, and Byrne is one of them. I have loved his last two albums, and while they are obviously not as good as his early material with Talking Heads, that doesn't mean they are not tremendous. I will be writing about some of these exceptions in forthcoming posts, and would welcome your own nominations. To get the ball rolling: Tom Waits, Bjork, Caetano Veloso. What say you?
David Byrne - The Great Intoxication (live) (From the new album, Live From Austin TX)
Posts
16 comments:
Surely, rather than working as an exception, Byrne proves the rule? You yourself suggest that though tremendous, his recent material is clearly not as good as his Talking Heads stuff...
I really, really can't think of anyone. Nobody at all. Every songwriter I love got - well, if not worse, than less great as they aged. Lennon, McCartney, Ray Davies, Pete Townshend, Brian Wilson, Van Morrison, Eno, Bowie, Lou Reed, James Brown, Jagger & Richards, Stevie Wonder, Al Green, Curtis Mayfield, Alex Chilton, Paul Westerberg, REM... I could go on and on...I suppose Dylan is judged, by some critics, to have produced recent work of a calibre approaching the work he did in the 60s. But not by me.
People I love like Andy Partridge and John Cale still do some good stuff. but not AS good, which is the point of this conversation, right?
Of your list, I don't know Veloso's stuff well enough to comment, would absolutely disagree about Waits and suggest that Bjork is still near the mid-point of her career. She hasn't entered her dotage yet.
Most negative blog comment ever? Sorry. Somebody change my mind, please...
No need to feel bad Dave, the whole point was to encourage discussion.
I do agree with you, the point is to show the exceptions to the rule. I definitely feel that Byrne is one of these exceptions, as although his albums aren't as good as his early material, they are still excellent. I hardly think a decline from incredible to excellent is any kind of decline at all. All of the artists you have listed have shown a decline considerably greater than that.
As for my other suggestions, Tom Waits has only released challenging interesting records for about 30 years now. Your opinion as to the quality, is well, your opinion but you cannot deny that he continues to be a fascinating artist, and hasn't trailed off into laziness and repetition as so many do. And Bjork's maybe a little young, but in pop terms she's a dinosaur, and she's still the most experimental pop singer we have.
I will not be trying to change your mind, as I agree with you. I just want to celebrate those artists who keep going and don't slump off to count their riches and bask in retro glory. And I am wondering why it happens, and would welcome opinions on that.
They'll be some more nominations from me next year, and I would welcome your suggestions in the mean time.
I haven't got the encyclopedic music knowledge to back me up like you two, but some of my favourite stuff this year ahas been produced by pop dinosaurs...not quite the same age as Byrne and Eno and co...
James Murphy is like nearly 40 isn't he? But he's making music more exciting than kids half his age, also the Radiohead have managed to pull an album out of the bag that at least stands up to earlier work, and they're no spring chickens anymore. To me In Rainbows sounds more like a follow up to Ok Computer than Kid A ever did.
I think in the case of a lot of artists...it was never the idea to be experimental or forward thinking, just to get the songs in their heads out. People like Bjork and Waits will always be trying to push it and do something different, and make something new, which will make them still vital in years to come. Others will be content doing their thing - so it'll be a very similar thing over the years, which will stagnate even great work with the familiarity of it.
It'd be interesting to see which side of the line some of those who died young would land if they had survived. Hendrix...Brian Jones...Ian Curtis...etc.
I hear the new Eagles album is really good.
Hi James, very interesting blog...I think the funny thing about the age issue is that it seems to apply only to pop music, when you have people like Elliott Carter composing at 99 and Manoel de Oliveira directing films a year before his century, you rarely hear their work being described as a gimmick, which is what that pensioner cover version of 'My Generation' was perceived as...
But to answer your question, apart from those already mentioned, I would add Leonard Cohen (was he ever young though?!).
I thought I'd post this review of the LCD album from Pitchforks albums of the year. Seems relevant:
"You play some rock, you do some drugs, you hit the clubs, you make some beats, you're young. Eventually you get older and your back hurts if you're out too late and you get a real job, start doing "unplugged" sets, and sell off your collection except for the good Bowie records. Or: You're James Murphy, who realized that growing (the fuck) up could make his rock deeper and his dance music bolder, and that actually there's no reason for them not to be the same thing. Of course, the second LCD album is informed by the records Murphy devoured as a kid, from Steve Reich to Yello, but it's also fresh enough to raise chills: angry, elegiac, hilarious, totally idiomatic, sequenced as well as any LP this decade, and given both mass and momentum by his perspective and experience. I cannot wait to hear the records he's making when he's 55." --Douglas Wolk
Waits and his "sod your traditional instruments, they're boring, I'm gonna make an album using only Mammoth rib-bone fossils and this toaster, and you can forget the idea of me singing ever again, I'll just croak" I can't be dealing with. Hipster drivel.
I don't think Murphy's actual age is the issue - its about his age as an artist. This is only his second record, he may as well be 21 in creative terms. It'll be interesting to see how he sounds in 15 years, and if the decline has set in by then. I imagine he'll be an Eno-esque production guru.
Thats another aspect of this - how long do artists have before they start to lose it? 15 years, maybe? That would put Bjork and Radiohead well within their ongoing golden ages, and chime with the peaks in the careers of the likes of McCartney, Dylan, Bowie or David Byrne...
I think it does apply in other fields - almost every major director of note has lost much of their facility late in their careers. Ford, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Scorsese, just for starters. Oliveira is notable becaue of his age, because its so unusual to be still directing - and doing it well - so old. I don't know enough about Jazz or Classical or Blues music to comment.
And does Leonard Cohen's later stuff compare favourably to his first 3 records? I don't think so...
Mr Murphy may only have made his second LCD album, but he's been a musician for much longer, just not a successful one. So I don't think your 15 year rule works for him, although it seems an accurate measuring stick in general.
Your assessment of Tom Waits was wrong in every single way Dave, so let's not even drive down that road.
So far only Davey has actually touched upon why this pattern happens. Any ideas anyone?
I have more ideas. Ego and ambition.
Any artist starting out when they're young have to prove themselves, they have to try and make an impact and get noticed...if they don't make something that bit better, or with a new twist, they ain't gonna have a career. They need to be aiming higher in every way in order to establish themselves, they're out to impress.
By the time they've hit the magic 15 mark, if they hit the magic 15 mark, it means they're established - they have the career and status already, the only thing now driving them is their own dissatisfaction with their output, and desire to improve. Most of them are comfortable, and dissapointing as it is, they know they can turn out more work very similar to old output and still be succesful (at least financially) with it.
People get old, they don't get as excited about things, or as passionate, as they did in their youth. Could you imagine the Scorsese of Taxi Driver making something as anonymous as the Departed back then?
Yeah, that all makes sense. I read something somewhere recently about Neurological reasons for all of this - as we age, just about all of our mental powers decline, along with everything else. Which would include the bases of creativity and imagination. Some artists may still be hungry, but they literally can't do it, their old brains just aren't quite up to it anymore...
Grim thought.
I thought of an exception in another field. Philip Roth. Has done his greatest work over the last decade or so, in his old age. But most writers do their greatest work in middle age, perhaps because writing needs a combination of experience and youthful zest. So Roth would be the exception proving the rule.
Re: Tom Waits - James, you're no fun. You shirk arguments the way you used to shirk tackles...
the more I think about this, the more I believe they're aren't any exceptions to the age rule in pop music, especially when the selection criteria is perceived best work rather than most successful economically.
A few years back U2 and REM released albums that were seen as 'a return to form' by essentially sounding a bit like their earlier work. Beck was lauded for doing an album recently because it sounded like Odelay.
The pop music climate just isn't conducive right now for lots of bands to make new/challenging work. Unless you are Radiohead or PJ Harvey I guess...
The climate unfortunately seems more inclined for bands to get back together (he says with his MBV ticket) and tour. If someone wants to make new music and to push the envelope, I agree they need to maintain the ego and ambition but also have a supportive record label, or go it alone.
Grim thought indeed.
I've always thought that it was more down to laziness and a lack of ambition, as well as increased financial security, that induced this malaise. I never thought of it a s a neurological thing.
Re: Tom Waits. I never used to shirk your tackles Dave. It was your scything hacks on my midriff that I used to shirk. Have you received one of those yet, Davey?
Re: Patrick. I have heard the theory that since 'Rock' reached 50 it has entered it's middle age, and subsequently has started to look back and reminisce. Hence, the huge amount of reunion tours we have seen in the last few years.
It's much easier for a musician, even credible ones such as MBV, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr, Slint etc, to reform and bang old the old numbers to thousands rather than struggle on through solo tours to the devoted few. I don't suppose you can blame them, but it just feels a bit hollow to see them, I find. I think they know it too, and I think they know they have hit a dip in their creativity that they may never recover from.
I'd kill a man to see a reformed Talking Heads, but I know that they don't really like each other and that they would only be there for the cash. And it would always be nagging away in mind. I'd still go though.
I don't get tackled much...as I shirk getting the ball in the first place most of the time, and try to get rid of it as soon as possible when it does come my way. I try to tackle David(fairly) and usually get bouldered out of the way pretty easily. I'm too nice.
I was reading something this evening on my nightshift when I should have been working about experience being the enemy of creativity, if you face a task once and find a way to beat it that works, you're more likely to repeat your method even though it may not be best suited to the new task.
So past success and knowledge of how to produce a good album means an artist, or indeed anyone is more compelled to repeat their actions - having found a solution once, they are not inclined to explore new avenues - even if the old ones don't fit the new problems.
This made me think of all the deconstruction and rebuilding Radiohead did after OK Computer. They were so scared of falling into a pattern of trying to repeat that success and imitate their own former work - they essentially flipped out and started again, with tenuous links to former work visable. The fact that songs written around that era are now showing up on their new releases might be an indicator that they're getting over that now.
I like this blog. I get to waffle.
I also forgot to say, I'm kinda glad I didn't get to see the Pixies when they reformed. I watch Loud Quiet Loud about the reformation, and it was a painful watch. They should have just left it.
ok, I've got a lot of thoughts whizzing round my head now, so I've got to get them out. I must say, I'm feeling pretty frustrated by your general arrogance!
David - do you actually like Tom Waits? And I mean apart from his first couple of albums? I think he's amazing and can't think of a recent album which was in any way disappointing. Personally I'm not a massive fan of Alice or Blood Money, but that is due to the "style" of them and not because they're weak or less impressive than his other work.
It's probable that when you were young and stumbled across albums by Talking Heads, Led Zeppelin, Stevie Wonder,etc..for the first time, you thought " Jesus Christ, where has this been all my life?" Then as your tastes matured and your knowledge grew you became hardened to the newness of the music and expected everything to be amazing. Now, because of your knowledge and expectations, music has to try a lot harder to spark any interest in you which is why a lot of music, especially pop. is regarded by mainstream dross.
The vast majority of artists be they good, bad, mediocre or amazing, usually have a personal style when they create work. Could it be that you have just become bored of their work? Yes, maybe at the beginning of their careers they were fresh and exciting and now it's all a bit predictable or "uninspired".....but that's probably down to you as a fan and not down to them as creator.
Phew....I feel better now....
Waffle away, my friend.
I did see the Pixies, and I really enjoyed it. But that hollow feeling I previously described was definitely in attendance too...
Post a Comment