Why is Genius so short lived?

[kbrkr]

Why is genius so fleeting for musicians? Elton John hasn't written a decent song in 30 years. Billy Joel, Styxx, Paul McCartney, etc etc etc.

 

Is it because we have attained the saturation point in just so many permutations of musical notes to make a decent melody? Or is it physiological when the brain hits a certain age, your creativity fades away?

[MAJUSCULE]

It's all perspective.

[analogman1]

When a musician is hungry (for fame, or money, or just notoriety in general) they are at their most creative.

Once they get "there"....it's a whole different ballgame (so it seems, at least...)

 

[Daniel Heslop]

I think artists peak within a certain style, but don't want to just repeat themselves so they try other things. The fans may or may not like those other things.

But like athletes, for sure artists have peak years, and rarely can sustain that. I mean that's kind of true of everything in life.

 

I love Yes, but really I love "The Yes Album" to "Going For the One"

After that I am considerably less interested in their work.

 

Even the various Beatles, After "All Things Must Pass", "Band on the Run", "Imagine", there is really not much I listen to from any of them.

[PianoMan51]

The musicians you mention are all in the genre IMHO of late 20th century popular song writers. In a world where popular songs are the musical food of the young. Teenagers in Love. Twenty somethings wondering about their places in the world.

 

If you open up the definition to classical composers, it seems to me that Beethoven and Mozart (amongst many others) improved their output as they aged.

[Tom Williams]

If you open up the definition to classical composers, it seems to me that Beethoven and Mozart (amongst many others) improved their output as they aged.

Beethoven anyway. Mozart peaked in his mid-30's; by the time he was 40 he was a has-been.

[zeronyne]

It's because the concept of "genius" is a social construct created from the point of view of the observer, not the creator. As soon as the creator exits the narrow field of view that the observer considers "genius work", they are no longer considered a genius. The creator hasn't strived to be, nor is (s)he constrained by, someone else's concept of what constitutes genius.

 

OR

 

People just burn out.

[Song80s]

When a musician is hungry (for fame, or money, or just notoriety in general) they are at their most creative.

Once they get "there"....it's a whole different ballgame (so it seems, at least...)

 

I think we are talking about creative Muse. And this varies by song writer.

 

I agree with you mostly. When the musician is stirred up by something, emotion is a fuse that lights the fire of the muse.

 

And we don't know exactly if Messeurs McCarney and Joel are 'not ' producing. we are far away from their daily music life. They could have 10-15 songs in draft form, for all we know.

 

 

[area51recording]

Who was it that said, "They give you 15 years to write your first album, and 15 months to write your next one"? Think it might have been Glen Frey, but not really sure......

[Song80s]

If you open up the definition to classical composers, it seems to me that Beethoven and Mozart (amongst many others) improved their output as they aged.

Beethoven anyway. Mozart peaked in his mid-30's; by the time he was 40 he was a has-been.

 

I don't know about Mozarts life. But we can't blame aging on lack of creativity.

 

The brain is a muscle. Same with the creative muse- if its fed, stressed, etc, it produces. I am 66. I am on a roll.

 

 

 

 

[llatham]

Why is genius so fleeting for musicians? Elton John hasn't written a decent song in 30 years. Billy Joel, Styxx, Paul McCartney, etc etc etc.

 

Is it because we have attained the saturation point in just so many permutations of musical notes to make a decent melody? Or is it physiological when the brain hits a certain age, your creativity fades away?

 

Yeah, perspective. There are a whole lot of layers to this onion.

 

There are so many reasons for this.

 

For one thing, musical styles move on, and the musician's music becomes out-dated, which carries the feeling it is "not as good as it used to be".

 

Then there's nostalgia, and "time of encounter" - I know those older dudes who say "Rush sold out and were only any good for the first 3 albums" when clearly record sales and popularity would indicate otherwise (as well as objective musical maturity, but those people aren't thinking objectively).

 

There also can be some "resting on their laurels" and musician's who've "made it" are pretty much just taking it easy and phoning it in a lot of times.

 

Which in some ways, tells me they weren't really the genius people make them out to be.

 

And the music industry is a MACHINE. It's a shredder - it takes people in, chews them up, and spits them out. Many - most - musicians are abused. These guys are often just simply smart enough to realize, they need to make their money while they can, so they can retire. I mean, from our perspective we see it as this amazing thing, but to many, it's just a job - it's a great job - but at some point they tire of the constant touring and the constant pressure to release new hit material...

 

And many artists do this in their 20s. As many age, their tastes simply change, and maybe they don't even want to be a musician anymore - just like everyone else who has a job for 10 years and decides to make a career change.

 

Once you hit upper management, there's really nowhere to go but sideways. A "rock star" who's had the world below their feet, doesn't really have anything left to explore in that arena (we could argue they could explore music, and many do, but at the cost of what got them to where they are - but at least now they can afford to experiment in ways that weren't possible before).

 

A bandmate and I were having a discussion about many of the lead singers who've committed suicide and one thing I always bring up is that I think to be the lead singer in a band takes a certain type of personality - you think of a David Lee Roth for example - they are addicts. They have a NEED. That's why many of them have drug and alcohol addictions. They are often very needy people that constantly need their egos rubbed - and stardom does that for them - their "fix" is the attention from thousands of screaming fans. But what happens when that's all over - all that's left is all the drugs and alcohol, and depression that that stuff doesn't fix.

 

Some people, who reach a certain level, are at least able to sustain that longer, and some of those people don't have quite as addictive personalities, so they're able to stay with us longer but they still have to find other outlets.

 

It always made me curious when I heard David Lee Roth had become a Paramedic but it kind of makes sense - it's that adrenaline rush thing.

 

So there's a lot of different reasons, and perceptions, and perspectives.

 

I don't think it's short lived necessarily - it's either not really there and hyped up by circumstances, or, if it is there, it may channel itself in a different way after a period of time, and so on. Many many reasons this kind of stuff happens.

 

And, FWIW, I've never seen anyone play harder than College Football players. Once they get into the NFL, they're pretty much just putting the cash away so they can open a restaurant chain. And another reason this happens is that the pay is just ridiculously over the top - most of them can't even spend the money they make unless they just give it away or do stupid stuff. They get so rich, so fast, that they don't see any need to put any effort in anymore.

 

I really admire bands like AC/DC, who did what they do, until they couldn't do it no more. I'd say those guys really love the music they make, and they do it for the fans. They've got enough money (probably) that they don't HAVE to do it anymore.

[Song80s]

I think artists peak within a certain style, but don't want to just repeat themselves so they try other things. The fans may or may not like those other things.

But like athletes, for sure artists have peak years, and rarely can sustain that. I mean that's kind of true of everything in life.

 

I love Yes, but really I love "The Yes Album" to "Going For the One"

After that I am considerably less interested in their work.

 

.

 

The o/p was mostly about individual song writers.

 

When the band is mostly a song writing collaboration - like Yes, thats a varied set of circumstances.

[EricBarker]

Yes is also a special case in that they literally split up, but were rehired as a backup band under new management and song-writing configuration.

 

In someways, Yes provides a good counter-argument, when all the classic-era guys finally got back together in the mid-90s they put out some very solid work with Keys, Ladder, and Magnification, that I feel stands up reasonably well against the 70s material. ABWH to some extent as well.

[Song80s]

They have a history of prolific song writing. And there is more on the way:

 

' Anderson Wakeman Rabin have been working on a new album that they hope to have out in late 2018 or early 2019. Rabin told us last year that the delay is because "Theres so many ideas, which weve kind of cataloged, 'Oh, weve got to utilize that' and then were excited, so we didnt finish through on something and we went to the next thing. So we have a ton of categorized pieces which we have together, and its just taking a long time to put it all together. But I think its going to result in something pretty special if we have the patience to get through it!"

[GRollins]

A few observations:

 

--For me, at least, it seems that even with the best of bands there are generally two to three albums that work. The albums are always consecutive. For Yes (a band that's been mentioned several times in this thread and one of my favorites), it was Fragile and Close To The Edge that curled my toes. Billy Joel: The Stranger and 52nd Street. Black Sabbath: Black Sabbath and Paranoid. Emerson, Lake and Palmer: Emperson, Lake, and Palmer, Tarkus, Trilogy, and Brain Salad Surgery (yes, that's four...pushing things, but honestly there were some lame tracks on nearly every album--it might have worked better if they'd pruned things, done one fewer albums and discarding junk tracks). Grand Funk (Railroad): On Time, Grand Funk, Closer To Home. Santana: Santana, Abraxas. Led Zeppelin defies the odds, which is part of their success, but by Physical Graffitti they were padding albums with B-grade material. Graffitti was a double album, but only had about one album's worth of good songs on it.

 

--If a band puts out a live album (e.g. Yessongs), then they're about to change directions musically (Topographic Oceans didn't match up with earlier material stylistically). A live album is frequently (granted, not always) recorded to fulfill contractual obligations. It also serves to provide a breathing space for one or more members who are stressed and on the verge of burnout. If they continue at all, they're likely to change direction in an attempt to find new inspiration. If it works--if they get re-energized--you'll generally find that they appeal to an entirely new audience after the live album.

 

--If a band records more than one live album, the first one is invariably better. They were hungrier, more driven.

 

--Best Of albums are similar to live albums, but a notch lower on the musical totem pole. They fulfill obligations and buy time to recharge, but are generally a more desperate ploy.

 

--People with truly extended careers, like Eric Clapton, will have to change musical direction every three or four albums in order to keep their juices flowing. Miles Davis was another good example of this--total overhaul every few years. If you have sufficient genius, you can make this work, but these are the best of the best of the best (...with honors, sir! [MIB]). Wannabes need not apply. There are variations on this, such as those (e.g. Paul McCartney) who do odd things like compose a symphony, then go back to the pop that works so well for him. It's a vacation, so to speak. Again, not for the fakers.

 

--If you can find a unique formula that really works, then you can keep selling to a core group of fans that will grow ever smaller as they age and die off but this, too, is rare. Few musicians can work the same inspirational fields for an extended period of time without losing their way.

 

I had a couple of other points that I wanted to throw in, but I've reached the point where I'm so tired that my brain has turned to mush and I need to sack out.

 

Grey

[Marzzz]

If you open up the definition to classical composers, it seems to me that Beethoven and Mozart (amongst many others) improved their output as they aged.

Beethoven anyway. Mozart peaked in his mid-30's; by the time he was 40 he was a has-been.

Thats very true about him peaking in his mid 30s, because Mozart was 35 when he passed away.

[Doerfler]

Mozart peaked in his mid-30's; by the time he was 40 he was a has-been.

Thats very true about him peaking in his mid 30s, because Mozart was 35 when he passed away.

Well, there's that.

[Song80s]

If you open up the definition to classical composers, it seems to me that Beethoven and Mozart (amongst many others) improved their output as they aged.

Beethoven anyway. Mozart peaked in his mid-30's; by the time he was 40 he was a has-been.

Thats very true about him peaking in his mid 30s, because Mozart was 35 when he passed away.

 

someone went thru a lot of trouble to find out Mozart was a has-been at 40.

 

Personally, I would have left his grave alone

[S_Gould]

When they opened the grave he was busily erasing notes. He was de-composing.

[Doerfler]

When they opened the grave he was busily erasing notes. He was de-composing.

[EricBarker]

GRollins: my first thought is you are making an awful lot of generalizations there, but there is some truth to what you're saying too. I know quite a few bands who put out a live album right in the center of their golden era and keep going, or have multiple live albums that get subsequently better (Dream Theater through the 90s-early 00s, IMO). But all bands are different, they take different routes to success, change members, change leadership. Sometimes that "change" after a big live album kills them, sometimes it's exactly what they need. Sometimes the pressure of newly-found commercialism kills a band, sometimes it energizes them. I think there are definite examples of the things you have said, and for the reasons you've given, but for each one, there's a number of counter-examples too.

 

A large part of it is how much success the band actually cares about, how they react to it, but larger still, what is the trends of the time: do they like them? Do they follow them too much and stagnate, or ignore them and become obsolete? Music listeners will bitch on-end about the opposite extremes: selling out vs ignoring the fans. I think a lot of the "flash in the pan" lifespan of bands as more to do with the fans and culture as a whole than really their artistic direction.

[I-missRichardTee]

If you open up the definition to classical composers, it seems to me that Beethoven and Mozart (amongst many others) improved their output as they aged.

Beethoven anyway. Mozart peaked in his mid-30's; by the time he was 40 he was a has-been.

 

Did not Amadeus write his own Requiem? That's quite a statement... a has been. I guess you are either clowning or just a clown, eh? He passed away at 35... is that the "joke"?

Sorry friend, that kind of talk about one such as Mozart, gets to me.

[I-missRichardTee]

I think the term genius is self indulgent. Few in a century are genius. We attribute genius where talented and motivated are more like it.

A real genius is JS Bach,,, a rare event in human life.

[MIDI2XS]

[...]

OR

 

People just burn out.

The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long. --Lao Tzu

 

[realtrance]

"Genius" as we think of it currently is very much a conceptual construct of the 19th-century Romantic movement, in poetry and painting, particularly, music as well (Beethoven's Genius).

 

That construct persisted well into the 1960's and '70's, where it was transformed into a marketable commodity, used to invest and promote specific things at ever-larger profitable scale.

 

But, it's really gone now. We are finally, we could say, beyond being in a post-Victorian Era, defined primarily by British culture and colonialism, and reactions to same.

 

Now, the marketing machine operates entirely arbitrarily, producing necessary profit centers with names. Whether or not they are capable, musically, is beside the point. Do they function well as online audience makers, is the only rule. Whomever grabs the audience is the star of the moment (remember "Gangnam Style"? Signal of the move of this phenomenon entirely to the web, and for a little while, at least, to YouTube).

 

That marketing machine seems to be growing ever-more-profitable, with media stars tagged as being -- for the moment -- valuable to the tune of billions. But in fact, this is the final phase, where such completely pyramidic, vertical financial phenomena are simply preludes to the inevitable collapse of the whole model, and the system that thrives from it.

 

Many of us don't see this yet, but when the Change comes, it's going to be quite spectacular.

[kbrkr]

I have a hard time reconciling the classics with genius only for the reason, there was really not much music in their time, no copyright laws, no radio, internet, etc. Their musical palette was wide open back then.

 

I'm not really addressing bands as that is a collective of talent. I'm talking about individual creativity and genius and talent.

 

Some musicians are born with very appealing voices and styles, like Tony Bennet, Phil Collins, Mick Jagger, but generally speaking, they are not song writers.

 

Then you have artists like David Foster, Rogers and Hammerstein, etc. who write and compose across genres.

 

Brian Wilson, Bob Marley, Lady Gaga, Tom Petty, all have a very specific genres and achieve greatness within that genre, but struggle to leave it.

 

Then you have the "One-hit-Wonders" where there was a flash of brilliance, then flamed out. Why? Why can't the artist repeat the creation of appealing songs. Leave marketing, hype, promotion out of the picture.

 

[Song80s]

I

 

I'm not really addressing bands as that is a collective of talent. I'm talking about individual creativity and genius and talent.

 

Some musicians are born with very appealing voices and styles, like Tony Bennet, Phil Collins, Mick Jagger, but generally speaking, they are not song writers.

 

 

 

Thats what I thought in your O/P, excepting your Styx reference. You probably were thinking Dennis DeYoung, since he was the main songs writer.

 

I agree with your statement about distinctive voices. Most casual listeners focus on the vocal. FYI, Keith Richards was an equal and creative song writing force for the Stones.

 

When I consider my favorite ' genius ' song writers, my top list includes Marvin Gaye, Jimmy Webb and Gino Vanelli'. There are many to be highly regarded.

[Tom Williams]

He passed away at 35... is that the "joke"?

 

 

[Theo Verelst]

For great talents, writing a tearjerker is easy. Putting something out there, for great bands with lots of stuff to say is probably a controlled operation, so maybe they aren't burnt out (there are many great from generations before I was born still active and make great music) but didn't feel like getting worshiped like idols...

[xKnuckles]

Why is genius so fleeting for musicians? Elton John hasn't written a decent song in 30 years. Billy Joel, Styxx, Paul McCartney, etc etc etc.

 

Is it because we have attained the saturation point in just so many permutations of musical notes to make a decent melody? Or is it physiological when the brain hits a certain age, your creativity fades away?

 

Yeah, perspective. There are a whole lot of layers to this onion.

 

There are so many reasons for this.

 

For one thing, musical styles move on, and the musician's music becomes out-dated, which carries the feeling it is "not as good as it used to be".

 

Then there's nostalgia, and "time of encounter" - I know those older dudes who say "Rush sold out and were only any good for the first 3 albums" when clearly record sales and popularity would indicate otherwise (as well as objective musical maturity, but those people aren't thinking objectively).

 

There also can be some "resting on their laurels" and musician's who've "made it" are pretty much just taking it easy and phoning it in a lot of times.

 

Which in some ways, tells me they weren't really the genius people make them out to be.

 

And the music industry is a MACHINE. It's a shredder - it takes people in, chews them up, and spits them out. Many - most - musicians are abused. These guys are often just simply smart enough to realize, they need to make their money while they can, so they can retire. I mean, from our perspective we see it as this amazing thing, but to many, it's just a job - it's a great job - but at some point they tire of the constant touring and the constant pressure to release new hit material...

 

And many artists do this in their 20s. As many age, their tastes simply change, and maybe they don't even want to be a musician anymore - just like everyone else who has a job for 10 years and decides to make a career change.

 

Once you hit upper management, there's really nowhere to go but sideways. A "rock star" who's had the world below their feet, doesn't really have anything left to explore in that arena (we could argue they could explore music, and many do, but at the cost of what got them to where they are - but at least now they can afford to experiment in ways that weren't possible before).

 

A bandmate and I were having a discussion about many of the lead singers who've committed suicide and one thing I always bring up is that I think to be the lead singer in a band takes a certain type of personality - you think of a David Lee Roth for example - they are addicts. They have a NEED. That's why many of them have drug and alcohol addictions. They are often very needy people that constantly need their egos rubbed - and stardom does that for them - their "fix" is the attention from thousands of screaming fans. But what happens when that's all over - all that's left is all the drugs and alcohol, and depression that that stuff doesn't fix.

 

Some people, who reach a certain level, are at least able to sustain that longer, and some of those people don't have quite as addictive personalities, so they're able to stay with us longer but they still have to find other outlets.

 

It always made me curious when I heard David Lee Roth had become a Paramedic but it kind of makes sense - it's that adrenaline rush thing.

 

So there's a lot of different reasons, and perceptions, and perspectives.

 

I don't think it's short lived necessarily - it's either not really there and hyped up by circumstances, or, if it is there, it may channel itself in a different way after a period of time, and so on. Many many reasons this kind of stuff happens.

 

And, FWIW, I've never seen anyone play harder than College Football players. Once they get into the NFL, they're pretty much just putting the cash away so they can open a restaurant chain. And another reason this happens is that the pay is just ridiculously over the top - most of them can't even spend the money they make unless they just give it away or do stupid stuff. They get so rich, so fast, that they don't see any need to put any effort in anymore.

 

I really admire bands like AC/DC, who did what they do, until they couldn't do it no more. I'd say those guys really love the music they make, and they do it for the fans. They've got enough money (probably) that they don't HAVE to do it anymore.

Great post llatham. Thank you.