Why do most professional musicians do their best work when they're young?

[Magna]

My question is general in nature. There are exceptions.

However, it seems that historically with most extremely talented musicians, singers, songwriters, etc, they do their best work when they're young.

Some examples: Bob Dylan in an interview given in his middle age said it would be impossible for him to create songs like the masterpieces he did when he was younger. In fact, he said in retrospect he has no idea how he was able to have been so prolific and able to write so many masterpieces as he did.

Led Zeppelin/Plant & Page, Rolling Stones are some other examples with their best work being done when they were younger. In Rock music, there are many many other examples as well.

Exceptions to this generality in music would be Blues. Most old blues singers (e.g. Lightnin Hopkins, Leadbelly, Muddy Waters, R.L. Burnside, Mississippi John Hurt to name a few) seemed to become better as they aged.

The reason I find this interesting is that in most other crafts and arts people get better as they age and gain more experience. Painters for example.

 

[Kavigant]

I think rock and roll needs the passion and self-righteousness of youth. ("A red guitar, three chords, and the truth")
Sexual desire, which often wanes with age (and wisdom), is often the lifeblood of pop music.
Classical music, the blues, jazz, folk, and some others are often better seasoned by the experience, perspective, and technique of older artists.
Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Metalhead]

Some of the best musicians of all time made it to the 27 club, and that is very sad.

 

[tree]

The 27 Club: A Brief History

From Robert Johnson to Anton Yelchin, 20 stars who died at 27

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I can only speculate, but a few things come to mind here:
1. I think when you are young and "hungry", you have more motivation and drive.
2. I think when you are young, your mind has more plasticity and your ability to learn and create is higher (IQ).
3. Many of those artists, once they started making money, got an entourage of people around them, distractions, drugs, etc. I think they get distracted. They don't have the focus they once did.
4. Managers, record executives, etc. then micromanaging what types of music they are willing to accept, limiting their creativity.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Same with mathematicians most do their best work when young.

 

[Fino]

Cause eventually who cares

 

[Sherlock77]

However in my mind, I know it's not necessarily the question of the topic... Some musicians have created powerful music in their senior years

Most notably the powerful album that Leonard Cohen recorded just before he passed away

And Willie Nelson is still alive and still performing, writing new songs and songs that are very good

I follow mostly the not so famous musicians of the world and I think because they aren't ultra famous they still create excellent song writing for as long as they are actively doing it and have that passion...

 

[Slime_Punk]

The reason I find this interesting is that in most other crafts and arts people get better as they age and gain more experience. Painters for example.

Aside from 'good' and 'bad' being extremely subjective, if not very abstract concepts entirely...

They really don't always get 'better' in the eye of the beholder. People who are really into art, music or even video games are notoriously difficult to please, because one wrong move (in the form of mixing the bass too low, changing vocalists, a terrible logo or other creative decisions) can ruin a band's (or developer's / artist's) reputation overnight, and there's usually little forgiveness for something like that -- and we're not even mentioning the other problems people can run into nowadays.

In the music community, there's also another layer of toxicity in the form of "things don't sound as good as they used to!", "louder is not better", "they can't even play a guitar!" and other mantras that completely shut out newer music (if not entire genres and talents) entirely, just because music quality and headroom has risen to new standards, and because things have really changed over time. In the art world, you might hear this mirrored as "these digital-painting hooligans can't do anything right!", "it has no soul!" and so on. Whenever you find people shunning new technologies that actually make things look and sound clearer or make artistry available to more people for less money, you're already in some kind of snobbery territory that I don't personally understand.

Honestly, I think the bias is on the end of the listener most of the time, and music is so ridiculously hard to get 'right' to begin with that if a band fails to do that from the start, nobody is ever going to hear about them. It's easier to see a band who had pzazz fall apart when they're in the limelight than to realize that there are so many bands you've never heard of who will never get a record deal in the first place simply because it's such a small lottery. Also, are we including how many demo tapes it might take to get signed to begin with? Because some bands do this for 10 years before they release a 'good' album, which would definitely mean that they improved.

I guess for me, it's a classic case of 'too many factors'.

 

[The Pandector]

Interesting observations. Industry considerations aside, my response to the question is more from the creative perspective.

When you’re young, the magma inside you has no avenue of escape, tectonic rumblings, causing massive pressure fractures on all sides. Finding your vent - your creative voice - redirects all that pressure through one escape, relieving the other walls of the heart. In those early moments of high pressure orgasmic eruption, the magma carries a quality the mature artist struggles to recapture, but it isn’t quite the same. The lava is still hot, but the pathways are pretty much already determined. The greatest ones carve new pathways.

 

[SusanLR]

Putting aside the concept of music, just look at life and its path.
When you are young, emotions are high. Energy is at its peak. Everything is ahead of you to experience. It feels as though we will live forever. Creativity is the great
outlet.

As time goes by, we age in both body and mind.
We become occupied with other things and distractions.
Our body ages and usually so does the enthusiastic energy due to circumstances, and normal general deterioration.
The mind may become wiser, but with age it also becomes slower and perhaps
bluer from what we have experienced through the years.

No wonder Blues music or music of wisdom are more in tune with our emotions.
Also new generations find a new niche. A new sound.
I think there are many reasons that answer the OP, but time is the great common denominator. Life.

When something endures the test of time, it becomes a classic.

 

[Qoyote]

I feel like people only have so many ideas in them. Some have a lot more than others but get anyone creating in the same field for long enough and they'll start reusing ideas, going through the motions or just give up. At some point you've said what you have to say.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

Interesting observations. Industry considerations aside, my response to the question is more from the creative perspective.

When you’re young, the magma inside you has no avenue of escape, tectonic rumblings, causing massive pressure fractures on all sides. Finding your vent - your creative voice - redirects all that pressure through one escape, relieving the other walls of the heart. In those early moments of high pressure orgasmic eruption, the magma carries a quality the mature artist struggles to recapture, but it isn’t quite the same. The lava is still hot, but the pathways are pretty much already determined. The greatest ones carve new pathways.

Hey, you described my exact feelings when I was starting out as a composer. This was precisely how I felt. And I tried to channel that into my music.

 

[kenaij]

Because it becomes harder and harder to come up with something original. And if you make something that is too similar to something you ones did people will generally always think the first thing is better and the second is just a copy. Even if the new thing would possibly be better liked if it came out first.
Try to come up with something original today. Do it again tomorrow, and the day after. See how long you can keep it up until you start copying your old ideas.

 

[Forest Cat]

When you're 20 you have the energy and certitude and fantasy. Then you turn 40 and you just want dinner and a comfy chair and not having to deal with the world. Things change.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

The bottom line my cousin is a hairdresser, was a proficient professional musician. actually, a rock star Even young girls screaming.

 

[Kavigant]

At what age one does their "best work" depends heavily upon the field or area in which they are doing their work. As I've mentioned above, I think that Rock and Roll is a young person's specialty, relying upon the strengths inherent to youth - brashness and energy.

I am of the opinion that the strengths of older people are often better highlighted in other areas: writing, teaching, classical music, blues music, jazz music, diplomacy, policy-making, medicine. Older folks tend to produce superior work in areas benefiting from wisdom, perspective, a cooler head, greater experience, and greater control over emotions and mind.

I don't think anyone would say that most classical composers and musicians did their best work when they were in their 20's. Each age has its strengths, but our society has long been devaluing the contributions of older people and worshipping youth, which contributes to the shallowness and fickleness of popular culture in the West.

Read the life experiences of men like Rod Serling to see why older shows like The Twilight Zone were so superior to most of what is being excreted onto our television screens today. Today, sheltered and arrogant children are producing remakes of media originally created by people who had been exposed to horrors which we can't even imagine. Those same petulant children are today tearing down everything which has been built by the blood and sacrifice of those who came before them, and they are doing it because it is imperfect. Because it does not meet the standards of the perfect imagination of unseasoned and self-righteous youth.

Don't misunderstand me: the sometimes-destructive energy of youth (the same energy of rock and roll) is absolutely necessary in any healthy society, but it cannot be allowed to be the dominant voice, untempered by age and perspective.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I'm 68 years old still prefer rock and roll music, a bit of classical, never listen to jazz.

 

[Kavigant]

I'm 68 years old still prefer rock and roll music, a bit of classical, never listen to jazz.

I personally despise Jazz music and I still listen to rock music which I listened to 40 years ago. But I can't say that what the Rolling Stones are producing today is anything close to what they produced when they were 20 year old hot heads.

I also listen to an enormous amount of modern music, by folks like Illenium, Odesza, Louis the Child, Billie Eilish, Lana Del Rey, Zella Day, The Naked and Famous, Emancipator, etc. so I'm definitely not saying that youth can't produce worthwhile art or that I'm stuck in the past.

(As an aside, pop music is one of my main guilty pleasures. I love, love, love Taylor Swift! I would be quite interested to what kind of music she produces in her older years, if she allows herself to age gracefully (unlike Madonna))

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

my cousin's sister spent her professional career singing for a choir playing classical music. she was a led Zepplin fan when younger. Last time I spoke with her this had long since worn off. incidentally her brother's cd which he made is called guilty pleasures. difficult to drum well known rock pieces. led Zepplin, The Who. his cover of them. Almost as good as the originals, the future of old rock music after Mozart and Beethowen have long since left the stage.