Today, a friend mine, totally in jest, mentioned someone having a mid-life crisis and deciding to make an album. (It was funny, you had to be there). I mentioned that I actually just released my 12th album and that I released my first in 1998. I then mentioned that I was only 4 when I started playing, so he joked and asked if I had an early life crisis.
Anyway, like I said, it was funny, but it got me thinking. So many artists today are in their mid to late teens, and early 20s. Pretty much all the "new" artists are, and the same can be said for your top 40 radio songs. I wonder why that is. Nearly all the musicians I draw musical inspiration from are my age and older. (I'm 52). There are a few exceptions, but honestly, not many.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy the younger music. Quite a bit. It's not like it was when I was younger where parents had their kind of music and then there was "the music kids listen to these days is noise." Not at all. I can typically find something to like about any genre.
But when did music become a young person's gig? Is the music us old fogies make not good? While it's true, that a lot of my music is influenced by the 80s, is that a bad thing? Most people I talk to love the 80s music. In fact, I know a lot of 20 something that love it as well.
Let's look back in history...all the way back to classical music. Beethoven was 31 when he wrote Moonlight Sonata. 38 when he wrote his most famous 5th Symphony.
I was going to talk about Mozart, but he was only 5 when he wrote his first piece. And died when he was only 35. I guarantee, had he lived to be at least 52, he would have written the best piece ever. And it probably would have sounded like it was from the 80s. (the 1880s)
Johnny Cash was 26 when he played his first major gig, but was 36 when he played his most famous gig at Folsom Prison. He was 31 when he released one of his more famous songs, "Ring Of Fire."
Another of his most famous songs, "Man In Black", however, wasn't written until he was 41. I wouldn't call that a Mid Life Crisis. To me, that was one of his most defining songs. Especially because it was he first started singing about his faith.
So yeah. Why is it today, once you get to be in your late 20's to early 30's that most people consider you to be too old to be releasing relevant music? At that age, you can only play in cover bands or keep playing the same old songs you played when you were 18.
Disclaimer: This piece is mostly satirical. Or is it?
The concept of the younger ones having "better" music has always mystified me, especially as the artists I've followed for most of my life have aged. Like cheese or wine. As artists get older, they are constantly adding to their repertoire of skills, practicing until they hone them to near perfection, and focusing on the finest nuances....
ReplyDeleteAn example I can wax eloquently on would be U2. Their earliest music is raw, full of passion, and reflects the zeal of what they believed at the time. Over the years, they've explored so many types of music, stories, concepts, etc., that every single album has been different from the rest. They've mellowed over the years, but the signatures are still there –– the Edge's heartrending riffs, Bono's voice wandering wordlessly through the atmosphere...
All that to say, there should be a strong appreciation for the seasoned musician. They've truly lived, and there is much to learn from them. They have flavors that the young haven't even heard of yet (unless they've paid attention).
Just imagine, then, how it might be when the zealous youth learn from the seasoned artists and pick up some of their skills... I really think that's how it's meant to be. One is not better than the other. They play off each other.
That being said, I don't think anyone is too old to be "relevant," but I'm not sure relevant is really the goal. That music/art should have the artist's DNA in it - an outpouring of heart and soul that reflects what God put in there to pour out...
Maybe I should be blogging this. ;)