Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Laetitia Under The Radar Interview
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5915 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

Well it certainly isn't that way with visual art. Maybe that's an art that can be done over longer periods of time, and expertise builds and improves. I'm skeptical about the arguments here. Much of rock music is about adolescent angst. So 50 year olds tend to look ridiculous doing that. And if they just do a rehash of older stuff that's not being creative. However a lot of the bands mentioned here went down the tubes long before the artists were 50. It wasn't age that did it. You can try to blame that, but I doubt if that's all there is to it. There are so many kinds of music out there. So many musicians are doing the "in" thing, and then they are "out". I don't care about any of that music.

Ok, here's an example: Joyce.

And voices don't necessarily go in your 50's, that's bull. Think of how many gravely singers people here listen to. People's voices get deeper and more mature, but not necessary go to pot.

And I wonder how anyone can dismiss jazz musicians? Just because it's not what some people here listen to doesn't mean it's not relevant to the conversation.

Nov 11, 2011, 04:36


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

jorbel
329 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

Age is fucking nothing. As long as you're fucking healthy.

Nov 11, 2011, 11:57


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Mu Mu
Mu Mu
2778 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

jorbel wrote:
Age is fucking nothing. As long as you're fucking healthy.


Aaaah, the follies of youth.

Truly the words of someone under 40.

Nov 11, 2011, 14:11


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

s_lush_s
s_lush_s
7383 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

Harold Bissonette wrote:
velvetwater wrote:
Of course the list goes on. I just named the first few who came to my mind.
I think that with the exception of classical composers we can say that this applies to more or less every single musician.

It's probably due to a combination of enthusiasm, energy, hunger, ambition that one has in larger doses at a younger age in addition to the fact that when we are young we react to our life experiences in a more visceral and passionate way compared to the maturity and thoughtfulness that in most cases we reach growing up.
And inspiration thrives better on a more "unstable" state of mind.
Plus the fact that, after many years in the business of creating music, it gets harder and harder not to repeat oneself or to remain fresh; even more difficult to be innovative.
Finally, in the case of many singers, the voice inevitably starts deteriorating.

So Tim, you better hurry up if you want to release something that it's still of a decent standard! :-)


I think the financial comfort factor comes into it as well. I've long had the vague opinion that millionaires don't make good music. I think that there are some cases where bands have had as long as they wanted to make a record and whatever resources they required and still come up with great albums - Sgt Pepper, Dark Side Of The Moon, as examples. But I think that generally the lack of edge that comes with big success dulls the creativity. So many established artists come up with smooth and immaculate sounding records that have no real excitement to them. The old artist-half-starving-in-a-garret-but doing-it-for-the-love syndrome does seem to create better art.



I'm trying to figure out if you guys are kidding because everyone kind of sounds ridiculous. I guess everyone has their own "methods" and "motivations" for "product".
But you wouldn't tell a child not to study an instrument so why would you put a shelf life on a musician. What I make a big production over the older musician has reduced down to a minimal standard kind of like a math problem or computer command. and the child understands this as well. I guess there isn't anything new in the world so you shouldn't blame the musician because they've learned more about how there is less. You see? It makes perfect sense. So I grab my soapbox we must study what is old to understand today. That is so anti-lab. But I'm sure in 20 yrs time they learned a lot of things and they bought old albums and emulated them. I feel like you guys are trying to be funny. Am I right? oh har de har.

Nov 11, 2011, 16:57


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

s_lush_s
s_lush_s
7383 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

s_lush_s wrote:
Harold Bissonette wrote:
velvetwater wrote:
Of course the list goes on. I just named the first few who came to my mind.
I think that with the exception of classical composers we can say that this applies to more or less every single musician.

It's probably due to a combination of enthusiasm, energy, hunger, ambition that one has in larger doses at a younger age in addition to the fact that when we are young we react to our life experiences in a more visceral and passionate way compared to the maturity and thoughtfulness that in most cases we reach growing up.
And inspiration thrives better on a more "unstable" state of mind.
Plus the fact that, after many years in the business of creating music, it gets harder and harder not to repeat oneself or to remain fresh; even more difficult to be innovative.
Finally, in the case of many singers, the voice inevitably starts deteriorating.

So Tim, you better hurry up if you want to release something that it's still of a decent standard! :-)


I think the financial comfort factor comes into it as well. I've long had the vague opinion that millionaires don't make good music. I think that there are some cases where bands have had as long as they wanted to make a record and whatever resources they required and still come up with great albums - Sgt Pepper, Dark Side Of The Moon, as examples. But I think that generally the lack of edge that comes with big success dulls the creativity. So many established artists come up with smooth and immaculate sounding records that have no real excitement to them. The old artist-half-starving-in-a-garret-but doing-it-for-the-love syndrome does seem to create better art.



I'm trying to figure out if you guys are kidding because everyone kind of sounds ridiculous. I guess everyone has their own "methods" and "motivations" for "product".
But you wouldn't tell a child not to study an instrument so why would you put a shelf life on a musician. What I make a big production over the older musician has reduced down to a minimal standard kind of like a math problem or computer command. and the child understands this as well. I guess there isn't anything new in the world so you shouldn't blame the musician because they've learned more about how there is less. You see? It makes perfect sense. So I grab my soapbox we must study what is old to understand today. That is so anti-lab. But I'm sure in 20 yrs time they learned a lot of things and they bought old albums and emulated them. I feel like you guys are trying to be funny. Am I right? oh har de har.



Things shouldn't be one way. It's good to try new things unless they are terrible. :) And the same is bad , too.

Nov 11, 2011, 17:05


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Harold Bissonette
Harold Bissonette
2062 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

s_lush_s wrote:
Harold Bissonette wrote:
velvetwater wrote:
Of course the list goes on. I just named the first few who came to my mind.
I think that with the exception of classical composers we can say that this applies to more or less every single musician.

It's probably due to a combination of enthusiasm, energy, hunger, ambition that one has in larger doses at a younger age in addition to the fact that when we are young we react to our life experiences in a more visceral and passionate way compared to the maturity and thoughtfulness that in most cases we reach growing up.
And inspiration thrives better on a more "unstable" state of mind.
Plus the fact that, after many years in the business of creating music, it gets harder and harder not to repeat oneself or to remain fresh; even more difficult to be innovative.
Finally, in the case of many singers, the voice inevitably starts deteriorating.

So Tim, you better hurry up if you want to release something that it's still of a decent standard! :-)


I think the financial comfort factor comes into it as well. I've long had the vague opinion that millionaires don't make good music. I think that there are some cases where bands have had as long as they wanted to make a record and whatever resources they required and still come up with great albums - Sgt Pepper, Dark Side Of The Moon, as examples. But I think that generally the lack of edge that comes with big success dulls the creativity. So many established artists come up with smooth and immaculate sounding records that have no real excitement to them. The old artist-half-starving-in-a-garret-but doing-it-for-the-love syndrome does seem to create better art.



I'm trying to figure out if you guys are kidding because everyone kind of sounds ridiculous. I guess everyone has their own "methods" and "motivations" for "product".
But you wouldn't tell a child not to study an instrument so why would you put a shelf life on a musician. What I make a big production over the older musician has reduced down to a minimal standard kind of like a math problem or computer command. and the child understands this as well. I guess there isn't anything new in the world so you shouldn't blame the musician because they've learned more about how there is less. You see? It makes perfect sense. So I grab my soapbox we must study what is old to understand today. That is so anti-lab. But I'm sure in 20 yrs time they learned a lot of things and they bought old albums and emulated them. I feel like you guys are trying to be funny. Am I right? oh har de har.


Actually, yeah. I'm saying money and comfort rather seem to erode creativity in Rock and Roll. I don't see any real reason why age should. Just hard trying to come up with examples of anyone who can still do it in their 50s 60s 70s? I know a lot of the old blues and soul acts have still got it live, but are they coming up with the great songs? Help me out here, someone...

Nov 11, 2011, 17:09


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Harold Bissonette
Harold Bissonette
2062 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

Harold Bissonette wrote:
s_lush_s wrote:
Harold Bissonette wrote:
velvetwater wrote:
Of course the list goes on. I just named the first few who came to my mind.
I think that with the exception of classical composers we can say that this applies to more or less every single musician.

It's probably due to a combination of enthusiasm, energy, hunger, ambition that one has in larger doses at a younger age in addition to the fact that when we are young we react to our life experiences in a more visceral and passionate way compared to the maturity and thoughtfulness that in most cases we reach growing up.
And inspiration thrives better on a more "unstable" state of mind.
Plus the fact that, after many years in the business of creating music, it gets harder and harder not to repeat oneself or to remain fresh; even more difficult to be innovative.
Finally, in the case of many singers, the voice inevitably starts deteriorating.

So Tim, you better hurry up if you want to release something that it's still of a decent standard! :-)


I think the financial comfort factor comes into it as well. I've long had the vague opinion that millionaires don't make good music. I think that there are some cases where bands have had as long as they wanted to make a record and whatever resources they required and still come up with great albums - Sgt Pepper, Dark Side Of The Moon, as examples. But I think that generally the lack of edge that comes with big success dulls the creativity. So many established artists come up with smooth and immaculate sounding records that have no real excitement to them. The old artist-half-starving-in-a-garret-but doing-it-for-the-love syndrome does seem to create better art.



I'm trying to figure out if you guys are kidding because everyone kind of sounds ridiculous. I guess everyone has their own "methods" and "motivations" for "product".
But you wouldn't tell a child not to study an instrument so why would you put a shelf life on a musician. What I make a big production over the older musician has reduced down to a minimal standard kind of like a math problem or computer command. and the child understands this as well. I guess there isn't anything new in the world so you shouldn't blame the musician because they've learned more about how there is less. You see? It makes perfect sense. So I grab my soapbox we must study what is old to understand today. That is so anti-lab. But I'm sure in 20 yrs time they learned a lot of things and they bought old albums and emulated them. I feel like you guys are trying to be funny. Am I right? oh har de har.


Actually, yeah. I'm saying money and comfort rather seem to erode creativity in Rock and Roll. I don't see any real reason why age should. Just hard trying to come up with examples of anyone who can still do it in their 50s 60s 70s? I know a lot of the old blues and soul acts have still got it live, but are they coming up with the great songs? Help me out here, someone...


I think there are plenty of other art forms where the creative genius seems to keep going right up to the end (film production, painting, writing).

Nov 11, 2011, 17:14


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cybele 21st Century
Cybele 21st Century
57 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

Fucking under 40, more like.

Nov 11, 2011, 17:26


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

s_lush_s
s_lush_s
7383 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

I disagree. There will always be emotional "methods" and "motivations" of somebody's mom or drunk dad or positive emotions to activate. the difficulty is experimenting with new motivations and methods and finding one that works successfully for the artist because not everybody has the same apprehension or compatibility for methods. Creature comforts may interfere unless you objectify and identify what I've mentioned above, method and motivation, and then find inspiration through some channel or memory or new realization or idea. I think as people age they only add to their mental artistic supplies or what is usually termed, inspiration, but is a combination of different factors activated for creativity process or sublimation.
so it requires a willingness to experiment and realize,"hey I'm running low on my mental artistic supplies (and my technique) and I need to grab some while I'm out."

That's what I'm doing.

Nov 11, 2011, 17:46


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Dara
Dara
905 posts

Re: Laetitia Under The Radar Interview

Harold Bissonette wrote:
s_lush_s wrote:
Harold Bissonette wrote:
velvetwater wrote:
Of course the list goes on. I just named the first few who came to my mind.
I think that with the exception of classical composers we can say that this applies to more or less every single musician.

It's probably due to a combination of enthusiasm, energy, hunger, ambition that one has in larger doses at a younger age in addition to the fact that when we are young we react to our life experiences in a more visceral and passionate way compared to the maturity and thoughtfulness that in most cases we reach growing up.
And inspiration thrives better on a more "unstable" state of mind.
Plus the fact that, after many years in the business of creating music, it gets harder and harder not to repeat oneself or to remain fresh; even more difficult to be innovative.
Finally, in the case of many singers, the voice inevitably starts deteriorating.

So Tim, you better hurry up if you want to release something that it's still of a decent standard! :-)


I think the financial comfort factor comes into it as well. I've long had the vague opinion that millionaires don't make good music. I think that there are some cases where bands have had as long as they wanted to make a record and whatever resources they required and still come up with great albums - Sgt Pepper, Dark Side Of The Moon, as examples. But I think that generally the lack of edge that comes with big success dulls the creativity. So many established artists come up with smooth and immaculate sounding records that have no real excitement to them. The old artist-half-starving-in-a-garret-but doing-it-for-the-love syndrome does seem to create better art.



I'm trying to figure out if you guys are kidding because everyone kind of sounds ridiculous. I guess everyone has their own "methods" and "motivations" for "product".
But you wouldn't tell a child not to study an instrument so why would you put a shelf life on a musician. What I make a big production over the older musician has reduced down to a minimal standard kind of like a math problem or computer command. and the child understands this as well. I guess there isn't anything new in the world so you shouldn't blame the musician because they've learned more about how there is less. You see? It makes perfect sense. So I grab my soapbox we must study what is old to understand today. That is so anti-lab. But I'm sure in 20 yrs time they learned a lot of things and they bought old albums and emulated them. I feel like you guys are trying to be funny. Am I right? oh har de har.


Actually, yeah. I'm saying money and comfort rather seem to erode creativity in Rock and Roll. I don't see any real reason why age should. Just hard trying to come up with examples of anyone who can still do it in their 50s 60s 70s? I know a lot of the old blues and soul acts have still got it live, but are they coming up with the great songs? Help me out here, someone...


It seems the media in general and the internet in particular, is changing the dynamics of the music industry. There may well be more creativity in artists' younger years but creativity is increasingly becoming a commodity, and a throw away commodity at that. True creativity from either young or older artists it seems, will become more and more of a cult issue.

The judgement of what is and what is not great 'art' in terms of pop/rock musical creativity will cease to be measured by it's commercial success and wide acclaim as it was in the past, and become a much more subjective judgement. I have to say, I think this is a much purer valuation and potentially much more rewarding to the 'true' artist. 'Selling out' will be far less of an issue in the future - and that has to be a good thing. This article on the BBC news tonight is an interesting cross section of the *ahem* status quo....


'...But the market is increasingly cut-throat, and bands are being allowed to fade out when they should be at their commercial peak.

The situation is highlighted in a study by Deloitte of the biggest selling live acts in America over the last 10 years. Forty per cent of the bands had a lead singer who was 60 or over. Only one act in the top 50 was in her 20s, and that was Britney Spears. A stunning 94% of the top 20 was aged over 40'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15694487

Nov 11, 2011, 19:10

Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index