>artist wastes their artisitic peak (age 20-37) touring instead

That's what you get when you get signed into a major label, which basically forces you to tour endlessly because you get zero cash on album sales

>>73909385
>implying that's my fault because I don't buy music

>>73909349
Why should 20-37 be the artistic peak when many classical composers released their best work towards the end of their life?

>>73909349
>>73909449
discuss this OP

i'm pretty sure john coltrane was 39 when he made a love supreme

rock and other popular music is incredibly emotionally limited and immature. you can't make quality rock music as an old person unless you fundamentally move outside of rock music (see: Scott Walker incorporating noise, modern operas, etc.). you're at your best making trite bullshit about girls and drugs and being lonely and sad or whatever when you're a child

>>73909449
>classical composers

theres a reason this genre is dead

artists trajectories generally are about the same as an NFL quarterbacks. mid 20s to early 30s is peak

>>73909349
Well maybe if ya'll bought their albums and supported them they wouldn't have to spend so much time on the road gigging for a living.

>>73909349
20-37?
I thought it was 27.
I still have time I guess.

>>73909411
If you think you shouldn't have to pay for art then you're a communist.

>>73909615
Not really, the modern music industry just puts all their effort into marketing youthful artists for more appeal, and is all about looking for a 'new', homogenized sound. It's been that way since the days of tin pan alley.

Duke Ellington for example released probably his best album, Far East Suite, when he was 68 years old. Jazz was an established art form with a history and not subject to press hype or celebrity romanticism like a lot of genres are today.

>>73909837
>I'm 29

So there's still hope for me?

>>73910077
Rock groups, rappers, and pop stars generally peak in their late 20s, occasionally early 20s like Metallica and Black Sabbath, and Lemmy's artistic peak happened in his 30s.

>>73909349
In the 60s-70s, you usually had an album out every year. The idea of taking several years between albums was really an invention of the 90s.

>>73909594
Artists who aren't commercial or have canon hits tend to mature better, they're not locked into one sound as much. Later Sonic Youth albums showed a great deal of growth and maturity, but they were never commercial so they could get away with it while some group like Motley Crue would have found it impossible to grow up.

Take some guys like RHCP who ostensibly matured on their later albums, yet it's still not really "mature" once you scratch the surface.

File: chillin.jpg (122KB, 634x916px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 634x916px

>>73909615
Only because popular music youth-centric and we have an obsessive cult of youth based on narcissism in our culture. Hence why old jazz and classical musicians are respected but the idea of an old man DJing an EDM set is ridiculous to us.

>>73910157
Because they become drug addicted and fall apart as the band members get autistic about their increasingly particular taste. The original chemistry goes south or their brain gets fried. Back when music was a craft and not merely "art", you saw many more people get better rather than worse as their career went on. Virtually every other medium does not have this stupid peak in your 20's garbage, only pop music.