By 30, Bowie had done:

-Space Oddity
-Man Who Sold the World
-Moonage Daydream
-Hang on to Yourself
-Changes
-Starman
-John I'm Only Dancing
-Jean Genie
-Life on Mars
-Sorrow
-Rebel Rebel
-Rock n Roll Suicide
-Diamond Dogs
-Young Americans
-Fame
-Golden Years
-Suffragette City
-Heroes



After 30, Bowie pretty much just re-released Laughing Gnome and Drummer Boy over and over.

 

Maths as well as philosophy? Dude's on a roll.

 

If musical talent disappears by age 30, you fucking kids are gonna have to explain EDM and trap to me, because that shit sounds like talent skipped a generation or two.

 

Common sense is much more reliable as a means of justification than your expressed foster-ish opinion with no real evidence.

Lemme get it straight, so Mozart is a celebrity with -as you imply- fabricated success ... Sure. I guess he made so much money from his "hits" that he paid everyone to put his music in schools and everywhere the public's opinion & knowledge can be shaped for over 250 years. Homer must have done the same but he must have made a zillion times more money than poor Mozart, since he was born about 2800 years ago.
So no, you are not supposed to believe we know what Mozart was all about. It was never a topic of what he ate or what kind of sex he liked or anything to get people to know what Mozart was all about, apart from his musical legacy. Unless of course a person is obsessed with the man or studies his entire existence. Verba volant, scripta manent. The rest is no illusion but your very own.

Errr... I spoke about keyboards. Keyless synthesizers in their core are sound generators. And since there is more than a handful of ways to trigger sounds from them, i refered to the subject as electronic sound design, which arguably is what it is in the case of mouse/button musicians with rack mount synths (or expanders if you like) or soft synths and so on. Creating music with a mouse and computer keystrokes, is called programming music. And that is the academic term not an illusion or my opinion. Still, if you can make music this way, one that makes any kind of sense to even a handful of people (not your relatives lol) you may call yourself a musician or at least an artist of sorts.

I can do with subjective, np.
Joel Zimmerman aka Deamau5 is a mouse musician and he's quite more successful than thousands of others well trained and educated musicians. So what's the catch? Arguably, he's talented. He has clever artistic ideas, initiative and individual personal style and "timbre", enough to make him stand out in a much crowded electronic scene. Still, in a straight up imaginary comparison between an electronic musician like Deadmau5 and another self-taught electronic musician like Vangelis, you will very soon conclude that Deadmau5's music will never fly to outer space representing the human race. But why... Because Deamau5 chanells his talent in a money making- ever expanding business which apparently takes time, and that is time not spent to hone his musical/artistic skills, not to mention his musical ideas have always been confined by his limited knowledge and commercial factor playing a significant role to his production scheme. 15-20 years down the celebrity line and mr.Joel still makes the same consumer dance music with very little depth if any whatsoever. The first logical answer to come to anyone's mind about this would be: "So what ? We can't all be Vangelis or Jean Michel Jarre or Kraftwerk." And this simple reaction would also be reflecting the very truth you choose to ignore.
So there might be no measurement in talent but there is a certain identifiable weight to some people's "work", which with artists is justified and measured by the longevity of their creations' appeal to humans. Like Mozart's lol. If you can't see how these can be distinguished and what differentiates them for the better or worse, you can write a myriad times 40 pages posts (as you stated) about how you can't measure talent. And all i say might be subjective under "the letter of the law" but to those who understand, ooohh they are quite objective within artists. This is no pissing contest, at least not by my intention. It's more of a who is who and what.
It is your constitutional right to believe or not anything about Mozart or Liszt or Chopin for all i care, but then you are either deliberately ignorant to the written history and facts or choose to walk a very slippery Foster-like debate road. The kind of road that reads, you may know who your mom is but you can never be absolutely sure about your dad. There is always the DNA test of course... Unless dad's dead so there might be a need for exhumation and if there are any remains of the imaginary dad. And if dad was cremated ? Hmmm... Where's Sherlock when you need him...
Cheers
PS: Just for the fk of it, Vangelis was 38 when he made Chariots of Fire, 39 when he scored Blade Runner and 49 with 1492: Conquest of Paradise. His voyage started somewhere here at 20 yo

, moved to Aphrodite's child somewhere between his mid 20s till he was 30 yo

and solo career from then and on with a large number of collabs as well. Watching his journey as a spectator you may try to fathom why it's Vangelis' music travelling in space...

 

Last edited: Sep 18, 2018

Real talent comes with age - just like Troof comes from Youtube

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy ears should be cast into hell.

 

Roger Waters was straight-up 30 when "Dark Side of the Moon" (a.k.a. - one of the 25 best-selling album of all time, as well as being on the Billboard Top 100 album chart for 15 goddamn years straight) was released. 32 when "Wish You Were Here" came out and 36 when "The Wall" (a.k.a. - the greatest album of all time, period, fuck you kids) came out.

 

I did say that geniuses can often stretch it to 35...but for ordinary folk, they run out of "juice" by age 30.

 

Replying off the cuff so didn't bother to look it up, but, when aerosmith did their big comeback thing, I seemed to recall that all or some of their big hits were provided by professional songwriters

 

Sorry about that -- I quoted you, but I think you were responding to somebody else and you were roundabout making the same point I was.

In all seriousness, though, I don't think it's age and it may or may not be creative juice, but where I think things fall apart is the level of success an artist achieves. If you're a relatively normal young guy or gal with talent who attains massive fame and fortune by, let's say, 25, then by thirty, you'll have lost touch with the things that drove you to create art and push yourself towards success in the first place. You may still have the talent, but you lose the things that drive that talent. I see it a lot, not just in music, but in literature, movies, TV, graphic art, everywhere. Fame makes artists lose their edge.

 

@Iggy, that's likely why the industry makes it so damn hard to make any money as an artist now. Keeps you lean and hungry.

 

HAHAHAHAHA

 

I'm not sure about the industry being hard, sometimes circumstance can make the road longer then expected. In my case the corporate route would have meant certain death to me.

 

@KungPaoFist, I just keep hearing how artists don't make money on recordings anymore. Most is made through touring and merchandise. Of course I'm not an "in" guy with anyone major, but things going on like Taylor Swift boycotting spotify and such certainly lend credence to these things I hear. And the guy who got $1,500 for several million plays.

 

@black.afrika.zulu.x why do I get the feeling there is a Pink Panther somewhere,
drooling with envy over your "great achievements" ....

​

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2018

HAHAHAHHAAHA...I have nothing to do with that guy.

 

You do have the trolling in common thought...

 

After 30 Musical Talent Disappears

Where does it go?

 

music not allowed anyway ..doncha know..? allahu snackbar