Does Success Kill Creativity?

[boxorox]

In a way, no. But I agree with elsongs. It does count as a factor.

 

You may be writing for 15 years, performing and polishing your songs in front of live audiances. You get signed, you burn all your "A" material. Then you have obligations and distractions, and the expectation you will put out a recording as good within a year.

 

So what do you have then? The unrecorded "B" material. Untested, unpolished newly written songs... Success doesn't kill creativity, it steals your time. Not to mention that public taste is ephemoral and slips away on the breezes of whimsy.

 

I don't think success kills creativity. But it does disrupt the environment in which creativity flourishes. You'd have to be very good and very strong to deal with that.

[3shiftgtr]

It really depends on the reason why the artist is making music in the first place. If one of the main reasons to make music is to swim in giant piles of coke and {censored}, then your creativity is probabally going to go down the drain the miniute you get a taste. Sometimes they start out "all about the music", but when they get "in" and realize that "success" is hardly about the music at all, then it DOES become about the piles of whatever.

 

So sometimes, giant piles of drugs, money and nekkid bodies can take you away from the music.

 

But then there are TONS of artists that have continued to be amazingly creative throughout a life time, irregardless of their financial success, drug and/or venerial disease problems....

 

...and then there are the guys that are hugely successfull that you would never think are million seller guys.....Pat Metheny anyone?

[junkyard bennie]

 

I believe success kills ambition and creative art. An artist is at his best when he/she is young and hungry. Once you get to that point where you're making millions of dollars and have a lot to lose, creating becomes formula.Obviously there are exceptions, but that's what i think what do you think?

 

 

 

No, I don't believe so. It actually makes you want to try harder unless you get some kind of brain disease or take too much "what's it called" dope

[Kramerguy]

 

Weezer - flopped it after their first 2 albums System of a down - flopped after first album QOTSA - complete flop after first 2 albums clutch - get better (almost) with every release motorpsycho - pony at the start, had a golden period and now they've shifted in another direction but I dunno if it's worse, I spose it could be considered more creative as it's quite different etc...

 

 

interestingly, I think much of what you've stated here is more opinion than judgemental fact.

 

As it was pointed out, one person believes Facelift by AIC was their best work - I Personally thought Dirt was their finest moment, but most people I know prefer their later, more radio friendly stuff.

 

Most bands it IS at least a bit more obvious.

 

As a side note- referring to the one-hit-wonder conversation here.. In the 70's and 80's, I would agree that the artists tended to fizzle out and just failed; but nowadays, I know one band who had a solid hit, good tour, and yet they still got dropped from their (major) label, for god knows what reason. I believe the label was looking to promote other acts and decided to walk away from potential modest profits to take a chance on potential absurd profits. This was back around 2002.

[Nijyo]

 

There are so many bands/artists where I think to myself 'Their early work was the best' R.E.M. Rod Stewart Elton John David Bowie just off the top of my head. I think when you 'make it' you are comfortable, and that can be very hard for creativity, in my opinion creativity is the lovechild of hardship.

 

 

I dunno. Thinking back, I think most of the stuff I like from my favorite bands is smack dab in the middle of the most productive years of their careers/discographies...

[grace_slick]

The first few albums of a new artist tend to be the most creative simply cause they've had time to build up all this backlog of songs and creative ideas...then those few albums are their outlet. Finally, an outlet!

 

As time goes on, if they're successful they now have all these other pressures on them...they have less time to just CREATE. They're touring, promoting, performing, and so on. So...they don't have that backlog AND they have less time to create.

[3shiftgtr]

 

The first few albums of a new artist tend to be the most creative simply cause they've had time to build up all this backlog of songs and creative ideas...then those few albums are their outlet. Finally, an outlet!

 

 

Reason's why this isn't even close to a "truth":

 

The Beatles. Many consider the second half of their career to be the most creative ("Numba Nine...Numba Nine...Numba Nine...)

 

Miles Davis. Over the couse of 4 decades the guy went from helping to define bebop, to creating cool jazz (Kind of Blue), to creating modern jazz (60's Williams,Hancock/Shorter/Carter era), to practically inventing fusion in the 70'.

 

Led Zepplin. Each subsequent album was a step forward for them. The peak being their 4th.

 

The Who. Their 60's stuff was one thing and their 70;s stuff was COMPLETELY another.

 

And as for a modern examplem John Mayer. Love him or hate him, Continuum was a much different record than the Squares thingie he started with.

 

And these are just a few examples. And granted that the majority of "one Hit Wonders" fall into the category of the category you mention, there are many who contiue to do great work without the fanfare, LONG after their "stardom" has faded. Crowded House and Christopher Cross are examples of people still making creative statements LONG after their initial "success"

 

EDIT: Opinions of the musicians' and their music notwithstanding.

[DeathRowJethro]

I think there's an extent to which the fans themselves are as guilty as anything (with labels being a close second) by expecting the same stuff over and over again from a singer or a band. Hell, Angus Young has said ACDC has made the same album 12 times. Fans want to hear "Highway to Hell," not something from a new album, unless it sounds mostly like "Highway to Hell."

 

A friend of mine who had a string of hits on Country radio in the '90s was playing a gig after he'd put out an album that represented a significant stylistic shift, and he saw the crowd and totally changed the set list. There were so many cowboy hats in the audience he didn't think the new stuff would fly with them. He played a couple of them, but mostly played the hits and album cuts from his Country radio days.

 

Even today, he opens with his best-known hit. People want it, He's mostly sick of it but you know, they want it.

[grace_slick]

Hmm. 3shfgtr, you're right in those examples. I think we're both right actually, but I also think that in your examples, those people morphed into other, greater things...if the Beatles for instance had just remained doing what they were doing and hadn't changed their style, then their earlier stuff would've been better.