Old men Songwriters aren't as good as Young men Songwriters

[DukeOfBoom]

So, a favorite type of music for me is that old school rockabilly.

 

Ritchie Valens, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran.

 

Every single one of those dudes had AWESOME AWESOME songs. And they wrote 'em all when they were 18-19 because they all died when they were 21 or so and younger.

 

When I was 18, I wasn't quite up to their standards. I was scribbling lyrics in my HS/College notebooks that read like, "I hate the world, I want to drain your blood and drink it from a bronze gobbler." My songs weren't as clever or emotionally well-versed as those tunes. Jesus, i think i had just my virginity around then, sure as hell never fell in love.

 

 

A few weeks ago, stickyboy was talking about a song about counting. I don't think there's a MORE PERFECT SONG about counting then Eddie Cochran's Twenty Flight Rock, which he wrote when he was like 19 or so. Youtube video:

 

 

When she calls me up on the telephone Say, come on over honey, I'm all alone I said, baby you're mighty sweet But I'm in bed with the achin' feet This went on for a couple of days But I couldn't stay away So I walked one, two flight, three flight, four Five, six, seven flight, eight flight, more Up on the twelfth I started to drag Fifteenth floor I'm a-ready to sag Get to the top, I'm too tired to rock

 

 

But, then thinking about this, it dawned on me that most musicians were the best songwriters when they were young pups - early Stray Cats, Hendrix, Jim Morrisson/Doors, Ramones, etc - these guys were all in their peak in their early-to-mid 20s. On the flip side, I recently heard Mark Knopfler's and Eric Clapton's latest albums (I love early Dire Straits) and they both sucked so bad. I almost puked b/c they were so boring, unoriginal, and were about dying or having sex with wrinkly old women.

 

So, what does this boil down to? I don't know. But a lot of the prevailing wisdom around these parts is that "you become a better songwriter over time, with the more songs you write and the more life experiences you gain."

 

HOWEVER, those old school young dudes pretty much flat out prove that stuff wrong, and those Clapton/Knopfler albums pretty much substantiate my argument because it seems that the older you get, the worse you become.

[Greg_L]

I love old rockabilly too. 20 Flight Rock is a great song. Eddie Cochran had some great stuff.

[Chicken Monkey]

What a stupid thing to say.

 

For starters, all of those people were writing when they were hungry. It's far more likely that their hunger was the factor that made them great than their youth. It's possible that youth made those writers great, but your counter examples suggest the far less controversial (and less stupid) thread you meant to write would be titled:

 

People who write because they are contractually obligated to write in order to maintain their lifestyle aren't as good as people who write because they really, really love music and want to make a life of it.

 

Thinking--it's not just for girls.

[DukeOfBoom]

 

What a stupid thing to say.

 

 

Uh oh, sounds like someone reached that critical peak age already.

[Chicken Monkey]

 

Uh oh, sounds like someone reached that critical peak age already.

 

 

I'm satisfied with the quality of my writing. But go ahead and ignore my insurmountable logic.

[tim_7string]

I noticed in my late teens and early 20s that all my favorite artists put out their best stuff in their twenties. By their thirties, there were less hits and by their forties, the songs they were writing were completely different. I love John Lennon's "Woman" and "Just Like Starting Over," but I REALLY love "I Am The Walrus," "Dear Prudence," "Strawberry Fields Forever," and the co-written "A Day In The Life." Awesome songs from a talented twentysomething.

 

I am now forty and there is no doubt in my mind that if I had been a recording artist since I was 21 or 22, the stuff I would be putting out now would suck, or at least only cater to a much smaller audience.

 

However, just like everything, there are exceptions to this rule. I am sure there are people that wrote better stuff in their later years, although I can't think of any at the moment.

[playlikedanko]

Well I do think songwriters can develop and get better. The Beatles songwriting IMO continually got better until they broke up, and it seems like it took the Stones like 5 years to even figure out how to write songs. But they were all still pretty young when they did their best work.

 

It's probably the drugs. When you get old, you can't do as many drugs.

[Pitar]

 

A few weeks ago , stickyboy was talking about a song about counting... ...yada... yada.

 

 

 

 

People change. So do you if you're still accepting of the fact that you are human and are aging accordingly. Some people are "Supers" (just ask them, they're really honest and open about it) but I have to assume this crowd is all mortal. I mean, it took you a few weeks to register with stickboy's post? It's alright. At least you admit it albeit obliviously. But, isn't there another admission lurking 'tween the words in your post? Maybe something to do with wood for your by-gone generation? Look, everyone has archaic icons we hold up as specters of "The Golden Age Of Writing". I don't, of course. I'm a Super and I'm still having trouble with everyone of those so-called artists plagiarizing me after pulling many of their errant keesters out of harms way. But, that's all mumble-grumblings I usually save for a sleazy, dark and smokey honky-tonk if the bar maid is pretty. Everyone writes great stuff for someone at times and those times are never in the past. Never. There is no contrast of then and now. There is only now and grumbling about the then is a sure sign pills and incontinence are just around the corner. For me, music is a curse. It's my paradox. I refuse to acknowledge any of it as good but am enslaved by its mystical calling. We Supers all have our Achilles Heels.

[blue2blue]

A topic I've thought about a lot, actually.

 

Because, frankly, a lot of folks I loved decades ago don't seem to have aged all that well. But... others have aged very well. And then some wrote piffle when they were young but matured into fine writers. And, of course, some have declined somewhat as performers but have gained skill and stature as writers.

 

But I've also thought about it a lot with regard to myself, as well.

 

I'll tell you -- I wrote a lot more when I was younger. Some of it was good. Much of it, though, was just, basically, filler. Stuff where I'd get half an idea and stretch it into a song. I'm a much better writer now than I was 20 or 30 years ago, overall, in terms of skill and craft, but, I've got to tell you, it was easier to crank up the ol' emotions when I was a love-struck pup. Still, when I go back through my songs in chronological order, there are periods when I just shake my head at some of the stuff I wrote. Not because it was necessarily awful -- but just because it wasn't very compelling or interesting. (I think I was counting on my natural charisma as a performer. )

[Pitar]

Charisma, yea. I call it balls, aka no shame. That and three chords has made many much money. Not really thinking stage lights and pelvic thrusting, head bobbing to fame, though. I'm thinking music that moves the soul. Trouble is, I've never known a soul I could move. All the bi-peds 9-5'ing their ways passed and through my life, long odds and diminishing, I now write for only one soul's "bronze gobbler".

[DukeOfBoom]

Pitar, neither of your 2 posts made the slightest bit of sense.

[davie]

Blue's got a point.

 

When I was younger I use to write a lot (compose, more so) and most of it was good, but mostly "filler" type songs.

Nowadays I'm trying to be more intricate and hone my "craft". But I'm more inhibited with my writing these days. Kinda pisses me off. lol

But anyway my younger instrumentals were good but just too over the top, way too saturated with too many instruments.

They were just not realistic in terms of live performance, which I eventually will have to think about.

So I followed one of my friends' advice, and brought it back to basics and took a more "organic" route to writing.

Less instruments and only things that can be managed to be played live.

[blue2blue]

Pitar, neither of your 2 posts made the slightest bit of sense.

Maybe you're just too literal-minded.

 

Although I'm not entirely sure what Supers are. But I'm thinkin' maybe sort of bodhisatva vampire types...

[LCK]

John Sebastian said an interesting thing about writing for The Spoonful. He said that coming up with new songs was a constant thing in the '60s. Everyone was frantically producing output out of a constant need to keep up with the Beatles and the Beach Boys. The same could be said for the young guns of the late '50s, who were all competing with one another, not to mention influenced and inspired by each others' records.

 

So that's one factor.

 

Another is that when a lot of young guys start out playing music and writing songs, their main reason is to get girls. (Show of hands?) The energy behind their sexual desires gets channeled into music. And if a guy has a lot of those feelings lurking under the surface, there's likely to be more output, and more output means better odds of writing good stuff once in a while. (I don't know what this has to do with Carole King, Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro, etc.)

 

Their second main reason for doing it is to become successful, to make hit records (which goes back to reason #1), and in order to do that, they have to push themselves to not only outdo everyone else who's writing within their time stream, but to outdo themselves, to make their next song better than the last.

 

So I think there's a case to be made -- at least within the general pop music/rock-and-roll sphere (which includes a lot of genres) -- that younger guys do better work because they're more motivated by their need to crack an opening in the music business and to get chicks.

 

There are exceptions. Elvis Costello keeps getting better and better. So do guys like Greg Brown and Leonard Cohen. And in another genre altogether some of Johnny Mercer's best songs came very late in the game. Some of country music's great songwriters, like Harlan Howard, wrote great songs their entire lives.

 

So while there's a great deal of truth to this idea, it's not just because younger songwriters are automatically better, there's just a tendency for a good-sized chunk of them to be more motivated, and they're in a better position to keep their juices flowing.

 

Me? I'm a much better songwriter than I was when I was 20. Hell, I'm a better songwriter today than I was yesterday.

 

LCK

[grace_slick]

 

When I was younger I use to write a lot (compose, more so) and most of it was good, but mostly "filler" type songs. Nowadays I'm trying to be more intricate and hone my "craft". But I'm more inhibited with my writing these days. Kinda pisses me off. lol.

 

 

What, are you an old man now!?!? You

[davie]

What, are you an old man now!?!? You

[grace_slick]

Oh wow, well then, I am STALE

[DukeOfBoom]

 

Another is that when a lot of young guys start out playing music and writing songs, their main reason is to get girls. (Show of hands?) The energy behind their sexual desires gets channeled into music. And if a guy has a lot of those feelings lurking under the surface, there's likely to be more output, and more output means better odds of writing good stuff once in a while. (I don't know what this has to do with Carole King, Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro, etc.)

 

So you're saying they channel they're unfulfilled sexual energy into songwriting and lyric-crafting?

 

If I abstained from orgasm for 4 weeks, would I write better? This might be an experiment to try....hmmmm.

[Temple of Light]

Uh oh, sounds like someone reached that critical peak age already.

Spoken like A true old man...

[grace_slick]

I am 32. I look about 22. People are amazed when they find out my real age. I feel about 16 usually, but sometimes maybe 86.

[Pitar]

 

Pitar, neither of your 2 posts made the slightest bit of sense.

 

 

I give what I get. I'm charitable that way.

[blue2blue]

I give what I get. I'm charitable that way.

There is an elegant economy to that approach.

[DukeOfBoom]

So after reading this thread and other people's perspectives, it seems the conclusion is that songwriting is like sports: you're in your prime when you're younger. After a certain age, your joints start to hurt and you're a little bit stiffer than you used.

[Lee Knight]

 

So after reading this thread and other people's perspectives, it seems the conclusion is that songwriting is like sports: you're in your prime when you're younger. After a certain age, your joints start to hurt and you're a little bit stiffer than you used.

 

 

That's a little cut and dried, I think.

 

You make an interesting point, and one that I've thought on a bit as well. Like Blue. Great points BTW, Blue.

 

So yeah, at 19, I was a machine. Crank 'em out. Get the booty payoff a la the other Lee's point. But I never made anyone cry with one of my songs then. I never hit the mark in a My Aim is True sense. I just made some cool rock tunes.

 

And that's great!!! I communicated on a certain level. Kinda shallow. Faux deep.

 

I'm now not only stale bread, I'm more the forgotten Cottage Cheese in the back of the 'fridge. I'm way past my shelf life and possibly a threat to your health if consumed. But I'm now doing stuff I was unable to do at 19. Better? I don't know. Different? Yeah. Worthwhile? Of course. Applying what I've learned the past 30 years?!?!?... as a lover of song? Yep.

 

It's art. Don't think. DO.

[Surrealistic]

I think there are a lot of variables here but age isn't really an important one. If you've successfully explored everything you're capable of exploring in your 20's, there's not a lot of point re-exploring those same areas in your 40's and probably there's no unexplored area you're really interested in. Where do you go from there?

 

In other words, age isn't a cause, it's just a side-effect.