1. Is the breadth of an artists work indicative of the quality of their work? Or no? — Noble Dust
Or, consequently, is it possible for an artist to maintain such a deep tap on their creative potential that they always are evolving and never sitting still, even up until their death? If yes, who is an example? — Noble Dust
Because let's be honest, what's hinted at in the veneration of Shakespeare and The Beatles is that this art is truly eternal; we say it's "timeless" and we seem to assume that that's a figure of speech, but do we really mean it in that way? — Noble Dust
Assuming one shares minimal tastes with mine, Leonard Cohen comes to mind (now deceased), as well as Tom Waits — javra
I'd say "no". I've got folk that only made on album in my library that I don't get tired of enjoying. Good quality, little breadth. — javra
Assuming one shares minimal tastes with mine, Leonard Cohen comes to mind (now deceased), as well as Tom Waits and Tori Amos (not deceased but fairly well blossomed by now). There might well be others but this is what I think of first. All these have gone through a creative evolution with sustained quality that hasn't slowed down with age. — javra
When it comes to Shakespeare it's complex. — Tom Storm
Works are reinterpreted out of their author's intentions, so is the text really evergreen? But since all authors died some decades ago, would anyone complain except for the remnants of old school Levisite criticism? — Tom Storm
Someone continually reinventing themselves successfully is either riding the wave of ephemeral and unpredictable popular fads or trends, — Pfhorrest
Or, more likely, it's a complex matrix of creating trends and following them at the same time. — Noble Dust
The trick to creativity is about showing up and being consistent. The more you try and fail, the more likely you are to strike gold. — Kasperanza
I think artists rehash old hits or masterpieces because they've found a formula, market niche where they have a "monopoly" or reliable source of money and attention. — Kasperanza
Some artists don't mean to rehash but return to themes, sounds and subjects because there's fence around even the most fecund of creative imaginations. — Tom Storm
but there is also something creatively fulfilling about trying to do the same thing over and over again. Maybe it's psychosis, or maybe there's something noble in the pursuit. — Noble Dust
sometimes there's an idea inside them that needs to be exorcized and they keep returning to it again and again in a kind of ritualistic catharsis. Perhaps it's intensely satisfying. — Tom Storm
You can actually see this repetitive theme exploration going on here from some members. There's an idea that they seem driven to pursue in endless variations. — Tom Storm
The Beatles, Shakespeare, Beethoven and Mozart, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Picasso etc... These people made significantly more in their field than their competitors. Beethoven and Mozart made 400% more music than the average composer. Kobe Bryant was always the first one to practice and the last one to leave. He literally took the most shots.
The thing is, we don't like these people for everything they've made. We only pay attention and notice a few key pieces of their work. Most of the music written by Mozart we never have and never will hear.
As far as artists having an arc.. I think artists rehash old hits or masterpieces because they've found a formula, market niche where they have a "monopoly" or reliable source of money and attention. I think artists can continue to create new and wonderful things if they keep taking more shots, instead of fear forcing them to rely on shots they've already taken. — Kasperanza
Is there such a thing as a "creative arc"? A sort of life cycle of an artists vision which evolves from their early days when their work was full of untapped potential, through to the "magnum opus" phase in which they did their best work, and finally falling off into a sort of denouement phase in which they rehash their old successes? — Noble Dust
You say your favorite works from your favorite authors were their earliest. Were they also the first works of theirs you read, or no? — Noble Dust
I like folk and roots music (hell I even like bluegrass), — Noble Dust
No, the early books I'm talking about were not necessarily the first ones I read. In fact, generally they weren't. A writer's first book, a songwriter's first song tend to have something raw and immediate about them. The artist is trying to figure things out for themself. — T Clark
Roots music, bluegrass, and much of folk are country music. — T Clark
Sure, I've noticed the appeal of early rawness, but I've also noticed the appeal of later refinement. Is one more valuable than the other? — Noble Dust
Roots music, bluegrass, and much of folk are country music.
— T Clark
In my mind those genres preceded country. — Noble Dust
It doesn't happen to everyone. Paul Simon. Bob Dylan. CJ & VSB. Bob Seeger did what more musicians should do - said what he had to say, made the money he needed, then sat down. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.