the correlation between your age and the age of your favorite bands

btw sorry if this thread was already done but i wasn't about to use the search function for something like this

Deej and Jordan S: or how can you post so friggan much and still have no discernible posting style or personality?

jordan, you have a lot of growing up to do.

BAN JORDAN SARGENT

I'm glad this dude doesn't pop up in too many other threads.

-- Drooone, Thursday, 2 August 2007 05:32 (8 months ago) Bookmark Link

i find that of the artists currently making new music that i like, they are almost always around 5-10 years older than me. most of my friends fall into that category too, and i have generally always related better to people older than me than with people my own age or younger.

this stands for everyone who wishes they were cooler.

i'm pretty much horribly unaware of age in general. but i have great admiration for artists who continue doing new & interesting things as they grow older. if i have any ageist tendencies, i'd say i'm more likely to be annoyed by artists closer to my age who seem arrogant or pompous. but that has nothing to do with the actual question does it? i guess the simple answer would be, no, it doesn't hold true for me.

My fave was always Robert Johnson and he died in 1938.

What the fuck are the kids on these days?

most of the guys in my favorite bands are dead

Funkadelic, the Beach Boys... but on the plus side hey I guess all the Spacemen 3 guys are still alive

i don't think i could "love" them or hold them in such romantic ideals like some of my friends do or like i hold some of the aforementioned bands

oh come the fuck on, what are you a 12 yo girl?

yes rapey mo hit me on webmail and we can meet up or something

my heroes haven't been born yet

plz to elaborate what romantic ideals you hold bands to. I look forward to the rofflz

dude I hung out with the lead singer from Tokyo Police club and he was really lame, didnt even know how to order a beer at the bar and one of the chicks I was with tried to go back to his hotel with him and couldn't handle it

what is he like 16??

you should have schooled him on the ways of women, mystery

as for rapey mo, all i meant by 'romantic ideals' was the idea of loving a band-- if you don't love any bands plz excuse us who do

I love music. bands are just people.

but by all means keep the witticisms coming

I have the same birthday as Lil Wayne...only three years apart...bet you wish you could say the same!

i dunno. the music I listen to ranges from people a little younger than me to people who've been dead for a long time, and there's not really a difference in my connection to the music in terms of age... though I do kind of find myself being a bit jealous of people my age who make music... not because I want to make music, but because they've found out what they want to do and are successful at it and I'm kind of lost... I'm the same age as Rihanna, she's a superstar and I'm here on ILM killing time when I could be doing.. something else. i dunno.

well actually rihanna turned 20 recently so she's a bit older than me, but still you get the point.

Malcom Gladwell gave a lecture a few years back in which he describes two distinct models for creativity: prodigies and late bloomers. Prodigies (The Eagles, Picasso, Welles) flash and burn and peak early in their careers; late bloomers (Fleetwood Mac, Cezanne, Hitchcock) take a long time before hitting on what they're really going to do and peak late. He relies a lot on an economist named David Galenson in describing the two, and Galenson posted the lecture on his site:
www.davidgalenson.com/malcolmgladwell-lecture.pdf
I was particularly interested in this idea: late bloomers are experimentalists, and prodigies are conceptualists.

He says, look, if you examine the way these people create new ideas, the way they create art, you see some profound differences in their approach, in the way their mind works, the way that creativity shapes their art. He says that late-bloomers are what he calls experimental artists. These are people who are motivated by aesthetic considerations. Their goals are kind of very, very imprecise. They don’t plan anything in advance, they work sort of by trial and error. They do endless iterations of the same idea. They’re constantly redoing and redoing and redoing in this kind of poking around and trying to find something, work toward some kind of distant, imprecise, and badly understood goal. They’re searching, in other words, for what it is they want to create, and that searching can very often take an entire lifetime.

Prodigies, on the other hand, tend to be much more motivated by the desire, according to Galenson, to communicate ideas. They’re conceptual in the way that they think. They can state their goals very precisely before they start a work of art. The act of painting for them is all about the act of transferring something, some well-realized idea, from one surface to another. The work of experimentalists like Cezanne often kind of complicates and deepens our understanding of something, but conceptualists, people like Picasso, tend to simplify the field that they’re a part of. They work very quickly and systematically.

So to bring it back to the question at hand: I'd think the strongest correlation between bands' ages and their fans would be the fans' preference: do they like old bands still jamming in their practice space, or art school punks are likely to flash and burn? I'm in the conceptualist camp pretty much all the way, so my favorite bands tend to be younger. But aren't pop and rock such youth-obsessed genres that almost everyone getting recognition is in their early 20's?

ayo brainwasher you might be the youngest regular poster

nah I think tape store is like 12 or something lol

i don't really prefer the "prodigy" group to be honest, i just find myself gravitating towards younger bands the strongest-- im not sure what the reason was so i was kind of looking to see if someone was like me and had kind of sifted out why

lol yeah he is in high school still but rarely posts anymore

Every year I find it harder to listen to bands who are younger than me, unless they're like, 13 or something, and that's, like, their thing.

I was just thinking that for me at least it's got less to do w/age and more to do w/identifying w/the station in life that the band seems to reflect. I was really into jittery postpunk when I was a jittery high energy dude a few years back. The music you're into ("the bands you love", if you prefer) at a given point in your life has a lot to do with "who you are" at a given point.

I'd say there is no correlation for me but it is an interesting question.

When I was young, all my favourite bands were older, obviously.

As I got older, they tended to be the same age as me.

I fully expected that at some point they woul be much younger than me (I was doing my own music hopefully, at the time)..

But it didn't really happen through the Jesus/Mary chain, to Happy Mondays, Oasis, then Pulp would be the last time.

After that, the bands were younger than me, because I was older.

The question is how much Jordan will like Be Your Own Pet when he's closing in on 40.

If asked, I'll say my favorite band is the Kinks, and they're somewhat older than me. It's allowed me to have a consistent "favorite" without having to think too much about it -- a perfectly respectable, big-name classic rock group that doesn't elicit the blank stares I would get if mentioning most of the music I really listen to.

Malcom Gladwell gave a lecture a few years back in which he describes two distinct models for creativity: prodigies and late bloomers. Prodigies (The Eagles, Picasso, Welles) flash and burn and peak early in their careers; late bloomers (Fleetwood Mac, Cezanne, Hitchcock) take a long time before hitting on what they're really going to do and peak late. He relies a lot on an economist named David Galenson in describing the two, and Galenson posted the lecture on his site:
www.davidgalenson.com/malcolmgladwell-lecture.pdf
I was particularly interested in this idea: late bloomers are experimentalists, and prodigies are conceptualists.

He says, look, if you examine the way these people create new ideas, the way they create art, you see some profound differences in their approach, in the way their mind works, the way that creativity shapes their art. He says that late-bloomers are what he calls experimental artists. These are people who are motivated by aesthetic considerations. Their goals are kind of very, very imprecise. They don’t plan anything in advance, they work sort of by trial and error. They do endless iterations of the same idea. They’re constantly redoing and redoing and redoing in this kind of poking around and trying to find something, work toward some kind of distant, imprecise, and badly understood goal. They’re searching, in other words, for what it is they want to create, and that searching can very often take an entire lifetime.

Prodigies, on the other hand, tend to be much more motivated by the desire, according to Galenson, to communicate ideas. They’re conceptual in the way that they think. They can state their goals very precisely before they start a work of art. The act of painting for them is all about the act of transferring something, some well-realized idea, from one surface to another. The work of experimentalists like Cezanne often kind of complicates and deepens our understanding of something, but conceptualists, people like Picasso, tend to simplify the field that they’re a part of. They work very quickly and systematically.

this is an interesting idea but problematic when applied to bands, which are groups of individuals who contribute to the output on a variety of levels. what happens when you have prodigies and late bloomers working together? e.g. syd barrett=prodigy, roger waters=late bloomer but what does that make pink floyd?

more importantly, what does latebloomer think of prodigy?

Who cares who makes the music?

I'm the same age as Rihanna, she's a superstar and I'm here on ILM killing time when I could be doing.. something else. i dunno.

try not to think about this...