Why do musicians tend to peak so early?

I've been thinking about how the majority of my favorite bands and musicians hit their creative peak within the first 5-10 years (sometimes less), releasing their most acclaimed works early on before seemingly stagnating or appearing less inspired(and the same could be said for the majority of the most acclaimed bands of all time). I think this is a pretty universal notion throughout most forms of music, so I'm interested in hearing some perspectives on why this phenomenon exists.

Do you think that, in a band format, over time the musicians tend to mature, growing out of the initial principles and precedents that fueled the cohesion and creative spark that existed in their early years, which makes the group dynamic harder to control?
The fact that a great deal of the most acclaimed solo artists took the same route maybe suggests that the initial creative spark is very hard to maintain for the individual, and perhaps after a certain point, it seems like they have exhausted most of their possibilities?
Those are just a couple of explanations off the top of my head so i'm not sure how accurate they are.

Lastly, in fields such as jazz and classical, this doesn't seem to be the case at all. Perhaps it is because those genres rely more on a honing of a particular craft rather than pure creativity and personality?

Anyway this has been on my mind a lot recently for whatever reason so i'm interested what everyone here thinks.

I have two theories about this:

1) the people who have careers that last more than 5-10 years probably did something so great and/or popular very early that it enabled them to keep making a living off of music for the rest of their life, but they probably struck gold so quickly that it was impossible to keep topping themselves (OR people got so attached to the early work that made a big impression on them that they never loved the later stuff in the same way)

2) popular music changes quickly and the odds of someone's sound being really fresh or of-the-moment when they first come out AND being able to adapt to the changing times and not sound like old hat or desperately chasing trends just get slimmer and slimmer as time goes on. there are people whose '70s records sounded so incredibly good but technology has changed so much that they're like physically incapable of making the same sound now.

There's some (though not much) discussion along those lines here: Artistic Peak

depends on what 'peak' means + some dude #1 otm

"Is it because pop culture only affords people of a certain age the opportunity to be heard"

I think this is truer than most people care to admit, and that the perceived "peak" has more to do with marketing and a constructed narrative than with the artist's actual work or energy level.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, February 13, 2006

What bothers me is why songwriters lose that sense of inspiration and ability to write anything memorable after a certain amount of years

Why is it finite? Why can't Westerberg, for example, write something as good as Unsatisfied or Swingin Party as a 50-something? As a songwriter with respect to his/her 'craft', you surely gain more than you lose over the years. But genuine inspiration?

i've often wondered about this. there seem to be so many artists whose debut singles seem to be far and away their best work.

Artists whose best album was released 10 years or more after their debut

also kinda sorta relevant:

Classic albums released after a 4 year break (or more)

not sure what you (all) do for a living, but do you think your work is getting better all the time?

I think that the vast majority of pop musicians don't approach music in a systematic or intellectual way. There is a lot of mythology built up around ideas of pure inspiration, feeling, and authenticity, and not much respect given to craft and process. Classical composers and jazz musicians were typically much more rigorous about their craft and competitive with their peers, which led to them growing and staying relevant.

It seems like a lot of pop musicians almost accidentally stumble onto something good, and then they have no idea how to follow it up or improve on what they did. And then so many of them get success and acclaim at too young of an age and they probably buy into their own bullshit. If a 20 year old becomes a millionaire and has people saying they're a genius, are they ever going to be motivated to learn anything new? Then of course a lot of people get burned out on the mundane realities of touring and the business side of things. And then the band dynamic? Forget it. It's hard enough to expect a single artist to develop and improve, but how could anyone possibly sustain that over a long period of time with the same small group of collaborators? So it seems like the two main avenues to stay consistently good are the band who keeps doing the same thing forever with some minor evolution, or the solo artist who works with revolving assortment of outside collaborators.

It's not really limited to pop musicians though, it seems to be the same for all sorts of underground musicians with less expectations and with more artistic freedom (experimental bands, electronic groups etc...) I mean that explains the trend in more well known acts but I'm not sure if all that applies to the vast number of underground musicians who seem to continuously explore new ideas, but also lose their spark and creativity after a certain point.

by pop I just mean music that's not academic or "serious music". a lot of underground experimental music is really coming from more of a rock tradition than a serious music tradition imo.

we've done this, if it's true within a limited range of popular music then i reckon it's mostly true because listeners crave novelty, and artists tend to reiterate a limited set of ideas throughout their lives - even if somebody's later expressions of their ideas are "better", nobody's listening. but peaks, meh.

wk very otm too

it's called life chum

I think because the audience is young, and the work that means everything is generally the work they hear when they're a few years either side of say 18-20. And the act is about that age too, or slightly older - a lot of pop's appeal isn't in the record itself but in the image that it forms part of.

Which gives that work a whole emotional power that is part of its weight but isn't necessarily the same as artistic worth.

NV otm too. I'd say something like Darling Lorraine (2000) is a higher peak than almost anything Paul Simon did in the 60s. But nobody will ever take it to heart like I Am A Rock (1965).

A huge factor afaic is that most pop musicians, prior to their first success, have never been working under scrutiny, they've never seen their ideas manifested, never seen their asses onscreen, never been reviewed or awarded. Once that initial splash has occurred, there's naturally going to be an accompanying sense of self-consciousness.

by pop I just mean music that's not academic or "serious music". a lot of underground experimental music is really coming from more of a rock tradition than a serious music tradition imo.

― wk, Saturday, 30 November 2013 06:42 (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

crashing false dichotomy there

Why do musicians tend to cum so early?

I think this is actually more a function of listening - once I'm familiar with somebody's work, they're less and less likely to surprise me, so I'll think they've peaked when what's peaked is my interest
IOW noodle otm

Also the whole process of creating most pop music is more collaborative than some of the more egotistical artists would like you to believe. A lot of great records just come from the particular alchemy created by a certain group of people working together at one time and once that's gone they don't always get it back.

One example is the vast gulf in the quality of REM's music pre- and post-Bill Berry leaving the band but it's also down to particular producers and arrangers and even just the musicians that happen to be in the studio at any one time.

I agree with WK that it's also because pop music (by which I include a lot "arty" "experimental" underground music as well) comes from people just working out something they think sounds cool rather than through any formalised compositional training.

Also the whole thing of pop music privileging and valuing the energy of youth above all else. Although there's now a kind of cache to the proper old man voice as well, which is why people like Leonard Cohen/Dylan/Neil Young/Johnny Cash have been able to work out successful Indian summers to their careers a couple of decades after they'd last been considered relevant. Rock discourse has very little interest in middle age.

I'm mostly talking about men here, the difficulty of any female musician sustaining a career past her mid-30s is well document.

such document

I think this is a pretty universal notion throughout most forms of music, so I'm interested in hearing some perspectives on why this phenomenon exists.

In most musical cultures older musicians stay 'relevant', i.e. to pass music, and the philosophies underpinning it, onto younger generations.

In classical -- modern, post-45' -- most of the best composers find their voices when relatively young and only sometimes 'renew' their music later on. The major exception is Morton Feldman who came upon his idea in the last 15 years or so of his life.

Regression toward the mean

I'm with Aerosmith on this one. I think this is largely, maybe mostly, a discussion about music reception operating under the hubristic delusion that it's about music creation.

If that were the reason, then you'd think that the phenomenon would be less apparent in bands that we come to later on, when we're in a position to process all of their music all at once. That doesn't strike me as the case.

the vast gulf in the quality of REM's music pre- and post-Bill Berry leaving the band

Don't agree that this exists but they did become less prolific over time.

musicians only get better but the investment people make in them does not

actually never mind both those things are false & i am a stupid fool

If you've read bios of people like Miles or Coltrane and understand how much focused effort they spent on trying to push themselves and take their art to the next level, then try to think of even one musician who has worked that hard post-1970. I can't think of any good examples.

Laurie Anderson? Eno? Fripp?

Erik Rutan

Matthew Shipp

Zorn

Lol does eno work hard, I thought he just swam made omelettes and consumed pornography

I mean there's just a bunch imo. But I think the more an artist strives to grow, the less likely his career will continue along an upward trajectory. Artistic growth is not generally reconcilable with market realities I think - the biz side of the music biz wants incremental growth so that everybody who already loves what you do will be comfortable moving along, and so that critics don't saying you're trying too hard, etc. I know tons of musicians who'd be much braver if they didn't think it'd basically be the end of their careers.

like me for example. which makes me feel like a huge coward, but aero jr. can't eat door receipts for gambits that didn't pay off

List of Artists who can be cited in response to an absurd unfalsifiable claim about how hard Artists work now compared to how hard Artists used to work

well nak when it was all fields they had to work harder just to get through the fields

In his book David Byrne makes it sound, not hard work exactly, but certainly a lot of effort to produce his own particular stream of diminishing success.

Artistic growth is not generally reconcilable with market realities I think

well if you want commercial success you have to figure out how to grow artistically within those market realities right? I think Miles did a pretty good job at that although it alienated lots of his fans.

Lol does eno work hard

not from what I've heard.

it bears mentioning that 'peaking early' is almost entirely associated with recording artists who play their own original material. many, if not most of them, become better live acts with time, becoming more proficient or just smarter about how to stage a concert, work a crowd, etc., and have a larger catalog to work from (lot of old bands probably better live now than when they released their 'classic albums'). so artists who primarily improvise, or interpret standards, folk music, etc., get judged mainly by that craft, are not being expected to write a new album as good as some revered thing from 30 years ago.

in a way i feel like people who do a lot of production or collaboration or types of music that don't revolve around making a 'perfect album' have the best gigs, because they're not constantly being measured against their ability to make some definitive recorded statement that stands up with something they did when they were 25.

well if you want commercial success you have to figure out how to grow artistically within those market realities right? I think Miles did a pretty good job at that although it alienated lots of his fans.

Miles worked in an entirely different era, was present at & a key figure in a moment of revolutionary growth in his medium - you're right, he did this, but "he was Miles Davis" is a pretty heavy qualifier

some dude pretty otm, I don't like to go to Band From Back When Doin' The Big Tour thing nights out but when I saw Mission of Burma at a festival it was like, holy fuck, these guys are just beating the shit out of dudes half their age here, the show was just ruthless

Another factor here could be that it's somewhat arbitrary when to start the timer on a band's career. With solo artists, in particular, you might as well start the timer from the moment that they pick up an instrument. And plenty of bands turn out to have surprisingly long gestation periods before their first albums come out. Usually a band only starts attracting serious attention once it's already on its way towards a peak, so it could be that the timing of the peak is determining the 'starting point' rather than the other way around.

some dude completely otm

I don't like to go to Band From Back When Doin' The Big Tour thing nights out but when I saw Mission of Burma at a festival it was like, holy fuck, these guys are just beating the shit out of dudes half their age here, the show was just ruthless

^^^ same experience. Also: Wire last year killed.

Yeah I've never heard their records but MOB were great live, I had to call up a friend to make sure they weren't the racist band & I could carry on enjoying them

I think performance ability tends to survive better than songwriting ability. I haven't liked any new Stevie Wonder in ages, but I happened to catch him at random on a gospel music show (or as part of a church service with lots of music anyway) on TV several years back and he was just phenomenal in the brief segment I saw.

but "he was Miles Davis" is a pretty heavy qualifier

yeah, it's unfair to compare anybody to miles davis, and saying that nobody since him has worked as hard as he did was a dumb generalization. but I do think there's a fundamentally different approach there. he seemed intensely driven to stay hip, relevant, and be taken seriously. and I think he probably had a megalomaniacal, coke-fuled drive to be considered the greatest musician on earth. I don't think the same can probably be said of Fripp, Eno, Zorn, etc. and that's fine. maybe for the best even. but it just doesn't seem to me that the hyper competitive jazz approach or the highly studied classical approach are very common in popular music. and to some extent those approaches are even considered somehow unseemly.

I also think that recorded music is so young that there aren't a lot of role models yet for how best to sustain a career over an entire lifetime.

this is just such a huge subject - some of it's about what people want from music - with rock & post-rock (not "post-rock") forms of music there's been an "it's about youth" bit of theory that came with the territory for a whooooole bunch of reasons that I think then became a theoretical underpinning for the ways people think about that music, for the most-prized qualities. but there's also that beginner's mind thing that's really beautiful and valid - an artist's first few albums are full of missteps that can become signatures, flailing that has the potential to charm or surprise because the stuff that's coming out of left field is new to the artist, too.

my dad, a jazz musician in his late eighties, has been saying "I like some of his early work" as a joke since forever, though - I think this has been a stance in pop culture for ages. But I've thought a lot about how with lots of classical music - and I think in visual art though I don't know enough about it to say - and for sure in literature, often, though less so in post-romantic times - "mature works" are a thing. Nobody prizes Mahler's 1st over 8 or 9 or Das LIed, at least not anybody I know of. (there must be somebody though.) "first novels" of great writers - I think the first one being thought of as the best one is a pretty rare phenomenon, right, at least with the big names? but in music, especially popular recorded music, there are so many other assumptions to unpack

do you think the differences between pop music (I'm going to use that as a shorthand for non-jazz, non-classical music) and literature, painting, etc. are somehow inherent to the medium though? or they're an inescapable part of the culture around pop music and the way that audiences and critics perceive the music? I ask as someone in his 30s working on a second album and trying to figure out where to go next and how to keep doing this the rest of my life.

my dad, a jazz musician in his late eighties, has been saying "I like some of his early work" as a joke since forever, though

Ha, this was a joke I remember from high school. "I like their first album."

2) popular music changes quickly and the odds of someone's sound being really fresh or of-the-moment when they first come out AND being able to adapt to the changing times and not sound like old hat or desperately chasing trends just get slimmer and slimmer as time goes on. there are people whose '70s records sounded so incredibly good but technology has changed so much that they're like physically incapable of making the same sound now

This should apply to producers as well, and yet, the best producers seem to keep adapting and producing hits for 10+ years. Or maybe we're in a golden age for producers. Also there are a lot fewer great producers than great artists, so it's not so easy to make sweeping generalizations.

I think the more math related fields tend to produce talent that peaks in the mid 20s. This is certainly true for physics (Einstein, Newton) and music to a lesser degree. But then there are fields like literature where people peak much later. Philip Roth being a quintessential example.

i think the relative anonymity of production helps in terms of longevity, and in perception of their sustained success. even a really visible producer like, say, Timbaland, can produce a flop album for Ashlee Simpson, and it hurts her career, but it doesn't stop him from going off and producing another hit album for Justin Timberlake or whoever. producers might be responsible for a lot of what you hear on a record, but they don't get as much credit (or blame) for how the record does as the artist whose name is on the cover.

There is also I think something important to be said for the energy and excitement of somebody young just hitting their stride. Like, Dylan is in a lot of ways a counter-example to the "peak early" idea, in that he has continued to produce periodic great works over the course of 50 years. But even at that, it's hard to gainsay the frenzy of productivity in his mid-20s, which he's never matched again. Similar case to be made for Lou Reed.

yeah... with a few exceptions, generally most artists released music more frequently in the first decade of their career than later on. whether that's because releasing albums every year was more commonplace in the vinyl era or because they just slowed down or toured more or started a family, etc.

Surely everyone thinks that Timbaland peaked at least a decade ago and has fallen off madly since?

Artists dont peak early, audiences lose interest early

already been covered while u were snoozin

In his book David Byrne makes it sound, not hard work exactly, but certainly a lot of effort to produce his own particular stream of diminishing success.

Byrne is probably a prime example of another aspect of this, as someone who's continually been refining his aesthetic to suit his own increasingly specific sensibilities, at the expense of it suiting the sensibilities of many other people. Which could be both a cause of and also caused by the audience losing interest, since his work exists in less and less of a well-defined cultural milieu that would allow the audience to better understand and appreciate what exactly he's doing.

I think with art in general, it's more a matter of people having a limited number of things to express and a limited energy to express them and peaking is just a confluence of ability and newness/enthusiasm, and in a lot of cases there's an inverse relationship between the two, so the better your craft gets, the worse your art becomes.

I don't think literature is exempt from this. Most of my favorite authors are better at writing now than when their big breakthrough books came out, having written for a long time, but either rehash their old ideas and themes or their newer ideas aren't as compelling.

paul auster is a good example for this. everything after the new york trilogy has been a rehashing of old ideas. every book after the new york trilogy has been a deception. and the closer we come to the present the less interesting his books became. but he surely has improved his style...

Surely everyone thinks that Timbaland peaked at least a decade ago and has fallen off madly since?

― Matt DC, Sunday, December 1, 2013 10:10 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i agree with that, sure, but my specific reference point was arbitrary/

lemme put it this way -- when a new U2 album isn't as good as Achtung Baby, Eno doesn't get any backlash about how he's 'lost it' or whatever. he's still just Eno as he always has been in most people's minds.

About the gap between later album releases: I've always thought that creative people in general have several points in their life where they have to adjust to their creative process if you want to improve or even just stay as good as you were, and I think for most people that involves slowing down; many people will say the challenge gets harder and harder. You hit a wall and start realising that what was good enough a year ago isnt good enough now.

I cant speak with any authority on these people or their creative processes, but my guess is that Scott Walker takes his time and makes sure he works hard enough with genuine desire to get somewhere new (or new enough) with his creativity.
I think Morrissey kept using the same old formula expecting it to work the same way it used to.

I think if you are going to keep growing and stay vital, you need to accept that you might need to change your way of doing things drastically.
But some people make a living off their art and possibly cant afford to take as much time as they need or work under new conditions they need. Then there are types of things (maybe epic films) that really cant be done without support; and those supporters might not be willing to give you all the things you need to make it well.
I really feel sorry for people who need a very specific situation and level of (often financial) support to create what they want. I also find it scary that for only such a short time have lots of forms of creativity had a chance of reaching an audience.

No one's mentioned how life's pull changes dramatically for an artist. When you're young and single, you can focus all your energy into your art and touring and honing your craft. Starting a family, feeling the need to make money, caring for your children, spouse, parents or siblings, all dramatically cut into just the number of hours you can focus on the creative process.

I read something today that seems to have bearing on this, from a 2007 SF convention where Samuel Delany interviewed Joanna Russ:

SD: [Asks about the "double bind situation" — the economic realities of a writer trying to make a living writing.]

JR: Yes, that’s awful. It’s not the writers’ fault. It’s the economics of publishing now. What I’ve seen again and again is that a writer will do very fine early stuff — really good stuff — and say, “Okay, I can make a living writing.” But they then find themselves having to work too fast. Words should not only be thought, they should be felt through, and there just isn’t enough time. People in that bind never do great stuff again. And if you don’t do that, if you say, “Okay, I will keep my day job (as they used to say in the theater), and I will just write what I damn well please,” you end up working too hard.

SD: Yes, I can remember my first five books in three years, and I ended up in a mental hospital. Any thoughts on changing it?

JR: No. I don’t know, I think it is an industrial capitalist problem. It didn’t use to be true. There were niche markets, eighty-five different little magazines all doing something different. A young man wrote to me and said he had read Alyx and liked it, and he read another book of mine and he was shocked and horrified to discover that it wasn’t the same thing. I know that’s funny but it’s like Gor, the 56th book of the series, and people will buy these things because they’re familiar.

It seems like being an odd-looking alcoholic and dating a series of hot women has some ability to counteract the early-peaking effect, see Serge Gainsbourg, Mark E. Smith...

the fall poll would suggest smith peaked early.

Literature is a difficult one, for every Don DeLillo, who definitely peaked pre-2000, there's a Philip Roth who put out three or four near masterpieces right at the end of his career.

musicians expected to be more prolific than authors by and large, right?

yo, I think I'm starting to peak now al

http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0511-1012-0720-3039_Cartoon_of_Santa_Closing_a_Box_of_Gifts_with_Dont_Open_Until_Christmas_Message_clipart_image.jpg

"odd-looking alcoholic who dated a series of hot women" surely describes at least half of all rock stars

Perhaps of interest, here's a cool infographic that explores the ages at which great novelists write their masterpieces:

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/11/29/accurat-modern-library/

As a guitarist and musician myself, this issue is really troubling me. Within my first 5 years of playing the guitar, back in High School, I came up with a ton of song ideas.. they were exciting, unique, and I was having a hell of a lot of fun.. I was able to create compelling tunes in genres I didn't even listen to.. The guitar fretboard was an endlessly thrilling universe of wonder and new surprises.. But after that glorious initial spark, my composing abilities mysteriously fizzled. I would sit and play for hours and hours and nothing interesting would come out.. I decided to focus on learning music theory, and that only further forced me into a creative regression.. For some reason, now all I can come up with is I,IV,V...I,IV,V...I,IV,V....I,IV,V......I,IV,V... As an artist, this is something of a nightmare for me :( The whole thing really bums me out, because I was looking forward to finding a career as a musician.. I'm still not sure what went wrong.. I wish there was some way to erase the musical preconceptions I've inadvertently formed in my mind and start back at scratch.. Maybe each artist has their own unique, finite window for creativity, and after you cash in your creative hours, your mind's creative potential becomes depleted.. -- Metallica's (my fave band) first 10 years were filled with genius, but I think that they themselves would agree that the last 20 years has been a gradual regression away from their creative prime. It's a shame that this is so often the case.. I wish we lived in a world where artists were only able to improve. Maybe the exception to the rule would be John Williams.. as a composer, I think he's been in a league of his own for almost half a century. Maybe it's because his mind is constructed differently than the average creative person..

whoever this is, well played

I'm sorry to invoke DeRo, but in his book of psych or something silly I think there is an interview with Genesis, and he basically rips on them for watering down what they used to be for the sake of pop simplicity, or some such nonsense. Tony and Mike sort of hem and haw apologetically, iirc, and then Phil butts in and basically asks, "what makes you think we're doing anything other than exactly what we want to be doing?"

A lot of bands peak because they're spending every waking hour playing music together, on stage or in the studio or on the tour bus and in hotels, etc. Then they become more successful, get their own rooms/lives, and things start to unravel a bit. It's the Beatles story, basically.

in almost any profession, save for maybe ones where physical ability/strength is important, it's almost a given that you're going to get better at what you do the longer you do it, or at least more confident and content in how you do it, more knowledgeable about your field in ways that improve your performance, etc. and I feel like most lifelong musicians try to do that or feel like they're doing that, but once they've made a record people really like, they spend the rest of their life being told they've peaked, they fell off, they should hang it up. it's depressing imo.

yeah, but a lot of musicians seem to carry on quite happily without worrying too much what others think

Haven't read this whole thread but I agree it's largely to do with marketing etc. This is just conjecture really:

All too often you get the scenario where pop and rock acts get signed when their members are in their late teens, early 20s. They shine bright for a few albums but after a while they start losing their audience to newer acts, they tour a lot and read their own press which stifles creativity, they have pressure from labels to come up with new material and end up rushing things through. I guess there's also the thing where maybe, say, Damon Albarn's vocals start getting on everyone's tits - the novelty factor isn't there any more.

So they make one album that's largely considered to be a mis-step and their careers never recover. They either call it a day or keep releasing sub-par stuff as they try to cater to an increasingly disinterested audience.

Try as they might to keep up with the pulse of new music, there's no doubt they're getting older and the idea of someone in their thirties trying to be down with the sounds is embarrassing on the whole. The artist has to branch out and risk alienating his audience or keep churning out facsimiles of their original sound.

I think what often happens is there's an age, maybe around 32-42 where it's hard to be accepted by the music industry; where artists are encouraged to sit out for a period because no matter what they do it's going to end up looking painful, desperate, even. I can think of so many artists who "enjoyed" a middle-era wilderness period - Johnny Cash, Scott Walker, Tom Waits (?) before bouncing back as war-torn elder statesmen and garnering huge critical acclaim.

Thing is the ageism thing isn't as pronounced in styles outside of rock/pop. Electronic producers often start out as DJs or simply party-goers in their 20s before being discovered as producers much later on. Experimental/avant-garde artists can be pretty much any age; the number of fogeys on the cover of Wire is testament to that.

Frustrating for me really. I've always been a music fan and a keen music maker but it's only now I'm in my thirties that I've had the confidence, connections and know-how to start a band, but I know that even if ever I were to create some stunning work as a musician it would be very difficult to get it out to a platform beyond my immediate locale and that's largely down to my age.

^ That's how I used to think and I entered my 30s feeling very defeatist, which was a real mistake. Almost everyone I know who has managed to do anything got their first real break after turning 30.

Now the issue of turning 40 is more pressing to me, and this time it seems to be a terrible line to cross for real, but I am trying to ignore this and just do whatever I want without worrying. A friend of mine who has just been working away non-stop has just put out his debut record aged 44, and, though it will sell pretty much nothing and his life is generally fucked outside music, good for him.

;_;

A musician/composer I studied with (who made his first record at 37, and did arguably his best work in his 70s and 80s) used to say, "The reward has got to be that this is what you do."