The "Perfect Careers" thread inspired this question:

Rock and roll is like a sport: past the age of 30, everyone's performance starts to decline. Has there ever been a rock artist whose work in their twenties wasn't better than their work in any other decade of their lives?

(Chuck Berry's the only example I can think of, but that's kind of a special case--and anyway, the peak of his career came when he was about 31.)

One could argue that Nick Cave's work in his 30s (Tender Prey until The Boatman's Call) and perhaps even his 40s is better than his output in his 20s (From Her To Eternity until Your Funeral, My Trial). I certainly would.

OK, I decided to answer my own question. I’ll pose it this way: taking the top 20 artists on this site, where were they at the age of 30? (In the case of bands, I estimated the average age.) I did find one exception to the rule that most artists’ best decade is their twenties.

****

ELVIS PRESLEY, 1965. Starting to run to bloat; he was mostly recording gospel around this time.

MARVIN GAYE, 1969. Several wonderful Motown classics behind him, but What’s Going On, Let’s Get It On, and “Sexual Healing” were still ahead.

THE BEATLES, 1971. Already broken up.

BOB DYLAN, 1971. He was in the middle of the (self-imposed) eclipse of his career. He’s done very good work since, even in his 60s, but clearly the greatest part of his career came before this point.

JIMI HENDRIX, 1972. Still very dead.

THE VELVET UNDERGROUND, 1972: The entire founding lineup of the band had left by this point.

THE ROLLING STONES, 1973. They had finished their string of four classic albums the year before (with Exile). The next year, they replaced Taylor with Wood…they had one more nearly-great album in them (Some Girls).

THE BEACH BOYS, 1973. The year of Holland. Any questions?

THE WHO, 1975. The year of their last acclaimed album, The Who by Numbers.

NEIL YOUNG, 1975. The year of Tonight’s the Night and Zuma. This is a tough call; Neil may very well have recorded more good music since ’75 than before, but remember the question: what was his best decade? You’ve got his twenties (1965-75), his thirties (1975-85), his forties (1985-95) and his fifties (1995-2005). Probably still his twenties, but he’s had a long, proud career.

LED ZEPPELIN, 1976. Six all-time top 500 albums before this year. After this year, none.

DAVID BOWIE, 1977. The year of both Low and “Heroes.” His best album after this point was Scary Monsters, but he hasn’t come close to that since.

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, 1979. Before this year: Born to Run and Darkness on the Edge of Town. After this year: Nebraska and Born in the USA. That’s not a dramatic decline, but which are you gonna take, before or after? (I’m already on record as preferring his pre-Born to Run stuff).

STEVIE WONDER, 1980. The year of his last great album, Hotter Than July. Before this, Innervisions and Songs in the Key of Life. After, “Ebony and Ivory.” (I realize there are some people who think his best decade was actually his teens!)

THE CLASH, 1984. Mick Jones had gotten the boot, and Joe Strummer was putting together “The Clash Mark II.” (How Spinal Tap is that?) They were done.

PRINCE, 1988. The year of Lovesexy. In this case, I think the problem is a lack of focus after he turned 30; he still did a great deal of creative noodling in the studio, but he hasn’t really turned out coherent albums the way he did for most of the 1980s.

R.E.M., 1988. The year of Green, their first post-I.R.S. album. Their best full-length album (Automatic) was still ahead of them at this point, but…well, there’s an I.R.S. greatest hits and a Warner Bros. greatest hits. Which one do YOU think is better?

U2, 1990. They were in the studio, making their last truly classic album (and their best, in my opinion), Achtung Baby. But, besides “One,” all the classic anthems were already on record.

NIRVANA, 1997. Cobain still dead. One does wonder what they might have done…

RADIOHEAD, 1999. Kid A came out the next year; I know it has its partisans, but really, they did lay the basic template for their music before this point, on The Bends and OK Computer.

****

So, Marvin Gaye is the exception here (I think What’s Going On is overrated, but I’ll still take his 1970s output over his 1960s stuff). Still, that’s 95%.

****

Good call on Nick Cave, Stephan. I’m in the process of discovering his recent stuff; I just bought Dig, Lazarus, Dig, but haven’t listened to it yet.

OK, now I really am going out to play.

Well, as you have said U2 and Radiohead released some good stuff after their 30's.

Also Pink Floyd released Wish You Were Here past their 30's and Björk was 30 when he released Post.

The only one i can think right now that was at the peak of his career after his 30's is Tom Waits (born in 1949).

And I suppose most of Jazz players were past their 30's as well (for instance Miles Davis was born in 1926).

Chelsea, there is no such thing as "fact" when it comes to music criticism. This is all opinion.

Schleuse, hmmm...Willie Nelson! First record released at the age of 28. Nothing acclaimed until outlaw country movement happened while Willie was in his forties.

My answer to Chelsea actually responds the perfect album thread. Too lazy and confused to put in separate messages!!!

Flaming Lips. Didn't get good until after 40.

How old was Jeff Tweedy when Yankee Hotel Foxtrot came out? If he was in Uncle Tupelo he must have been over 30.

And I would argue Scott Walker's late career stuff is on par with his early stuff.

Shelby Lynne, absolutely peaked after 30.

Neil Young, I personally consider his best stuff to be On The Beach and Tonight's the Night.

Sufjan Stevens, turned 30 a few days before Illinois came out.

Of Montreal, if you consider Hissing Fauna their best album.

Destroyer, if you think Rubies is his best album.

Leonard Cohen, who was 34 in 1968.

most notably I would say Dylans BLOOD ON THE TRACKS. I consider it his best album. However....If you were to ask me what I'd rather have on a deserted island - POST BLOOD ON THE TRACKS, or PRE?

Definately the earlier stuff. Even Though Modern Times, Time OUt Of Mind, Love and Theft, and OH Mercy were all great

Also remember LCD Soundsystem. Who had heard of James Murphy before 2000, the year he turned 30?

Also, Blur could count. Two of the members turned 30 in '98, 1 in '99 and 1 in '94. 1999 brought about 13 and 2003 brought Think Tank. I think those two albums compete with the self-titled album and Parklife. Plus, if you include Gorillaz, all of Albarn's work there was after the age of 30.

Speaking of britpop, 3 out of 5 Pulp member were 30+ when Different Class came out. I also adore Jarvis Cocker's solo album which came about at 43.

Björk definitely gets the call from me. I prefer Homogenic and Vespertine to anything by the Sugarcubes and her first two albums.

I could make a case for Madonna as well. Like a Prayer and Ray of Light are her best albums, in my opinion, with Madonna coming in third.

Jarvis Cocker is 43? Wow. I really like that album too. I don't know what it is about Pulp. I hated 90's Brit-pop but I've always liked Pulp and Jarvis. Really, I don't think they should even be lumped in with the rest of the lot.

Johnny Cash?

R.E.M., 1988. The year of Green, their first post-I.R.S. album. Their best full-length album (Automatic) was still ahead of them at this point, but…well, there’s an I.R.S. greatest hits and a Warner Bros. greatest hits. Which one do YOU think is better?

Definitely the I.R.S. one!

Johnny Cash turned 30 in 1962. By this time he had already recorded all of this great Sun sides. These were his greatest songs (Walk The Line, Folsom Prison Blues, Get Rhythm, Home Of The Blues, Big River, I Guess Things Happen This Way). He had also started recording for RCA (Don't Take Your Guns to Town, I Still Miss Someone). His pre-30 output would be enough to make him a legend without anything else.

Cash went on to record a few more hits for RCA (Ring Of Fire (at 31), Man In Black, One Piece At A Time), the two great prison concerts (Folsom and San Quentin, including the hit song A Boy Named Sue), and his great work with Rick Ruben in the 1990s.

All in all, I'd lean to the pre-30 output, but it's close.

Wow…a lot of responses.

I buy the cases for Willie Nelson, Leonard Cohen, the Flaming Lips and LCD Soundsystem (now there’s a package tour I’d love to see).

Blur? Dave Rowntree’s extreme age (i.e., he’s older than me) skews their average a bit. After all, he’s only the drummer. No, I’m kidding—he seems like a very admirable and interesting guy: recovering alcoholic, astronomy buff, pilot, budding politician. Also, kind of goofy-looking. Anyhoo, I like Think Tank a lot (even if it’s only 75% Blur), but I think 13 is hit-or-miss…and on the other side, s/t is one of my top 15 or so albums—grossly underrated.

Pulp is also skewed, in that Jarvis is kind of their driving force.

Moonbeam, I respectfully disagree on Björk (an artist you like more than I do). I love the Sugarcubes, and my interest in her solo career plummets after Post. YMMV.

And I agree with Paul about Cash. As with Elvis, if you have to choose, go with the Sun.

Luckily, these are only hypothetical choices.

For Cash I think it was Columbia instead of RCA. I just wrote that off the top of my head. Like this, so this might be an incorrect correction.

It was Columbia...and I only know that because I have the At San Quentin LP cover hanging on my wall in front of me.

This question has less to do with the quality of work produced after an artist hits 30 years of age, than the average age of the consumer. Due to economics alone, attention (at all levels) is given to work of under 30's consumed by under 30's, and almost certainly always will.

Neil, I disagree. In all of the cases Schleuse outlined above, I defintely prefer the pre-30 work. How is economics making those artists decline after 30? How is economics making the pre-30 stuff sound better to most listeners? I see a pattern of post-30 decline (within the same artists) that can't really be explained by economics, or at least I don't think so.

I'm not a strict Marxist, but enough of one to think that economics are always a factor. And I think I agree with what Neil's getting at. Solo records by aging rockers are often dismissed on principle - "I can't imagine what these old fogies could possibly have to say that's still interesting or relevant." On the contrary, I think these artists are comparatively free from market concerns and trends - what does Richard Thompson care if Pitchfork likes his new album or not? Meanwhile, a Pitchfork rating is a make it or break it thing for most young bands, whose aesthetics, especially in the hyperaware 2000's, are profoundly shaped by music journalism, which is a more powerful creative force in music than it's ever been.

Consequently, many of my favorite albums of the current decade have come from geezers - Springsteen, Earle, Buckingham, Zevon, Bush, Lowe, Cooder - all fresh, carefree, unique records. On the other hand, I fail to see hardly anything new/innovative or even interesting in records by hyped bands like Arcade Fire, Arctic Monkeys, Franz Ferdinand, Animal Collective/Panda Bear. And I don't think it's just that I'm anti-hype or a grouchy conservative - I like some hyped acts - Antony & the Johnsons, Andrew W.K., The Darkness, Kanye - a great deal. I'm just extremely suspicious of bands that run away with all the acclaim - hype might not always be self-generating but it's certainly self-perpetuating. Who are these critics and authorities anyway? Allmusic hired me when I was 19 - sure, I could write, but what on earth did I know about the history of pop/rock?! (No offense to Allmusic - it, Acclaimed Music and MILFHunter are my most frequented websites)

Anyway, good topic, schleuse. There's much to say on the subject.

It all comes from a social perspective - you have to take a huge step back and take in the really big picture here. The music is generally a young person's form, made for young people, with young people's views of the world used as subject matter and judged through a youn person's lens. It's all about it being young, fresh, exciting, etc. This is a result of the market being largely young people as well. Therefore, the artists "most people" listen to are young, fresh, excting, etc. as well. It's all about young, and the market (economics) leads us to focus on these aspects of music, to the exclusion of other worthwhile potential focuses.

Bruce Springsteen said it well in a speech when he said he had his dad to thank for his career because if he hadn't sung all about being young and battling with his dad's ideas of the world when he was young, no one (mostly young people) would have listened. He said he tried making happy music in the early 90s but no one bought it.

Of course he's made a latter day career out of singing about mostly adult angst, but most people would say his early stuff (when he was young, singing about being young)was better. I don't necessarily agree with that. I think his latter day stuff, and Bob Dylan's and Joni Mitchell's and many other older artists' stuff is just as good as the early stuff. Sure it's not as fresh and exciting as stuff is when you're young and doing it for the first time, but it's still fantastic, just in different, perhaps more complex, ways.

As an older guy I love many older artists' stuff as much or more than lots of new young stuff, but most people remain focused on the new due to economics, demographics, marketing, whatever, which affects everything and I'm willing to accept that.

Loving the new Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds album,
Neil

"This question has less to do with the quality of work produced after an artist hits 30 years of age, than the average age of the consumer. Due to economics alone, attention (at all levels) is given to work of under 30's consumed by under 30's, and almost certainly always will."

That's a fair point, Neil--the hype of the music marketplace certainly plays a part. But I disagree that skewing toward the under-30s is "due to economics alone."

It's true that rock and pop music, even in our current welter of niche markets, is aimed at high school students (and, increasingly, "tweeners," whatever they are), who, presumably, are more interested in watching 24-year-olds than 40-year-olds. The fashion-powered engine of a mass medium requires a constant infusion of fresh blood.

(I'm teetering close to a rant about commodity fetishism and jouissance, but we've got someone else here who seems to like Althusser and Lacan more than I do. Care to jump in, netjade?)

What happens as musicians age? Sometimes they mellow out, and just don't rock as hard as they once did. They also typically become more technically proficient on their instruments, although (as I've argued until everyone here is sick of it), technical proficiency has almost nothing to do with rock and roll.

It's just true that there are some human activities that people don't do as well as they get older. Sports, math, getting pregnant, learning new languages, binge drinking. I think the untutored energy of rock (in its many forms) is another. There are exceptions, sure--but in general, I think the pattern is clear.

I'm not sure I buy the age argument. I think that only applies to pop trends. 17 year olds who don't really care that much about music will only listen to 17 year olds. But any real music buffs will pay way more attention to the music than the age of the performer.

I think there are a few possibilities for why quality tends to descend as the artist ages.

1) A lot of bands rest on their laurels and just keep playing the music they know their established fan bases like. Not mentioning any names, but I will conjure the image of rocks moving forward in a rotating manner.

2) A lot of bands just get bored and break up or something, like Sleater-Kinney. I'm sure if Sleater-Kinney made another album it'd be incredible, but they're not doing that.

There just gets a point where the quality of your new ideas is eclipsed by your ability to just kick ass on stage. A lot of those bands who wrote a few great albums then a bunch of mediocre ones give great concerts now, but were kinda lame back when they were writing great albums. It becomes rational, and far more lucrative and crowd pleasing to focus on your live act.

The exceptions are generally the people known for being progressive, with a progressive easily bored fan base. The ones who still play music for playing music's sake.

I think this pretty much settles the issue: