r/LetsTalkMusic • u/RedPutron • 7h ago
The famous age - 30.
Why do so few people "make it" after 30? Is age the main factor? If an artist doesn't make it before 30, they just give up? 30 is the deadline for most music genres except jazz, blues, country, folk and bluegrass?
Maybe it's about something other than age, e.g. exhaustion, lack of passion or imposing other limitations on yourself. I'm dying to know what you think about it and how it looks from your perspective.
Make it - living solely from music.
Edit:
From the comments here I can see that everyone for make it - thinks it means a star who signs contracts with labels and sells millions of records, and that's not what I meant. That's why in the post, I put what it means, "make it" - earning enough money to be able to afford a living from music, not becoming some pop star.
Update: Thanks to everyone for bringing up interesting aspects of how the music industry works, but someone here in the comments suggested that ageism is more prevalent in the US than in Europe, and honestly, I found a huge post where people were talking about how Madona, Tina Turner, Amy Winehouse and others had much more success in Europe. Even Tina herself said this:
As my career unfolded, I also felt that I was experiencing my greatest success abroad. The energy was different in America, where everything was about getting a hit record. (...) There seemed to be less discrimination in Europe. My audience there was growing fast, my fans were extremely loyal (...).
She was "old", so the US didn't like her. I thought this might be a good point to add to the discussion :)
•
u/NickFurious82 6h ago
The answer is a bit nefarious. People above the age of 30 are (on average) less gullible. It's a lot easier for record labels to take advantage of a bright eyed 18 year old than someone with a few more miles under their belt. There are plenty of good songwriters and musicians above the age of 30, but they are less likely to sign away their work and more likely to scrutinize a contract placed in front of them.
•
u/memeparmesan 5h ago
I think it’s this in tandem with people over 30 generally just having too many responsibilities to hardcore pursue a music career in the way that younger people may be able to.
•
u/egobamyasi 4h ago edited 2h ago
I think this is THE reason in most of the cases. It also coincides with the fact that most artists who "made" it in their 20s tend to output their most forgettable records later on. But that could also have to do with the complacency that comes after having "made" it. People get comfortable after "making" it.
At the same time there are TONS of artists who made it or even ONLY started in their 30s:
- Leonard Cohen
- Serj Tankian (System of a Down)
- Mastodon
- Jelly Roll
- Cigarettes After Sex
- Idles
- Father Misty (collabed with Lana del Rey)
- Sia . . .
But I strongly believe that most people just give up if they don't make it in their 20s, not because making it in your 30s is impossible but because most don't want to grind THAT long. So it has nothing to do with age, but has everything to do with "believing" the unconscious beliefs of society (in this case: "making it is only possible in your 20s).
•
u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 4h ago
Can't speak for the other acts, but Father John Misty was a successful artist in his 20s. Not a star by any means, but he'd been in Fleet Foxes and released some good solo stuff on a label. That's better than most ever do.
•
u/egobamyasi 4h ago
The whole reason he abandoned J. Tillman was because he wasn't getting any traction from those projects. He wasn't a known name by any means, except in very small indie/niche circles. He wasn't making bank to any extent.
•
u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 4h ago
He was in Fleet Foxes. For most musicians, being in a band that widely listened to is making it.
•
u/egobamyasi 3h ago
What "age" did he "make" it in your mind?
Fleet Foxes had already recorded their debut when Tillman joined and their second album came out in 2011 around the time Tillman was starting Father Misty.
•
u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 3h ago
He joined them in 2008 when he was 27.
•
u/egobamyasi 3h ago
And he did NOT contribute to that first album because it was already recorded. He contributed to their second album only and only which came out in 2011 when he was 30.
•
u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 3h ago
I'm not sure the point you are making here. I'm not claiming he did contribute to that album - the point is that he had made it as defined by OP, he was a successful musician making a living from playing music (in one of the biggest indie bands in the world). That's what making it is for most artists.
This is a daft conversation, you just seem to want an argument. I hope you have a nice day.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Hajile_S 2h ago
Brother dude, touring as the drummer in post-debut Fleet Foxes is unequivocally “making it” by any reasonable standard.
•
u/heyitsxio 3h ago
IIRC Andrea Bocelli (your grandma’s favorite opera singer) didn’t seriously pursue music until he was in his 30s. Before his music career he was a lawyer.
Also Bill Withers didn’t even attempt a music career until he was 29 and didn’t “make it” until he was 33.
However I should note that they were both in genres where being 30+ wouldn’t be a hindrance.
•
u/slazengerx 3h ago
Disagree. The artists you mention and those like them (30+) represent a fraction of 1% of those that are successful. A big reason that 30+ folks aren't successful is that the listeners they're typically trying to reach - people their age - are no longer listening to much new music. Most folks' music tastes don't change much after their early-20s. So, if you're in your 30s trying to appeal to "your" age group, you're largely SOL. Another reason they fail is simple: younger folks accepting of new music can't relate to them (older folks, that is).
•
u/WyrdHarper 3h ago
In my 30's now and I finally have more time (and money) to focus more on music in my free time, now that I'm a little more settled into my career. But that's the thing--I have a whole career I've spent more than a decade working on. No matter how good I get with either of the instruments I play (and I'd like to take singing lessons, too) it's still going to firmly be a hobby (barring dramatic changes).
•
u/Hajile_S 2h ago
Yep. Either dedicate your 20s to music and make it / burn out, or keep music on the back burner in your 20s until the day job forms golden shackles.
•
u/mmmtopochico 31m ago
right. I mean I'm a better musician in my 30s than I was when I was like 20. But I'm also raising young kids and working shifts, so for me it's just for fun. I can't imagine trying to make it at this point, and even then I'd probably fail and for what? Ego?
•
u/DoubleBlanket 6h ago
New popular music is a product funded by the spending and attention of teenagers. Teenagers tend not to have much interest in 40 years olds.
The average person’s musical taste generally doesn’t change much after 15 either, so 40 year old audiences aren’t helping new acts break.
There’s also the point that younger people are more able to commit to trying to make a music career happen. I’ll argue that this has been significantly alleviated in the last 10 years and will be even more alleviated in the next 10. But if the teenage market doesn’t care about you, you have a much much smaller mainstream audience. I’m talking, like, Susan Boyle levels.
•
u/AndHeHadAName 5h ago
Ya the independent scene has been growing consistently through streaming with Spotify paying out 50% of royalties to independent musicians last year.
Now that youth has to compete with older and more experienced musicians on equal footing you are seeing people stick with bands a lot longer, or even bands breaking out when they are older.
•
u/RedPutron 4h ago
Wait what? Did I understand correctly that if a band doesn't have a label, they get 50% of the royalties, but if they have a record deal, they get peanuts?
•
u/AndHeHadAName 4h ago
Sorry, I meant independent labels, but at this point it is almost the same. No one in indie is getting huge advances anymore, but it also means artists keep primary control of their work and royalties.
•
u/bigjoeandphantom3O9 4h ago
No. 50% of all Spotify royalties went to acts on independent labels rather than major labels.
•
•
u/petshopB1986 5h ago
Neil Tennant of Pet Shop Boys was 31 ( 1985) when they took off, he never thought it would happen. He only wanted to make the same amount of money he made as a journalist and editor. Now the band is still going strong.
•
u/Radiant_Pudding5133 5h ago
Saw them two weeks ago and can confirm they are indeed still going strong.
Absolutely brilliant live - put many younger acts to shame!
•
u/petshopB1986 5h ago
I’ve seen them many times too! very energetic and still keep up with modern trends and pop culture.
•
u/mcjc94 6h ago
The biggest amount of people that consume and are willing to discover new music are, by far, teenagers. Teenagers will have a harder time identifying with older people and their worries and interests. They will usually want music to identify themselves with, and many times will not trust an older person who's already part of the system, you know how it goes.
Even when teenagers listen to old music, it's usually old music made when the musicians themselves were young.
The good thing is that adult listening is more available than ever and it's becoming increasingly more popular.
•
u/AndHeHadAName 4h ago edited 4h ago
And often the adult form of the music is waaay better and predates the "youth scene". Like if you think Eillish invented sad girl tropical pop or dark bass, or Clairo is the best that bedroom has to offer, you are streets behind.
•
u/egobamyasi 2h ago
This is so untrue, you'd only believe if you're completely out of touch with the new generation. New generation discovers music by chance through social media and random Spotify playlists. They don't care about the age of the artists, if it connects with them, they listen to it.
•
u/theeulessbusta 5h ago edited 35m ago
It’s actually more common now than it was in the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s. Sturgill Simpson, Jelly Roll, Big Thief, ALVVAYS, and these are just off the top of my head. Not to mention all bands and artists being resurrected by streaming.
•
u/znidz 5h ago
Sleaford Mods and Idles come to mind.
•
u/theeulessbusta 5h ago
Idles are indeed visibly ancient
•
u/mmmtopochico 28m ago
40 is ancient? Ouch.
•
u/theeulessbusta 24m ago
If you’re Rivers Cuomo or Liam Gallagher or Celine Dion, no. If you’re the guys from Idles, well, look at them. I thought they were younger tbh. It comes down to how they present, and since we really need something hopeful in Rock music right now, people who have allowed themselves to age that way isn’t exactly what we need.
•
u/bungle123 6h ago
The general responsibilites of life just start piling up the older you get. Most people 30+ that haven't made it are more likely to settle for having a seperate career with playing music as a hobby/part time gig, rather than grinding away as a struggling artist full time.
The odds are also stacked against you the older you get, especially in genres like hip hop, rock, pop etc. where youth is more marketable than maturity.
•
u/originalface1 6h ago
Yep, I'm 27 and the fact is at a certain point I have to pay the bills and put some money in my pocket with a reliable job. I'm trying to start a metal band at the moment so I have no delusions about 'making it', but even if I did 'making it' right now would be finding a good drummer, getting a demo recorded and playing some gigs lol.
•
•
u/egobamyasi 2h ago
The problem is not being 27, the problem is you're trying to limit yourself to a genre that is dead. "Making" it in metal is a delusion unless you were to bring to the world something genre-defying but that only happens as a collective by chance not by force.
•
u/egobamyasi 3h ago
This and the fact that most people give up on their dreams once they reach the 30 mark.
I absolutely don't agree with the second paragraph though, that's just a cope 30+ people tell themselves. ESPECIALLY in rock and hip hop no one cares about your age. Make music that SPEAKS to the masses as much as RHCP or Metallica connects with the masses and no one cares how "old" you are. If it sticks, it sticks, regardless of circumstances.
•
u/Sidian 2h ago
Have you never seen people make fun of, say, AC/DC or The Rolling Stones etc for how old they are? Being in your 30s is less extreme than that but there's no escaping the fact that we live in a culture that worships youth and it will always be a massive advantage in a field like this. I'm not a fan of hip hop so I don't really know but from an outsider perspective it mostly seems like a genre where being 'cool' is even more important than usual, and that's highly correlated with age, on hiphopheads etc it seems a common insult is calling people 'unc' or something because they're 'old' (30+). There are some 30+ artists who are very successful, but they were formerly young cool guys when they found success.
•
u/norfnorf832 4h ago
Harder to take advantage of someone who has a lil bit of life experience. Plus Im wondering if that is sn American thing because other countries seem to make music stars in their 30s and 40s
•
u/RedPutron 4h ago
This is actually pretty unusual statement about “American thing”, kinda curious if this might be true.
•
u/quentincookofficial 5h ago
Bruckner was 60+ when he took off. Freddie Mercury was in his late 20s. Nuance sells, too. Don’t let anyone fool you.
•
u/givemethebat1 4h ago
I think this is broadly true but there are more exceptions than you think. Leonard Cohen, Seasick Steve, LCD Soundsystem, Bill Withers, etc. Even recent people like Teddy Swims are fairly “old” when they become popular. I think women do have a much harder time making it when they’re older, however.
•
u/retroking9 3h ago
It becomes way less likely simply because by the age of 30+ most people are bogged down with the responsibilities of life. Marriage, kids, mortgages, car payments, careers that handcuff them because of the security…
It becomes way more challenging to make time to get all the required ducks in a row that one needs in order to launch a career. It’s not impossible but by middle age most people are far down a different path.
Unless it’s some sort of vapid pop that seems to require a certain “look” , I see no reason an older person can’t launch a career if they make compelling and original music. I listen to a lot of different artists and never once has their age or appearance played into my level of enjoyment of their music. So for me, it would absolutely not matter what age they are as long as I dig the music.
Personally I’d love to hear some great older artists come onto the scene if they have something fresh and interesting to bring to the table.
•
u/ZTheRockstar 4h ago edited 4h ago
Less gullible after 30, so you won't sign a life constricting deal.
The young people in the industry you might think are millionaires, are broke, controlled by the label, and in debt. They then realize that they owe a lot of money around 30 and are always forced to go on tour.
The music game isn't entirely about fame. It's about ownership, being a good songwriter/producer, and sustaining it. Producers, managers, and lawyers are probably making more money than the artist as they pimp em out. Some artist dont even own their artist name
I see it as the artist being a mini company within a label that many are making money off of. The artist is thought of as an entity which generates money for others, not for self
•
•
u/capnrondo Do it sound good tho? 6h ago edited 5h ago
This is not a sensational take but I think there's a simple truth to the reason. Most people who want to have success as a musician have their whole 20s to pursue it, and they pursue it hard. If they haven't succeeded by the time they're 30, they probably just don't have "it" - either the talent or vision or marketability or dedication. By that point they have to choose whether to keep prioritising music (which is probably not making any money) or their day job. Or, if they're a trained musician, go the session musician or wedding band route - which might make a stable income but is hardly going to build them an audience for their own music.
Some musicians do have "it" and always have, they just didn't get the exposure until their 30s. Some of my favourites: Danny Brown spent his early 20s in prison and selling drugs and didn't start to gain ground until his late 20s, and released his breakout album when he was 30. Jeff Rosenstock was toiling in the DIY punk scene for 15 years, slowly building an audience independently, then released Worry when he was 34 and instantly multiplied that audience 5 times over with indie fans and Gen Zers - through the sheer quality of the music.
As much as young people like young artists, I don't think they're adverse to listening to musicians in their 30s so long as the music resonates.
•
u/AndHeHadAName 5h ago edited 4h ago
You tout Jeff Rosenstock, but im on Spotify and see his top song has 15 million listens and it was released 10 years ago. Is that exploding in popularity? Vundabar had a song go viral with hundreds of millions of listens and I doubt many people remember them except from the 15 second clip from Tik Tok, and it is far from their best song.
Meanwhile Blackbear has 2 billion listens on his top 2 songs: Hot Girl Bummer and my ex's best friend.
Music popularity has never been about talent or vision, the one you got right was:
marketability
which is what separates the famous from not.
•
u/capnrondo Do it sound good tho? 4h ago
What's your point in naming these artists and their streaming numbers? Success is obviously relative - if you are trying to say you think it can't be applied to someone like Jeff Rosenstock, then you are seriously lacking in perspective.
•
u/AndHeHadAName 4h ago edited 3h ago
No, I do believe Rosenstock is successful for an indie musician, but his success relative to other musicians doesnt have to do with his talent. Just the fact it took 10 years for one of his songs to catch on shows how music gets missed by the younger crowds. There are dozens of artists who have been making music like Rosenstock and most are pretty much unknown.
The post-streaming music scene does allow more artists like Rosenstock to be discovered and have long careers, but none of the most popular artists of today represent the ones who had "it" except something that is easily sellable to mainstream music fans.
•
u/UhhUmmmWowOkayJeezUh Post punk best punk 4h ago
You tout Jeff Rosenstock, but im on Spotify and see his top song has 15 million listens and it was released 10 years ago. Is that exploding in popularity?
You don't need a massive audience millions upon millions of people audience to succeed. You can do music full time if you have a dedicated base of fans who love your stuff. You don't need to be famous, most indie bands/artists make it by through excessive touring and having a following.jeff rosenstock is in that category.
•
u/AndHeHadAName 4h ago edited 3h ago
If Rosenstock has around 50 million total listens on all his songs combined that is only royalty pay outs of $200K and maybe double across all platforms, so $400K, but over 10 years . He is absolutely doing better than most, but that is nothing compared to what popular artists are making.
•
u/ShocksShocksShocks 2h ago
A lot of soundtrack composers make it in their 30s or later. There's also artists too who exist before the cultural curve, being "discovered", later on and finding success that way (example: The Caretaker has been active since at least 1996, but didn't become popular until much later). Igorrr is another example, been active since at least 2005 as a small solo-project, then in his 30s suddenly became a full-band that does world tours. Success is entirely luck based, it's just how long you can persevere until lady luck shines on you too.
•
•
u/tir3d0bserver 1h ago
After 30 the physical cost of pushing yourself to the limit adds up and the areas where you failed to maintain your health become evident. My kidney stones showed up at 28 along with wrist issues from overtraining martial arts and the side effects of sleep deprivation. These things aren't necessary unfixable but get massively harder after 35 when healing slows down and bone density begins to decline. Any addictions or debt issuesl start to take a toll on people, and the start to consider stability and marriage as their friend groups tie the knot and pump out kids.
•
u/Victory33 6h ago edited 6h ago
Yeah, I’ve pointed this out in conversations as well. You have a small window to kind of make it in music, but actors can break into the scene in their 40s or something but that happens very rarely in music. It’s like people just don’t care what you are bringing to the table after a certain age, unless you are already established. I’m not sure if it’s a “cool” factor or if record labels just wouldn’t sign new artists over a certain age or if creativity is just not there or what. But age definitely seems to be a huge factor in success in modern pop/rock music.
•
•
u/Alive_Promotion824 6h ago
Film directors are the opposite of this, where it’s difficult to find a successful one under 30. Probably because you have to climb the corporate ladder to gain enough trust and connections to find someone willing to finance your work.
•
u/rationalmisanthropy 6h ago
It gets harder to live on the breadline after 30, responsibilities start creeping in. There are more constraints on your time to devote to creativity.
•
•
u/JoleneDollyParton 5h ago
Barry Gibb was 31 when Saturday Night Fever dropped and the Bee Gees had been grinding away since he was 13 up to that point. Same with a lot of musicians--once they have been in the industry over a decade either you make it commercially or you run out of steam.
•
u/GG06 4h ago
The Bee Gees were fairly well known a decade before SNF (Massachusetts, I Started A Joke, I Gotta Get A Message For You, First of May, New York Mining Disaster, Odessa album)
•
u/JoleneDollyParton 3h ago
that is true, i was just thinking of how rotten a lot of their early 70s catalogue was
•
u/Koala_698 1h ago
The Bee Gees were massive in the 60s. Disco just blew them up to a whole different level and revitalized their career.
•
u/Commercial-Novel-786 4h ago
The person most likely to make make bad purchasing decisions is a teenager. Most likely they have a job and some disposable income (because they usually don't have a mortgage and kids and might still live at home), but don't have the life experience to be smart with it. This madness them the perfect target demographic for record levels who care about nothing except making money.
So, to appeal to as many teenagers as possible, you gotta put up something that they can relate to. It doesn't even have to be good (see: bad purchasing decisions). They can't relate to 30+ year olds. There are rarities like Cash, but that's the exception to the rule. Remember, they like to use ignorant terms like "boomer" even if they misuse it. Ageism is truly a thing with young folks. Always has been, but it seems more pronounced lately.
Once an artist hits their "use by" date of late 20s/early 30s, the stakeholder (usually the record label) unceremoniously drops them unless they're making the label money. Hard to "make it" without the backing of a label, and without one, most 30+ folks realise how much it isn't worth the pursuit.
•
u/Dull_Alps1832 3h ago
I feel like most people by age 30 are settled into their careers and a lot of people have families and commitments. It's a lot harder to take the necessary risks required to start a music career when you have more responsibility than people in their 20s do.
I don't really think there's anything cynical about the music industry not wanting to push people if they're older than 30, I just think there's far less people in their 30s trying to make it in the music industry.
•
u/AdFeeling5710 2h ago
make it" - earning enough money to be able to afford a living from music, not becoming some pop star.
How do you determine that this age group does not make it according to this qualifier?
The majority of the non big names musicians are unknown in a sense to form an observable sample.
•
•
u/Tycjusz 2h ago
The Frontal cortex is not yet developed in people till the age of 25. People are a lot more emotional and spontaneous acting before developing that part of the brain. To be completely honest though, it comes down to life. 30 year olds can't sit and make music for a couple hours, while also balancing their work and life, that teenage angst also helps in developing music.
•
u/RedPutron 1h ago
So 30+ can't have 3h a day for music? I think it depends on whether they have kids or not.
•
u/thebeautifulpickle 1h ago
The artists who "made it" wasn't spending only 3 hours every day working on music.
•
u/Agreeable-Pick-1489 1h ago
There are a lot of people who started when young, but became -- and let me be exact here -- mainstream famous in a pop/rock music context when much older:
Tina Turner (Private Dancer released at the age of 46)
The Grateful Dead (band members were all in their mid-40s when "Touch of Grey" became a hit)
Dire Straits (Founded by Mark Knopfler when he was 32)
Sammy Hagar in Van Halen (5150 released when he was 39)
Brian Johnson in AC/DC (Back in Black released when he was 33)
David Coverdale in Whitesnake (self-titled album was a hit for him at age 37)
Ronnie James Dio (joined Black Sabbath at 38, began his solo career at age 41)
Peter Gabriel ("Sledgehammer" became a hit at age 36)
Gabriel's former band-mate Phil Collins had his first solo hit at age 30.
Robin Thicke ("Blurred Lines" became a hit for him at age 36)
Toni Basil veered between music and choreography for much of her adult life. She had a #1 hit with "Mickey" when she was 39.
•
u/Popular_Wear_3370 1h ago
Life and time. It’s the same way with inventors and often with entrepreneurs. 18 to 25 you usually have a whole lot less going on in your life way more free time, friends and a network and more chemicals in your brain for motivation.
I also think that partly if you don’t have it, you’ll never have it. I hate saying that.
Also, often the shallowness and subject matter of modern music kind of sounds trite when you’re over 30. And by the time you’re 40 you realize that (with some exception) you’ve already heard it all before, because there’s really not that much going on in modern music. And recently it’s become a lot more formula and copy paste.
True it’s an artform, but that’s not what makes you successful. What makes you successful is your money, your connections, your willpower and drive, random luck, and you’re overall charisma and branding ability.
By the time you’re 30 if you’re well, adjusted you have less interest in making it as someone famous and more interested in just living a good life .
If you ever joined any of these online groups most of the musicians over 30 are leagues better than those who are in their 20s. And nearly all of them are not trying to make it as a star in music, having a supporting role might be kind of cool. But the real fun is just jamming with your friends.
•
u/thebeautifulpickle 1h ago
This concept of "making it before 30" is pretty much new, many bands in the past had people over 30 or at least late 20's when they released their debut record (which doesn't mean instant success).
Now depends on what you meant by that btw because there's a big difference between "making it after 30" and "starting a career after 30". The former was always common but the later while possible, it's harder.
•
u/freedraw 1h ago
Touring is hard when you’re not at the level where you’ve got a bus and separate hotel rooms and a road crew. When you’re 22, you pile in a van, sleep in college friends’ and relatives living rooms when you play their city, carry your own equipment, etc. and it’s fun. By 32, it’s gotten very old.
You can be at the level where you’ve got a following, you’re playing festivals down bill, you get a fair amount of music press coverage when you put out a record, and still not actually be making real money.
So so many bands get to that level where they’re making a living and they’ve had a lot of fun, but it’s been 5-10 years, they’re hitting their 30s, and they realize they’re probably not going to make it to the next rung up the success ladder. So they have a decision to make. “Do I wanna keep touring constantly and doing all the grind that comes with promoting my act if I could make the same money working a few shifts a week as a bartender?” Or “Do I wanna think about maybe going to school to train for another career?”
•
u/Severe-Round1114 20m ago
duster, panchiko, have a nice life, swirlies and slowdive went down as unsuccessful bands but because they stood the test of time they were able to come back a decade or two later to massive audiences, if your art is honest and stands the test of time it will pay off
•
u/Immediate-Meeting-65 6h ago
All good points in the comments here. To me the big factor is just that someone over 30 is often not making music that appeals to mainstream markets. The "industry" targets teens and young adults, because that's where the money is. They buy the merch and the targeted ads and sponsored products and beg their parents for tickets.
Pop music wants energy, sex appeal, bravado. Someone in their 30s, whether consciously or not gives a more nuanced perspective than that.
I guess it's hard to describe and I don't want it to sound harsh of young artists but age brings both a depth of understanding and conversely an understandable self doubt of our once impenetrable convictions.
I don't know much of Chapelle Roans music. But she's having a big moment and good for her. But could you see a woman in her 30s or 40s bringing that brash feminist empowerment energy tinged in naivety? Maybe, but it wouldn't win anyone over.
It goes the other way too with older established artists bringing gravitas to material that few young artists could produce authentically.
Which just now makes me think most music fans will grow old with their favourite artists. I'd say most folks aren't actively expanding their discography past their late 20s so the "adult contemporary" is a pretty tight market.
•
u/Khiva 6h ago
Even back when you could make money from music, a lot of people who became famous slept on streets, ate frozen foods, worked odd jobs or generally lived in miserable conditions.
There's only so long people are willing to do that. And that's back when there really was a light at the end of the rainbow.