When people are discussing musicians or artists in general, eventually somebody always seems to bring up someone who everybody agrees died too young. Everybody always seems to agree that it's some sort of massive tragedy. However, I think that dying young is actually great for one's career. When a musician dies at 30, there will be an endless amount of speculation of what they could've achieved if only they had lived to grow older.

 

 

 

However, people also won't see the ravaging effects of a slowly fading career and old age. If Michael Jackson had died in 1992, I think he'd be much better off in a certain way. People would only remember him for the peak of his musical achievement, without having to watch him become a massive joke because of the lawsuits and the theme park mansion he built for himself. How would you know that Jimi Hendrix wouldn't end up doing Superbowl halftime duets with Elton John or selling replica guitars on home shopping channels? George Carlin was once one of the sharpest, most viciously funny comedians out there. However, in the last ten years all he seems to be doing is building shows and writing books that are essentially just rehashing his old material without adding anything new.

 

 

 

Ars longa, vita brevis (Art lasts, life is short) seems fitting here. When you're a true artist, it's all about legacy. It seems that in a lot of cases, that legacy seems to suffer a lot from spending too much time in the public eye. From Mozart on however, every artist that died "before their time" always seems to achieve some sort of status that places them one step above those who died of old age.

I have no input to this discussion, but yeah, those are some interesting thoughts, well put together.

That's why 2pac and BIG are considered to be the greatest cause they didn't have the chance to fall off. Had they lived longer they would have faded sooner or later like these ring tone rappers seem to do nowadays.

I still think I'd rather have a great youth and live off it for the rest of my life than become famous young and then die. I think being a hasbeen is still better than being dead. You can still raise a family and enjoy a normal life if you make the effort to retreat from the public eye. Comercially though, I totally agree with you - dying sells.

I think you have an excellent point, but then there's the other side of it. Who's to say that those who have died young wouldn't have gone on to create more amazing music? I would personally regard it a tremendous loss if one of the Red Hot Chili Peppers had died before they created some of their awesome music, and they are still putting out great music even in their forties. Dying stops people from suffering the fate you described, but it also deprives the world of potentially great material.

I'm surprised nobody said Kurt Cobain so far, Nirvana would be almost unknown right now if he didn't commit suicide.

 

 

 

Now the drummer is in the Foo Fighters, and the guitarist is in Audioslave, both famous partly because of their connections with Nirvana.

Interesting points, but considering the personal instinct to live that most people have, i'm pretty sure most of the artists would say that they did die too young. I don't know what level an artist has to reach before they can say "I want to die young for the sake of my art".

 

 

 

Retrospectively, whether or not it's a good thing or not for the art in question, considering the emotional loss for many people, to me an artist dying young is nearly always a tragedy. I think most artists (if possible) would prefer to see their workd recognised before they die, rather than posthumously.

 

 

 

If you're talking about the potential of an artist though that was curtailed by them dying young, to me Jeff Buckley and Eva Cassidy epitomise this tragedy. Both artists with fantastic potential, otherwordly voices and both died before they're potential or acclaim was truly revealed.

I think you have an excellent point, but then there's the other side of it. Who's to say that those who have died young wouldn't have gone on to create more amazing music? I would personally regard it a tremendous loss if one of the Red Hot Chili Peppers had died before they created some of their awesome music, and they are still putting out great music even in their forties. Dying stops people from suffering the fate you described, but it also deprives the world of potentially great material.

 

 

 

One of the original Chili's (Hillel Slovak) did die, he was replaced by John Frusciante. Other than that I agree with what you said.

I think you have an excellent point, but then there's the other side of it. Who's to say that those who have died young wouldn't have gone on to create more amazing music? I would personally regard it a tremendous loss if one of the Red Hot Chili Peppers had died before they created some of their awesome music, and they are still putting out great music even in their forties. Dying stops people from suffering the fate you described, but it also deprives the world of potentially great material.

 

 

 

One of the original Chili's (Hillel Slovak) did die, he was replaced by John Frusciante. Other than that I agree with what you said.

 

 

 

#-o Forgot about him, can't believe myself. But that brings up another example, had he not died, what would the Chili Peppers have become then? I'm sure that they would have gone in a bit different of a direction with Slovak's influence, since he and Frusciante have rather different styles. They may not even still be a group today had he not died.