Is hardship and struggle needed to create great music?

Nah. Every human being in his or her life at some point faces hardship, struggles, falls in loves, gets heartbroken, feels joy, gets sick, loses loved ones, etc. It's just the stuff of life. Great artists have some impulse that drives them to take the stuff of life -- their lives, other people's lives, the politics and zeitgeist of their lives -- and turn it into stories and songs and images that speak beyond their own experience to others. And they have the craftsmanship to pull that off. But it's not the result necessarily of one kind of experience, it's all of their experience and the fact that as fellow humans we shares those kinds of experiences.

 

This is a theory that would be applied on a case by case basis. It will motivate SOME artists to write at certain times in their lives. I don't think it is the only motivation to write great stuff, there are many other factors that apply. Boredom can drive some people. There are great songs that were written by some who simply wanted to see if they could write a song as an exercise in writing in a certain style. Some write poetry and add melodies later. Simply wanting get a hit or a record contract can motivate someone. There are probably as many reasons as writers. Who knows?

I would more likely suggest that personal hardship and struggle will motivate people to like or identify with music that they feel speaks to them at the moment. Think of it-- one writer/song, many listeners.
And the same reasons apply to why we listen to music.

 

If Anything rock and roll has been a parade of individuals trying to escape or evade any hardship.

 

One of the corniest notions ever sold to the public at large.

 

Im not clear. Are you or are you not fully convinced?

 

Dwight Yoakam has stated that his motivation has never came from hardship. He "imagines" the situation. Maybe he takes an actors approach. So, yes there are both ways. But to say great music hasnt came from heartache would delete Hank Williams Sr's entire life. And a ton of black bluesman. Why do the former shine at what they do and imitators sound like rock blues? Because their voices tell a real story. Lightnin Hopkins lived it. Dylan writes about experiences also in his early work.

 

The "content and happy" Paul is just his public persona. I'm positive he finds inspiration for the good tunes in a myriad of emotions and feelings same as any other genius songwriter. "Silly Love Songs" was just a product that a guy like Paul can churn out with his eyes closed.

 

Early Dylan was a complete fabrication, an act, and it worked. Until he got his heart broken and started to write songs about that. So he's really evidence for both yes and no.

 

Not always, but often it seems like Macca's lyrics have little meaning; it's just words that sound good together with the music or little stories he makes up after a smoke rather than personal feelings. The opposite of a confessional songwriter; not saying one is better than the other.

 

Depends upon the artist. I'm sure we've lost many who would have been giants but their own hardships and struggles crushed them first.

More important, IMO, is empathy. If you can feel for others then we'll hear that in your music and respond to it.

 

There are successful artists who come from a privileged background- James Taylor, Miles Davis, for example. It's odd, though, that they sometimes impose hardship on themselves in some way, such as through drug addiction.

 

If you're a 'serious artist', that is, someone who's always thinking in terms of creating poetry, art, music etc, then, sure, some struggle will inspire you during its course.
The trick is that it's not necessary to have that struggle. What struggle contains, like any good screenplay, in an element of conflict.
A mature artist doesn't need to get made homeless in order to generate the great work. She can generate a dynamic that inspires in myriad other ways.

The struggling artist is itself a caricature.
Most artists don't struggle at all.

 

"Mo' money, mo' problems"

 

I'd say so to a degree-
Painbastard's Torn was written about Alexanders mother who battled and lost a fight with cancer.
One of the saddest and beautiful songs I've ever heard, especially from this type of music. This is an album mix, the original can be found on an EP

 

I suppose that 'great art' has come to be associated with 'heavy subject', therefore some heaviness, maaan, can 'help with that'.
I don't know if I always want some great art, then. Sometimes a good pop tune done magnificently will serve it up for me.

 

But the addiction was simply the result of an initially good thing they did to/for themselves. Not thinking Miles or James was cognizant of where this drug use would lead, hardship or otherwise.
Suffice it to say that I think we can all agree that hardship is not required for great art, though strong emotional/personal experiences of any stripe can certainly help.

 

Some great art could find it's spark from inner turmoil, emotional or financial hardship or from death or war, but it's not a requirement at all. But creation takes a certain level of skill, hard work and commitment. And for it to be successful , you'll also need luck.
Just because someone with aspirations to create art-or music-is miserable ---that's not enough. That would be like every alcoholic would-be novelist being as good a William Faulkner.

 

I know -- it's strange the things we do to ourselves, for whatever reasons, and where those things lead.

 

I've written music since I was about 14. Some of it, sure, was generated by sadness or difficulty or whatever.

Much of was not.

Great? I dont know.

 

Mostly yes. The bulk of his best work comes from conflict etc. He has even said himself that his songs are found in real situations. Those situations involve more than not a degree of pain.

Townes Van Zandt is one of the greatest writers. Same thing. Warren Zevon led a troubled conflicted life. One of the greats.

 

Nope. The artist needs an ability to convey a message, regardless of what the message may be.
If you have the ability to properly convey a message you must also be able to tap into the psych of the listener in order to connect.
If you connect with the listener and your message is conveyed you have a chance at being accepted.
That acceptance rides on a thin line of personal taste, situational mood, and social position as perceived by that single listener.

While hardship can lead a person to emote it is not required.

 

I reckon all artist at some point were in it to win it! They want to party, make money and get the chicks! Now later down their careers their advisors tell them to take up a more just cause. You know so they wont look bad.

 

I've had this discussion about classical composers with professional (classical) musicians, and the conclusion was always yes--the best music comes from pain, not joy.

I tend to agree, not because angst is so much cooler, but because I think negative emotions are felt more strongly than positive ones. My bleak 2 cents.

 

It depends on the artist: extending it to the literary arts, Dostoyevsky found it almost impossible to write unless he was in some sort of stressful, doom-laden situation.

Wagner wrote Tristan Und Isolde when he was at his lowest emotional ebb.

Cat Stevens recorded the Foreigner album when he was blissfully happy (open to debate whether that is great art, or not).

 

Miles Davis might have come from a privileged background but he was still a black man and faced challenges that all black men faced in the 50's. He was once beat up by the NYPD right outside Birdland where he was performing. Apparently he was ordered to "move on" and when he tried to explain that he was working, he got hit on the head by a detective, handcuffed and taken away. I will agree that this incident happened a few months after he recorded his masterpiece Kind of Blue but all Im saying is that black people had it rough during that era no matter how privileged they were.