Is 24 too late to release your first album? What would be the ideal age to: start a band, put out your first recording?
>pic unrelated
>pic unrelated
24 is fine
>>64322614
When would it be too late? Assuming you want to live of be a recording artist
a lot or artists didn't put out an album until their late 20s early 30s.
for the second part of your question - it depends what you're aiming for. there really are so many options available to you now, no one should fall for le record contract meme.
>>64322667
age doesn't matter, but you can't live off of strictly being a recording artist during this time. you have to go out and tour, that's where you make the bulk of your money (especially if you fall for le record contract meme).
>>64322675
>a lot or artists didn't put out an album until their late 20s early 30s.
not the truly greats
>>64322752
>implying there will be more "greats" in our history
name someone who put out an album in their early 20s (nothing past 24) from the last 20 years that will be remembered and revered as one of the "truly greats".
>>64322594
It's not too late, but you should start as soon as you can to avoid being an old man who's out of touch with current musical trends.
>>64322851
>lewronggeneration
Back to >>>/r/music
>>64322961
you guys don't get it. i was using the other anon's "truly greats" notion to explain how the times have changed. there are no 'true greats' anymore, every genre and fanbase is either so heavily segmented or heavily mixed that the history books will only be able to point to a few 'big stars' among the majority of medium sized stars. is it starting to make sense for you guys? don't be surprised when 5-10 years from now tay tay, katy perry, gaga, beyonce, and adele are seen as the biggest & most important recording artists of the 2010s.
stop posting
>>64322961
It's much easier to keep up with music thanks to the Internet than it was in the 70s.
Lemmy was 30 when he started Motorhead. You're fine.
Mark Sandman was in his mid-30s when he started Morphine... its a mistake focusing on releasing albums soon, to have 'rockstar' experiences, do it when the music is good and you can make a living of it...
"living off music" in 2016 means putting out EPs, singles, splits, and so on semi-frequently with an album every few years. You need to be well connected to your local/closest DIY scene (basements, houses, warehouses, and so on, NOT lame bars/rock clubs) and tour as frequently as possible, working shit jobs between tours and quitting to tour. There is no more "living off music", the best you'll get is having it be slightly profitable, decent augmentation to your retail jobs. The more realistic expectation for this however is to just barely break even on each tour.
Don't worry about that though, all but the true elite, upper class of our generation will be working until we die. We're all gonna bein debt, devoting your youth to music won't add a whole lot to the pile and will be hugely personally rewarding.
>>64323743
"Rock music is dead. Rappers are the new rock stars. They're edgy, they have attitude, they flash around stacks of money, they ride around in a limo with girls hanging off their arms. I mean, we all love that, right? They make you want to be them. The point is that rock stars aren't supposed to be 'ordinary' people. And then at some point along the way, they became ordinary people. And the music got bland, it got boring, it sucked, and people stopped listening to it."
Threads like these just show that you're trying make music for the wrong reasons
>>64323331
Yeah but he was in Hawkwind before that
>>64323998
so much cringe
>>64324992
He's right though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_King
Dude released his first and only album at 79.
The Ramones were in their late 20s when they broke.
>>64322851
daft punk put out their first album in 1997 when they were in their early 20s
>>64322594
no its not ya dingus
it doesnt matter when you release it as much as what you release/how good it is and even then its just about it being the best album you can make
