Home » Music » The Rolling Stones » Does Quantity Equal Quality?

Does Quantity Equal Quality?

© FactoryGirl

The Rolling Stones turn up in the strangest places. Imagine my surprise at finding them mentioned in an article at Worldlyinvestor.com The article was entitled "A single variable could predict human behavior to a statistically significant degree" and written by consulting psychologist, Dr. Brett N. Steenbarger. Although the article deals with stock trading and creativity, there are a few comments I feel are relevant to the Rolling Stones:

In his text entitled ``Greatness,' Professor Dean Keith Simonton points out that mastery of any domain requires approximately 50,000 ``chunks' of information. This applies across different domains, from chess and sports to scientific research. To acquire such a wealth of experience and data, the great individual needs to be able to sustain focused attention on work for considerable periods.

This statement seems to say that Andrew Loog Oldham was right in locking Mick and Keith in the kitchen until they came up with a song. It also hypothesizes that the longer Mick and Keith work together the better their music should become.

Simonton's statement makes me wonder why all of the pair's biggest hits came early in their careers. The "classic" hits of the Rolling Stones like "Satisfaction", "Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Paint It Black" and "Brown Sugar" came in the first 10 or so years of their 30+ year partnership.

Maybe this will explain it:
Simonton also examined the specific works of some of the most eminent creative individuals in different fields and came to a startling conclusion. The odds of generating a work of lasting merit did not increase over the creator's lifetime.

That is, the greatest writers, artists and thinkers produced the same ratio of clunkers to works of genius throughout their careers. They were successful, Simonton notes, because they simply produced more. Whether a given work becomes famous or not is a matter of natural selection. Creative talents who are more productive increase their odds of generating a memorable work.

So, greatness is random but a band, like the Stones, can increase their chances of doing great work by working a lot. According to this theory, the Stones in 2000 should have the same number of quality songs as they did in the 60s. Hmmm. Since musical tastes have changed a lot since the 60s, I can't see them having the same number of Top 10 hits. Lets look at this in another musical context:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart died in his early 30s. He left behind hundreds of pieces of music. Most of them good, some of them great. Ludwig Van Beethoven lived a longer life but never produced even half of what Mozart did. But while Beethoven lived he was "the Maestro". Mozart died a pauper and was buried in an unmarked communal grave. Thousands of people rioted at Beethoven's funeral. Was Mozart a better musician? I've never heard a piece of Beethoven's work that I didn't like. I can't say that for Mozart. Beethoven, from his first works, changed the music of his time. Mozart left behind a lot of music. I have a hard time believing that more is better.