Heh! :) Ok, these days, I suppose natural is as natural does (whatever that means). Sorry, have to admit I’m a Lincecum fan as A) I’ve been a Giants fan since I knew what baseball was, and B) I happened to be in Denver to see his first major league win.

You’re right, perhaps “natural” isn’t quite the just word here. Would you believe “phenom”? I seldom hear of old very accomplished veterans referred to as phenoms.

I relate this to our inherent desire for instant gratification. We like it, we love it, we want some more of it- and we’re impatient for this craving to be satiated. This puts pressure on artists to pump out album after album in a short amount of time for fear of being forgotten. Any artist, Nas included, will, as Jefflee said, have less time to work on what they are producing after their initial break-through, and thus they will not be able to “put as much into” this effort as their first one. Ergo, the quality will not be as good once they start this trend. Of course, some outliers would, indeed, be those that it just comes 100% naturally to and could shat out gold in their sleep, and this also doesn’t cover artists whose success looks more like a bell curve (although if you simply ignore the upward slope, the graph of success for Nas versus, say, Vertical Horizon, would look similar- blah, that could all be its own topic), but I don’t think the latter has much to do with this particular post, about peaking YOUNG, i.e. being a hit from the beginning; and the former has been covered by the “natural genius” stuff from other commenters.

What about scientists and mathematicians? You’ve got Newton and Nash, Einstein and Edison. I’m not a scientist, but I do concede there is tons of creativity involved in coming up with solutions to the physical and theoretical problems the advanced sciences and maths cover.

I was just talking Lincecum the other day. Given the effort that he and his father put into devising the “perfect pitching form” – an effort that involved medical cadavers, if the rumors I hear are correct – then I don’t know that “natural” is the word I would use to describe him.

But I like the analogy and think it holds weight.

But also, Nas had his whole life to write Illmatic and who knows how much free time during his days. Every album that followed, he had merely a year or two years (he’s been damn consistent with album releases) and more than likely remarkably less free-time to write and think.

Hip-hop doesn’t seem to be like other genres where the genius artists can disappear for a long time if they want. Why that is, is a whole ‘nother post, but I think it carries weight.

That said, if you give him 5 years between Illmatic and his follow-up, collect the best tracks he made during that time period and made THAT his sophomore effort, his story would be a different one.

One last thing to consider: Nas’s decline has a LOT to do with his beat selection. His ear for beats isn’t nearly as good as Jay-Z’s. (And this is why I don’t think Kanye should be so easily dismissed, as he’s much more important musically, both in his beats and the way he rhymes/sings over them then people are willing to give him credit for).

Maybe with his success and heralding as the saviour of hip-hop he got too much power over his own albums for his own good, and he was no longer taking advice from Primo, Pete and all those guys behind the boards and in the studios who helped make Illmatic what it was.

For some reason, this music-quality/poetry calculus reminds me of a way I often think about evaluating baseball pitchers. In this case, Technique becomes Mental Skill and Merit becomes Physical Ability.

For most pitchers, Physical Ability starts out high. Their bodies are young and less fragile than they will be. They can throw harder and faster than they’ll probably ever be able to do when they become wily, old veterans. This is similar to how an artist, like Nas, may start out with the most to say right at the outset. His Merit will probably decline over time much as a pitcher will lose a couple MPH from their pitches as he ages.

However, as a pitcher gets more experience, their Mental Skill improves. They learn new pitches. They learn how to use some pitches to set up other pitches. They learn how to strategize and make adjustments. They learn how to approach specific hitters. Their entire mental approach improves with experience. Similarly, many musicians and other artists find through experience new techniques to explore, new methods for materializing what they wish to express.

It is this normal type of progression where Physical Ability declines as Mental Skill improves that I think characterizes most pitchers (and many artists with Merit and Technique).

Once in a while, though, a natural comes along. For some reason, their Mental Skill comes intuitively instead of strictly through experience. They begin their careers as phenoms. And while, yes, they have to rely more on guile as they get older, they were able to realize the full potential of their Physical Ability (Merit) with a rare high Mental Skill (Technique) at a young age while the Physical Ability is still there.

Maybe this is just describing the mechanics of the “Old Masters” (normal progression), and the “Young Geniuses” (naturals).

Have I just equated Tim Lincecum with Nas? Jeez, this site does make one overthink.

Not necessarily! First, ability seems to vary by medium. In other words, Romantic poets tend to peak early (in their 20s and 30s), while novelists tend to peak later (40s, 50s, and 60s).

Second, let me point out “Old Masters and Young Geniuses,” by David Galenson. This guy is an economist who studied the peaks of various visual artists based on how much their paintings sell for. There were two curves. The “young geniuses” peaked early, having breakthrough ideas that revolutionized their fields. Then, for the most part (Picasso, I think is an exception), they use up that one genius idea and then keep rehashing that idea over and over until people get sick of them.

The other curve refers to the “old masters” who aren’t recognized early in their lives but get progressively better and better. They peak late in their lives; often their best works are created just before their deaths. The example Galenson gives is Cezanne.

It’s possible, if Galenson’s theory is true, that Nas is a “young genius.” He had his big idea, it was great, everyone loved it, etc. Now, if he wants to continue being great, he needs to move on to a different field and have another big idea. Maybe Nas wants to try his hand at country?