Ok, so I know this is a little off topic, but why is chess listed on the shortest average lifespan by profession chart? I understand all the other professions listed, but chess!? I mean it even comes before football for goodness sakes.
Chess requires intense mental exercise while not necessarily resulting in a lot of money (it's very difficult to make a living off of just chess tournaments). In the past, there've also been claims of correlation between chess and insanity; there's been some famous chess players who suffered from mental issues later in life. From what I know, it seems to be more of a correlation than causation, but with those kinds of factors it might not be so surprising to see chess players on the list.
It's definitely surprising to see it listed to that extreme, though.
Perhaps there's a selection effect happening. Maybe people who are chess players when they are young and go on to live a long life end up more strongly associated with a different (adult) profession rather than chess.
This is an excellent and detailed analysis. I wonder if part of the dip in the 2010s is due to a current lack of data for those years, as the details and extent of celebrity addiction often only come out years later, unless the celebrity dies.
Wouldn't you need to compare musicians' use of drugs and alcohol with the general population/demographic subgroup? For example, heroin was a scourge of African-American inner cities in the 1940s and 50s, and many jazz musicians lived in that milieu, so there would be nothing especially enlightening in the association of jazz musicians and heroin addiction if they suffered this addiction at comparable rates to their non-musician neighbors. (Incidentally, Miles Davis had kicked his habit years before "Kind of Blue.")
This is really great. I want to add two comments, one of them niggling:
"Is Miles Davis' heroin use inseparable from a song like "Blue in Green...?" - Seeing as how Miles kicked heroin in 1954, five years before recording Kind of Blue, and seeing as how Bill Evans actually wrote "Blue in Green," I doubt there's much impact. (Though Evans might have been using by then, soooo...)
But I think you're right about the impossibility of healthy music stardom, especially because musical virtuosity is most likely to develop in people who are comfortable practicing alone for hours and hours on end. Musicians, in my experience, tend to be rather shy. Which means you have introverts who are suddenly on stage and in the middle of everything all the time, and they can't cope. I'm an introvert myself, and that lifestyle sounds like hell to me.
I think an important factor to consider in this "industry" is "workplace culture." Many musicians are living a second or even third shift lifestyle. Bars and clubs are the environment, and people who enjoy the recreational habits in those places are the audience. A working musician is primed to constantly be tempted by those vices.
Before he was a well-known TV show host, Anthony Bourdain was a chef, and he wrote extensively about his struggles with addiction, gaining popularity for the memoir-ish Kitchen Confidential, which revealed the seedy underbelly of the restaurant industry. Drug and alcohol abuse is common in that industry, as well. Knowing alcohol is often part of the job description. But it's also a (mostly) second shift job. When you finally get out, it's late, bars are closing, but you're nowhere near wound down enough to just go to bed, so you find after-hours hangouts to spend your time. There's that old saying that 'nothing good happens after midnight,' but that's a prime social hour in that industry. Then the next day you have to do it all over again, facing often very long shifts with minimal breaks, and that lends itself to abusing other substances.
So I suppose what I'm saying is that in a very real sense, participating in those industries is basically increasing the odds of substances abuse and addiction. It's not a requirement, of course, and there are people who manage just fine, or don't work jobs in environments with those vices. But on average, it's certainly a major factor. And for a few generations of musicians, "sex, drugs, and rock & roll" was kind of the point.
Davy Graham said in an interview once that he started heroin because it seemed like that's what successful musicians do. That suggests a couple of predictions.
1. The problem is industry-wide rather than just seen among the most prominent musicians. (Graham was influential but never "famous".)
2. The problem is genre-specific. (Graham was referring to jazz etc. Maybe classical musicians don't struggle as much?)
I also wonder how musicians compare to the general population...
Your chart of drug abuse by decade should be overlaid with the amount of money earned by musicians. I suspect it would be a very similar chart. Drug abuse costs a lot of money.
(Secondly, a chart whose Y-axis only goes to 15% is a little dishonest. A casual viewer would think that ALL musicians in the 60's were on drugs, whereas it was only 15%.)
Nice work. I really enjoyed this piece of work. I an a hack musician but love me some d rugs. Or I did. Now I am a straight as the pollcats say. Kurt was murdered by another lesser performer. Music is the means to move the masses. It is the most moving medium available. Those that catch the lightning usually chase that. That is unobtainium but for in front of an audience.
It is an auditory medium the provokes the rest of the senses. Visual arts get the eyes and heart. Music gets the all 5 of them firing and memory perception thrown into the mix. Religion isn't the opiate of the masses. It is music. It can be a good as any hit, fix, bump, or puff. It is what dreams are made of and where they come from. Next time you are aware you are dreaming listen. It is always there.... The holy note.
Ok, so I know this is a little off topic, but why is chess listed on the shortest average lifespan by profession chart? I understand all the other professions listed, but chess!? I mean it even comes before football for goodness sakes.
Chess requires intense mental exercise while not necessarily resulting in a lot of money (it's very difficult to make a living off of just chess tournaments). In the past, there've also been claims of correlation between chess and insanity; there's been some famous chess players who suffered from mental issues later in life. From what I know, it seems to be more of a correlation than causation, but with those kinds of factors it might not be so surprising to see chess players on the list.
It's definitely surprising to see it listed to that extreme, though.
Perhaps there's a selection effect happening. Maybe people who are chess players when they are young and go on to live a long life end up more strongly associated with a different (adult) profession rather than chess.
This is an excellent and detailed analysis. I wonder if part of the dip in the 2010s is due to a current lack of data for those years, as the details and extent of celebrity addiction often only come out years later, unless the celebrity dies.
Wouldn't you need to compare musicians' use of drugs and alcohol with the general population/demographic subgroup? For example, heroin was a scourge of African-American inner cities in the 1940s and 50s, and many jazz musicians lived in that milieu, so there would be nothing especially enlightening in the association of jazz musicians and heroin addiction if they suffered this addiction at comparable rates to their non-musician neighbors. (Incidentally, Miles Davis had kicked his habit years before "Kind of Blue.")
This is really great. I want to add two comments, one of them niggling:
"Is Miles Davis' heroin use inseparable from a song like "Blue in Green...?" - Seeing as how Miles kicked heroin in 1954, five years before recording Kind of Blue, and seeing as how Bill Evans actually wrote "Blue in Green," I doubt there's much impact. (Though Evans might have been using by then, soooo...)
But I think you're right about the impossibility of healthy music stardom, especially because musical virtuosity is most likely to develop in people who are comfortable practicing alone for hours and hours on end. Musicians, in my experience, tend to be rather shy. Which means you have introverts who are suddenly on stage and in the middle of everything all the time, and they can't cope. I'm an introvert myself, and that lifestyle sounds like hell to me.
I think an important factor to consider in this "industry" is "workplace culture." Many musicians are living a second or even third shift lifestyle. Bars and clubs are the environment, and people who enjoy the recreational habits in those places are the audience. A working musician is primed to constantly be tempted by those vices.
Before he was a well-known TV show host, Anthony Bourdain was a chef, and he wrote extensively about his struggles with addiction, gaining popularity for the memoir-ish Kitchen Confidential, which revealed the seedy underbelly of the restaurant industry. Drug and alcohol abuse is common in that industry, as well. Knowing alcohol is often part of the job description. But it's also a (mostly) second shift job. When you finally get out, it's late, bars are closing, but you're nowhere near wound down enough to just go to bed, so you find after-hours hangouts to spend your time. There's that old saying that 'nothing good happens after midnight,' but that's a prime social hour in that industry. Then the next day you have to do it all over again, facing often very long shifts with minimal breaks, and that lends itself to abusing other substances.
So I suppose what I'm saying is that in a very real sense, participating in those industries is basically increasing the odds of substances abuse and addiction. It's not a requirement, of course, and there are people who manage just fine, or don't work jobs in environments with those vices. But on average, it's certainly a major factor. And for a few generations of musicians, "sex, drugs, and rock & roll" was kind of the point.
Brilliant stuff!
Davy Graham said in an interview once that he started heroin because it seemed like that's what successful musicians do. That suggests a couple of predictions.
1. The problem is industry-wide rather than just seen among the most prominent musicians. (Graham was influential but never "famous".)
2. The problem is genre-specific. (Graham was referring to jazz etc. Maybe classical musicians don't struggle as much?)
I also wonder how musicians compare to the general population...
Its amazing how much work you put in for these
Your chart of drug abuse by decade should be overlaid with the amount of money earned by musicians. I suspect it would be a very similar chart. Drug abuse costs a lot of money.
(Secondly, a chart whose Y-axis only goes to 15% is a little dishonest. A casual viewer would think that ALL musicians in the 60's were on drugs, whereas it was only 15%.)
Really interesting exploration. Thank you.
Nice work. I really enjoyed this piece of work. I an a hack musician but love me some d rugs. Or I did. Now I am a straight as the pollcats say. Kurt was murdered by another lesser performer. Music is the means to move the masses. It is the most moving medium available. Those that catch the lightning usually chase that. That is unobtainium but for in front of an audience.
It is an auditory medium the provokes the rest of the senses. Visual arts get the eyes and heart. Music gets the all 5 of them firing and memory perception thrown into the mix. Religion isn't the opiate of the masses. It is music. It can be a good as any hit, fix, bump, or puff. It is what dreams are made of and where they come from. Next time you are aware you are dreaming listen. It is always there.... The holy note.
this is so interesting. i find the drastic dip in the 2000s and 2010s to be especially shocking
Because it was all computer generated crap. There was no heart left in the industry. Country was the big push from the execs trying to chase a buck.
Would love to see one of these for runners