Longevity or Perfection?

DerekD Goldfish

Not sure if this should be included here or in general music
Its not specific to Alt& Indie but as many of the examples I will use could be described as such I thought id include it here.
Anyway..

What Im wondering is what people value greater in thier opinion of a band/artist
-An artists total body of work how long and consistently they released good music
or
-How good thier best album is

My opinion which I suspect is in the minority although I could be wrong is thatits the latter.

Music is (or should be) Art and the goal of the artist should be to create the best peice of music they can not carve as successful a career as they can.

There have been many acts who have only released one or two great albums before splitting or destroying themselves with drugs or worse of all releasing muck for the rest of thier career.

For example comparing MBV to Cocteau Twins
MBV released one astonishing album "Loveless" and one pretty good one
before Kevin Sheilds over perfectionism ment they never released another album
Cocteau Twins significantly influenced MBV and released lots of great albums but never one outstanding one and for this reason I hold MBV in higher regard.

Lou Reed has released mostly tripe since Velvet Underground split up yet despite this his VU stuff is so good (A lot of credit must go to John Cale to) his can release muck for the next 30 years for all I care and he still is IMO
more Important than Bowie who has released many great albums "Low" probably being the best of them but as it isnt as good as the first 3 velvets albums despite bowie released far more geat albums than Reed he will always be less Important to music IMO.

I could go on with more examples but I would just be remaking the same point
so what do others think is more important an Artist body of work or thier stab at perfection?

rowlandbrowner

The only thing that’s relevant to me in terms of longevity is “why are they still doing this”. As far as I’m concerned a band can keep going as long as their intentions are honest and, not like a lot of the reformations we’ve seen this century, and most of the bands that’ve been around too long, purely monetarily driven. If the music they release is still good, challenging and interesting and maintains some of what appealed to me in their early work then that’s a credit to them, but when a band spend the bulk of their latter years releasing bad records it can detract from their legacy, but as I said, imo their failures should at least be viewed as honourable if they intentions are such.

There is something wonderful about a band releasing an album and dropping off the face of the planet, leaving behind one solitary artefact and little other traces of their existence. Something like The Monks – Black Monk Time.

a note on MBV, they released some moderately bad albums long before loveless

lordgoat

Or a combination of both.

DerekD Goldfish

rowlandbrowner wrote: »

The only thing that’s relevant to me in terms of longevity is “why are they still doing this”. As far as I’m concerned a band can keep going as long as their intentions are honest and, not like a lot of the reformations we’ve seen this century, and most of the bands that’ve been around too long, purely monetarily driven. If the music they release is still good, challenging and interesting and maintains some of what appealed to me in their early work then that’s a credit to them, but when a band spend the bulk of their latter years releasing bad records it can detract from their legacy, but as I said, imo their failures should at least be viewed as honourable if they intentions are such.

There is something wonderful about a band releasing an album and dropping off the face of the planet, leaving behind one solitary artefact and little other traces of their existence. Something like The Monks – Black Monk Time.

a note on MBV, they released some moderately bad albums long before loveless

Im aware MBV had other records
im not sure I was clear enough about what I ment(wouldnt be the first time)

I didnt mean a band who had only released one album I just ment when other people are rating artists in thier mind do they consider the height of their powers or there overall output as the determining factor

Captain Darling

this is a tough question because one persons opinion on a band (that is whether they are at the height of their powers) may be different to the next.

For example, I love all the albums released by the Pixies, whereas some people would say that Surfer Rosa and Come on Pilgrim were their truly great releases and disregard Bosanova etc. Its a matter of personal opinion whether a band are at the height of their powers or not.......

If i like what i hear i'll buy it. There are still some bands whose albums i'll buy because of the quality of past releases, i think we all do it to a degree for different bands. Thats what keeps the saggy arses of U2 and the Rolling Stones trundling around the world.

PeadarofAodh

Paul Mc Cartney springs to mind...all the mindless tripe after the Beatles! I'll always hold him in very high regard because of the songs he wrote while still in the band, but the amount of cheesey rubbish he released afterwards does take away somewhat!

ZakAttak

I'm a big rock fan but also like a bit of hip hop/rap music;

Dr. Dre started off his career in the rap group N.W.A., he was with them for a number of years. Then he went solo and did that for a while. Then he started writing songs for other people. Then he started to produce albums for other people. Then he set up his own label and started to sign and produce his own acts. At the moment he is the producer/writer and manager of several successful rap/hip hop artists.

You'll notice that throughout his career he evolved, changed jobs and developed his skills. The odd time you'll see him doing concerts or appearing on tracks- but these days he's usually producing and writing. Either way its been over 20 years and he's still heavily involved in music.

Thats where rock bands fvcked up. Instead of using their skills to spot talent and produce their work (which is what young talent needs, someone to show them the ropes- who better than a once successful rock musician?). Instead they thought their success would last forever and they weren't smart enough to figure out that energetic live rock concerts are much more difficult to partake in at the age of 40/50. And also, that times change and that contemporary rock music cannot be done by musicians from a different era, and instead should done by those who are young enough to have an untainted outlook.

That way a musician can be involved in the industry for many years after their initial success is over- and still have a creative input.

Bubs101

ZakAttak wrote: »

.

Thats where rock bands fvcked up. Instead of using their skills to spot talent and produce their work (which is what young talent needs, someone to show them the ropes- who better than a once successful rock musician?). Instead they thought their success would last forever and they weren't smart enough to figure out that energetic live rock concerts are much more difficult to partake in at the age of 40/50. And also, that times change and that contemporary rock music cannot be done by musicians from a different era, and instead should done by those who are young enough to have an untainted outlook.

.

Yes but charging ridiculous amounts for concerts ala the Rolling Stones or KISS gets much easier as you get older as the threat of the impending death of the members means the fans are more likely to want to see them again. The way the Stones have gone about their career is smarter than Dre. They could easily make more money touring for a year than Dre could producing and writing. Dre is also creating competitors for himself.

As regard to the original question I'll use KISS as an example. Does the fact they have whored themselves beyond anybody's expectations make Dressed to Kill, Love Gun and Destroyer sound bad. No. The albums are still classics regardless of what the band do after

ZakAttak

The way the Stones have gone about their career is smarter than Dre. They could easily make more money touring for a year than Dre could producing and writing. Dre is also creating competitors for himself.

==>But when you're in your late 30s-40s, and you have kids, as Dr. Dre and the Stones do- then you might want not to go on tour and stay with your family, I say this because you hear numerous musicians complaining about this.

==>Dre doesn't compete with them, he has the sense to know that young people's music is a young person's game- thats why he doesn't perform anymore. And besides, everytime a competitior sells an album (whichever way its done) Dre earns a royalty- so its all good.

Bubs101

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Dre doesn't compete with them, he has the sense to know that young people's music is a young person's game- thats why he doesn't perform anymore. And besides, everytime a competitior sells an album (whichever way its done) Dre earns a royalty- so its all good.

So your saying that Dre doesn't compete with the young rappers, which I agree with. However, those young rappers turn into producers like Dre's protege Eminem who was at the helm for alot of 50's stuff who was then helping The Game along. Those 3 are all now in direct competition with each other are they not. Also, with the exception of the Game they have all turned to producing

ZakAttak

Bubs101 wrote: »

So your saying that Dre doesn't compete with the young rappers, which I agree with. However, those young rappers turn into producers like Dre's protege Eminem who was at the helm for alot of 50's stuff who was then helping The Game along. Those 3 are all now in direct competition with each other are they not. Also, with the exception of the Game they have all turned to producing

==>You're never going to be able to completely eradicate your competition- but you can postpone it. Besides, Dre is undisputadely the best of the lot.