Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!kissell From: kissell@spar.UUCP Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: The disdain for newer music Message-ID: <13@spar.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 16:32:15 EST Article-I.D.: spar.13 Posted: Wed Dec 19 16:32:15 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 00:59:09 EST References: <277@ssc-vax.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 30 > > How many times have you heard/read one of the following? > > "I like their old stuff much better." > "They've really sold out." > "They were better before they became so famous." > > While this is true in some cases (Manhattan Transfer?), I submit that in > many cases this is an expression partially of elitism and partially of a > Reaganesque feeling that `nothing can be as good as the old days', rather > than a fair appraisal of the music. > There are very good reasons why the quality of a commercial artist's work often declines in the course of a successful career. These apply to popular visual and literary forms as well as to music, but I'll try and describe them from a rocker's perspective. Most bands have at least two full sets of material worked out for their live act before they get any sort of record contract and exposure. This material is often the product of many years of writing, arranging, and refining. So the first album or two usually contain the very best of 5-10 man-years of work. After that, a recording group is expected to produce an LP every 12 to 24 months, which is pretty taxing for all but the most prolific composers. It's a lot easier to be daring when you have nothing to lose. Success is so fleeting a thing that once a performer has achieved it, he/she/they will think two or three times before deviating from whatever it was that they did that worked. Mortgage payments make conservatives of us all.