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.