Just Announced Commentary - 2011 Edition

[atomicfront]

but Atomicfront raises an important question...

let's say a musician played the best show of his life... and only 10 people were there... is that  a has been?

the show was the best show of his life... is what determines whether you're a has been or not what people who aren't even there think of you? seems odd...

jesus christ you know Morrissey is a freaking has-been.  If he only played his last 3 albums would most people enjoy the show?

[atomicfront]

It's not possible music has to be popular before its considered good

Not at all.  The Replacements best album by far is "Let it Be".  they weren't popular.  WHen they got popular they weren't very good. You can actually be a has-been and sell more copies than when you were good.  The fact that a lot of you can't determine when an act starts going on a downward spiral with their musical output somehow is a mystery to me.

[atomicfront]

Which begs the question of at which populatity point does a band's music turn from bad to good.  A one point for instance Coldplay was just another band giging around the UK and had a single on a small indie label.  When did their output magically become good?  1000, 5000, 10K fans?  Enquiring minds want to know...

I think some of the 'popular' backlash arises when a band deliberately smooths out its sound in a clear attempt to sell more units. I still think Coldplay's first album is a great guitar album but subsequent albums centered all around Chris Martin's voice and piano, and I lost interest.

Similar with Metallica. Even when they were selling millions of copies of Master of Puppets and Justice for All, they still kept their core constituency, but when they slowed the songs down and made them much more user-friendly on the Black album, that's when people cried foul.

There's always the snob factor of not liking something after everyone else discovers them, but a lot of times it's the band's own fault.

THe only decent Metallica album was the Black Album. 

[atomicfront]

Which begs the question of at which populatity point does a band's music turn from bad to good.  A one point for instance Coldplay was just another band giging around the UK and had a single on a small indie label.  When did their output magically become good?  1000, 5000, 10K fans?  Enquiring minds want to know...

THeir music was good from day one.  Putting out quality album year after year while doing amazing shows is what increased their popularity. I mean Travis put out a decent album or two and then they started putting out shit albums. They could have become as big as Coldplay Same with Snow Patrol.  And Keene really only had that one album before they started putting out crap.

I find it funny that people think that bands just become popular by luck.  Bands like U2 and Coldplay have gotten that big by putting out quality album after quality album and putting a lot of effort into their shows.  Going back to the early 80's you could tell that Depeche Mode and the Cure were the bands that would get huge.  And bands like the Fall and the Replacements would amount to shit...

[vansmack]

Seeing small bands become popular serves only to reinforce how brilliant I am.

Watching them fade away serves only to demonstrate how old I am getting.

[hutch]

but Atomicfront raises an important question...

let's say a musician played the best show of his life... and only 10 people were there... is that  a has been?

the show was the best show of his life... is what determines whether you're a has been or not what people who aren't even there think of you? seems odd...

jesus christ you know Morrissey is a freaking has-been.  If he only played his last 3 albums would most people enjoy the show?

But this is imbecilic to the core. What are you measuring in a live performance? The live performance or if the "new songs are as good as the old on the records"?

I saw Joao Gilberto play at Carnegie Hall about 8 years ago... he probably didn't play any song he'd composed in a few decades. It was just him and his acoustic guitar...he was in his mid 70s... it was magnificent.. Am I supposed to say because the songs were old he's a has been? At the end of the day its the PERFORMANCE that matters in judging a concert and not when the songs were written or by who...seems to me.

As far as Morrissey I must admit I haven't listened to his latest stuff much (one of the records was so brickwalled) but if people are selling out his shows at record prices then that does not seem like a "has been"... I did think, of the songs I heard, that some seemed pretty vintage Moz to me (ie., America is not the World)...But Atomicfront, let me ask you this about Moz, do you think Kill Uncle was the work of a  has been because that is one of my favorites.. the fact the critics hated it means zero to me.... or Your Arsenal or Vauxhall.. are those the work of a has been?

But it is my opinion that even if every record for the past 20 years sucked if the artist can still bring it live and people leave a show happy then that is not a has been..that is a succesful performer and it doesn't matter if there are 10 people there who leave happy or 10,000...

[chaz]

When atomicfront soliloquizes on a band's brilliance he seriously sounds like  Patrick Bateman going on and on about Phil Collins or Huey Lewis.

[sweetcell]

THe only decent Metallica album was the Black Album. 

mark your calendars, folks, because today is the day that atomicfront has officially become a parody of himself.

[atomicfront]

Morrissey was putting out top quality songs through Vauxhall and I.

But I was thinking last night isn't it better for a band to like the Who and stop putting out albums when they can't put out great songs anymore and just tour or be a band like the Rolling Stones who put out crap album after crap album?

[atomicfront]

When atomicfront soliloquizes on a band's brilliance he seriously sounds like  Patrick Bateman going on and on about Phil Collins or Huey Lewis.

hey those were the best parts of the movie.  and i have to agree with patrick that Phil's solo work was a lot better than anything genesis ever put out.

[hutch]

I also think part of the reason an artist tends to have a curve of popularity is that after say 10 years their audience kind of moves on...its easy to identify with Moz in your teens and 20s but by the time you're having kids in your late 30s/40s who needs it?

I think that is the case with a lot of musicians..their fans kind of move on..so the sales are not always a reflection of the quality of their newer material

[atomicfront]

I also think part of the reason an artist tends to have a curve of popularity is that after say 10 years their audience kind of moves on...its easy to identify with Moz in your teens and 20s but by the time you're having kids in your late 30s/40s who needs it?

I think that is the case with a lot of musicians..their fans kind of move on..so the sales are not always a reflection of the quality of their newer material

well also the artists that were putting out an album a year when they were younger start putting an album out every 4 or 5 years and then people forget about them.

[kosmo vinyl]

Which begs the question of at which populatity point does a band's music turn from bad to good.  A one point for instance Coldplay was just another band giging around the UK and had a single on a small indie label.  When did their output magically become good?  1000, 5000, 10K fans?  Enquiring minds want to know...

I think some of the 'popular' backlash arises when a band deliberately smooths out its sound in a clear attempt to sell more units. I still think Coldplay's first album is a great guitar album but subsequent albums centered all around Chris Martin's voice and piano, and I lost interest.

Similar with Metallica. Even when they were selling millions of copies of Master of Puppets and Justice for All, they still kept their core constituency, but when they slowed the songs down and made them much more user-friendly on the Black album, that's when people cried foul.

There's always the snob factor of not liking something after everyone else discovers them, but a lot of times it's the band's own fault.

You are over thinking my query... It's a known fact that until a band achieves a certain level of  success/popularity they suck.  So given most bands/artist (excluding supergroups, side projects, solo careers from established bands, American Idol contestants, etc) start out with essentially the same fan base (comprised of friends, girlfriends, parents, drunks at the local open mic night, people using laptops in a coffeehouse, if they are lucky a few bloggers) , even a band that gets wildly popular will at have suritome point sucked.  This is even if the band hasn't changed it's sound, talent or vision from day one.  I just wonder that magical point is when a band stops sucking?

There is of course the Beach House caveat. 

The lingered in obscurity too long clause (i.e. Elliott Smith)

The artist didn't get success until featured in a Volkswagon AD clause. (i.e Nick Drake)

[Relaxer]

Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

[hutch]

oh I don't know that i agree with this.. the reason established musicians put out less albums is because the money these days is entirely from touring... there's little money to be made from a new album...

that is why for example the pixies don't out anything out....nothing to be gained

30 years ago it was the opposite.. the money was from the album..the tour was to promote the album.. now its the other way around and established musicians don't really need to promote a tour....

now new musicians need to promote tours/get on the map..that is why they put out more albums

a disincentive for established musicians to put out new albums is of course people like you who are permanently comparing a band's new music to the old and invariably saying it doesn't measure up so they are has beens... easier not to put anything out at all and not have to deal with the inevitable backlash... the list of musicians that put out albums for say 15 years and people think the new stuff is as good as the classic stuff is very small


but Atomicfront I think there are many reasons why the "new stuff" is often not as good as the "old stuff" and a big part is context..... you can only fall in love with a band one time... that first time you get into them when they're "NEW"... you can't repeat that.... no matter how good the new stuff is.... and the critics will savage you after a while either for not evolving enough or for sounding too little like the old stuff.. can't win

moreover, lets face it..most songs are about L O V E and once you hit a certain age you sound pretty stupid singing about L O V E... i mean robert smith singing about Mary at 50+ is sorta hard to get into no? just doesn't work partly also because we get older and the stuff about L O V E starts to sound kind of cliche... just like the WOE IS ME stuff may work for a teenager / 20 something but by the time you hit your late 30s you're in the real world and thats been left behind.. meanwhile the newer generations want their own heroes/gods/musicians....they don't want to adopt the ones of the prior generation.. in fact they , in some ways, define themselves by looking down on the previous established totem poles...

I guess what I'm saying is there are a whole host of reasons why invariably its very hard to remain relevant beyond the natural curve.. a few can do it... a great poet like Leonard Cohen.. a Bob Dylan who continually reinvents himself and in his last incarnation directly cribs the lyrics and music from past masters... but he's Bob Dylan so nobody going to call him on it too bad...besides its the blues...all about the cribbing...

and if you can't remain "relevant" beyond the natural curve- for a whole host of factors largely outside your control- you're going to be called a "has been"...just the way the cookie crumbles.. but if you go see a Robert Smith live and he's performing as well as ever before and playing a three hour show ...35 songs or whatever.... is he really a has been? playing for a happy sold out crowd..thats a has been?