is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter day sins, is it better to burn out or fade away
It is fair to criticize bad music, regardless of whatever the artist released previously
In terms of legacy, it is better to burn out. Imagine if Neil Young died in the mid 70s. His legacy would be very different today if he hadn't released all of those questionable albums from 1976-present. On the contrary, imagine if after his solo album, Mark Hollis just kept releasing shit until the quality was mediocre and nobody gave a shit about him anymore. His legacy would be worse than it is right now.
>>61572316
>formerly great artist.
It's been fucking like 5 and a bit years, bands have taken longer than that to make an album. Give him a break.
>>61572907
interesting post. Agreed Neil Young would be GOAT if he had dropped dead after Harvest
Yes.
PIC.
FUCKING.
RELATED.
People who obsess over an artist's "legacy" don't actually about the music itself, but rather the mystique surrounding the performers and composers. Music artists aren't really seen as human beings who happen to have certain talents to these folks. Instead, they view them in the same way a child would view a character in a fairy tale, as a far off fable about what it means to be a great individual. Depressed musicians such as Nick Drake and Ian Curtis tend to receive the most romanticization likely due to many of these sort of music fans being depressed themselves, instilling into many the mindset that it's better to die after your best record than to live on to record a couple of mediocre albums. Again, they don't care about the people themselves, as long as their entire body of work is supposedly perfect. This mindset also implicitly discourages stylistic exploration and sonic experimentation in the songwriting process, as the possibility of "failure" on one record as the result of such attempts to expand sonically will in turn result in talk of the artist having "ruined" their discography. In reality, such generalization of an artist's body of work is just foolish because one lackluster record simply doesn't effect the quality of a good one, and treating the artists themselves as ultimately being anything other people than people with talent in their craft is fucking childish.
In short, why the fuck do you even care?
>>61572316
good music is good music. unless he kills my family or something i doubt an artist can do something bad enough to ruin my memory of the good work he's made
Is there any artist whose music got better as they got older?
I'm genuinely struggling to think of any.
>>61573626
Johnny Cash
>>61573626
Brand New.
>starts off shitty pop-punk
>middle album is GOAT
>third album is great
sometimes i wish kurt koolbain hadnt died so people didnt love nirvana so much
>>61573650
wooop forgot about Deja Entendu.
>shitty pop punk
>good pop punk
>GOAT emo
>great emo
>>61573626
Tom Waits
>>61572316
George Lucas was never a great artist.
>>61573657
yeah as if nirvana weren't already the biggest band in the world in 1991 lmao
>>61573811
American Graffiti is an 8/10 movie desu
>>61573626
Scott Walker
>>61573626
beatles
>>61573636
Is that true? It seems his best shit came out in the 60's.
>>61573515
This
Maybe that shitty album you didn't like was something that they really felt proud of.
>>61573626
Fucking Swans, man. Anyone who like regularly comes here should know that much.
>>61573515
Dead on point
AFI went from being one of my favourite bands before Decemberunderground (they declined before that as well) to something I don't listen to new releases of with that album being the catalyst. I still listen to their old stuff sometimes though when the nostalgia hits me.
>>61573515
This.
>>61573662
ye, i liked the way they matured
also, radiohead, imo
>>61573103
>implying CaCatBY is bad
>>61573080
You mean after Zuma, otherwise you're ditching some of Neil's best albums
