|
|
Post by Russg on Aug 12, 2017 12:40:20 GMT
Hear me out. Sometimes I feel short changed as an MJ fan, that his career and life was cut short and I can't help but wonder what else he could've gone onto create. And then I think of artists like Prince, Madonna and Janet -- Michael's contemporaries - and I think of their output over the last decade. Did anything they released have the same kind of impact or power of their classic 80s/90s works? Undoubtedly the answer is a resounding no.
So I guess the question is, do albums like MDNA, Rebel Heart, Discipline, Unbreakable, Art Official Age and PlectrumElectrum add anything to these artists canon of work? Even putting aside commercial and cultural impact, just strictly speaking in terms of creativity, are their back catalogues any the richer for the existence of these albums?
I've lost count of the amount of times a legendary artist or band has put out a new album only for fans to bemoan that it pales in comparison to their earlier works. Practically every artist who has enjoyed longevity in their career has faced these kind of comments from their audience and critics. Look at Invincible for example.
So is it better to burn out than to fade away? Would you like MJ to have continued making albums that weren't necessarily up to the impossible standards he set for himself back in his creative and commercial peak? Is something better than nothing? Or is it better not to have diluted the quality of his back catalogue with underpar releases?
This thread isn't strictly about MJ, more legendary artists in general. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Aug 12, 2017 17:18:22 GMT
As a fan of Michael Jackson, Prince and Madonna, I think these legends are always going to be "haunted" by their classic, earlier releases. It must be quite a frustration for them to keep moving forward but to be constantly compared to previous hit albums.
Personally, I am grateful for their entire back catalogue - including the apparent "weaker" releases. There is generally at least a few strong tracks on each album, even if they are mixed in with the not so great stuff. And as a music fan, I want to hear it. Better to have some good tracks from artists I love, than none at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Aug 14, 2017 21:26:27 GMT
Yes, it is always worth it, otherwise what's left of these artists? The minute they stop being creative what do you have to look forward to as a fan? Boring greatest hits compilations and touring the same old songs over and over again? No thanks. Give me a new album any day of the week.
|
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Aug 15, 2017 6:09:51 GMT
Yes, it is always worth it, otherwise what's left of these artists? The minute they stop being creative what do you have to look forward to as a fan? Boring greatest hits compilations and touring the same old songs over and over again? No thanks. Give me a new album any day of the week. I think part of the problem is, many fans fall in love with an artist at a certain time, and a certain album resonates with them on so many levels and fans want/expect a repeat experience of that with every new release. And that just ain't going to happen. The artist changes, tries new things and the fan wonders why they don't sound the same as the artist they fell in love with twenty years previous. |
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Aug 15, 2017 13:19:17 GMT
I still think there's something to be said for stopping at your peak. Imagine if Prince had retired from recording after the 80s or if MJs last album was HIStory. Their back catalogues would be untouchable in terms of quality. With every subsequent mediocre release, the overall quality of their catalogue gets further diluted.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Aug 16, 2017 4:55:43 GMT
I think so, sometimes those later works have qualities that the earlier albums don't. Sometimes those artists take chances they hadn't when they were younger.
For example, young Prince was a very rebellious and independent and his peak was for sure 1982-1987 but on the flip side, a song like The Holy River wasn't put out until he was in his late 30s and deeply introspective cuts like Breakdown or Way Back Home when he was 56
Same goes for Michael. If his last album was HIStory, we wouldn't have gotten Morphine or Is It Scary or Butterflies
by the same token, there are artists who get older and it becomes....embarrassing lol
|
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Aug 16, 2017 9:03:56 GMT
by the same token, there are artists who get older and it becomes....embarrassing lol Like Madonna? |
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Aug 24, 2017 12:02:17 GMT
I still think there's something to be said for stopping at your peak. Imagine if Prince had retired from recording after the 80s or if MJs last album was HIStory. Their back catalogues would be untouchable in terms of quality. With every subsequent mediocre release, the overall quality of their catalogue gets further diluted. I really don't agree with this. What does it even mean for a catalogue to be diluted? Are albums like HIStory, Bad or Dangerous less great just because he released an album afterwards that you didn't think was as good? I think sometimes people fall in love with a certain sound or style from an artist and then find it hard to adapt when they change their approach or embrace new styles. I think this is largely why a lot of fans have such trouble accepting Invincible. It is very different from Dangerous or HIStory. |
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,492 
|
Post by TonyR on Aug 24, 2017 12:38:08 GMT
This question annoys me! Of course not, as lomg as they are doing new songs & not falling into the Rod Stewart of just releasing nostaliga shit like 'The Great American Songbook'.
I know it's not her most popular work, but in my opinion Madonna's best albums have come post-peak and even when they're not great they still have quality stuff on them.
For many MJ peaked with Thriller & Bad, so we would have no Dangerous or HIStory.
Also, how do you know what your peak is? I don't imagine anyone releases an album & thinks. 'Well that was amazing, I better stop now'.
A proper artist makes music because it's their vocation & not just for sales anyway so then stopping making it would be akin to stopping breathing.
|
|
Huey
Wondering Who
Celebrating life !
Posts: 65 
|
Post by Huey on Aug 24, 2017 22:17:41 GMT
It is always worth it. I don't like artists who release a great and successful album and disappear afterwards. I think a music artist who really loves music will never stop creating music till his/her last breath.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistermaxxx08 on Sept 10, 2017 20:21:22 GMT
yeah because i can think of acts
like
Natalie Cole and what if she didn't release Unforgettable and do a duet with her father as it was?
what if Stevie Wonder didn't put out that girl and do i do after his classic run?
what if R.kelly didn't put out Ignition and Step in the name of love after his early run?
Whitney Houston hadn't done i will always love you and the bodyguard? she had nothing to Prove
after her 80's run
James Brown could have stopped because he would tear your behind up on stage
however he kept on going.
so it all depends on the artist.
obviously just like with athletes there is prime and peak.
back in the day
you could have an act like like Kenny Rogers and the Bee Gees ,and others whom changed
|
|
