New Albums Devaluing a Band's History

Thatfabulousalien wrote: No it doesn't effect the quality of the older stuff you so dearly love but it sure can change your perception of that said band/musician

Agree; good point.

I could imagine growing to hate the early stuff if you really loathed the later stuff. For instance, you had an artist who you both admired and loved the music of, but later on not only did the music change, but also the message.   

Let's say that the politics in the lyrics changed to become totally alien to your ideological views/ morality/ ethics - at first the artist wrote about peace and love and care for the environment, and you happen to be someone who likes peace and love and cares for the environment, and later the artist became someone who sincerely espouses hatred and violence in songs such as "Turn all Greenies into Compost then Torch the Earth". In some cases it might make me question the sincerity of the themes in the early albums too.

lazland wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: freyacat wrote: Here is a question to ponder: If you are a fan of one of the classic prog-rock greats, like Yes, ELP, King Crimson, or Genesis, one of the bands who were around in the 70's, and that band releases a new album which (almost inevitably) fails to recapture the glory of their peak years, does it devalue their earlier accomplishments in your view? Does a bad new album make the earlier ones seem less good? No, I just don't buy it. I have made my mind to believe that Genesis split after W&W And I think that Genesis made some great music post Wind & Wuthering. Duke remains one of my favourite albums of all time.

This might be controversial, but I don't think most, if any bands, should continue on for longer than perhaps 15 years (the length of time is variable). Musicians should continually be looking for new avenues and new people to play alongside. Look at Fred Frith, he remained intriguing for decades by continually joining new groups and playing new styles (and even instruments), thus averting creative stagnancy. Classic rock groups continually touring the same hits they've been playing for 40 or even 50 years is simply depressing to me. Naturally, there are exceptions (King Crimson perhaps?) but these are mostly facilitated again by a constantly shuffling lineup of players and styles. Music listening and playing alike need to constantly be reinvigorated. Never settle into a single genre or time period; life is too short for that. 

mechanicalflattery wrote: This might be controversial, but I don't think most, if any bands, should continue on for longer than perhaps 15 years (the length of time is variable). Musicians should continually be looking for new avenues and new people to play alongside. Look at Fred Frith, he remained intriguing for decades by continually joining new groups and playing new styles (and even instruments), thus averting creative stagnancy. Classic rock groups continually touring the same hits they've been playing for 40 or even 50 years is simply depressing to me. Naturally, there are exceptions (King Crimson perhaps?) but these are mostly facilitated again by a constantly shuffling lineup of players and styles. Music listening and playing alike need to constantly be reinvigorated. Never settle into a single genre or time period; life is too short for that.

I think it depends on the bands/artists. On some it might work one way, on others not. Perhaps they should just stop, or wait until they truly have some new inspiration. Or sometimes they just shift their stile in such a radical way (whether the change is fueled by line-up changes or just artistic exploration may not be so important) that they do great stuff still... but to a totally new audience (such as Genesis), so that old fans may find the new stuff terrible, while they find many new ones. Sometimes artists just loose their inspiration and won't create great new music anymor, no matter how many formats of cooperations they try out... or sometimes they end up unable to do great full albums anymore, but keep on releasing great essential tracks within most albums (there are many artists I would put in this category, including some of my very favourite ones).

Absolutely not, I can't despise bands as for instance : YES and his masterpieces (Fragile, CTTE, Relayer) due to Big Generator or, EL&P (Tarkus , BSS, Trylogy) due to Love Beach !

I just ignore Calling All Stations...

I generally just tend to ignore newer albums by classic bands unless I hear really good things about them. Bands often just lose out in the long run whether due to a change in members, change in sound, or too much repetition. I don't think any crappy albums by any band devalues their other works. No artist has a perfect career without ups and downs. If anything, the lows make the highs stand out that much more. The later Genesis, Yes, and ELP albums just make me appreciate their earlier works all that much more. 

f**k to captcha

It's nice when the decline is slow and drawn out although that can make it difficult to decide exactly where to cut off before the diminishing returns spoil a collection of great albums.