Best Ever Albums

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

RoundTheBend — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 20:58:22 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 06/25/2020 00:58

You guys are cool.

Lots of great commentary.

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

spigelwii — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:41:08 GMT

Author: spigelwii

Posted: 06/24/2020 11:41

I'm a fan of Phish, a (primarily) live act that is somewhat notorious for changing its approach to live jamming and setlist construction every two-three years. Sometimes it can be frustrating from year to year when they abandon a successful approach that produces literally dozens of hours of excellent music (2015 -> 2016), but that transitional period often evolves into something that is just as excellent in a different way (2017, 2018).

To answer the question more directly, I'm willing to accept a new direction literally every year as long as it results in something enjoyable. I think it's okay if your favorite album by any given band is not their most recent one. It's never a good thing to chase ghosts of past success, because you risk stagnation.

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 07:09:31 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/24/2020 11:09

Oh. The three year iron law of stardom is interesting...

... but what about the Stones though? Taylor Swift? Coldplay?

I think it only applies to artists in the developing stages of their career. Once really big artists achieve a critical mass they seem able to just keep going (ad nauseum).

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

PurpleHazel — Wed, 24 Jun 2020 04:29:43 GMT

Author: PurpleHazel

Posted: 06/24/2020 08:29

There was an article in the New Yorker many years ago titled "The Iron Law of Stardom," that put forth the cultural theory, that the writer also called "the law of the three-year limit," "setting forth a theory of stardom based on a three-year cycle, applying to all kinds of celebrity." He later asserts, "the law governs every type of human endeavor, including politics and literature."

An abstract of the article, which summarizes the "law" is below, but the whole article, with more specific examples, is behind the paywall:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/03/24/the-iron-law-of-stardom

This is a more thorough explanation of the theory as it applies to The Beatles and Madonna, who he says basically reinvented themselves and thereby gained a second three-year-period of stardom (the idea of artists having to reinvent themselves after three years to sustain a peak is why I'm posting this in this thread):

One obvious apparent counterexample can be disposed of right at the start. “What about the Beatles?” a person might reasonably wonder. In 1964, they appeared on the “Ed Sullivan Show” and immediately went to the top of the charts, where they basically remained until 1970, when the group broke up. “Meet the Beatles” was a No. 1 album (1964); so were “Help!” (1965), “Rubber Soul” (1966), “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” (1967), the White Album (1968), “Abbey Road” (1969), and “Let It Be” (1970). That’s six years, not three…

The number six should give you a clue. The Beatles didn’t overcome the three-year limit; they simply enjoyed two consecutive three-year terms. In order to do this, they effectively had to be two different groups: lovable mop tops (1964-67), followed by hippie artistes (1967-70). If they had remained mop tops after 1967, they would have fallen from stardom, just as they would have if they had remained together as artistes after 1970.
…

A very small number of stars have, like the Beatles, reinvented themselves once—for example, Madonna, who enjoyed three years (1985-88 ) as the downtown queen of sexual hip and then three years (1989-92) as an uptown version of the same thing. But no star has ever done it successfully three times.

Once a star, always a star, of course—and that’s the problem. For stardom is not to be confused with being a star. "Stardom" is here used in a particular and technical sense, as the name for a discrete and recognizable episode in the life of a star. Stardom is the period of inevitability, the time when everything works in a way that makes you think it will work that way forever. The dial seems permanently tuned to the frequency at which the individual star is broadcasting. Stardom means (if you are the star) that nothing you do can be asymmetrical with what people want, because you are what people want. Stardom is the intersection of personality with history, a perfect congruence of the way the world happens to be and the way the star is.

The world, however, moves on. The star moves on, too, an animated relic of a moment now past. We often treasure the relic, which is why some people (Elizabeth Taylor) remain stars for decades after their original stardom (1963-66, from “Cleopatra” to “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”) is over. Stardom is what makes people stars, but although stars may shine forever, stardom always fades. It’s the difference be- tween being recognized in restaurants and being talked about in restaurants.

This theory was echoed by a thread here that, IIRC, pointed out that most rock artists have a 3-to-5-year peak period. Dylan was the main exception noted by members. Of course, it isn't as true for jazz, though Miles did reinvent himself at least once in his peak years:

First Great Quintet (/Sextet) - 1955-1959? (Coltrane was a member of his working band till 1960.) Kind of Blue -- released in 1959, at the end of the period -- is the album in this phase where he comes the closest to reinventing himself.

Second Great Quintet - 1965(?)-1968(?). Is the Second Great Quintet a reinvention? Music's still in the modal subgenre, though the music's significantly more abstract and adventurous than Kind of Blue.

Electric Miles - 1969-1972. Basically 4 years (close enough) between In a Silent Way and On the Corner. The albums after On the Corner aren't nearly as popular (only Get Up With It and In Concert were released outside of Japan at the time of recording, before Miles went into temporary retirement in 1976).

So there's a pattern that vaguely, fuzzily follows the "law," but the reinvention of the First Great Quintet period occurs at the end and the period might be 5 years. Big question whether the Second Great Quintet can be considered a reinvention -- maybe Louis Menand would say this period isn't quite popular enough to qualify.

The biggest contradiction of this "law" is that Menand claims that it applies to the poet T.S. Eliot. If you can say no movie star experiences "stardom" for three years without a reinvention of their image, how can you claim that T.S. Eliot was ever a star or celebrity? Another problem is that the article came out in 1997, right before Madonna's Ray of Light, which was the biggest reinvention of her career, and it's definitely a "stardom" kind of album.

Miles' In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew are great examples of an artist reinventing themselves after already making great music in another style. The previous album, Filles de Kilimanjaro, is a really good record, though not on the level of Miles Smiles, E.S.P., Kind of Blue, Sketches of Spain etc.

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

mickilennial — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 19:19:25 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 06/23/2020 23:19

baystateoftheart wrote:

Gowi wrote:

1. Is it good?
2. Was their preceding album great?
3. Is their new sound betraying who they are sonically as an artist?
4. Is it good?

What's an example of an album that is as good as its predecessor, but that you don't accept because you consider it a sonic betrayal?

Hard question because I'd have to find an album I think is as good as an album I think is great but the style is too much of a departure that I can't accept it. Can't think of one off the top of my head outside of maybe 1989, I guess?

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

baystateoftheart — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 19:11:18 GMT

Author: baystateoftheart

Posted: 06/23/2020 23:11

Gowi wrote:

1. Is it good?
2. Was their preceding album great?
3. Is their new sound betraying who they are sonically as an artist?
4. Is it good?

What's an example of an album that is as good as its predecessor, but that you don't accept because you consider it a sonic betrayal?

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

Romanelli — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 19:04:17 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 06/23/2020 23:04

If I am unable to accept that any musician wants to expand their direction or try anything new...then what kind of an asshole does that make me?

If you can't be okay with an artist trying something new, then you should probably find something new to do with your time.

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

Anonymous — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:38:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/23/2020 22:38

If the music is great sounds about the right answer

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

mickilennial — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:37:10 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 06/23/2020 22:37

Quote:

Yeah, like sometimes it works and an artist obviously doesn't owe it to anyone if they want to explore new sounds. But for example, Caitlyn Smith is a country artist who utilizes pop hooks, though ultimately she's had a very strong identity and personality through that. Her new album is just contemporary pop with a little "twang" which is a recurring trend in Nashville. The album as it is isn't as good as her style was on its predecessor, so I obviously do not like this change and think its kind of betraying how she had drawn listeners in to her image, style, and ability. I'm not sure how much on this is the label's fault, but cases like this obviously make me not accepting of a new direction.

For an older example in the other direction there is Ulver, who started out as a straight forward black metal band with great albums whom got more avant-garde as they went along until they didn't want to write black metal anymore and switching to an electronica, art rock, etc. direction. Difference is it still felt, to me, like Ulver's earnest and true self. The albums were good-to-great and I was never conflicted with them "betraying" black metal. IDK it's complicated.

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

craola — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:31:52 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 06/23/2020 22:31

Gowi wrote:

1. Is it good? ... 4. Is it good?

amen.

Gowi wrote:

2. Was their preceding album great?

does it matter? to pick on everyone's favorite band, thom thom and the radio heads, how significant was it that kid a followed ok computer? they ran the risk of following in talk talk's shoes, who bettered themselves into obscurity, but i think that once they'd really maxed out how much blood they could draw from that one artery, they weren't ever going to match it. anything less than ok computer 2.0 was going to be received unfavorably. to that effect, the change of direction was absolutely necessary for thomas and the greenwoods.

Gowi wrote:

3. Is their new sound betraying who they are sonically as an artist?

true. there's a tipping point though too, right? where staying the same would be a betrayal as well.... sometimes, an artist releases a new record that just leaves me scratching my head, asking, "wait.... haven't i heard this before?"

---

in the related-unrelated category, i think this is part of why i find myself especially drawn to one-off albums by artists that never released anything before or since because they can't taint it*. had arcade fire funeral'd out with funeral, i would absolutely love them, but their subsequent albums get further and further from whatever it was i liked about their first record. i feel like i'm speaking out of both sides of my mouth now, since i insisted change is important, but i guess that gowi's points here, that change works if it's good and doesn't betray their eariler work, is spot on the dog. to seth's example with u2, i think that even their old music gets less palatable with every new release. had u2 hung their hat on the joshua tree, achtung baby, or even all that you can't leave behind, they would have a very different reputation, however unfair that is. i guess it'd also help if bono didn't tax-dodge and sell the band's soul to apple, but i digress. their music dropped off a cliff.

*meshes of voice, excava 11, new heroid, the dissociatives, sharpen your teeth, hush harbor, anemone, and third eye all come to mind.

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

mickilennial — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:00:39 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 06/23/2020 22:00

1. Is it good?
2. Was their preceding album great?
3. Is their new sound betraying who they are sonically as an artist?
4. Is it good?

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

JOSweetHeart — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:48:15 GMT

Author: JOSweetHeart

Posted: 06/23/2020 17:48

^^^ The good thing though about being predictable is that people know who to go to when wanting to hear a certain form of music. The first male singer who came to my mind when thinking about this chat was country singer Alan Jackson when his album named Red On A Rose was released in 2006. It was so different compared to what was already out there from him. The title track only got as far as #15 on the radio. The follow up named "A Woman's Love" did better getting as far as #6, but his next song on the radio named "Small Town Southern Man" came from his next album which sounded like what he is more known for and the song went all the way to #1 for him.

God bless you and AJ always!!!

Holly

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

craola — Tue, 23 Jun 2020 01:49:28 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 06/23/2020 05:49

Ideally, an artist is coming up with new ways to challenge themselves. When bands make a habit of repeating themselves over and over, they lose that sense of enchantment for me. They get dull and predictable. And you get the sense they’re mailing it in. Might as well just break up the band at that point or take a summer off to work at a hotdog stand.

Re: How often would accept a new direction for an act?

RoundTheBend — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 23:11:28 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 06/23/2020 03:11

As often as it's good.

I'll bore everyone with my love/hate relationship with U2.

I mean you got your:
1) Post-Punk
2) Alternative Rock
3) Alternative Dance, Electronic, Experimental Rock
4) Pop Rock (their worst era)

Every era though people will say is their best or worst pending on who you talk to, which I find intriguing.

How often would accept a new direction for an act?

Spyglass — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 11:30:58 GMT

Author: Spyglass

Posted: 06/22/2020 15:30

I always appreciate a new direction, even if it constitutes as a sellout (as long as it's a good album). Ulver is the best example of changing direction if you ask me, and even drone/metal/stoner band Boris had a decent J-pop album.