[mickilennial]

[PurpleHazel]

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.

[theblueboy]

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).

[spigelwii]

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.

[RoundTheBend]

You guys are cool.

Lots of great commentary.