|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2020 12:59:25 GMT
lonelysummer posted something interesting in the TLOS thread; while I answered briefly there, I thought it warrants its own discussion. So it's here for that purpose.
For that matter, why even bother putting out new records/cds/downloads? That's actually a really good question. In some ways, they don't--or at least, they barely do. Many have gone from an album or two a year to an album every five years or so. Is it because they're creative people who want to keep making music? Because they feel it's their calling? Because they want the image of being productive? Pure product?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 14, 2020 14:36:40 GMT
At the end of the day, legacy artists are still artists, so I can see why they want to continue to create and release new music.
I'm sure its probably a little frustrating knowing that their new material likely won't get any radio play, and won't be greeted enthusiastically by concert goers. But, the diehards will buy the music.
I'm thankful for new music by legacy acts because I think most music of the 21st century sucks. Some of my favorite albums of the last decade are from Iron Maiden, Deep Purple, David Gilmour, The Beach Boys, The Who, and Blue Oyster Cult.
Realistically, I don't expect this new music to match their prime material. As long as fans go into later era music with realistic expectations, there is a lot to like.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2020 15:30:52 GMT
The question is interesting specifically in light of the argument that a few of us put forward about live shows: if legacy artists kowtow to the fans in a live situation, ignoring their new material in the knowledge it won’t go over well … why keep going to the trouble of writing, arranging, recording, and releasing new material?
I do think there are plenty of different situations out there to look at. It’s not just a single situation for everyone. Here are a few different scenarios I see out there.
Guns ’n’ Roses answer that question like this: they don’t release new material, or at least haven’t. Granted, they weren’t together (in a version including Axl-Slash-Duff) until a few years ago. But they reunited almost five years ago now! That’s five years touring on just a few albums’ worth of 30-year-old material! Some of us (KDS and I on this board, anyway) have been pining for something new, but so far it’s all just rumors.
They, and plenty of others—the majority?—release very little if any new material, and instead focus on precisely the classics that sell concert tickets. They release anniversary remix albums, deluxe repackagings, live albums, etc. How many copies of Pet Sounds have you owned in your life…? “Good Vibrations?”
Bob Dylan answers the question like this: fuck you, I’m Bob Dylan. In his born-again era, he famously focused on that new material and his fans and critics crucified him for it (no pun intended). He mixes up his setlists with new material, old material, and in-between material, as far as I know. And while his new albums have become slower in coming over the past couple of decades, they are actually still successful. All five of his new studio albums of originals in that time have gone Top Five or better and been declared silver or better (two silver, two gold, one platinum). Even his Christmas and standards albums have been modestly successful, especially considering what they are.
Paul McCartney is one I’m going to speculate on, but it seems to me that he’s simply somebody who really likes making new music, likes working. He does albums of “classical” music, standards, oldies, and originals while still touring relentlessly. And because he’s so instrumentally skilled, he can do a lot of it himself, whenever he wants. He’s not short on cash to do it. So my speculation there is, live he plays hits because he is an entertainer; and he releases albums of whatever he wants because he wants to, and can.
I suspect there are “middle-aged” legacy acts that are still hanging on to hope, and that’s what drives their new releases. They aren’t ready to resign themselves to the “legacy act” status even if reality hints that’s what they are. “This next one could be just the hit we need…”
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 14, 2020 15:58:51 GMT
I mentioned this in another thread, but metal legends Iron Maiden seem to have balanced things pretty well. When they release a new album, they tour to promote it with sets heavy on new songs. Then, the next tour will be a nostalgia tour.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2020 16:05:19 GMT
It's going to sound overly simplistic and obvious, but if you back off any individual's choices and answers, the overarching answer to "what's the point?" is: "to balance doing what I want with running my business successfully."
Whatever every individual artist or act comes up with will vary based on their current motivations, their business goals, their financial resources, their financial prospects, how they feel about their own legacies, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2020 16:06:07 GMT
By the way, am I the only person who can no longer even see the word "legacy" without laughing, cringing, and generally feeling the weight of the baggage that word has acquired in BBs-land over the past few years?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 14, 2020 18:18:31 GMT
Since most of my favorite groups were/are legacy acts, I have plenty of listening experience in this area.
My feelings are pretty straightforward. I basically look at two criteria: A) Do they really WANT to be active and aren't being influenced/persuaded/manipulated for inappropriate reasons (whatever you consider as inappropriate), and B) Can they "deliver the goods"? And, again, this is where good management comes into play. Obviously, legacy artists are older, used to being successful, and maybe undergoing certain feelings that are influencing their decision-making. That's understandable, however, I think it's important to have somebody close to them who is supportive but at the same time willing to "tell it like it is". I feel this pertains to both recording and live performances. Yes, it can be inspirational to see 70 and 80-something year-old artists still active, but nobody wants to see them embarrass themselves, no matter the financial gain, and many times that's a big motivator.
We've all heard and seen some legacy acts that shouldn't have been out there doing it, both in recording and performing. Chuck Berry (live) and Johnny Cash (his final recordings) are two that come to mind. A few are coming dangerously close including Willie Nelson, Brian Wilson, and Tony Bennett. Oh, I realize the point of view that "it's keeping them alive", "it's all they know", "it's their way a life", and "they need to be creative, artistic, giving". Yes, that makes it tough; I'm not ignorant.
It's going to be very difficult in the next few years for these legacy artists - and their fans - as many of them are approaching the time to call it a day. Some, sadly, won't have a choice.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2020 18:38:11 GMT
It's going to be very difficult in the next few years for these legacy artists - and their fans - as many of them are approaching the time to call it a day. Some, sadly, won't have a choice. I know I've said things similar to this before, but it is interesting to me in that we're only really just in the past decade or so well into the time when rock and rollers really get old, reach that retirement question for that reason, and die (of natural causes). Sure, we've had other genres' musicians travel that path forever, but it was a little different in that country or jazz, much less classical, weren't "young people's music." So it was normal seeing them age.
Rock and roll, and rap following it, isn't the same. And if you were 20 in 1955, you're 85 now. Rock musicians have already been wrestling with "hope I die before I get old" and "never trust anyone over 30" since the first couple waves of artists turned 30, eventually got old. Now it is beyond that. Many have already left us (although plenty weren't of old age); many more will go soon.
I'm glad we'll have their recordings. Beyond that, I really appreciate interviews, especially long ones. I don't mean the ones that are done for talking-heads shots of "documentaries" (e.g. commercials, more often than not), but rather more serious ones, really historical ones. The context that surrounded this music is going to be lost otherwise. We can hear it, but to understand it the way those first listeners did, to know what the artists may have been thinking, we need that.
With that in mind, I hope as many as possible of the still-living artists give serious thought to history. Not their brands, not commercial retrospectives, but history.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 14, 2020 19:19:23 GMT
I enjoy longer, serious interviews, too. But there's something else that I would like to see, and I'm surprised the idea never really took off. I would like to see a TV show with three guests (all legacy artists, legends, interesting musicians) and a host/moderator just telling stories. They could "coordinate" the guests, using artists who either knew each other or were fans of each others' work. They could tell any kind of stories from recording sessions, to wild things that happened at a concert to funny interactions with other artists. They could talk about past legends who they knew that passed away - and I'm talking about Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, etc. - and just basically tell interesting things about their music and their careers, and even about their lives off stage. Can you imagine hearing about the personal struggles and demons that many of these artists had to confront. I've seen some similar-type shows in the past, but NOW - before more of these legends pass on - would be the time to do it. EDIT: For example - How does a panel of Brian Wilson, Elton John, and Randy Newman sound? Or Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, and Keith Richards? Paul McCartney, Ray Davies, and Ron Mael?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 14, 2020 19:46:23 GMT
Elvis Costello used to have a show--I think it only aired in the UK, but I've seen it on YouTube--that was pretty interesting. Not panel discussions, but he'd have a guest or two and between them they got pretty interesting sometimes. For example, I recall he had Lou Reed as a guest.
There was a jazz-focused show like that, that I happened across by accident not long ago. (You can find my link in the jazz thread.) They had several people together and would go between interview and performance segments. Loved it.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Dec 14, 2020 21:00:55 GMT
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame gathered a few legends together in recent years for an interview/discussion. I read about it in Rolling Stone, and have seen a couple of very brief clips from it. Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Fats Domino. Now three of those guys are gone. I asked "when are we going to see the complete footage?" and was told "it will be shown at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland". DOH! This is too important to be restricted to just museum showings. Yeah, I'm pissed - but not a fan of the HOF anyway.
With McCartney, I suspect that if he started loading his setlists heavily with solo stuff and new songs, the stadium shows would give way to theaters. The casual fans (which I'm guessing are the majority of people at McCartney, Ringo, Beach Boys, Brian shows) want to hear some Wings hits; they want to hear him play ANYTHING by the Beatles because the Beatles have a catalog where every song might as well be considered a hit. It would be easy to compile a set list that omits all the songs on the red and blue albums, and still be packed with songs everybody knows: Till There Was You, Long Tall Sally, Things We Said Today, I'll Follow the Sun, P.S. I Love You, Kansas City, The Night Before, Another Girl, I've Just Seen a Face, You Won't See Me, I'm Looking Through You, Here There and Everywhere, For No One, Good Day Sunshine, Got to Get You Into My Life, Getting Better, Fixing a Hole, She's Leaving Home, When I'm 64, Your Mother Should Know, Martha My Dear, Blackbird, I Will, Birthday, Mother Nature's Son, Helter Skelter, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Oh Darling, You Never Give Me Your Money, Golden Slumbers, I've Got a Feeling.....
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 15, 2020 15:26:02 GMT
By the way, am I the only person who can no longer even see the word "legacy" without laughing, cringing, and generally feeling the weight of the baggage that word has acquired in BBs-land over the past few years? The word really has become a joke in BB land.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 17, 2020 18:00:46 GMT
The question is interesting specifically in light of the argument that a few of us put forward about live shows: if legacy artists kowtow to the fans in a live situation, ignoring their new material in the knowledge it won’t go over well … why keep going to the trouble of writing, arranging, recording, and releasing new material? I do think there are plenty of different situations out there to look at. It’s not just a single situation for everyone. Here are a few different scenarios I see out there. Guns ’n’ Roses answer that question like this: they don’t release new material, or at least haven’t. Granted, they weren’t together (in a version including Axl-Slash-Duff) until a few years ago. But they reunited almost five years ago now! That’s five years touring on just a few albums’ worth of 30-year-old material! Some of us (KDS and I on this board, anyway) have been pining for something new, but so far it’s all just rumors. They, and plenty of others—the majority?—release very little if any new material, and instead focus on precisely the classics that sell concert tickets. They release anniversary remix albums, deluxe repackagings, live albums, etc. How many copies of Pet Sounds have you owned in your life…? “Good Vibrations?” Bob Dylan answers the question like this: fuck you, I’m Bob Dylan. In his born-again era, he famously focused on that new material and his fans and critics crucified him for it (no pun intended). He mixes up his setlists with new material, old material, and in-between material, as far as I know. And while his new albums have become slower in coming over the past couple of decades, they are actually still successful. All five of his new studio albums of originals in that time have gone Top Five or better and been declared silver or better (two silver, two gold, one platinum). Even his Christmas and standards albums have been modestly successful, especially considering what they are. Paul McCartney is one I’m going to speculate on, but it seems to me that he’s simply somebody who really likes making new music, likes working. He does albums of “classical” music, standards, oldies, and originals while still touring relentlessly. And because he’s so instrumentally skilled, he can do a lot of it himself, whenever he wants. He’s not short on cash to do it. So my speculation there is, live he plays hits because he is an entertainer; and he releases albums of whatever he wants because he wants to, and can. I suspect there are “middle-aged” legacy acts that are still hanging on to hope, and that’s what drives their new releases. They aren’t ready to resign themselves to the “legacy act” status even if reality hints that’s what they are. “This next one could be just the hit we need…” I meant to comment on this the other day, but forgot. I really think that most artists subscribe to the McCartney frame of mind when it comes to new music. They live and create, and to entertain. And, know there's a fine line between the two.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 17, 2020 18:59:01 GMT
It's going to sound overly simplistic and obvious, but if you back off any individual's choices and answers, the overarching answer to "what's the point?" is: "to balance doing what I want with running my business successfully."
Whatever every individual artist or act comes up with will vary based on their current motivations, their business goals, their financial resources, their financial prospects, how they feel about their own legacies, etc.
To be even more simplistic and obvious, I think the answer remains unchanged from when these legacy acts started out: to create and share for their enjoyment and that of their fans*. *Of course, I don't just mean your average concertgoer. There are many different kinds of fans. Here, I'm referring to the fans who are interested in new music (of which, all legacy artists have).
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 17, 2020 19:02:20 GMT
My feelings are pretty straightforward. I basically look at two criteria: A) Do they really WANT to be active and aren't being influenced/persuaded/manipulated for inappropriate reasons (whatever you consider as inappropriate), and B) Can they "deliver the goods"?
Is criteria A relevant to many artists?
|
|