what's up with this line of thought?
i see it come up a lot on the Internet. and i also see it come up in the lesson.

"prince should have quit after '88."
"eminem should have quit after 'the eminem show'
there's a post on the front page saying pharell should retire.

what gives?


well, i kinda get it.
it can be tough seeing your favorite artists fall off.
there's a part of you that wishes they would have stopped after ____ so that
their legacy can be flawless.

there's something to be said for quiting while you are ahead.

but it's weird for your solution to that problem to be to ask, even facetiously, for them
to quit creating music.

do you think this train of thought comes from a place of jealousy?
are people angry that artists are still creating things even after we think it's not good anymore?

do folks resent artists like prince for not releasing music we want to hear?

do they take the fact that an artist fell off personally?
as if the fact that they fell off is a reflection on us as fans?


i typically don't like this word,
but when people say ____ should quit making music,
it's difficult to see it as anything other folks being a hater.

saying, "i don't like their music anymore" is not the same thing as saying
"they should stop making music."

i'm guilty of it myself. I've said that certain artists should quit before.
but when i think about it, it's a bizarre thing to say.

anybody think about this phrase?
what do you think triggers this sentiment?
it's almost like we build artists up to tear then down.

we should stop that.
we're running out of legends...

>there's a part of you that wishes they would have stopped
>after ____ so that
>their legacy can be flawless.
>there's something to be said for quiting while you are ahead.



>but it's weird for your solution to that problem to be to ask,
>even facetiously, for them
>to quit creating music.

if they arent pleasing anyone, yes this is the solution

part of me wishes prince stopped after sign of the times,
but he still had fans that wanted to hear his stuff.

he still does.

if prince wants to make music,
and he has folks that want to hear it... i mean...
that's pretty much win/ win.




and i don't know if folks are ruining their legacy
as much as music heads think.

prince released a bunch of crap,
but for the average person... he's still the guy that sings "purple rain."

he can headline the Super Bowl.
he can tour until he dies.
he's like a legacy rock act at this point.

same goes for stevie wonder.
same went for MJ, actually.

he fell off, and to say he had PR problems is an understatement...
but regular people still jam to his hits when a DJ plays them, and the sales of
the "this is it" tour showed that he could have toured whenever he felt like.


i dunno.
i see what you mean i terms of "ruining their legacy,"
but i think that we as fans overestimate how much this happens.

if you've built a legacy, you can't really undo it.
once you reach a certain point, you're in the pop cannon forever.


>
>>there's a part of you that wishes they would have stopped
>>after ____ so that
>>their legacy can be flawless.
>>there's something to be said for quiting while you are
>ahead.
>
>
>
>>but it's weird for your solution to that problem to be to
>ask,
>>even facetiously, for them
>>to quit creating music.
>
>if they arent pleasing anyone, yes this is the solution
>

Obviously, three different versions of Thin Lizzy touring today can't ruin a legacy because "noone" should/would/could take that act seriously since Lynott died in 86.

And legendary artists that are just going on auto-pilot while still selling records aren't really ruining anything either.

And legendary acts that fall off commercially *and* creatively-I don't think it matters much honestly

HOWEver, a once great act that remains successful-or even become more successful-while putting out inferior material; at least from the ''die-hards'' point of view-I do think that can ruin a legacy even on an underground level.

Rather, it won't ruin the legacy for me but I can understand how it can do it for others, especially those new to the act; they hear some new wack shit and when they listen back to the old classic shit, it may still remind them too much of the wack later shit because of the vocals/vibe/groove/whatever-artists rarely leave it all behind...

i can see this.
>HOWEver, a once great act that remains successful-or even
>become more successful-while putting out inferior material; at
>least from the ''die-hards'' point of view-I do think that can
>ruin a legacy even on an underground level.
>

and you still trying to act like you count and you don't.

i can be cool with an act making mature records or just doing something different, however you are signed to a major label or you are part of the system well of course folks are going to say what you got?

naw I don't expect a "Songs in the key of life" thriller" 12 play, street songs, can't slow down, however i don't expect a turkey to just fall off to the point that they can't even write a legit song and or they are still sounding like they ain't grown past the age of 20 lyrically.

obvously work with better talent or modern talent and find a medium groove.

for instance a good example is Dr John's last album i liked what he did.

Lionel Richie doing a country Project was a Genius move. keep it fresh,don't be no turkey.

even though i clown snoop's new album at least he is venturing out and trying to do something different a bit. props for that.

however turkeys who done fell off and been called out on it know who they are and they might take up knitting and leaving turning them knobs alone for good except to tour or do hook work or side projects.

>and you still trying to act like you count and you don't.
>
>i can be cool with an act making mature records or just
>doing something different, however you are signed to a major
>label or you are part of the system well of course folks are
>going to say what you got?
>
>naw I don't expect a "Songs in the key of life" thriller" 12
>play, street songs, can't slow down, however i don't expect a
>turkey to just fall off to the point that they can't even
>write a legit song and or they are still sounding like they
>ain't grown past the age of 20 lyrically.
>
>obvously work with better talent or modern talent and find a
>medium groove.
>
>for instance a good example is Dr John's last album i liked
>what he did.
>
>Lionel Richie doing a country Project was a Genius move. keep
>it fresh,don't be no turkey.
>
>even though i clown snoop's new album at least he is venturing
>out and trying to do something different a bit. props for
>that.
>
>however turkeys who done fell off and been called out on it
>know who they are and they might take up knitting and leaving
>turning them knobs alone for good except to tour or do hook
>work or side projects.

Do you use the word "turkey" that much when you talk?

I actually think it's pretty funny.

and it ain't even gotta be around thanksgiving neither.

... Uncle Charlie Wilson. Correct me if I'm wrong.

the man has put in alot of work and he comes out even better. much props to him for doing his thing.

That Brad Paisley collabo solidified my position.


______________________________________________________________
http://twitter.com/Gedi

"This is your world. Shape it or someone else will." - Gary Lew

...he should take time out before writing and recording a new album till it's finished then go back to acting.

I think the problem with rappers turned actor is that their focus isn't on making the best music, it's become a backseat to their acting career, so the passion isn't there and they start to believe all the hype that others tell him about how great they are at making music while still acting by their acting associates/buddies who wouldn't tell them the truth anyways cause most of them only listen to pop music anyways.

With LL, he always have two or three good songs on each album since "Phenomenon" but that doesn't mean it's a good album.

as one of the best to ever do it. he laughing at you.

I guess I always wonder why artists don't retire.

If I made a fuckload of $ by the time I was say 30 or 40 or something, I would retire, not do shit and just post up on an island somewhere and go snorkeling every day.

See: Madonna, The Rolling Stones, shit a lot of people out there...Unless they're doing it for charity, do they really need MORE money? It's not like people are checking for "Madonna's art" in 2013 so I don't think it's like "creative expression" as much as flogging a dead horse.

Ordinarily I think I'm okay with people making music however they want - but maybe it's like what people sometimes say to crime victims: "see how you feel when it happens to you"

I caught myself having one of those reactions this week after reading some article somewhere about Kraftwerk working on a new album. I feel like that has the potential to tarnish the legacy - and I value their "catalogue" enough personally to actually have feelings on it, and then to question whether or not I'm justified in having that reaction.

It's only Hutter now, so I find myself questioning "is this really Kraftwerk"? When I think about their two studio releases from the past twenty years or so, The Mix and Tour de France, they are both retreads of prior work and so my expectations are not as high. I feel like they had enough of a legacy to allow for that retrospection, but I can't help but feel that you need "Ralf und Florian" at the minimum (maximum?) for it to really be Kraftwerk. The core albums may be strong enough to resist; I doubt there will be many more latter-day works, and who knows, new stuff might be good.

Music isn't like sports where you keep going until you're physically unable to. Even when or after an artist peaks, if music is in your blood, the urge to create is eternal. That's part of the magic of being an artistic.