Sometimes, when an artist is asked about whether they would revisit a previously critically and/or commercially successful album or if their new album is like a previously praised work, I've often heard many state that they didn't/don't want to make 'ALBUM NAME' part 2 (again, in spirit, not in actual name like 'OBFCL,' 'Van Halen,' 'The Carter,' etc.). Or often stating they have matured or that they thought making another 'ALBUM NAME' in the same musical spirit was regressing in some way. I've also often heard fans say the same, usually when defending some new direction their favorite artist has gone in – that the artist shouldn’t make another 'ALBUM NAME' and that progression is always best.

But if an artist has genuinely tapped into something great on a previous work, can't there also be additional great musical ideas formed within that same musical framework? Why does revisiting the soundscape/style/production of great music you've previously created automatically mean you're stagnant or regressing or that you're trapped? Why can't you consistently make music within a certain framework and it be consistently great? Or even progressive (for the artist) or more mature? Isn't there something to be said for perfecting a sound or artistic style?

And I want to be clear. I'm not against change or new artistic direction on general principle. If an artist is in a new creative headspace, I'm all for them going with what they believe/feel to be best or what excites them creatively.

And I realize there are multiple reasons an artist may not want to remain trapped by a previous album's sound (i.e., resistance to typecasting, genuine creativity, new musical trends, experimentation, collaborations, label/industry pressure, etc.), but change just for change's sake isn't necessarily sound to me. Especially when the results prove to be bad/worse than previous work that's genuinely great and begs to be revisited.

Just my random thoughts. What say you?