Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Should...?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should...?

post #1 of 4
3/10/11 at 4:12pm
Thread Starter 

Should an artist/band be judged by their best ('signature') record or by their career overall? A friend of mine asked this the other day and while it may seem like it warrants a simple answer, it may require a bit of thought. Personally I believe they should be judged by their whole career but I don't think this is what commonly happens.

Generally, an artists 'best' record is usually remembered above all else. Of course there are exceptions but as an example, if I were to talk to the average person about Michael Jackson, they would inevitably bring up 'Thriller' which is arguably Michael's best record. Similarly if an artist releases an outstanding record early in their career, and several average/mediocre records after that, they will more often than not be remembered for their 'best' rather than their 'worst'.

So my question is not whether or not artists are actually judged by their best record rather than their whole career, it's whether or not they should be.

Alex.


Edited by coolguyalex - 3/10/11 at 4:15pm
Reply
post #2 of 4
3/11/11 at 4:40am

An artist should be judged over their whole career surely, I realise some artists release albums significantly better than others but I don't know of many who've released one good and seven bad records. I agree Jackson's best record is thriller but I could sympathise with people who thought it was Off the Wall, that's a good album too.

 

Not many line ups of bands change so considerably that it's an entirely new outfit under the same name so I tend to regard a band as inconsistent and revert to the previous album if they release a bad album. For a case in point when Goldfrapp released their album last year, I was not impressed, my admiration for them didn't dwindle, I just listened to Supernature/Black Cherry more.

Reply
post #3 of 4
3/11/11 at 1:06pm

I agree about evaluation over the whole career, but I also think that an exceptional album or tune should be taken into account.

 

And speaking of bands that changed considerably over time, how about Fleetwood Mac?  (Even though they had two members constant all along).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus_C View Post

An artist should be judged over their whole career surely, I realise some artists release albums significantly better than others but I don't know of many who've released one good and seven bad records. I agree Jackson's best record is thriller but I could sympathise with people who thought it was Off the Wall, that's a good album too.

 

Not many line ups of bands change so considerably that it's an entirely new outfit under the same name so I tend to regard a band as inconsistent and revert to the previous album if they release a bad album. For a case in point when Goldfrapp released their album last year, I was not impressed, my admiration for them didn't dwindle, I just listened to Supernature/Black Cherry more.



 

Reply
post #4 of 4
3/12/11 at 10:39am
There are usually only a handful of artists in any era that are consistently good.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Should...?