tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12114421.post6117007680267043163..comments2024-03-20T08:50:03.035+11:00Comments on Northern Lights : why IS the earlier stuff better?David Nicholshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13306950287048502105noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12114421.post-45552287191276971562014-04-17T21:06:05.300+10:002014-04-17T21:06:05.300+10:00It is an interesting question you pose and I think...It is an interesting question you pose and I think some of the possibilities you mention could all be factors.<br /><br />I think to have a breakthough or a smash hit, it has to differentiate from all the other products in the market.<br /><br />But when you reach a certain level of fame, you get money just for being famous, so there isn't really a need to produce anything above mediocre. Also, pop artists once they get big, are usually "directed" by either their own hubris or the record industry "producers" with really bad ideas. <br /><br />So i think that is why music has "un-natural" fluctuations in quality. The musician becomes a commodity and then too many cooks start spoiling the broth by starting to change the recipie so it can appeal to a wider audience. <br /><br />Appealing to lowest common denominators always makes things bland...even if the artist becomes more famous...the earlier work will generally have way more emotional impact.<br /><br />It is strange to imagine how a painter, author or sculptor's work would be affected if it HAD to appeal to a wider audience and if a board of 20 other people started making decisions about how the work should develop. ;)Team Thesaurushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13843933676866639343noreply@blogger.com