Latest on MJJC

Why do critics ignore the later work of any artist who has longevity?

MattyJam

Guests
Michael Jackson never gets credit for anything post-Thriller.

Prince never gets credit for anything after Sign O The Times.

Bowie has made some brilliant albums in the 90s and 00s. I would say Heathen is one of his all-time greatest - as good as any of his 70's albums.

It's the same for almost any artist (except Bob Dylan) who has a career spanning a few decades.

I know every artist has landmark albums, but it really annoys me when I see music critics time and time again overlooking what is often an artists best work simply because the artist is over the age of 40 and has been around for a while. Does that mean they couldn't possibly have anything new or relevant to say?
 
Yeah i never understood it either. The Bee Gee's is another good example. With them the media only wants to talk about Saturday Night Fever
 
It's just typical critic bull although with MJ it's seems like anything past bad is ignored. Maybe the critics don't consider or their later work was'nt as heavily promoted as their earlier work. Heck there are some people that don't even know that some artists are still recording.
 
The media has always had this ''Out with the old and in with the new'' kind of thing. So they just simply push the older artists aside when the newer ones come along. It only seems to be getting worse and worse. Now a days if you've been around for only 3 months your considerd old and pushed to the side
 
It's ageism. It's not the critics, it the fans too. When a lot of veteran acts perform a new song in concert, that's generally the time some of the audience decides to take a restroom break or go get some snacks, lol. Most people just want to hear the hits they remember. Mike would have never gotten away with a tour ignoring Beat It and his other big hits, and just did a show performing only album tracks like Girlfriend, Style Of Life, and cover songs. Radio never play new stuff by older acts and they have to resort to putting the songs in commercials (Sting, U2, Michael McDonald) or TV shows to get heard.
 
guess its like the saying its not like the old days ie rose tinted glasses. but how many artists have their biggest success later in their carreer? its the thriller syndrome
 
analogue said:
The media has always had this ''Out with the old and in with the new'' kind of thing. So they just simply push the older artists aside when the newer ones come along. It only seems to be getting worse and worse. Now a days if you've been around for only 3 months your considerd old and pushed to the side
Click to expand...

"Out with the old and in with the new" would be a good thing if it would bring forward the industry because the new acts would have the talent and creativity to outdo the old ones in terms of quality. But unfortunately they don't so the music industry is kind of stuck and like you said, it gets worse and worse all the time. :(

I listened to the radio today and they played a song and I was like "what's this boring crap?", then at the end of the song it's that duet between Lady Gaga and Beyoncé (I've read about the hype already, but I have never listened to the song before, LOL). So here are two of the most hyped artists of today and all they can come up with is this? Wow, the music industry has sunk low!

BTW: In my country the most popular radio stations are those which play mainly 80s and 90s music (and they are BY FAR more popular than those which play today's music). It is very telling about the industry's state today.....
 
Last edited:
DuranDuran said:
It's ageism. It's not the critics, it the fans too. When a lot of veteran acts perform a new song in concert, that's generally the time some of the audience decides to take a restroom break or go get some snacks, lol. Most people just want to hear the hits they remember. Mike would have never gotten away with a tour ignoring Beat It and his other big hits, and just did a show performing only album tracks like Girlfriend, Style Of Life, and cover songs. Radio never play new stuff by older acts and they have to resort to putting the songs in commercials (Sting, U2, Michael McDonald) or TV shows to get heard.
Click to expand...

That's sad. :( They are usually the most talented. The olders acts and most people want to hear them sing the hits not the ones that weren't promoted as singles. And the fans do the same thing there are acts, especially in the teenybopper genre that score one hit, fangirls go wild and when the artists comes again the original fans of the teen act move on to others. It's common as hell in the Idol fandom where some teens are fickle as hell.
 
DuranDuran said:
Mike would have never gotten away with a tour ignoring Beat It and his other big hits, and just did a show performing only album tracks like Girlfriend, Style Of Life, and cover songs.
Click to expand...

It's because of this why fans never got to see Michael performing some of his best material. It often pains me that we never got to see songs like Who Is It, Walk Right Now, Give Into Me, Morphine performed live.
 
Great question.

Three reasons.

1) The work just isn't good enough (Janet, Mariah Carey etc).
2) Familiarity breeds contempt.
3) Their greatness becomes expected.


Most of us will deem Mike's 90s work to be his best but by then it's become the norm, it's expected so Michael bringing out a track like Who Is It or Give In To Me or Stranger In Moscow hasn't got the shock value of 'Oh My God have you heard the new track by so-and-so', it's more likely to get 'Well, it's no Billie Jean'.

Same with Madonna, if younger artists brought out a track like Give It 2 Me, people would be all over it.

Also, people & the press like to move on, like to be looking for the next big thing. It's much trendier to discover new artists rather than still be talking about the old ones.
 
Yeah, ageism is an ugly thing. All my favorite artists are ones I grew up with and therefore older than most and their more modern works get very little love. Some are luckier than others but overall it's very sad state of affairs. Oh well, I know that MJ is amazing and better than all the rest and that's all that matters.
 
Everyone is bringing up good points but most of the time the music after veterans peaks generally ...sucks..
 
they didn't ignore Michael's later stuff. they just slammed it. (out of envy). after all, if the critics were so tired of him writing later on in life, why did they beg him to tour, in the latest years, in a disturbing way, the likes of which, i have never seen with any other artist, even though he had played all his past stuff over and over in previous tours?
 
Last edited:
Critics have never liked Led Zeppelin, KISS, The Monkees, Yes, Rush, Paul McCartney solo, Ozzy Ozbourne, or Van Halen. But it never hurt them from selling, lol.
 
mjscarousal said:
Everyone is bringing up good points but most of the time the music after veterans peaks generally ...sucks..
Click to expand...

Maybe. But unfortunately the music of new artists is generally not better than that either.....
 
MattyJam said:
I can't say I've ever noticed that.
Click to expand...
They might praise Jimmy Page's guitar playing, but I've seen many writers talking about them ripping off other songs or trashing their dungeon & dragon fairytale lyrics.
 
respect77 said:
Maybe. But unfortunately the music of new artists is generally not better than that either.....
Click to expand...

No its not... I just dont like the fact that they totally dismiss a veterans later works and praise current artist music as if its any better when generally its alot worse.
 
because most acts done hit there peak and prime. i mean they might still have a big hit or two, but most acts hit there peak and prime early on.

Elton John said it best most Good acts if they are lucky have a 5 year run. that is a fact. because folks tastes change and most acts simply don't hit as they did early on.

i mean very few acts did what Michael Jackson and stevie wonder did and that is make even better material upon turning grown and older. most acts simply peak and hit there prime early on and then just coast.

besides if the fans and critics get there standard 5-10 songs they know and I'd say 2-3 main cuts then you can sell out tours until you can't move no more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top