I know you guys are sick of all the Fantano posting but:

I know you guys are sick of all the Fantano posting but:

youtube.com/watch?v=-PUYmjONQxI

I disagree with this so damn much. I'd rather have bands like Unwound, Fugazi, Cocteau Twins, Pavement, The Jam and etc, where they stayed good for most of their career and broke up or "burned out" before they got worse than having a band or artist "fade away" and put out nothing but subpar material and ruin their legacy.

Look at U2 after Achtung Baby
Look at Bjork after Vespertine
Look at Talking Heads after Remain in Light
Look at Ramones after Road to Ruin
Look at Brian Eno after Before and After Science (looking just as an artist and not also a producer)
Heck look at Weezer that Fantano himself brings up; The White Album doesn't justify all the crap Weezer put out in the 2000's and with Pacific Daydream they went back to sucking again.

All of them went to complete shit after a point by choosing to fade away. Not every artist is going to be Bowie or Swans and continue to put out great music even after their prime, so no: it isn't better to fade away than to burn out.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ra8IbQ7-vcc
youtube.com/watch?v=cxz8qJ2B8Ug
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>U2
>Ramones
>Weezer
wew lad

>Look at Bjork after Vespertine
>Look at Brian Eno after Before and After Science

no

if you want less music from artist you like,you care more about posturing and narratives than music
Fantano's cool tho

I agree that U2's plane should be shot down but there's nothing wrong with artists continuing to produce music even after they slump, who gives a shit about their "legacy". There have been plenty examples of great comeback records after a bad streak

name 17

No, but I can think of artists like Bob Dylan and Scott Walker that embody that ideal and proved to have great ideas left in them

>Bob Dylan
literally one decent album after 8 years of shit, followed by 40 more years of shit. could've done without it, honestly.
>Scott Walker
was mediocre back in his heyday, is a humorless tryhard now

>literally one decent album after 8 years of shit,
>being this much of a pleb.
Bob Dylan dropped two of the greatest albums of all time in the same fucking year (Bringing it all Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited).

Why are you upset about receiving more content you may or may not like? What's the downside here? I agree that the massive internal tension of some bands destined to explode may have contributed to their creative peak but that isn't always the case

>Scott Walker
>Mediocre
Pick one faggot

>after 8 years of shit
i meant 67-75

>homme
>calls others faggot
okay, terrific

if they were shitty albums but differed in instrumentation or style, it would be okay but Dylan isn't trying anything new. he started doing muzak in the early 70s and hasn't ever changed direction. he tried some new subgenres but the music still sounded virtually the same: 10 guitars, two keys, relaxed rhythm section... who really gives a shit at this point.

Had Bowie Stopped when his albums got bad in the 80s we wouldn't have Blackstar.

>Bowie
>got bad
>implying he was ever good
how does it feel to be a legacy media drone?

t. scruffdrone

>talking heads

give naked another listen man, I thought the same but naked is awesome!

t. spick

Dude his 80s shit sucked, but so did alot of artists. I think earthling is where he got his mojo back.

>Look at Ramones after Road to Ruin
2 good albums and other albums with good songs. whats the problem soyboy?

I'm going to follow the narrative that you're actually upset about this and that really believe that an artist should stop making music in order to have a "flawless" discography.

First of all, that's the most petty shit you could give a shit about regarding an artist. Your approach implies this is all a competition of who has the less-bad discography. You're fucking stupid for actually giving a shit about that.

Radiohead has a pretty good discography in the eyes of many, though most everyone has an album or two they simply hate. Hell, I bet you do too (assuming you like Radiohead). Does it fucking matter that much to you what others think of their new releases? They certainly aren't perfect for every single person in the world, so why lower yourself to the lowest common denominator and accept what the general public thinks? If you fucking hate In Rainbows but love TKoL, why do you care what critics say of each one? Perfect discographies, as literally everything else supposedly perfect, don't exist, so why bother?

And second of all, do you actually prefer having less content from your favorite artist in fears that the general public won't like it? If you don't see why that's retarded, see my previous point.

Blackstar and the latest Swans trilogy say hi.

>soyboy
see

>Look at Bjork after Vespertine
looking... see no problems

...I didn't realize you had that last line about Bowie and Swans so I'm going to go ahead and take a slight L on my last comment there...

>thinking others are a spic* just because you're a fat feminine faggot with man tits

>Blackstar and the latest Swans trilogy say hi
you fuck...

The Ramones never faded away or burned out.
They were one of the hardest working bands out there, look at their schedules.
They broke up because they actually had health problems and couldn't continue.
Rock Til' You Drop, I can't imagine being more rock and roll than that.
The Ramones just weren't popular when they were around.

>thinking others are fat feminine faggots with man tits just because you're a spicK*

Not to mention Speaking In Tongues

what about bands like europe who are only known for the final countdown but still keep making music

>Talking Heads after Remain in Light
I see no problems with this statement at all

>Planet Waves
>Desire
>Street-Legal
>Oh Mercy
>Time Out of Mind
>Together Through Life
>shit

I'm just going to guess that you aren't all that into Dylan. Even a bunch of the albums I didn't list had a couple of killer tracks on them.

Kurt cobain killing himself turned him into a legend, a mythological figure, one of the many saints of rock music.

Lil peep should have died at 27, i cant stand sound cloud rap, but peep should have left a longer discography, he would have taken sound cloud rap to the major major mainstream, been the new EM, would have got white people to like rap more. He was a good looking kid that appealed to emo and rap faggots. What is left, that idiot lil pump? that cringe lord xxxtension? that ugly gorrllia with the 69 tattos?
Lil peep was the key to all of this. And he was snubbed out way too early.

Henry rollins intentionally quit black flag and performing music because he feels that punk rock was only good when you were young and he would feel like an asshole doing it at his age. He does lectures, acting, writes books now.

Then you have assholes like mick jagger and bono who are pretty much walking corpse held up by their own narcissism that refuse to retire or die.

Very rarely does a musician make good music or stay hip and edgy in old age. The only one i can think of is bowie. But bowie had a massive heart attack that preventing him from performing. Older bowie isnt perfect, but latter years bowie did make some underrated stuff like earthling or heathen. and black star was a magnificent work of art by bowie, he not only made his life a work of art but his death too.

if rivers cuomo got into a car crash after maladroit he would have been the real last rock star.

>Desire
that's the one album i was talking about. sorry for the obscure initial comment, yous guys.
>guess that you aren't all that into Dylan
an all-time favorite t.b.h f.a.m

Let's Dance and Tonight were pretty good imo and he got his shit together after TM and Outside (Earthlings is a killer album though)

>Scott Walker
>mediocre

lil peep ruined his producers work with his gay lispy vocals and awfully generic lyrics try again buddy

Well, replace Desire with Blood on the Tracks then.

The point still stands, it seems strange how you could enjoy the fuck out of his early stuff + Desire and nothing else...

t. numale soyboy cuck

>Jacques Brel covers
>great or/and groundbreaking

>Look at Bjork after Vespertine

Medulla and Utopia are literally her best albums

>can't appreciate Scott's voice

ah wow yea this was also later yea wtf op, speaking in tongues is easily one of their best

>Blood on the Tracks

>appreciating alleged virtuosity over songwriting
look up ELP

Not him, but I'll bite:
1. King Crimson with the ProjeKCts
2. Johnny Cash with his string of albums before he died.
3. Dylan has been mentioned.
4. Talking Heads with Naked (and btw, Speaking in Tongues is freaking awesome, guy. Evidence alone for why I shouldn't take this bait).
5. Pink Floyd with Meddle broke a weak streak from right after Saucerful.
6. Ghostface Killah broke a weak streak with his collaboration with Adrian Younge in 2012. Funky, underrated record.
7. Miles Davis came back with Filles de Kilimanjaro after a weak streak following the dissolution of his second great quintet. Rode that one into his spookiest, funkiest phase.
8. Lou Reed with New York. Hell, Lou Reed was hit or miss his whole damn career. He had about ten comebacks.
9. Leonard Cohen with The Future. That was a p long streak of L's.
10. Swans have been mentioned.
11. A Tribe Called Quest's latest album. Huge comeback.
12. Primus' latest one is their best in a long time.
13. James Brown in the 70's. His late 60's stuff was a bit dull compared to the earlier stuff and definitely paled in comparison to the later.
14. String of weak Beach Boys albums before Surf's Up.
15. Grateful Dead (again, several comebacks from slumps).
16. Fleetwood Mac after Lindsey Buckingham joined (first decent stuff since Peter Green era).

Are all of these classics? No. But you wanted 16 great comebacks after bad streaks. You'll disagree because you're a contrarian, but mission accomplished.

Just saw you wanted 17. My bad.

17. Son House. Biggest comeback artist of all. Fell off the face of the earth during the era when Rock was co-opting the blues scene. Stormed back with some killer W's during the folk revival.

>a weak streak from right after Saucerful
>implying Cohen had to come back from I'm Your Man
i could dispute pretty much all of these but these two are the worst

So you are a contrarian

why does it matter, you can just stop listening to them if they get worse. I don't see the benefit of them stopping making music

Assuming of course no dip in quality then fading away is a preferable choice although that never happens

Muh legacy


Less people are likely to make fun of me if this artist I like is always praised by the zeitgeist :/

I like Bjork after Vespertine - Biohphillia is my favourite album of hers.

Oh boy I will stop making art just because I've been doing it fine so far and I fear people won't like another project!!

Sivuca just kept getting better and better, though.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ra8IbQ7-vcc

I don't even think anyone liked Matthew Herbert until he was in his fifties or some shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=cxz8qJ2B8Ug

>All of them went to complete shit after a point by choosing to fade away.
>choosing to fade away
>every band that peters out in quality over time made the conscious decision to do so
This is a really strange thing to assume on your part.

>Swans have been mentioned.
This has to be the main example for me. I hate most of what they did between Cop and The Great Annihilator, but almost everything since has been terrific.

I'm Your Man is not good.

It's not about agreement, Fantano has a public image so he doesn't want to look like an asshole who puts the actual art of artists before their lives, even though that is the correct approach and everyone knows it

Death of the Author is po-mo garbage, if that's what you're getting at.

No not really

Then what makes it the correct approach?

>String of weak albums before Surf's Up
Nigga Sunflower is GOAT

I'm saying anything about death of the author just that artists who burn out have a greater effect on humanity, and their work gets more recognition that if otherwise. I don't care about if my favorite musician lives to an old age