I think a lot of artists sort of accept a creative plateau after a while, they've solidified their legacy, they've released their classics, and they've refined their formula for decades. It's quite reasonable to gradually ride that formula out, it's what they're good at, it's their trade, it's what pays for their new boat, their new house, their children's tuition. Bands like AC/DC, Judas Priest, KISS etc could continue releasing the same albums every year and they'd still sell out stadiums on their legacy alone, regardless of whether or not they're evolving their style. The classic acts know this and will capitalize on it, and I think that's pretty reasonable, it's their job. Getting old is hard, having an infinite source of income like the brand "Black Sabbath" or "KISS" or "AC/DC" is a remarkably valuable privilege, they can't risk tarnishing that brand, they know what their fans like and won't sever those ties for the sake of creative experimentation, they can always go home after their million dollar performances and experiment in their studios without jeopardizing their legacy. I'd bet that a lot of the legends are still remarkably creative and talented, we just don't get to see it, it's behind financially secure closed doors.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbycob
There's 3 reason why the Rolling Stones are better. I'm going to list them here. 1. Jimi Hendrix from Rolling Stones was a better guitarist then Jimmy Page 2. The bassist from Rolling Stones isn't dead 3. Rolling Stobes wrote Stairway to Heaven and The Ocean so we all know they are superior here.
|
|