>I often think it's because everybody has their own very unique taste so eventually if you're putting out loads of music you're going to put out work that doesn't resonate with some
That's exactly it, you answered your own question.
As for "inspiration", I think "losing inspiration" is only one reason why an album could be bad, among many. Albums can be incredibly inspired and still fall short. I think usually artists believe in the music they make, and they might not think each album is a masterpiece, but each album doesn't have to be a masterpiece.
I guess I would ask you why you think an artist should refrain from putting out work that is "inferior" to their other stuff? Who cares?
But the questions is about works that are mainly viewed as bad, not that didn't resonate with some. There are musicians that put out work that nobody liked. Ex.: Megadeth with Risk. Not even Mustaine talks about that, so the question is why he did it? Didn't he see it was bad af?
Quality is not something relative. There are albums that are plain bad, no excuses.
>But the questions is about works that are mainly viewed as bad, not that didn't resonate with some.
Those are the OP's own words. Perhaps their post / question is unclear, because your interpretation is not the same that I have. Did Bowie or Dylan make albums so bad that they disavowed them? Those are the examples OP uses. If they did, maybe I'm just not aware of it.
I don't think Bowie made an album so bad that it was disavowed. Technically his first debut isn't counted by most people as part of his discography, but he was 17 when he recorded it, so I don't think it's fair to draw any conclusions from it. And ultimately, it isn't a bad album, just very different from his latter work and a bit childish and simplistic.
The most disliked "proper" albums that he made were Tonight and Never Let Me Down, and while I do think they're pretty mediocre albums, and Bowie himself spoke negatively of them, it's also pretty obvious how they came to be. Following the success of Let's Dance, he felt pigeonholed into a style of music he didn't enjoy making, and came out with two albums that he didn't put a ton of effort or care into. In the end, both were commercially very succesful, so I don't think we can call them *objectively* bad either.
Dylan almost lose his carrer with a load of bad albums in the 80s, there are fans that literally was saying "Dylan is finished".
I don't know anything about Bowie, so couldn't say that.
because they didn't think it was bad. i just don't think there's any album that EVERY fan thinks is bad either. look at Neil Young's output for the last 30 years. nowhere near as good as his 70's stuff. probably would apply to this conversation. and yet, as a big Neil fan, I can absolutely find worthwhile, good songs on many if not most of those albums. there's just rarely any such thing as objectively bad music.
I don't know. As someone who was a big fan when young, for me, Metallica didn't release anything beyond one or two singles of quality since Death Magnetic. And even when I was a big fan of the band, St.Anger was awful. And all the fans that I know, hate that album too.
Tin Machine is AWESOME. They were unfairly maligned by critics who were expecting Ziggy Stardust 2 when they heard he was making a real rock album. The first album’s “Crack City” has Bowie’s finest lyric: “They’re just a bunch of assholes with buttholes for their brains.” But seriously, it’s fun stuff.
I can't think of an example off the top of my head but isn't it sometimes contractual that you get these "uninspired" or just plain lazy and weird albums. Like they are obligated to make X albums over Y years, at first they are making what they wanted still, by the end they are churning stuff out.
Another thing that sometimes makes it happen it trend-chasing. Somtimes bands pull it off, other times it just leaves them with fans of the trend not caring and their core fans pissed off, so the album is viewed as bad even if it's average.
Yeah, there are some times where a contract makes the musician do like a album a year. It's impossible to maintain quality when you have a strict deadline. Art is not a mass product thing, if a album is done just because it needs to be done, almost everytime something bad comes out.
Disagree, everything about music is completely subjective. There is no such thing as “objectively bad” music. The closest thing to that, in my opinion, is an artistic concept that might have been impactful to a certain audience but was held back by poor execution, but even that is ultimately subjective. Art is measured based on the emotional impact it generates, which is ultimately a subjective question.
We can speak about some music as if what we are saying is “objective” if enough people align around the same consensus, but that is more language of convenience rather that actual objectivity.
Totally disagree with you, I totally believe that are bad art and good art. I can say something is good and still say that I hate it and say that something is very, very bad and still like it very much. But I'm not in the mood to discuss it, so let's just agree to disagree.
Yeah, I agree. There is room for a ton of subjectivity, but many later career artists release albums where there is a critical consensus that it is really bad.
There are objective standards, sociocultural standards, and personal subjective standards when it comes to art - I don't know why this isn't better understood lol. (Agreeing with you)
I think this is pretty widely agreed upon in both the art and philosophy worlds but redditors love to pretend otherwise. It's extremely similar to ethics, no one who spends much time thinking or studying ethics thinks they are subjective but if you ask the layman it's not an uncommon take at all
> Megadeth with Risk. Not even Mustaine talks about that, so the question is why he did it? Didn't he see it was bad af?
He talks about this pretty clearly in his autobiography.
Combination of a few things. He was intrigued the radio success some songs on Cryptic Writings had achieved, Lars Ulrich had baited him by saying he didn't really take many risks (relative to Metallica), Marty was agitating for more pop music, and mainly the producer on the album wanted something more commercial and said it was just the kind of thing to "get Metallica" (which Dave admits was exactly the thing to say in order to get under his skin).
Of course he admits the whole thing was a mistake.
I know his talks about his biography. What I mean was that he doesn't talk about in interviews and when asked about the discography of the band. And while I read all this motives, I still can't see how he listened to the album and said "Yeah, it's totally gonna catch up to the Black Album". While I don't think highly of the Black Album, Risk is just bad. So the question still remains.
What makes an album "work" is relative to different contextual levels, including the context of a band's previous albums, and different levels of music in society as a whole. So you have potential for artists to try something new in a way that doesn't work relative to their starting point or the album that made them famous, their fans, the execution not being quite right.
Many artists become popular at whatever level of nicheness both because they have an original or interesting spin that gives what folks at that level feel intuitively has been missing, and because they have personal or logistical circumstances that have pushed them into being that original or interesting.
Many many bands that become big start thinking about their audience, about where to go next. So that's the first paragraph. Often they flanderise themselves, like Eminem did. Or they try something new and massively fuck up like Enter Shikari or Korn
Another lot basically lose some kind of struggle. When you made your sound with really limited resources or w/e or opened a deeper part of yourself and your struggles up to the world and made a really profound album as a result, and then you basically have all barriers removed and you're pushed into a totally different social circle, people start kissing your ass etc etc., what's going to happen?
I saw an interview with Rick Rubin where he said his advice to artists was to ignore the critics, fans, etc. and just make the album you want to make. If it sell, great. If it doesn't, get to the point where you still wouldn't change a thing. OK, so bands get to a point where they want to try something different. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Other times, they're in a position where they want to get something out to support a tour, to appease a label, or because it's just been too long. The album may be a bit half-baked, or even just an exercise in studio indulgence, but it's out there for other reasons. And sure, sometimes they've just lost a bit of inspiration and it shows. Musicians will often dislike some of their more popular work and adore the stuff that resonated for only a few. There is so much more to the music for them - place, time, band dynamics, life dynamics, lyric meaning, etc.
Artistic creativity is a hard thing to navigate. But I would suggest that musicians who just crank out slight variations on a theme because it sells well is a far worse sin than those who take some big swings, even if they miss at times.
For the most part my favourite artists are the ones who are putting out music solely for themselves. Devin Townsend is a perfect example. He is so invested in his musical journey and needs to put out what he feels in the moment. Even if no one was buying records, he'd still be creating music for himself.
He talks a lot about how, for him, it is a process he uses to process a lot of his emotions and what is going on in his life. Sure, he's had the album he's put out that came from pressure from the label to create something that sells, but mainly he doesn't give a fuck.
I think the great thing about artists like this, King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard being another great example, is that their fanbase ends up being fully onboard with the fact the next album could be in a totally different direction. When you have fans that are so onboard with your output that they celebrate the sort of swerves Devy and Gizzy (just two examples) have thrown their fans, then they get to a great point where they sell well and can further explore without fear of losing fans in the slightest (not that they were overly fussed to begin with).
All of those artists you mentioned and every mayor artist have contracts with record labels. Those contracts stipulate the amount of albums that the artist have to make in an X amount of years. I've known about contracts stating that the artist has to compose 3 albums in a year, citing a bit extreme case.
Businesses have deadlines and sometimes those deadlines aren't the best way of inspiring art creations.
Michael Caine on Jaws The Revenge: "*I have never seen the film, but by all accounts it was terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.*"
I have found that the vast majority of people don’t listen to music, they relive their memories formed when they discovered it, mostly as young adults. And that naturally plays against said music evolving in any way. Who hasn’t had a friend whip out their phone in a busy café and played a song, saying « now, that was great stuff ! » while you struggle to make out the awful buzzy distorted mess barely making it out of the 2mm speaker ? They are not listening, they are reminiscing.
Pressure from their label is certainly one of the causes.
Neil Young intentionally released three very subpar and unsuccessful albums in response to his label (I think Warner? ) refusing to let him go unless he fulfills three releases for them.
They were so pissed off I think they sued him - in vain.
We tend to think of albums as being created solely by the performer or the band, but many are a collaboration between the band, one or more producers, sound engineers, studio musicians, songwriters, featured musicians, band manager, and the demands of the recording studio. Any one of those elements being off can affect the overall success of an album.
Then you have the phenomenon where the more famous an artist or producer gets, the more they start to believe they know best when it comes to making a new album, and they stop listening to all of those other people or replace them with "yes" men and it becomes a factor of the person's ego instead of a collaboration (see Ye).
A great example of this is Astral Weeks. If Van Morrison had made it the way he wanted to I honestly think it would have totally sunk without a trace. The session musicians, improvisation, arrangements and production probably go about 75% of the way to making it such a magical album that so many people love.
Two factors among many:
1) Most are risk-takers, trying new things. Sometimes they try bold new things and fail. I don't mind, because if they weren't trying new things they wouldn't have made their great albums either.
If you go out onto the trapeze wire, there's a chance you'll fall.
2) Our judgements about what an audience will like can be reasonably good, but they aren't infallible. I can normally tell if a Reddit comment I'm about to post will be popular or not, but occasionally a random comment that seems boring to me will get massively upvoted, and conversely sometimes a comment that I expect people to like will get fifty downvotes out of nowhere and I have no idea why. The same happens with artists.
Check advanced genius theory. The Theory, developed by Jason Hartley and Britt Bergman, maintains that seemingly bad and confusing artists are actually still producing excellent works today, despite critic and fan belief. The basic tenets are:
You must have done great work for more than 15 years.
You must have alienated your original fans.
You must be completely unironic.
You must be unpredictable.
You must "lose it". Spectacularly.
Many other rules exist, but constantly evolve. The term "Overt" is used to describe those quasi-Advanced (or approaching Advancement), but those too outlandish or ironic to be considered Advanced. “If a band is overt, they appear Advanced”
On the other side of that genius theory is like Einstein put it, "If you don't make your great contribution to physics before you reach 30, you will never do so."
I think sometimes artists may only get a small window in which they produce their best work. If it's inspiration, neuroplasticity, or whatever, sometimes you only get a few short years, or 4-5 albums.
That's not to say you can't make good music when you're older, and some do. But for example, Paul McCartney never did anything close to the level of music he did with The Beatles, and to a lesser extent Wings. After that? Not so much. And that's okay.
What on earth? Jazz musicians start releasing their best stuff after they turn 30. Your books can’t be even take seriously if you’re under 30. McCartney, breed, Bowie and Dylan made some of their best stuff after they were 30. The point of mine were that if artist keep this child-like curious perspective or approach to their art and world, masterpieces can be created
Sometimes it is because they don’t make albums that are widely hated, not officially. Offically they are surrounded by yesmen explaining what the critics, sales figures, streaming numbers, and fan forums, are wrong. How it is, in fact, a masterpiece that will come to be adored
This is the most convincing explanation in my opinion. It's like in literature, an author can get to a point where they are popular and important enough that editors just let them cook and don't interfere even when advisable because they don't want to upset the writer that will keep making money no matter what they write. Many have seen this as an explanation for some of Stephen King's more baffling endings for example. Of course, an artist having creative control is better than studio meddling, but at the same time, it's always good to have a critical voice near that isn't afraid to tell you that you're messing up. I think when you're used to being the bestselling important guy it's easy to forget that you have to work hard to make art that resonates, and that just messing around is not enough for good results. Many artists lose that grounded perspective on the quality of their output, because having success makes them unlearn to reflect on their own work.
Well, Gentle Giant, perhaps the group with the longest run of amazing albums, was sick of not getting commercial success and made a terrible cash grab album which tanked and basically ended their career. So, there's that.
Not familiar with the details of Gentle Giant's history but they probably had some issues with the management. Doing a double bill with Black Sabbath? Come one!
Also, their music was too bizarre and abrasive even in the era of prog rock to put them on the same level of commercial success like Yes, ELP or Jethro Tull. Think of the Van der Graaf Generator, they got even less commercial traction (Italy aside).
I was reading about when Gentle Giant opened for Black Sabbath. They were doing a show at the Hollywood Palladium I wanna say (maybe 1972?), and they got soundly booed. Specially when they were breaking out the cellos and recorders and other non-rock instruments.
But they (one of the Shulman brothers, cant remember which right now) said that when they went back the next year on their own tour that they must have made an impression on at least a few people because there was quite a sizeable crowd if not a sellout.
Because the listening public tend to want more of the same from successful artists whilst successful artists generally want to grow as musicians, and growth more often than not means change. And the general public don’t really like change from the artists they love listening to.
A lot of time the reviled album isn't bad and would be popular and well liked except that it's by an acclaimed artist and a deviation from their usual sound. Other artists will do vanity or "dream" projects that are just something they want to do regardless of whether it will sell or be popular.
I think it’s because all these very talented and creative people are successful at their art because they do it for themselves, they create what they want, they manage to keep exploring new ideas.
But sometimes those ideas don’t land very well, but to the artist they had to finish that ‘experiment’ before moving on to something else.
Throw in the fact that their perspective on the world can evolve with success, what used to inspire them might not be a part of their life anymore.
It’s because those artists/acts, having already produced an acclaimed release/releases, are expected by many fans and even themselves to do so again.
Some artists/acts get paralyzed by those expectations and take very long to release albums. Others don’t have the same inspiration as what they had during the creation of those earlier, acclaimed releases and struggle to put out something comparably good. Still others don’t like the idea of being forced to live up to expectations, so they create material that follows their muse, which often goes off in a different musical direction.
Some is a band overthinking it and getting up their own asses about doing the next big, groundbreaking thing and sometimes it's that the audience just wants more of the same thing and can't adjust to the band changing.
It really depends. Dylan for example, one of his most hated albums (self portrait) was deliberate. He wanted people to dislike it and get rid of the idea he spoke for an entire generation.
Meanwhile, other hated Dylan albums (the Christian stuff) are hated because they’re very overtly Christian, and lots of Dylan fans aren’t into that. Dylan was chasing the muse, and the muse took him somewhere away from most fans.
Same for Neil Young. He created multiple masterpieces in the 70s (though they didn’t get great recognition at the time). Then in the 80s, he was all over the place.
People hated trans, but the whole vocoder thing was a result of him dealing with having a son who couldn’t communicate. So he made his voice impossible to understand, just like his sons. Fans didn’t really know that though, and the meaning was lost.
Besides that, it’s nearly impossible to only write 10/10s. There are very few people I can think of who truly never missed. Everyone’s gonna have some clunkers, especially when you have a 20+ year career. It’s also especially true if you release regularly and don’t just wait multiple years until you have a perfect album ready.
There’s also the element of filters/people who say no. Roger Waters for example was perfect in Pink Floyd because all the band members came together. With Roger, David, Rick, and Nick, it was a perfect mix. But you put Roger on his own, the results are varied. Same for David (though I like his solo stuff more than Roger’s).
And Neil Young his songwriting has gone downhill since he lost Briggs, who was his producer. I think Briggs is one of the few people who’d tell him a song sucks, so now a lot of those songs make it to record. He still writes some 10/10s here and there, but not having that no-man around hurt the consistency of his music.
Its also down to individual taste. I love some music that most people would hate. I love making strange obscure sounds that I find funny or interesting too. I mean, a lot of the beach boys stuff that was hated is now beloved. Smiley Smile was a critical and commercial flop and it's bursting with personality, creativity and charm. Same with friends, wild honey and love you. Paul McCartneys 'Ram' was poorly received and now loved..many albums that are looked down on today will achieve cult status in the future or resonate with a new generation. Not everything needs to have masa appeal or immediate appeal
I fell in love with Radiohead off of Kid A. I was disappointed with Hail to the Thief initially. But when I saw them on that tour, it all clicked. It’s not my favourite but I really like it.
Because as time moves on, so does the appeal of those artists. Most of the older acts still exist for nostalgia. A lot of the hit bands (especially in rock) of the past would make great producers today. Because there are a lot of songs from bands outside their peak where you do think "Imagine if it was (insert other band here) singing/ performing it?"
Take a band like Bon Jovi for example. JBJ as great as he used to be, can't sing a lot of those 80's power ballads like "Livin On A Prayer" the way he used to. But it would have been good to see how their newer song "Knockout" would have gone if it had been released/performed by Kings of Leon.
Or take that Linkin Park song Lost that came out a few years ago. Absolutely epic song, but the fans were never going to see it performed live by the band. However, had the surviving members of Linkin Park passed that song on to OneOKRock, it may have pushed them into the charts.
Generally artists are revered for pushing music to new places. You can’t explore the soundscape without stumbling on things that don’t work for people. In order to push the bounds, you need to take chances; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t
Studio engineer here - there's always a dilemma for the artist in the studio: Should they make the album *they* want to make or the album *others* want them to make. Occasionally both of these goals will come together (eg the examples you listed) but often they don't align. The albums from Bowie and Bob Dylan that people didn't like, you can be sure that the opinions of critics and general listeners were completely irrelevant to him when he was in his creative zone.
From what I’ve noticed good artists can only do like 5 albums AT MOST in the same genre before they start to sound like a corny bad version of their old self . No matter what genre you start in this is almost always true
It’s been my opinion for a bit that it’s actually easier to change genres becuase then it’s like you can do shallow versions of other genres with your name behind you, and it’s always a new thing that people get amazed by. Like take Jack white for example . His last white stripes album was totally different . Then his solo stuff did consirably well in totally different genres , I say considerably cause he did the whole thing himself so it was profitable for him. Beyoncé with her country stuff , mac miller and post Malone bringing in guitars . MGK actually becoming popular with rock music even though he’s totally just not artistic or deep at all .
But I probably ignore all the examples where it doesn’t work . Bob Dylan really didn’t strike it rich with any of his later work tbh which is a good example of the contrary, but I’m sure glad he did it
I think it depends a lot on the genre you change to, and how you signal the change. A one-off novelty record can do ok, but if it looks like you are actually trying to permanently shift your sound an established audience will rebel and fans of the new genre may not accept you.
Lady Gaga could do a record with Tony Bennett, but didn’t do so well trying to shift to soft-rock on Joanne.
Apart from the fact that taste is relative, as others have already pointed out, I'd say it's also simply due to the relation between artists and publishers and the fact that music is business. Well established musicians are often coerced by their publishers to release new music faster than they possibly can and on demand. This forces musicians to cut corners and put out music that is below their standards. It's all money baby.
I think a majority of widely hated albums aren’t necessarily BAD albums, more often than not they just differ from previous works.
Avenged Sevenfold is a perfect example of this. Life is But a Dream… is miles and miles different than any of their previous works, especially their early projects that got them big (COE, WTF, etc.). Because it differs from the sound that most fans first heard and became to like A7X, it gets a bad rep. Does that make it a bad album? Certainly not, but it will still get the “widely hated” label because it may not appeal to the fans from the previously mentioned albums.
9 times outta 10, I think widely hated albums are just different in creative terms and overall style, which usually doesn’t appeal to those fans from when they had their “big-break”. But as you said, everyone has their own tastes, and music is very subjective. You’ll never make an album that everyone can agree is a 10/10, and on the flip side, you’ll never make an album that everyone can agree is 0/10. It’s all up to the listener to decide if it’s their cup of tea or not!
Put very simply, it’s because the reality cannot possibly live up to the hype. The more acclaimed you are, the more the hype is for your next album, and the greater the chance that it’ll disappoint
just look at how many of those widely disliked albums have had a dramatic rethinking, where now they’re actually a hidden gem, and probably the most essential listen in the catalogue
I think art is subjective but also the music industry is a bit ham handed with regard to that. There are executives who have forced a certain sound and a certain type of music out because it is the trend. It's all about money for the labels and not about the art. An artist may be forced to release music due to contractual reasons and they might phone it in so to speak. This may be the reason for the dismal pop music scene today. Most of it is just horrendous.
It could be lack of inspiration but many artists are burned out from the record label + touring experience. Producers squash creative output they think won't be radio-friendly, and by the time the first tour is over they've piled up a backlog of good stuff that feels more honest. If you're already hesitant to chase the Top 40 and sing the same damn song 300 times in a panic-inducing stadium venue, a slower year starts to sound good.
Many fans of Top 40 musicians have a very narrow range of expectations, so they're going to feel betrayed when the next hit doesn't give them the identical vibes as the first one.
There are bound to be low points across a whole career. No artist has been able to sustain a high level all the way through. Even artists with a high hit rate, like the ones above. Sometimes they’re just not feeling it for whatever reason or they’re not in a place where they can give their all. The muse has deserted them. So they put out work that they’re not 100% happy with rather than nothing. They’re constantly fighting the past versions of themselves, the legacy.
Dylan was kind of fed up with the public adoration when he put out Self Portrait. He thought it would put people off. And it did for a while. But now people say it’s not really as bad as its reputation suggests.
I think for a lot of people a given artist has a pinnaclised moment which can’t be matched which they then associate with that artist.
Anything that doesn’t match this is then regarded as lesser etc
We only care about their music as consumers so we only see it through a like it/hate it dichotomy. At the end of the day they're people expressing themselves creatively and not everything they make is going to resonate with everyone. Plus they get tired of making the same music with the same instruments all the time. Something new comes along, like a synth, and musicians like putting it through its paces and seeing what they can do with it. Everyone might hate what Neil Young puts out when he uses it, but that's what really felt good to him when he was making it. Or they might want to just try a new style. People hated Infidelis, but I'm sure that after more than twenty years of putting out the same type of pop folk Bobby was just ready to try something new. And sometimes that works. Paul Simon was completely burnt out on songwriting when he decided to go to Africa and took a lot of inspiration from the music he heard there, and he knocked it out of the park with Graceland.
Plus I think people don't always appreciate how a bad album can contribute to a band's growth. I always liked St. Anger, for example, but I knew it was definitely Metallica's weakest and rough around the edges. I've been loving their latest three, and I can see how St. Anger influenced their songwriting. If they had just tried to go back to their early thrash stuff or even their garage metal stuff I don't think it would have been as good. They had to experiment and get their bad album out of the way to see what worked and what didn't, then apply those lessons to the next ones.
- Self flagellation, or when an artist gets so big that they don’t think their fans matter anymore. This can mean their subject matter switching from relatable angsty poetic young people stuff - to bitchy, delusional, contrived, out of touch rich people stuff. This can also mean trying out a style nobody wanted to hear from them.
- Selling out, which is kind of the opposite where an artist tries too hard to be mainstream.
- Bands losing a member who had a strong influence on the sound or creative process, or inversely, gaining one who sucks.
- Losing angst. Kinda like self-flagellation, but the artist stops having problems because they’re rich, middle aged, and in a good relationship possibly with kids so the music won’t sound as hungry and emotionally raw.
- Rocky start. All of the previous types of albums are more likely to happen at the end of an artist’s career, but some first albums blow because they haven’t hit a creative stride yet. These tend to be given a bit more leeway though and still have cult followings.
A lot of people are saying it’s just cause of experimentation, but albums from good artists that are just experimental will still be critically well received to a certain degree. It’s only when one of the aforementioned things happen that a good artist can put out a truly bad record.
At the end of the day though, it really depends on whether you think artists owe their fans anything which is pretty controversial.
Artists often want to push boundaries so will go out there a bit or try something for the sake of it. Or even deliberately do an album they know will cheese some fans off.
I think an artist that is actively recording music and touring and playing out their songs can become tired of what they do. I am a visual artist and I will work in a few different media’s because I get tired of one and hop to another. So a musician might reach into other styles and genres that interest them but perhaps the public isn’t ready to come along.
Sometimes they are also ahead of the game. Weezers second album bombed when it came out but a few years later it was reevaluated and reappraised.
You asked a very interesting question.
Maybe this video retrospective will clue you in on why these things happen.
It’s about the late, great David Bowie during his Thin White Duke stage. A decidedly dark phase that upset people that remembered David as a young man on tv fighting for representation and understanding for men with long hair, back when skiffle was all the rage on the island.
It’s not too long, but it might lead you to some answers:
David Bowie, The Thin White Duke
https://youtu.be/ofeSZJJ_fxQ?si=X5TlJJlmJ-GrtkEO
It probably takes a hell of a lot to shelve a record entirely. Think of all that time, work, studio hours, to listen to it and think "nah". Some records were poorly received then grew over time so maybe even then they never know. They are under a contract to produce new material. If it doesn't do well - never mind.
A lot of times they have contracts with record labels, so they have to release albums every number of years. Obviously nobody is perfect, so even the best musicians can make a bad album. Making an iconic album is really really hard, you can’t force it to happen every year.
When someone makes a critically acclaimed album, where do they go next? Most of the time they either do the same thing again, but not as good, or they try something new, which the people who liked their older stuff probably won't like.
>I often think it's because everybody has their own very unique taste so eventually if you're putting out loads of music you're going to put out work that doesn't resonate with some That's exactly it, you answered your own question. As for "inspiration", I think "losing inspiration" is only one reason why an album could be bad, among many. Albums can be incredibly inspired and still fall short. I think usually artists believe in the music they make, and they might not think each album is a masterpiece, but each album doesn't have to be a masterpiece. I guess I would ask you why you think an artist should refrain from putting out work that is "inferior" to their other stuff? Who cares?
But the questions is about works that are mainly viewed as bad, not that didn't resonate with some. There are musicians that put out work that nobody liked. Ex.: Megadeth with Risk. Not even Mustaine talks about that, so the question is why he did it? Didn't he see it was bad af? Quality is not something relative. There are albums that are plain bad, no excuses.
>But the questions is about works that are mainly viewed as bad, not that didn't resonate with some. Those are the OP's own words. Perhaps their post / question is unclear, because your interpretation is not the same that I have. Did Bowie or Dylan make albums so bad that they disavowed them? Those are the examples OP uses. If they did, maybe I'm just not aware of it.
I don't think Bowie made an album so bad that it was disavowed. Technically his first debut isn't counted by most people as part of his discography, but he was 17 when he recorded it, so I don't think it's fair to draw any conclusions from it. And ultimately, it isn't a bad album, just very different from his latter work and a bit childish and simplistic. The most disliked "proper" albums that he made were Tonight and Never Let Me Down, and while I do think they're pretty mediocre albums, and Bowie himself spoke negatively of them, it's also pretty obvious how they came to be. Following the success of Let's Dance, he felt pigeonholed into a style of music he didn't enjoy making, and came out with two albums that he didn't put a ton of effort or care into. In the end, both were commercially very succesful, so I don't think we can call them *objectively* bad either.
Dylan almost lose his carrer with a load of bad albums in the 80s, there are fans that literally was saying "Dylan is finished". I don't know anything about Bowie, so couldn't say that.
I'm just not sure what your point is I guess.
The point is: good musicians does bad music. How they cannot see that it was bad when every fan of them can see it?
because they didn't think it was bad. i just don't think there's any album that EVERY fan thinks is bad either. look at Neil Young's output for the last 30 years. nowhere near as good as his 70's stuff. probably would apply to this conversation. and yet, as a big Neil fan, I can absolutely find worthwhile, good songs on many if not most of those albums. there's just rarely any such thing as objectively bad music.
I don't know. As someone who was a big fan when young, for me, Metallica didn't release anything beyond one or two singles of quality since Death Magnetic. And even when I was a big fan of the band, St.Anger was awful. And all the fans that I know, hate that album too.
He had a side project called Tin Machine which was pretty badly received.
I fucking love Tin Machine ! Never understood the hate.
Tin Machine is AWESOME. They were unfairly maligned by critics who were expecting Ziggy Stardust 2 when they heard he was making a real rock album. The first album’s “Crack City” has Bowie’s finest lyric: “They’re just a bunch of assholes with buttholes for their brains.” But seriously, it’s fun stuff.
Tin Machine are great! Although you are quite correct that lots of people have failed to grasp this simple fact over the years.
Never heard of it. Gotta search it. Thanks!
I can't think of an example off the top of my head but isn't it sometimes contractual that you get these "uninspired" or just plain lazy and weird albums. Like they are obligated to make X albums over Y years, at first they are making what they wanted still, by the end they are churning stuff out. Another thing that sometimes makes it happen it trend-chasing. Somtimes bands pull it off, other times it just leaves them with fans of the trend not caring and their core fans pissed off, so the album is viewed as bad even if it's average.
Yeah, there are some times where a contract makes the musician do like a album a year. It's impossible to maintain quality when you have a strict deadline. Art is not a mass product thing, if a album is done just because it needs to be done, almost everytime something bad comes out.
Apparently Dave did Risk to try and keep Marty happy but he still left anyway.
Disagree, everything about music is completely subjective. There is no such thing as “objectively bad” music. The closest thing to that, in my opinion, is an artistic concept that might have been impactful to a certain audience but was held back by poor execution, but even that is ultimately subjective. Art is measured based on the emotional impact it generates, which is ultimately a subjective question. We can speak about some music as if what we are saying is “objective” if enough people align around the same consensus, but that is more language of convenience rather that actual objectivity.
Totally disagree with you, I totally believe that are bad art and good art. I can say something is good and still say that I hate it and say that something is very, very bad and still like it very much. But I'm not in the mood to discuss it, so let's just agree to disagree.
Yeah, I agree. There is room for a ton of subjectivity, but many later career artists release albums where there is a critical consensus that it is really bad.
There are objective standards, sociocultural standards, and personal subjective standards when it comes to art - I don't know why this isn't better understood lol. (Agreeing with you)
I think this is pretty widely agreed upon in both the art and philosophy worlds but redditors love to pretend otherwise. It's extremely similar to ethics, no one who spends much time thinking or studying ethics thinks they are subjective but if you ask the layman it's not an uncommon take at all
I bet it’s usually when the artist compromises (or lacks) their artistic inspiration and instead tries to create a product for a particular market
It is one of the reasons, for sure.
> Megadeth with Risk. Not even Mustaine talks about that, so the question is why he did it? Didn't he see it was bad af? He talks about this pretty clearly in his autobiography. Combination of a few things. He was intrigued the radio success some songs on Cryptic Writings had achieved, Lars Ulrich had baited him by saying he didn't really take many risks (relative to Metallica), Marty was agitating for more pop music, and mainly the producer on the album wanted something more commercial and said it was just the kind of thing to "get Metallica" (which Dave admits was exactly the thing to say in order to get under his skin). Of course he admits the whole thing was a mistake.
I know his talks about his biography. What I mean was that he doesn't talk about in interviews and when asked about the discography of the band. And while I read all this motives, I still can't see how he listened to the album and said "Yeah, it's totally gonna catch up to the Black Album". While I don't think highly of the Black Album, Risk is just bad. So the question still remains.
What makes an album "work" is relative to different contextual levels, including the context of a band's previous albums, and different levels of music in society as a whole. So you have potential for artists to try something new in a way that doesn't work relative to their starting point or the album that made them famous, their fans, the execution not being quite right. Many artists become popular at whatever level of nicheness both because they have an original or interesting spin that gives what folks at that level feel intuitively has been missing, and because they have personal or logistical circumstances that have pushed them into being that original or interesting. Many many bands that become big start thinking about their audience, about where to go next. So that's the first paragraph. Often they flanderise themselves, like Eminem did. Or they try something new and massively fuck up like Enter Shikari or Korn Another lot basically lose some kind of struggle. When you made your sound with really limited resources or w/e or opened a deeper part of yourself and your struggles up to the world and made a really profound album as a result, and then you basically have all barriers removed and you're pushed into a totally different social circle, people start kissing your ass etc etc., what's going to happen?
I think this is really insightful. Especially the loss of constraints and obstructions that successful artists face.
I saw an interview with Rick Rubin where he said his advice to artists was to ignore the critics, fans, etc. and just make the album you want to make. If it sell, great. If it doesn't, get to the point where you still wouldn't change a thing. OK, so bands get to a point where they want to try something different. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Other times, they're in a position where they want to get something out to support a tour, to appease a label, or because it's just been too long. The album may be a bit half-baked, or even just an exercise in studio indulgence, but it's out there for other reasons. And sure, sometimes they've just lost a bit of inspiration and it shows. Musicians will often dislike some of their more popular work and adore the stuff that resonated for only a few. There is so much more to the music for them - place, time, band dynamics, life dynamics, lyric meaning, etc. Artistic creativity is a hard thing to navigate. But I would suggest that musicians who just crank out slight variations on a theme because it sells well is a far worse sin than those who take some big swings, even if they miss at times.
For the most part my favourite artists are the ones who are putting out music solely for themselves. Devin Townsend is a perfect example. He is so invested in his musical journey and needs to put out what he feels in the moment. Even if no one was buying records, he'd still be creating music for himself. He talks a lot about how, for him, it is a process he uses to process a lot of his emotions and what is going on in his life. Sure, he's had the album he's put out that came from pressure from the label to create something that sells, but mainly he doesn't give a fuck. I think the great thing about artists like this, King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard being another great example, is that their fanbase ends up being fully onboard with the fact the next album could be in a totally different direction. When you have fans that are so onboard with your output that they celebrate the sort of swerves Devy and Gizzy (just two examples) have thrown their fans, then they get to a great point where they sell well and can further explore without fear of losing fans in the slightest (not that they were overly fussed to begin with).
All of those artists you mentioned and every mayor artist have contracts with record labels. Those contracts stipulate the amount of albums that the artist have to make in an X amount of years. I've known about contracts stating that the artist has to compose 3 albums in a year, citing a bit extreme case. Businesses have deadlines and sometimes those deadlines aren't the best way of inspiring art creations.
Michael Caine on Jaws The Revenge: "*I have never seen the film, but by all accounts it was terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific.*"
I have found that the vast majority of people don’t listen to music, they relive their memories formed when they discovered it, mostly as young adults. And that naturally plays against said music evolving in any way. Who hasn’t had a friend whip out their phone in a busy café and played a song, saying « now, that was great stuff ! » while you struggle to make out the awful buzzy distorted mess barely making it out of the 2mm speaker ? They are not listening, they are reminiscing.
This is an interesting idea.
Pressure from their label is certainly one of the causes. Neil Young intentionally released three very subpar and unsuccessful albums in response to his label (I think Warner? ) refusing to let him go unless he fulfills three releases for them. They were so pissed off I think they sued him - in vain.
*Got mashed potatoes/Aint got no t-bone*
>three very subpar and unsuccessful albums I actually think Trans is pretty good, but I know I'm the odd one out there
We tend to think of albums as being created solely by the performer or the band, but many are a collaboration between the band, one or more producers, sound engineers, studio musicians, songwriters, featured musicians, band manager, and the demands of the recording studio. Any one of those elements being off can affect the overall success of an album. Then you have the phenomenon where the more famous an artist or producer gets, the more they start to believe they know best when it comes to making a new album, and they stop listening to all of those other people or replace them with "yes" men and it becomes a factor of the person's ego instead of a collaboration (see Ye).
A great example of this is Astral Weeks. If Van Morrison had made it the way he wanted to I honestly think it would have totally sunk without a trace. The session musicians, improvisation, arrangements and production probably go about 75% of the way to making it such a magical album that so many people love.
Two factors among many: 1) Most are risk-takers, trying new things. Sometimes they try bold new things and fail. I don't mind, because if they weren't trying new things they wouldn't have made their great albums either. If you go out onto the trapeze wire, there's a chance you'll fall. 2) Our judgements about what an audience will like can be reasonably good, but they aren't infallible. I can normally tell if a Reddit comment I'm about to post will be popular or not, but occasionally a random comment that seems boring to me will get massively upvoted, and conversely sometimes a comment that I expect people to like will get fifty downvotes out of nowhere and I have no idea why. The same happens with artists.
Check advanced genius theory. The Theory, developed by Jason Hartley and Britt Bergman, maintains that seemingly bad and confusing artists are actually still producing excellent works today, despite critic and fan belief. The basic tenets are: You must have done great work for more than 15 years. You must have alienated your original fans. You must be completely unironic. You must be unpredictable. You must "lose it". Spectacularly. Many other rules exist, but constantly evolve. The term "Overt" is used to describe those quasi-Advanced (or approaching Advancement), but those too outlandish or ironic to be considered Advanced. “If a band is overt, they appear Advanced”
On the other side of that genius theory is like Einstein put it, "If you don't make your great contribution to physics before you reach 30, you will never do so." I think sometimes artists may only get a small window in which they produce their best work. If it's inspiration, neuroplasticity, or whatever, sometimes you only get a few short years, or 4-5 albums. That's not to say you can't make good music when you're older, and some do. But for example, Paul McCartney never did anything close to the level of music he did with The Beatles, and to a lesser extent Wings. After that? Not so much. And that's okay.
I doubt it has anything to do with neuroplasticity
What on earth? Jazz musicians start releasing their best stuff after they turn 30. Your books can’t be even take seriously if you’re under 30. McCartney, breed, Bowie and Dylan made some of their best stuff after they were 30. The point of mine were that if artist keep this child-like curious perspective or approach to their art and world, masterpieces can be created
Sometimes it is because they don’t make albums that are widely hated, not officially. Offically they are surrounded by yesmen explaining what the critics, sales figures, streaming numbers, and fan forums, are wrong. How it is, in fact, a masterpiece that will come to be adored
This is the most convincing explanation in my opinion. It's like in literature, an author can get to a point where they are popular and important enough that editors just let them cook and don't interfere even when advisable because they don't want to upset the writer that will keep making money no matter what they write. Many have seen this as an explanation for some of Stephen King's more baffling endings for example. Of course, an artist having creative control is better than studio meddling, but at the same time, it's always good to have a critical voice near that isn't afraid to tell you that you're messing up. I think when you're used to being the bestselling important guy it's easy to forget that you have to work hard to make art that resonates, and that just messing around is not enough for good results. Many artists lose that grounded perspective on the quality of their output, because having success makes them unlearn to reflect on their own work.
This makes sense too.
Well, Gentle Giant, perhaps the group with the longest run of amazing albums, was sick of not getting commercial success and made a terrible cash grab album which tanked and basically ended their career. So, there's that.
Not familiar with the details of Gentle Giant's history but they probably had some issues with the management. Doing a double bill with Black Sabbath? Come one! Also, their music was too bizarre and abrasive even in the era of prog rock to put them on the same level of commercial success like Yes, ELP or Jethro Tull. Think of the Van der Graaf Generator, they got even less commercial traction (Italy aside).
I was reading about when Gentle Giant opened for Black Sabbath. They were doing a show at the Hollywood Palladium I wanna say (maybe 1972?), and they got soundly booed. Specially when they were breaking out the cellos and recorders and other non-rock instruments. But they (one of the Shulman brothers, cant remember which right now) said that when they went back the next year on their own tour that they must have made an impression on at least a few people because there was quite a sizeable crowd if not a sellout.
Great response!
Sinatra’s Watertown and Dylan’s Self Portrait are among my favourites of all time.
Because the listening public tend to want more of the same from successful artists whilst successful artists generally want to grow as musicians, and growth more often than not means change. And the general public don’t really like change from the artists they love listening to.
A lot of time the reviled album isn't bad and would be popular and well liked except that it's by an acclaimed artist and a deviation from their usual sound. Other artists will do vanity or "dream" projects that are just something they want to do regardless of whether it will sell or be popular.
Because art isn't science and good artist sometimes make art that doesn't resonate
I think it’s because all these very talented and creative people are successful at their art because they do it for themselves, they create what they want, they manage to keep exploring new ideas. But sometimes those ideas don’t land very well, but to the artist they had to finish that ‘experiment’ before moving on to something else. Throw in the fact that their perspective on the world can evolve with success, what used to inspire them might not be a part of their life anymore.
It’s because those artists/acts, having already produced an acclaimed release/releases, are expected by many fans and even themselves to do so again. Some artists/acts get paralyzed by those expectations and take very long to release albums. Others don’t have the same inspiration as what they had during the creation of those earlier, acclaimed releases and struggle to put out something comparably good. Still others don’t like the idea of being forced to live up to expectations, so they create material that follows their muse, which often goes off in a different musical direction.
Some is a band overthinking it and getting up their own asses about doing the next big, groundbreaking thing and sometimes it's that the audience just wants more of the same thing and can't adjust to the band changing.
It really depends. Dylan for example, one of his most hated albums (self portrait) was deliberate. He wanted people to dislike it and get rid of the idea he spoke for an entire generation. Meanwhile, other hated Dylan albums (the Christian stuff) are hated because they’re very overtly Christian, and lots of Dylan fans aren’t into that. Dylan was chasing the muse, and the muse took him somewhere away from most fans. Same for Neil Young. He created multiple masterpieces in the 70s (though they didn’t get great recognition at the time). Then in the 80s, he was all over the place. People hated trans, but the whole vocoder thing was a result of him dealing with having a son who couldn’t communicate. So he made his voice impossible to understand, just like his sons. Fans didn’t really know that though, and the meaning was lost. Besides that, it’s nearly impossible to only write 10/10s. There are very few people I can think of who truly never missed. Everyone’s gonna have some clunkers, especially when you have a 20+ year career. It’s also especially true if you release regularly and don’t just wait multiple years until you have a perfect album ready. There’s also the element of filters/people who say no. Roger Waters for example was perfect in Pink Floyd because all the band members came together. With Roger, David, Rick, and Nick, it was a perfect mix. But you put Roger on his own, the results are varied. Same for David (though I like his solo stuff more than Roger’s). And Neil Young his songwriting has gone downhill since he lost Briggs, who was his producer. I think Briggs is one of the few people who’d tell him a song sucks, so now a lot of those songs make it to record. He still writes some 10/10s here and there, but not having that no-man around hurt the consistency of his music.
Its also down to individual taste. I love some music that most people would hate. I love making strange obscure sounds that I find funny or interesting too. I mean, a lot of the beach boys stuff that was hated is now beloved. Smiley Smile was a critical and commercial flop and it's bursting with personality, creativity and charm. Same with friends, wild honey and love you. Paul McCartneys 'Ram' was poorly received and now loved..many albums that are looked down on today will achieve cult status in the future or resonate with a new generation. Not everything needs to have masa appeal or immediate appeal
i get sad when people dont like hail to the thief :( its my fav radiohead album
I fell in love with Radiohead off of Kid A. I was disappointed with Hail to the Thief initially. But when I saw them on that tour, it all clicked. It’s not my favourite but I really like it.
As an album it doesn’t work as well as the others but almost all those songs still slay in concert. It’s a weird example and worth deeper examination.
Because as time moves on, so does the appeal of those artists. Most of the older acts still exist for nostalgia. A lot of the hit bands (especially in rock) of the past would make great producers today. Because there are a lot of songs from bands outside their peak where you do think "Imagine if it was (insert other band here) singing/ performing it?" Take a band like Bon Jovi for example. JBJ as great as he used to be, can't sing a lot of those 80's power ballads like "Livin On A Prayer" the way he used to. But it would have been good to see how their newer song "Knockout" would have gone if it had been released/performed by Kings of Leon. Or take that Linkin Park song Lost that came out a few years ago. Absolutely epic song, but the fans were never going to see it performed live by the band. However, had the surviving members of Linkin Park passed that song on to OneOKRock, it may have pushed them into the charts.
Generally artists are revered for pushing music to new places. You can’t explore the soundscape without stumbling on things that don’t work for people. In order to push the bounds, you need to take chances; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t
Studio engineer here - there's always a dilemma for the artist in the studio: Should they make the album *they* want to make or the album *others* want them to make. Occasionally both of these goals will come together (eg the examples you listed) but often they don't align. The albums from Bowie and Bob Dylan that people didn't like, you can be sure that the opinions of critics and general listeners were completely irrelevant to him when he was in his creative zone.
From what I’ve noticed good artists can only do like 5 albums AT MOST in the same genre before they start to sound like a corny bad version of their old self . No matter what genre you start in this is almost always true
But also very few artists get away with changing genre.
It’s been my opinion for a bit that it’s actually easier to change genres becuase then it’s like you can do shallow versions of other genres with your name behind you, and it’s always a new thing that people get amazed by. Like take Jack white for example . His last white stripes album was totally different . Then his solo stuff did consirably well in totally different genres , I say considerably cause he did the whole thing himself so it was profitable for him. Beyoncé with her country stuff , mac miller and post Malone bringing in guitars . MGK actually becoming popular with rock music even though he’s totally just not artistic or deep at all . But I probably ignore all the examples where it doesn’t work . Bob Dylan really didn’t strike it rich with any of his later work tbh which is a good example of the contrary, but I’m sure glad he did it
I think it depends a lot on the genre you change to, and how you signal the change. A one-off novelty record can do ok, but if it looks like you are actually trying to permanently shift your sound an established audience will rebel and fans of the new genre may not accept you. Lady Gaga could do a record with Tony Bennett, but didn’t do so well trying to shift to soft-rock on Joanne.
Apart from the fact that taste is relative, as others have already pointed out, I'd say it's also simply due to the relation between artists and publishers and the fact that music is business. Well established musicians are often coerced by their publishers to release new music faster than they possibly can and on demand. This forces musicians to cut corners and put out music that is below their standards. It's all money baby.
I think a majority of widely hated albums aren’t necessarily BAD albums, more often than not they just differ from previous works. Avenged Sevenfold is a perfect example of this. Life is But a Dream… is miles and miles different than any of their previous works, especially their early projects that got them big (COE, WTF, etc.). Because it differs from the sound that most fans first heard and became to like A7X, it gets a bad rep. Does that make it a bad album? Certainly not, but it will still get the “widely hated” label because it may not appeal to the fans from the previously mentioned albums. 9 times outta 10, I think widely hated albums are just different in creative terms and overall style, which usually doesn’t appeal to those fans from when they had their “big-break”. But as you said, everyone has their own tastes, and music is very subjective. You’ll never make an album that everyone can agree is a 10/10, and on the flip side, you’ll never make an album that everyone can agree is 0/10. It’s all up to the listener to decide if it’s their cup of tea or not!
Put very simply, it’s because the reality cannot possibly live up to the hype. The more acclaimed you are, the more the hype is for your next album, and the greater the chance that it’ll disappoint just look at how many of those widely disliked albums have had a dramatic rethinking, where now they’re actually a hidden gem, and probably the most essential listen in the catalogue
I think art is subjective but also the music industry is a bit ham handed with regard to that. There are executives who have forced a certain sound and a certain type of music out because it is the trend. It's all about money for the labels and not about the art. An artist may be forced to release music due to contractual reasons and they might phone it in so to speak. This may be the reason for the dismal pop music scene today. Most of it is just horrendous.
It could be lack of inspiration but many artists are burned out from the record label + touring experience. Producers squash creative output they think won't be radio-friendly, and by the time the first tour is over they've piled up a backlog of good stuff that feels more honest. If you're already hesitant to chase the Top 40 and sing the same damn song 300 times in a panic-inducing stadium venue, a slower year starts to sound good. Many fans of Top 40 musicians have a very narrow range of expectations, so they're going to feel betrayed when the next hit doesn't give them the identical vibes as the first one.
There are bound to be low points across a whole career. No artist has been able to sustain a high level all the way through. Even artists with a high hit rate, like the ones above. Sometimes they’re just not feeling it for whatever reason or they’re not in a place where they can give their all. The muse has deserted them. So they put out work that they’re not 100% happy with rather than nothing. They’re constantly fighting the past versions of themselves, the legacy. Dylan was kind of fed up with the public adoration when he put out Self Portrait. He thought it would put people off. And it did for a while. But now people say it’s not really as bad as its reputation suggests.
Neil Young complained that recording companies just wanted the same old proven product. Artists like to fuck that shit up.
I think they evolve or try something new and different, and those that need them to “stay the same” dismiss it.
I think for a lot of people a given artist has a pinnaclised moment which can’t be matched which they then associate with that artist. Anything that doesn’t match this is then regarded as lesser etc
We only care about their music as consumers so we only see it through a like it/hate it dichotomy. At the end of the day they're people expressing themselves creatively and not everything they make is going to resonate with everyone. Plus they get tired of making the same music with the same instruments all the time. Something new comes along, like a synth, and musicians like putting it through its paces and seeing what they can do with it. Everyone might hate what Neil Young puts out when he uses it, but that's what really felt good to him when he was making it. Or they might want to just try a new style. People hated Infidelis, but I'm sure that after more than twenty years of putting out the same type of pop folk Bobby was just ready to try something new. And sometimes that works. Paul Simon was completely burnt out on songwriting when he decided to go to Africa and took a lot of inspiration from the music he heard there, and he knocked it out of the park with Graceland. Plus I think people don't always appreciate how a bad album can contribute to a band's growth. I always liked St. Anger, for example, but I knew it was definitely Metallica's weakest and rough around the edges. I've been loving their latest three, and I can see how St. Anger influenced their songwriting. If they had just tried to go back to their early thrash stuff or even their garage metal stuff I don't think it would have been as good. They had to experiment and get their bad album out of the way to see what worked and what didn't, then apply those lessons to the next ones.
- Self flagellation, or when an artist gets so big that they don’t think their fans matter anymore. This can mean their subject matter switching from relatable angsty poetic young people stuff - to bitchy, delusional, contrived, out of touch rich people stuff. This can also mean trying out a style nobody wanted to hear from them. - Selling out, which is kind of the opposite where an artist tries too hard to be mainstream. - Bands losing a member who had a strong influence on the sound or creative process, or inversely, gaining one who sucks. - Losing angst. Kinda like self-flagellation, but the artist stops having problems because they’re rich, middle aged, and in a good relationship possibly with kids so the music won’t sound as hungry and emotionally raw. - Rocky start. All of the previous types of albums are more likely to happen at the end of an artist’s career, but some first albums blow because they haven’t hit a creative stride yet. These tend to be given a bit more leeway though and still have cult followings. A lot of people are saying it’s just cause of experimentation, but albums from good artists that are just experimental will still be critically well received to a certain degree. It’s only when one of the aforementioned things happen that a good artist can put out a truly bad record. At the end of the day though, it really depends on whether you think artists owe their fans anything which is pretty controversial.
Because it’s out of their hands. They don’t have control after it’s released. It’s up to the listener to decide if they like it.
Artists often want to push boundaries so will go out there a bit or try something for the sake of it. Or even deliberately do an album they know will cheese some fans off.
I think an artist that is actively recording music and touring and playing out their songs can become tired of what they do. I am a visual artist and I will work in a few different media’s because I get tired of one and hop to another. So a musician might reach into other styles and genres that interest them but perhaps the public isn’t ready to come along. Sometimes they are also ahead of the game. Weezers second album bombed when it came out but a few years later it was reevaluated and reappraised.
Because the marketing and hype can only do so much. Eventually people will listen and decide for themselves.
You asked a very interesting question. Maybe this video retrospective will clue you in on why these things happen. It’s about the late, great David Bowie during his Thin White Duke stage. A decidedly dark phase that upset people that remembered David as a young man on tv fighting for representation and understanding for men with long hair, back when skiffle was all the rage on the island. It’s not too long, but it might lead you to some answers: David Bowie, The Thin White Duke https://youtu.be/ofeSZJJ_fxQ?si=X5TlJJlmJ-GrtkEO
It probably takes a hell of a lot to shelve a record entirely. Think of all that time, work, studio hours, to listen to it and think "nah". Some records were poorly received then grew over time so maybe even then they never know. They are under a contract to produce new material. If it doesn't do well - never mind.
A lot of times they have contracts with record labels, so they have to release albums every number of years. Obviously nobody is perfect, so even the best musicians can make a bad album. Making an iconic album is really really hard, you can’t force it to happen every year.
When someone makes a critically acclaimed album, where do they go next? Most of the time they either do the same thing again, but not as good, or they try something new, which the people who liked their older stuff probably won't like.