|
|
The Role of Criticism In Shaping an ArtistSep 07 '09 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Books
The Bottom Line I Love Rock and Roll
I am certain there have been numerous articles written on the subject of the influence of criticism on an artist's development, but not having access to the fanciest search engines will free me to speculate without using footnotes. Because I know more about rock bands than I do anything else, I will start here. There seems to be a progression that most rock bands follow: 1. Searching for their voice. Many debut albums include cover songs and exhibit a wider variety of styles than a band's later output. It is most likely crowd reactions and market forces that then lead to 2. Finding their voice. This is when a band develops their own style by narrowing their focus on a specific sound that has been working for them. If it's really working, they move on to 3. Finding success, sticking with what got them there. After a band has had a largely successful album, the next will usually use the same formula. On the other hand, the band will begin to experiment a bit more because of a new found confidence, pushing the boundaries of their style, including a novelty track or two. Also, they will have more money to work with on the follow up album, which often leads to string arrangements and horns. Still, the band is repeating themselves for the most part, which usually leads to grumblings from the press leading to 4. Reacting to criticism. This can go many different ways, but in many cases bands tend to exaggerate their style on the follow up album, flying in the face of the critics as it were. At the same time, they will take some things to heart and try to improve in the areas that the critics are complaining about. "See here" they say "We were already doing that fancy schmancy stuff you wanted us to do but you were too dumb to see it. We'll bring it to the foreground and shove it in your face! What will you say then?" Huh!!!???" However, in doing all of this, the band will lose a great many of the fans who liked their original formula. Album sales will plummet a bit. The band starts to panic, leading to 5. The "Back to their roots" album. In the nineties they might have done an unplugged appearance on MTV. They don't just go back to their roots in many cases, they go back beyond their roots to roots they don't even have, like folk music, or Eastern music. If this step is a huge failure, we move on to 6. Completely pandering to the critics. "Ok, maybe they were right, those tabloid meanies. Let's try our hand at writing exactly what is hip and current." This is inevitably the worst album the band ever puts out and they end up breaking up completely or finding some new members. Now, if stages 2-4 were successful enough we move on to, maybe 20 years down the road... 7. The nostalgia tour. The new critics were youngsters when the band was in their prime. The new critics pine for the old days when music was "really good". Hip young kids read the new critic's articles in Rolling Stone. The band goes on tour and makes some money to help pay off their gambling debts, alimony, and stints in rehab. Everybody is happy!! So now that I've completely made my point, I'm sure you will completely agree with me. Or maybe criticize my notes, causing me to go back and prove my point a little better.  |
| Read all comments (1)|Write your own comment |
|
Ads by Google
|
