In a similar vein to a previous post looking at ageing rockers, I have been thinking recently about the virtues of artists or bands that choose to (or are forced to) retire after only one album. Those who are forced are generally speaking called "one-hit wonders", and while this is accurate it often comes with a negative connotation, an expectation that they should have gone on to make many more popular songs, why should artists not be happy that they have been able to make even one good song considering how many of us will never come close?
Not to deny that there is a lot of good music (we wouldn't be writing this blog if there wasn't), there is a difference between goodness and greatness, and a difference between greatness and genius. Amidst the thousands upon thousands of bands and artists that have come and gone, there are only a few that have demonstrated genius over a long time.
Music is literally everywhere today. The rise of the iPod has allowed people to easily create a soundtrack to their lives, and it is easier than ever before for people to create music in the comfort of their own home. In this climate of musical saturation many artists can release multiple albums off the back of one good song, and thanks to commercialism we will continue to buy the albums as they come out. While I believe that pop music is the most guilty of this crime, rock, indy, and electronica all fall foul of repetition.
I personally like the idea of artists or bands setting themselves an end date for their musical career. The Streets is a prominent example, with Mike Skinner having announced early in the bands career that they would be releasing only 5 albums. I am sure that Mike will stay in music, but to have the conviction to call it quits on his own terms is admirable.
Sometimes bands are given their opportunity to quit while they are ahead, and yet ambition, pressures from others, or even greed push them to do one more song, album, or tour. There has been a rash of old rockers returning to the scene in recent years, and I simply cannot see how this improves their image (I am not talking about those artists who have been performing for decades, but rather those who have disbanded for 10 or 20 years only to return in mediocrity).
And then there are bands who make one amazing album, implode, leaving one or two members to pick up the pieces and try and make it work again. INXS was never the same after Hutchence's death. And while I would desperately love to be proven wrong, I fear that the reincarnated Wolfmother will pail in comparison to that amazing first album (although I am a fan of the new single).
So what do you think? Should artists call it quits after one good song, album, or decade? Or should all artists be allowed to continue producing music as long as someone is willing to record it?
CB
The new Wolfmother track - Back Round - has hit the radio today and Wolfmother have offered it free from their website
Sound Relief at the historical SCG will be remembered for the rain, the good times and the return but most of all it will be tattooed as a proud day in Australian history as a day where the Australian spirit again shone so brightly. This review will focus on the music but Sound Relief was a day, which honoured and remembered the victims & heroes of the Victorian Bushfires and Queensland Floods. If you still haven’t donated please donate just a little, Fires & Floods.
VB & CB!
Posts
