Iaintsorry Posted March 18 Posted March 18 (edited) I read a recent Variety article about how it’s pointless for Legacy acts to release new music and they should just focus on touring their hits. With recent (commercially) lackluster releases from JT and JLo as examples. More recently it’s become more common for legacy acts to focus more on touring and cashing in on their back catalog than releasing new music (Janet, Mariah). Even Madonna has transitioned to this. Esp. pre-streaming acts. Only true fans even still check for their new music and even then most of them usually **** on the new stuff and complain it’s not like the old stuff With few exceptions like Beyonce or maybe P!nk, should legacy acts just stick to touring and reissuing their biggest hits instead of releasing new material? Edited March 18 by Iaintsorry 4
LadyDiana Posted March 18 Posted March 18 I think that they should still release new stuff, it's for the fans 12
LittleStarmen Posted March 18 Posted March 18 (edited) Wrong... Being an artist is not just about making money and touring? This extemetely American Capitalistic Taylor Swift way of thinking is an awful take You still have fans that like your stuff. Your new albums could also be considered classic in the future... Look at what Padam Padam did to Kylie. The right song will bring people back... And Madonna is touring for the first time at 65 without a new album Edited March 18 by LittleStarmen 6 3 2
J-esper Posted March 18 Posted March 18 I mean why not? Music is art at the end of the day, why not put it out? Music itself is probably the smallest source of income for artists, even the MPG excisting right at this moment. Touring, merchandise and non-music businesses is how they make their income. And like someone already mentioned look at Kylie, nothing is impossible 8
Iaintsorry Posted March 18 Author Posted March 18 21 minutes ago, LadyDiana said: I think that they should still release new stuff, it's for the fans 20 minutes ago, LittleStarmen said: Wrong... Being an artist is not just about making money and touring? This extemetely American Capitalistic Taylor Swift way of thinking is an awful take You still have fans that like your stuff. Your new albums could also be considered classic in the future... Look at what Padam Padam did to Kylie. The right song will bring people back... And Madonna is touring for the first time at 65 without a new album 2 minutes ago, J-esper said: I mean why not? Music is art at the end of the day, why not put it out? Music itself is probably the smallest source of income for artists, even the MPG excisting right at this moment. Touring, merchandise and non-music businesses is how they make their income. And like someone already mentioned look at Kylie, nothing is impossible While I agree that at a certain point in their careers new music is obvs for fans and not meant for commercial gain, however it’s still a huge financial undertaking to record with the best producers, do visuals, promote etc. so they still need some financial gain to recoup the costs. What’s worse is most times I’ve noticed fans don’t even appreciate the new material and usually trash it. Just look at how people trash Madonna or Janet’s more recent work. And it’s not like people are rushing to stream or buy their new stuff, so it can actually be a burden for some acts. Like Jlo spent $20mill to create TIM…N and she probs won’t recoup the costs even with the tour
attention Posted March 18 Posted March 18 it could be a mix of both. if theyre at that stature of even losing/sinking money into a project with little return, it's their right to express their interest in being an artist even if it's not up to par with previous outputs. legacy artists perform the crowdpleasers all the time already. cashing in on the back catalog is another aspect of preserving a legacy life artistry is a journey, it can take you anywhere you choose to go as long as youre learning, youll find all youll ever need to know
Popular Post chiliam Posted March 18 Popular Post Posted March 18 im no fan of JT or JLo But that article is disgusting. You can judge the artists work all you wants but tell them to stop releasing is so wrong. Lets them release whatever they want, for themsheves, for their fans even if it`s just a super small group of people. If you dont like it, then you can easily ignore it all, lets whoever enjoy enjoying. 14 1
Achilles. Posted March 18 Posted March 18 No. Legacy acts are completely worthless, have nothing substantial to contribute to music or culture, say nothing of value, fail to challenge themselves artistically, and are incapable of succeeding either critically or commercially. 5 3
SoundsandSongs Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Artists can do whatever they please, music is a career and a passion for them. Like every career you have ups and lows, are we seriously going to say people shouldn't work once they're past their 20s/30s? Plenty of people have hobbies that aren't profitable but they do it because they want to. One of the several reasons legacy acts decline in the first place is because of massive gaps between albums. 99% of artists can't afford a 6 year album gap.
Lady Claire Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Like Jlo said on her doc, she knows no one was anticipating a new album by her but she wanted to do it, for herself and for her fans. Legacy acts still have fans who wants new music and they still love making it, regardless of numbers and money. 10 1
Sergi91 Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Artists are people who age and won’t be young forever. This doesn’t mean they should stop making new music because they won’t sell like they used to when they were “young”. The music is for the fans and NOT the streams/downloads/vinyl variants…. 4
James_Dean Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Yes. It makes me sad to think there are artists I grew up loving that may not ever release music again simply because it may not do well in the long run of things 1
Prodigal Self Posted March 18 Posted March 18 They all rich and ~middle aged so they don't have to work and can make music all they want so yes they should. Even if only 10k people consume it first week and 0 people afterwards there's still audience for it. 1 hour ago, Iaintsorry said: Even Madonna has transitioned to this. I haven't been liking her output for a good while but it's cool that she's still experimenting with her music albeit kinda without success
ALΞX Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Why should someone be told to stop doing what they love, and what makes them happy just because you think they’re old? This is an insufferable opinion. 1
ALΞX Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Hopefully when you reach a certain age they put you out to pasture and don’t let you do anything. 3
dumbsparce Posted March 18 Posted March 18 (edited) Being a legacy act is so sad. It's like admitting you're done and have nothing more to offer. You might as well completely retire and enjoy your money than only be useful for a throwback. Edited March 18 by dumbsparce 1
Pillz Posted March 18 Posted March 18 No if it's just for the sake of releasing. If they have something to say, a fresh creative direction, or just working with lots of up-and-comers then why not? But if it's a cheap remake of their old music then they can keep it
BionicWooHoo Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Stupid take. If even indie acts with less than a mil followers can produce albums for their fans, I’m supposed to believe bigger acts can’t? Naur
loveisdead9582 Posted March 18 Posted March 18 I think that legacy artists should maybe focus on dropping some great songs instead of trying to put together an album. Half the time the concepts for the albums get lost and are unrelatable. If they happen to find a sound or theme that sits well with the public then go for it. But in the streaming era, a solid song will probably help an artist more than a mediocre album.
Recommended Posts