Re: Is Metallica EVER gonna make a new album?
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:35 pm
I don't know, man. They acted like a bunch of vaginas about the whole Napster thing. Like it did that much damage to them.. 
I think the point is, if in fact some quality of the artist does show through in the work, then that quality will be present in the work itself. If you have to know the history and personality/beliefs of the artist to appreciate the point, then you're no longer dealing with the viewer interpreting the art, you have the viewer interpreting the art and the artist.exigence wrote:I just dont see how you guys can discredit personality and character, it has a direct impact on the work itself. If you really examine it you'd be able to pick up on the subtle diffrences.
What you need to do is find someone who's never heard of Metallica and play random selections of their music from various points in their careers, and get that person's impressions of things. Better yet, get lots of someones so you have an adequate sample size. If, as you say, Metallica "sold out" their "musical integrity" for the sake of money, then the viewers should be able to see that the older music is of superior artistic quality. If, on the other hand, you have to know that Metallica "sold out" to "recognize" the older music as "better," then you're not seeing the music at all, just your own opinion of their actions as people and projecting your expectations onto the music.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I don't like metal and quite possibly have never heard a song by Metallica in my thirty-six years of life, so I don't have a horse in this race at all.)
The point we're making is that yes, the personal circumstances of the artist do affect the work. After all, the music was made by Metallica, not by Michael Jackson or Black Sabbath or Britney Spears or Korn; obviously the talent and personality of the individual will be reflected in the music. But the music stands on its own; you can't judge it based on what you think of the people making it.
And here's another, not entirely unconnected point. Invariably, whenever an artist (especially a musician, since music is most easily susceptible to this sort of movement, though it can apply to other art also) moves from being a "niche" taste to a more mainstream commercial success, those who were originally fans of the artist will complain that the artist has "sold out" and all their later work sucks (or is, at the least, inferior). Now, that may be true--they may literally be deliberately changing their product to appeal to the art-buying public for the sake of money. Likewise, there's always the "lowest common denominator" suspicion (if THAT many people like it, how can it be good, given that 90% of the population is a low-grade moron--the logical fallacy, by the way, of mistaking a large number of independent decisions for a mob mentality). But there's also a strong ego factor at work, not merely the usual cries of "elitism" (though they apply, too) but also the genuine loss of something personal and special. The simple fact that I have never in my life ever heard anyone say about anything that it got better after it got popular (even though the law of averages suggests that at least some of the time it ought to) makes me very suspicious of any accusations that an artist has "sold out."