Embarrassed by past songs/albums

[Adinfinitum]

Why do most artists get embarrassed or uncomfortable talking about or revisiting their past? They all do it except for some (Jimmy Page is an example of someone very proud of his past). Most artist think their latest is better, but in most cases, it is rare for a rock artist to release current material that compares either in terms of popular appeal, artistic merit or improvement to warrant that conclusion.

Geddy does that in his recent interview when talking about pre-Moving Pictures material. Peter Gabriel and Rutherford have done that when talking about early G-era Genesis days. Phil Collins, of all people, FINALLY after years of trying to distance himself from prog rock, admits some of the dark Genesis material is pretty freakin' good (and that his drumming is damn excellent). Yes, some material can be excused because "it was the time, man, that's what was in style"

Of course, time is a great judge of musical worth, but for most artists, it should be pretty obvious when something will not stand the test of time.

[alanterrill]

I think its pretty healthy for any musician to think their current material is best, and that their old stuff is embarrasing, after all the artist is rarely a good judge of their material -they've often played it to death at some point and never want to hear it again. Also if they've improved their skills over time then they're bound to see their old material as less good than they could manage in the present -they wouldn't have that emotional attachment to it in the same way that lisiteners who first heard it at a formative period in their lives would. I think it was best summed up by Robert Wyatt when asked if he still listened to the early Soft Machine records, said something like "No -that would be like putting on short trousers and going back to school" . I think that approach is far healthier than those who play the singles they had hits with in their youth night after night when they're in their 70's (eg Gerry and the Pacemakers and all those merseybeat tours that go on forever) -that must be really soul destroying.

[mogrooves]

Robert Wyatt when asked if he still listened to the early Soft Machine records, said something like "No -that would be like putting on short trousers and going back to school" .

A not uncommon sentiment; Gabriel said the same about Genesis.

[JJ88]

I don't really care what they think of it. They are too close to it to be objective....external, personal issues may affect how they view it.

Jimmy Page has really not made that much new music since Led Zeppelin ended, when you look at it. And what he did do was almost entirely 'supergroup' type projects (some good). So I'm not surprised he'd view his past so favourably. Robert Plant has been a little more guarded by comparison.

[timmy]

From a listeners perspective, I have been embarrassed and uncomfortable revisiting some albums that I enjoyed in the past.

There aren't too many but a few definitely make me cringe these days.

[yoyiceu]

Many musicians are interviewed when they have new material coming out, and, naturally, be it for commercial reasons or because they're so immersed in the new project, they often tend to consider it one of their best, if not their best record. A corollary of that is that they tend to express a negative opinion of their earlier works, specially if it belongs to a style they have since abandoned. I remember a Wyatt quote once when he was asked why there wasn't more soloing in his new records, and he answered: "No, we did all that in Soft Machine". Or something to that effect.

[dgtlman]

It's a growing/learning experience. Shoot I even have material from the early 80s that is downright cringe worthy, especially from a lyric point of view. A whole lot of "what the hell was I thinking" moments. So I'm guessing that the big guys have the same issues. As they matured so did the music & the music making process. The method of recording (especially with older artists) on the debut is a far cry from the process on release 20.

[ronmac]

From a listeners perspective, I have been embarrassed and uncomfortable revisiting some albums that I enjoyed in the past.

Ted Nugent comes to my mind.

[Adinfinitum]

I prefer youthful exuberance and folly. If an artist changes style as they grow older then I question the integrity of the original material. Was the artist just a poser? Why should I believe his new material is the real artist. At least Bowie, whenever he changed style, did it his own way and actually never really was in the style of current pop - Same with Peter Gabriel, at least until So, where he sold his soul.

[JJ88]

The other thing to watch for is artists retrospectively slating albums when they don't sell as well as they expect. (They hype them up when they are new, of course.) So then the subsequent spin becomes 'oh yes, that one was crap, but this new one is great, I promise!'. You just have to make your own mind up.

Having said that, one of the reasons I didn't buy Yes' Heaven and Earth was one of Steve Howe's pre-release interviews- effusive, it wasn't.

Ted Nugent comes to my mind.

[StevegSr]

Love Beach for both the music and the band cover photo!

[PotatoSolution]

I wrote a novel after I graduated college that is a hot pile of steaming garbage. I haven't read it in 20 years, I think I'd rather shove toothpicks in my eyes.

[miamiscot]

Most top-tier artists are delusional and think their crappy new stuff is as good as the older material. It rarely is.

At least Steve Howe knew that Heaven & Earth wasn't Relayer.

[flowerking]

Aren't we all deeply embarrassed by our past?

[ronmac]

Aren't we all deeply embarrassed by our past?

Only in front of those who find out.

I have more regrets than things to be embarrassed about.

[Oreb]

Most artist think their latest is better

Look at the context. We hear from these people when they have some new product to promote. Part of their job is to spruik their latest thing in interviews etc.; the record companies are paying for them to travel around doing what are in essence extended ads. It's not surprising that they will be wanting to keep the new stuff front and centre.

I think it's a mistake to ever assume we are hearing from the Real Person(TM) or getting an insight into their Real Feelings(TM). We are getting marketing.

[taliesin]

I don't really care what they think of it. They are too close to it to be objective....external, personal issues may affect how they view it.

But you are quite objective about it? Really?

I'm pretty sure that those issues affect how I view them as well.

[bob_32_116]

I think many artists, of both the musical variety and other varieties, would be rightfully embarrassed about their VERY early work. For a very long time, Steven Wilson resisted the idea of releasing that early stuff recorded under the name of Porcupine Tree, the tracks that did not make it onto "On the Sunday of Life...". I think he said something along the lines of it being like Van Gogh showing off the finger paintings he did in kindergarten.

He did eventually capitulate and release them as the compilation "Yellow Hedgerow Dreamscape", along with a note to the effect that it is what it is, and listeners should not expect the same level of writing and production that appeared on, say, "Grace For Drowning". That's probably better than the alternative of having people sell bootlegs for a fortune and the buyer possibly ending up disappointed.

[Adinfinitum]

I think he said something along the lines of it being like Van Gogh showing off the finger paintings he did in kindergarten.

So . . basically, all artists should write and record all their lifelong material, wait to make sure it's "up to snuff," then release it. Then we can all binge listen to the whole catalog, or at least all the material that was deemed non-embarrassing by the artist.

Or better yet, all first albums (actually, probably the first three since it generally takes the artist at least three to find their voice) should be recorded and then destroyed because invariably, the artist will look back and say "I was young and foolish.'

Think about how many excellent debut albums would be gone forever. (Sorry Geddy, but I still like and listen to the first Rush album and never thought it sounded anything remotely like Led Zep).

Personally, I prefer Van Gogh's fingerprinting to his latter work. And I certainly dig Boston, Rush, Yes, ELP, KC's debut over some of each artists latter work.

[Buddhabreath]

In my experience and observation, what sometimes happens in the life of an artist is that he or she gets just a little too comfortable and loses the fire - I'm sure we can all think of many examples. Happiness can destroy art so have faith ye miserable old bastards!

It is also of course true that there are cases where experience and skill in the presense of discipline and passion forges the greatest musicians.

[yamishogun]

Neil Peart has said he thinks of his early lyrics are embarrassing like putting your kindergarten pictures on a refrigerator.

Geddy Lee isn't that thrilled with 1970s Rush.

That leaves Alex Lifeson as the exception: "I think I pretty much shredded awesomeness on every album."

[bob_32_116]

So . . basically, all artists should write and record all their lifelong material, wait to make sure it's "up to snuff," then release it. Then we can all binge listen to the whole catalog, or at least all the material that was deemed non-embarrassing by the artist.

Take it easy. No one here is suggesting anything of the sort. All we are doing is discussing which artists are embarrassed about their early work, and, if so, why.

[Progbear]

To be a bit timely, I know David Bowie did not think fondly on his pre-Space Oddity recordings, or Never Let Me Down.

[Scrotum Scissor]

For a very long time, Steven Wilson resisted the idea of

Thanks for mentioning him yet again.

FWIW, "integrity" implies a level of artistic insight denoting senses of conscious inspiration, commitment and dedication. Inspirare, AFAIR, means something akin to 'fill with one's breath' - and essentially indicates that the actual logical outcome of inspiration is to create.

Obviously one will want to change, seeing whatever change may be as an expression of "development" or "redevelopment" as opposed to reproduction; it has little to no effect on the purported authenticity of past moments of inspiration. Inspiration is in the now, emannating from body as well as "spirit", and consequently coloured by current conditions and surroundings. Being allegedly "inspired" by Peter Gabriel while wearing facial paint and a funny hat to go with one's theatrical "symph" hardly passes lingual scrutiny, and especially once the artist has passed his mid-40s.

As for Robert Wyatt, that guy was apparently never anything but inspired - and properly through integrity. I hear as much vitality in Shleep from 1997 as Rock Bottom must have caught in 1974 or "As Long as He Lies Perfectly Still" in early 1969. But people do not change time, it's the other way around - thus time and temporality is the dominant factor setting the standards. So why on earth would a Phil Collins in his moment of imagined inspiration in 1986 necessarily acknowledge something he did 15 years earlier?

[Vic2012]

So . . basically, all artists should write and record all their lifelong material, wait to make sure it's "up to snuff," then release it. Then we can all binge listen to the whole catalog, or at least all the material that was deemed non-embarrassing by the artist.

Or better yet, all first albums (actually, probably the first three since it generally takes the artist at least three to find their voice) should be recorded and then destroyed because invariably, the artist will look back and say "I was young and foolish.'

Think about how many excellent debut albums would be gone forever. (Sorry Geddy, but I still like and listen to the first Rush album and never thought it sounded anything remotely like Led Zep).

Great post. I feel the same. The first Rush album sounds nothing like Led Zeppelin, and I get so tired of reading about how it sounds like LZ Jr. Compared to what came after, "Rush" is just dumb fun, but it doesn't mean it isn't good.