Embarrassed by past songs/albums

[DTA]

I think Rush looks more fondly upon their debut than the next couple albums after that.

[JKL2000]

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?

Scrotal one, are you referring to Steven Wilson in that middle paragraph, that mentions being inspired by Gabriel?

[JKL2000]

Only in front of those who find out.

I have more regrets than things to be embarrassed about.

I agree, mainly because I see other people around me who are probably way more embarrassed by their past - especially those who are probably way more embarrassed by their RECENT past. Drunken coworker episodes, etc (not at my current job fortunately).

But yeah, our regrets are different - hard to fully escape those. But I suppose they help you avoid future ones, somewhat.

[Scrotum Scissor]

Scrotal one, are you referring to Steven Wilson in that middle paragraph, that mentions being inspired by Gabriel?

Not really. Actually I was only attempting to narrow off what "inspiration" actually implies in the classical meaning of the term. And thus what it doesn't. Further, there's that subversive accusation about "lack of integrity" when one changes one's musical outlook and reflects this in work. Main point; what arists would NOT claim the virtue of integrity and inspiration when making music - or paintings or poetry or sculpture or whatever?

[Scott Bails]

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.

Seriously? So...an artist can't change, can't absorb current trends, technologies and fashion? They have to be land-locked into the style of their earliest recordings?

Everyone's tastes evolve, and many musicians have varied interests. So, why wouldn't their music change over time?

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.

But wouldn't we criticize an artist if they didn't grow? Wouldn't it be silly for a 55-year-old artist to be writing about the same things that were important to them when they were 17?

[ronmac]

Any honest artist will find the shortcomings in their own work and, in some cases, be embarrassed by it. The ones who don't are either not evolving as an artist, or simply lack humility. Those who spend time criticizing the work of others are often insecure in their own accomplishments. It's human nature and not exclusive to creative people.

[ronmac]

Seriously? So...an artist can't change, can't absorb current trends, technologies and fashion? They have to be land-locked into the style of their earliest recordings?

Everyone's tastes evolve, and many musicians have varied interests. So, why wouldn't their music change over time?



But wouldn't we criticize an artist if they didn't grow? Wouldn't it be silly for a 55-year-old artist to be writing about the same things that were important to them when they were 17?

+1.

[rickawakeman]

Hasn't the OP done this with regard to Cathedral's "There in the Shadows"?

[bob_32_116]

I imagine the OP prefers acts like AC/DC, who keep on making exactly the same kind of music ad infinitum.

[dgtlman]

I imagine the OP prefers acts like AC/DC, who keep on making exactly the same kind of music ad infinitum.

More like ad nauseam

[bob_32_116]

More like ad nauseam

That too.

[Adinfinitum]

As far as TITS - better know as There in the Shadows. I generally like both Cathedral CDs, especially the first one and even songs I didn't write, except for the fact that my band mates mixed me out of 3 of the songs when I moved back to NY. Embarrassed by it, no. I actually listen back to songs written in 1986-87 with lots of fondness. Would I like another chance at making each better, Yes, especially, since everything prior to AI was done in about a day. I actually had about 12 hours to record all keyboards for TITS.

I'm not saying that artists are entitled to grow, of course they can, but why does growth (and we can argue over whether Invisible Touch is a growth from Wind & Wuthering) mean that what comes before this cancerous growth spurt should be dismissed. An artist can change their stripes, but most of the time, it is probably for marketing purposes, not artistic growth. Was Giant for a Day growth? Was follow you follow me?

[bob_32_116]

Was follow you follow me?

Yes.

I think we get the point you are trying to make, but for every example of the wrong sort of musical evolution, there is another example where the evolution was good. Sometimes it's for marketing purposes possibly, other times it's artistic growth. I'm not sure I agree that the former accounts for most cases.

I also am mystified by the fact that you seem to suggest that a progressive artist should not progress.

[Adinfinitum]

Because I don't take the term "progressive" literally.

Actually, I find the latter to be most true. Take most rock artists (jazz and classical are just different), most follow a typical sine wave, growing, developing their own sound, reaching a peak and then trailing off. I honestly can't name one artist that I prefer the most recent release over a prime period release. But, whatever, that was not the point, it is the embarrassment over their early works. Should I be embarrassed for even listening to anything but the most recent, greatest, see how I've,grown as a musician and human being, release?

And personally, Geddy can be proud of his most recent music, personally, rush started to write pretty weak material after signals that is significantly more cringe worthy than Bastille Day or even I think I'm going bald!

[yesman1955]

"But wouldn't we criticize an artist if they didn't grow? Wouldn't it be silly for a 55-year-old artist to be writing about the same things that were important to them when they were 17?" Scott, I have to disagree somewhat. I spoke with my dad a few weeks before he died at the age of 70, and he admitted that "in his mind and mind's eye", he still felt just like he did at 18. If you accept that as truth for him, isn't it possible to write lyrics or poetry from that view of the world, regardless of your chronological age. I would like to think so. YMMV

[Scott Bails]

"But wouldn't we criticize an artist if they didn't grow? Wouldn't it be silly for a 55-year-old artist to be writing about the same things that were important to them when they were 17?" Scott, I have to disagree somewhat. I spoke with my dad a few weeks before he died at the age of 70, and he admitted that "in his mind and mind's eye", he still felt just like he did at 18. If you accept that as truth for him, isn't it possible to write lyrics or poetry from that view of the world, regardless of your chronological age. I would like to think so. YMMV

I would argue that he thought he felt like he did at 18, but with 70 years of life's experiences, that is virtually impossible.

No disrespect meant towards your father, and I'm very sorry for your loss.

[Garden Dreamer]

And personally, Geddy can be proud of his most recent music, personally, rush started to write pretty weak material after signals that is significantly more cringe worthy than Bastille Day or even I think I'm going bald!

Geddy has said he "regrets" Tai Shan, and about Neurotica he has said, "what were we thinking?" Still, Rush are always proud of their most recent release and they back that up by playing at least 3/4 of every new album on that tour (which can be painful if you hated Snakes & Arrows as much as I did), unlike other bands who may crow about a new album but only play 2 tunes from it and the rest of the show is the old hits that everyone expects to hear.

[firth5th]

Style changes too. I get embarrassed seeing pics of myself in the 80s-90s because of my clothes. I imagine musicians get embarrassed of their past musical style.

[JKL2000]

I prefer youthful exuberance and folly. If an artist changes style as they grow older then I question the integrity of the original material.

This is really a surprising opinion. Do you think every band's first album, every writer's first book, every actor's first performance is his best?

[bob_32_116]

This is really a surprising opinion. Do you think every band's first album, every writer's first book, every actor's first performance is his best?

Well it does explain why Joanna Newsom still sings like a 2-year-old.

[bill g]

I'm only embarrassed by our first album, because a lot of it truly sucks. Same goes for some of our 3rd. Not to mention a song or two (including the opener ) from our fourth.

[Adinfinitum]

This is really a surprising opinion. Do you think every band's first album, every writer's first book, every actor's first performance is his best?

No, as I said above, it usually takes an artist a few tries to find an original voice. What bothers me (it really doesn't, i just thiink this was a interesting thing to discss) is that many artists (who have long careers) typically looks back on earlier and says "that was embarrassing." (Most of the time, it is usally said when the artist is distancing themselves from the prog label (See Genesis in 1980 and Marillion post Season's End).

Instead, it would be nice for the artist to say "shit, that was great." Even Phil Collins acknowledged that his original playing was quite difficult and really good when he played The Musical Box with The Musical Box.

Most of the time, i find a lot work created long after the "prime" to be embarrassing

And of course i don't want any progressive band not to grow, mature, integrate new styles or technology. Most bands prog albums in their catalogs are very different from each other or perhaps, like Rush, have a 3-4 album style. Is the Lamb similar to SEBTP or ToTT?

Likewise, the AC/DC model of releasing the same album for 40 years is sad, although that's what AC/DC is - they are not trying to create "art." SG guitar through a Plexi. What's not to love about that?

[saucyjackstl]

So here is my 2 cents. The band I am in (Not Prog) writes constantly. When a song hits a great spot we continue to noodle it every practice. After a while it takes a life of it's own and becomes a regular. We record all practices and so we have it's history as part of what we are doing. By the time we are ready to release an album (we are mixing #4 as we speak), we have lived it in rehearsal, recorded our parts, spent hours and hours mixing it, adding little things to make it better, and then remixing it.

This process and emotional commitment is so intense that we rarely give any thought or ever rehearse one of the older songs. And while we spending time on this album, we are noodling and writing #5 and #6 so that what's coming always seems better than what we left behind.

Lida Una is a nobody band, playing out a handful of times per year, putting our stuff on CDBaby itunes and youtube. I could not imagine being famous where someone wanted you to play the same old tired tunes and didn't really show any interest in what you are putting your time and effort into.

[JJ88]

Why are these old threads being randomly bumped, quoting posts made a year or more before??

I still think the same as I did then...an acknowledged classic may have been hell to make and that may colour an artist's view of it.

[JAMOOL]

keep in mind a lot of these people lived through the prog backlash, when they may have been told repeatedly that their old stuff was crap

I think it's only natural for an artist to be embarrassed of their past, even when the stuff is critically acclaimed. I know Andy Partridge talked about this a lot, he says it can be difficult to listen to his old records because he can't help but pick out the mistakes. Also I imagine sometimes old recordings can bring back bad memories. Mike Doughty (of Soul Coughing fame) talked about this a lot; even though I think most of his audience thinks the SC albums are the best stuff he ever did, he was so doped up and miserable through the band's entire lifespan that he can't hear his old stuff without having some bad flashbacks.

just to add my own 2 cents here, I used to be a cartoonist and I can totally understand why someone might be weary of their past work. I'd come up with something I thought was clever and it would just get ignored, while other strips I thought of as toss-offs would inexplicably become popular. Artists can be really bad judges of their own work!