You just sound bitter for not having enough monthly listeners lol.

 

silent thou serpent tongue troll, the power of christ compels you!!

 

thats why i dont do drugs anymore, one can think thats a great idea... or they think they can torture u with that :p

EDIT: the first song, its the same resource repetitive but have a non existing word so its more funny.
EDIT 2: i have to heard the third video xd, i guess they are laughin of tekashi69 or else, so u have to do funny

 

about artist getting worse: I dare say that they always were, I know artists who sang like shit and it's only now that they are serious about their profession, it shows that they have evolved for the better. but these types of artists are condemned to take drugs and live in that "fashion" for a while... it is the present that is lived like this, unfortunately.

 

I think this is true of all artists including the all-time greats.

Not a popular view but Bowie's last 20 years of work before his death was mediocre compared to his body of work between 1971 and 1985.
He probably believed he had grown as an artist and those latter albums were artistically some of his greatest output.

Record companies promote the stuff they can make the money from and that is usually music that appeals to the masses.
Sometimes the masses care as much about the brand (e.g. Taylor Swift) as they do the music.
But generally speaking, the masses like something that is usually "catchy" and many serious artists believe if their songs are catchy, then they must have less value.

You also throw in the fact that the artists themselves are no longer living the previous lifestyle where music was the only thing that mattered and their output had to be more on getting noticed, and they just don't have to try that hard any more as it won't make any difference to their lifestyle.

Fatboy Slim and Noel Gallagher are examples of this.

 

The problem with such scenario is that bands (or artist) like let's say a greenday get the fans that LIKE that type of music they made in their prime, so when music changes they all face the same sort of dilemma. The Dilemma is that you GOT the fans by doing one thing and that one thing is what you are sure they are all going to like. If you deviate into any other direction, then a percentage will like that and a percentage will not like that. So when music keeps changing and you keep changing with it, then there is a chance the music has become so different from the orgiginal music that now no first hour fan really likes that.
So when bands and artists, just like Green day keep doing the same thing, then at least they will retain some of their fans that just like them doing that one particular thing. The downside is obviously that their type of music is such a simplstic genre and has such a simplstic instrumentation that everything will sound alike and it seems like all the songs are copies of eachother.
I think radiohead have the benefit that even in their prime days their music changed. So the people who are into change and new things are most likely their fans. If you make yourself very famous only doing 1 particular thing means that people will just expect that one particular thing.
Allmost all artists have a period where they are truly in the shine lights and THEN they have to establish themselves as something that is not too narrow. However, I can imagine record labels just wanting artists doing the same thing in theri prime becuase that is the safe bet and thus most likely gives a return on investment. However, as music the music changes on the radio, this means it's hard to seem credible when you change with it.
Also, what plays a big role is that they themselves only have so much influence on how long their prime really is. If record companies do not push their new music anymore and their videos are not shown on tv or however they do such things these days, then they will likely not get many new fans and their fandom only basically only can schrink, unless they are repeatedly mentioned on tv as being iconic like let's say the beatles. Then people will more likely check that out themselves and see what the hype is all about.

 

No, mate. I do too.

Roger Water was born in 1943, and TDSOTM was released in 1977. So he had 34. He was still young, but no in the twenty.

 

Most musical artists' music is based upon the condition of their youth and how it interplays with the Zeitgeist in artistic or commercial appeal. The fire of youth wanes, the pressures of maintaining the grind of success sap creative juices, and the distancing from the social context which had influenced the initial blaze of glory alienates an artist or a band from the source of its original inspiration. Selling-out to meet a "broader" audience" conveniently occurs when an artist or band has little original left to say. Band-guys get married and become dads. Some artists have sound enough of a relationship with their own creativity that they can sustain it, and keep innovating with it, into their senescence. David Bowie and Scott Walker come to mind.

 

"The Dark Side of the Moon" was released on March 1, 1973.

 

Yes man, my fault. You're right.
I'm very ashamed about it.

 

This thread is about ageism.
Now you can find hip-hop gansta on elder residencies, Why not?

 

Artists do change as time goes by and often not for the better.

THEN:

NOW:

FOREVER:

 

entropy's a bitch