[HN Gopher] Critics, not fans, perpetuate the failed second albu...
___________________________________________________________________
Critics, not fans, perpetuate the failed second album myth, study
shows
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 57 points
Date : 2024-12-19 15:31 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (phys.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
| t-3 wrote:
| I'd never heard of the "sophomore slump" before this article, but
| it does resonate somewhat with my own experience. I've been
| reorganizing and trimming the fat from my bloated music library
| (~30k songs), mostly by listening to albums one-by-one and adding
| each song to a playlist of stuff I like.
|
| I wouldn't say second albums are universally bad, but many
| artists seem to have only a limited amount of inspiration in
| them. Some have just one song, some an album or two, and some
| just never seem to run out. Also, when a "perfect" or near-
| perfect album is followed by a less exceptional performance it
| makes the second look bad even though it might be pretty good on
| it's own. I've definitely been more disappointed by mediocre
| output from artists that I expect great things from than I would
| be otherwise.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| I have a feeling that most critics suffer from over consumption.
| I see this in video game reviews. I stick to a few select
| reviewers who like the things I like (and honestly, if you aren't
| doing that, why bother?) but even they play a lot more games than
| I do. Which means when a new game comes along, it being like an
| earlier made game does not make it any less good. I've not
| necessarily played that earlier game, so the comparison is
| pointless for me.
|
| Sure, yes, the game you are reviewing might not be doing anything
| new or unique, but so what? Does it do what it does well? And
| that's what I focus on. (And to be fair, the reviewers I watch
| usually make that point clear).
| keiferski wrote:
| Bit of a meta comment, but: it's popular to rag on critics but I
| think it's a tragedy that the professional critic is less and
| less of a thing anymore. It's the same phenomenon as the
| widespread loss of trust in "professionals" and institutions, but
| in the cultural sphere.
|
| Critics can sometimes be aloof or out of touch, but the
| alternative is basically just money-driven populism untethered to
| any deeper notions of quality.
|
| They could be huge jerks, but I lament the fact that people like
| John Simon or H. L. Mencken don't exist anymore. Nowadays people
| like them would probably be unable to make a living.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Simon_(critic)
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| There are plenty of critics and review channels on YouTube.
| Like everything else, criticism is no longer controlled by a
| central authority.
| keiferski wrote:
| These are almost always just random people with typical (or
| at best, idiosyncratic) opinions, they aren't highly-educated
| professionals who saw the role of the critic as something
| worthy in itself. YouTuber critics are basically just product
| reviewers. It's not the same thing as the critic culture of
| yesteryear.
| jl6 wrote:
| I think you're right that criticism as an exercise in well-
| written insight is harder to find. However, criticism as a
| filter is abundant. Those YouTubers might not be producing
| erudition, but as long as they have watched a ton of
| content and decided what the good stuff is, and as long as
| their tastes seem to align to mine, then their opinion is
| still very useful.
| keiferski wrote:
| Sure, they're still useful as information for consumers.
| But that's what makes them product reviewers and not
| critics. Someone like John Simon saw himself as upholding
| artistic standards in theatre, writing, and other art
| forms, not writing product reviews for consumers.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| > as long as their tastes seem to align to mine
|
| This is the crux of it for me. A good critic will be of
| great use whether their tastes align with yours or not.
| briandear wrote:
| What is this "great use?" It seems like the purpose of
| critics isn't to entertain people with an opinion about a
| record, but instead bolster the feelings of the insecure
| who aren't sure what to think and need someone else
| pointing the way to an ideal of what cool is.
|
| Critics feed ideas to those that attend parties so those
| can have an opinion to express when they feel no
| confidence in their own taste. Critics are Cyrano de
| Bergerac.
| keiferski wrote:
| Yeah this highlights an idea that seems increasingly rare
| today: you should go see a movie/piece of art because _it
| 's important to see_ and not merely because it aligns
| with your preferences. A good critic can make you
| understand that.
| oersted wrote:
| Like always, one needs to engage with a critic over time
| to get an idea of how they view the world and to be able
| to project it onto your own preferences. YouTube greatly
| facilitates this.
|
| And every decent reviewer makes an effort to lay out the
| facts in front of you and try to be somewhat objective,
| or at least account for diverse tastes, for a portion of
| the criticism, so you can reach your own conclusions.
|
| There are tons of excellent full-time critics that know
| what they are doing. They might not sound as scholarly as
| in the past, but that was mostly a stylistic choice and
| I'm skeptical about there being much more substance
| behind the flowery language.
| braza wrote:
| > Those YouTubers might not be producing erudition, but
| as long as they have watched a ton of content and decided
| what the good stuff is, and as long as their tastes seem
| to align to mine, then their opinion is still very
| useful.
|
| In most of the (big) YouTuber movies and TV shows
| critics, I have a very hard time knowing what is their
| taste and what is a piece of art.
|
| I think in the future the role of a critic will be more
| to the technical aspect of the piece, and how it fits in
| their lore than something related to the taste
| specifically.
|
| In my case, I cannot watch most of the modern TV shows
| 'cause most of them lack good cinematography, character
| development, and sound which are important aspects for me
| in terms of immersion and engagement. Most of the shows
| today with CGI, only closed camera takes, and lack of
| external shooting look like sitcoms of the 90s.
|
| That's I think most of the Youtube Critics channels lack,
| that kind of nuance around those technical aspects.
| blangk wrote:
| Quite the critique.
| johnfn wrote:
| Do you think it takes a high level of education to listen
| to a song and tell you if you'd like it?
| piva00 wrote:
| Not formal education but definitely needs a lot of
| training on listening critically to music to ponder about
| how it relates to the overall body of works.
|
| That's much more needed in any non-mainstream
| analysis/critique of music. How do you expect someone who
| never listened, for example, to noise music to be able to
| judge the quality of a new artist in that field/genre?
| megablast wrote:
| I don't care if you like it.
|
| I care if I'll like it.
|
| How do you tell if someone else will like it without
| education?
| 7bit wrote:
| And how do you do with education? And what education? How
| exactly do you educate yourself in preparation to be a
| critic? I firmly believe that's nonsense and nothing but
| gatekeeping.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| > random people with typical (or at best, idiosyncratic)
| opinions,
|
| > highly-educated professionals who saw the role of the
| critic as something worthy in itself.
|
| Which one then describes men like George Plimpton, Gore
| Vidal, or Alistair Cooke? The distinction you've made is
| unclear and unsubstantiated.
| keiferski wrote:
| The latter. I don't think any YouTube movie reviewer is
| remotely close to someone like Gore Vidal's level of
| erudition. (And even he had plenty of faults.) Maybe
| Every Frame a Painting is the closest thing?
| galleywest200 wrote:
| Every? No. Some? Yes.
|
| But not every "professional" critic was worth paying any
| amount of time to eiter. Just because your brother worked
| at the paper you got to be "the critic" back then.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Every human in the world is a random person, including you.
| keiferski wrote:
| If that were the case, then we would pick surgeons by
| randomly grabbing a person off the street, and not use
| surgeons that have been trained for years in their
| profession.
|
| But then you might say, "Medicine is a science, and art
| isn't. All art is relative and no one's opinion is better
| than another."
|
| With that, I don't agree. I think someone who has spent
| more time studying a topic _probably_ , not always, but
| probably has more insightful things to say about it. A
| Shakespeare scholar probably has more insights about
| Hamlet than a guy who read it in high school twenty years
| ago. In short, I reject the idea that expertise doesn't
| exist in evaluating the arts.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| You didn't get it. The surgeon is by necessity a random
| person before he learns his trade. Just like a reviewer.
| You're not born into it. Expertise in evaluating art is
| usually self-made expertise (the academic expertise in
| this field has zero value), meaning they're all "random
| people".
| keiferski wrote:
| I "didn't get it" because you wrote one cryptic line and
| didn't communicate clearly.
|
| If you think academic expertise has no value, there isn't
| much point in continuing this discussion.
| oersted wrote:
| I think that what people demand of criticism has evolved,
| and the supply has evolved with it.
|
| Scholarly critics were much more interested in
| understanding how a work fits into the cultural canvas, and
| how it innovates and advances culture. Identifying patterns
| and making sense of distinct movements that would otherwise
| look like chaotic cultural dynamics. They also cared about
| criticism as a legitimate literary form and a craft to
| master in itself.
|
| I believe that's what you are missing, that makes a lot of
| sense, that is an important social service, but I'm not
| sure we associate that with the purpose of a critic
| anymore. It has become much more pragmatic now, it's much
| more about guiding a purchase decision, as well as,
| sometimes more importantly, to entertain with humour and
| snark. That is quite different.
|
| I believe that actually most readers always read criticism
| mostly to make purchasing decisions and had to reluctantly
| go through the rest of the "erudition". The more cynically
| entertaining critics were always the most popular too.
| We've cut the cruft and made it more like what the audience
| wants, which is a shame, but we have to be realistic.
|
| That being said, YouTube is much deeper than it seems and
| looks very different to different users, for better or
| worse the recommendation engine is amazing. Seek out good
| critics and you will find more, there are strong niche
| communities of full-time critics like you describe that
| have been doing it for over a decade and are masters of
| their craft. They might not be in the newspapers everyone
| reads, but there are more of them, and even if they might
| not sound as scholarly, I believe they are more substantive
| and they are just better at it than those hiding behind
| flowery language.
| wongarsu wrote:
| The web2.0 made the professional critic obsolete. Back when
| punishing was difficult, those with the means to disseminate
| information needed a reliable way to get opinions on a topic:
| the professional critic. But around the turn of the millennium
| that changed, and we now have a plethora of ways to just access
| the opinions of fans and laypeople.
|
| Of course paradoxically we now also have more professional
| critics than ever before. We just call them reviewers and
| influencers. A lot of them shallow or outright bought, but that
| has always been an issue with critics. But if you avoid the bad
| actors you will find insightful critics on the most obscure
| topics. And if you don't you can always just ask the relevant
| subreddit
| keiferski wrote:
| This is the popular narrative, but what it misses is how
| relying on the public/internet at large to fund criticism (or
| even art in general), you're not going to get the kind of
| niche hyper-expert analysis that previously would have been
| funded by a newspaper or magazine owner. Fifty years ago, you
| could pick up a newspaper and expect the critic to be fairly
| educated in the topic. Nowadays you have to go to the third
| page of YouTube results to find a similar level of expertise,
| if you can find it at all, and that critic isn't making a
| living at it.
|
| Reddit has plenty of its own biases and isn't a great source
| either.
| menzoic wrote:
| This type of analysis is heavily rooted in personal
| preference. Critics have their own biased. Relying on mass
| review system should represent more of what the average
| person like rather than some elitist idea of a critic of
| what should be.
| piva00 wrote:
| The issue is for finding stuff that doesn't cater to the
| "average person". I'm not interested on what the average
| person like if I'm looking for artistic value.
| keiferski wrote:
| Sure, there is some value in knowing what the average
| person thinks about it. But if I want a more expert or
| educated opinion, then there is more value in asking
| someone that knows more about the topic.
|
| The labeling of any sort of expert opinion as "elitist"
| is precisely the issue.
| mrbombastic wrote:
| Rotten tomatoes seems like a good case study in the value
| of both by presenting a critics score and a general
| audience score. Usually when they diverge greatly is when
| it is most valuable for me, e.g. critics loved it and
| audiences hated it, it is probably pretentious and arty
| and I can skip, audiences loved it and critics hated it,
| it is probably mass appeal slop.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| Curious what you make of the The Last Jedi then:
| https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi
|
| A terribly lazy movie that even the popcorn-guzzling
| public could see through, but which mysteriously received
| rave reviews from the "culturally elite" critics.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Why do you think that was?
| soco wrote:
| 41% is not terrible either, but if you want the most
| blatant example from that universe, take The Acolyte: 18%
| given by the audience for a show of high school project-
| quality was quite generous, even.
| bluepizza wrote:
| Because it is a fantastic movie, with fascinating
| characters, a thrilling storyline, and full of
| interesting concepts.
|
| The popcorn and soda public loved it - it was the highest
| grossing movie in 2017.
|
| There is no mystery in its rave reviews. Both critics and
| general public enjoyed it. The vicious hate this movie
| gets is from Star Wars fans only. Nobody hates Star Wars
| as much as its fans.
| Fnoord wrote:
| I'm not sure if those still count as fans or former fans
| suffering from nostalgia. Consider Call of Duty. I really
| liked 3 and 4. After that, not so much, and I have not
| even bothered with recent ones. They could've stopped
| there, as far as I'm concerned. I also did not really
| like The Phantom Menace either, but I get the appeal for
| _others_ (and I liked the next one a lot more). Do I
| include that in my review? If it is a personal review,
| no. If it were a professional review for a magazine or
| website (i.e. critic)? Sure. I believe (cannot prove) the
| main reason the latest Star Wars movies gets a lot of
| flak is Star Wars = Disney, and Disney is too 'woke' for
| some people. They don't like a female POC lead.
| foobarchu wrote:
| > I believe (cannot prove) the main reason the latest
| Star Wars movies gets a lot of flak is Star Wars =
| Disney, and Disney is too 'woke' for some people. They
| don't like a female POC lead.
|
| If you earnestly believe this, you really need to seek
| out more diverse news. Everyone I know absolutely hated
| both TLJ and TRoS, and I can guarantee it's not because
| they're racist or misogynist. They are just really bad
| movies (TRoS in particular is a series of nonsensical
| mcguffin quests held together by the most nonsensical
| plot). TFA is pretty universally agreed in my experience
| to have been fine, but too safe.
|
| It also feels like a big stretch to call Kelly Marie Tran
| the lead, even if the harassment she experienced was
| abhorrent. It's an ensemble cast and she has 12th
| billing.
| pmontra wrote:
| The one starting with a zillion giant spaceship built
| while nobody noticed? If at least they were conjured out
| of thin air by magic. And many other oddities in the
| first five minutes, then it slows down back to near
| normality. I stand with the 41%.
| bazoom42 wrote:
| Still one of the most financially sucessful movies of all
| time.
| notTooFarGone wrote:
| Note that this is prone to review bombing.
|
| Often series and films get accused of having an "agenda"
| and a lot of non-fans join in review bombing. It can
| still be good media if "fan reviews" don't like it.
| oersted wrote:
| Just to note that this is even more common in gaming and
| Steam has developed strong countermeasures, not to
| outright suppress review bombing because there are
| legitimate cases that look similar, but to highlight it
| and give some options to filter it out.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| For now.
|
| If you thought botting on reviews was bad now, LLMs and
| the like are going to supercharge spam and drown us all
| in a grey goo of bullshit.
| Scarblac wrote:
| Exactly, and with most dubjects what the average person
| thinks is useless. The average person knows very little
| about most subjects.
| 7bit wrote:
| Meh. Critics are just people with an opinion that have a way of
| writing that people like. My friend's movie critiques much
| better align with my personal taste than any critics opinion.
|
| Critics are a privileged bunch and I'm happy the 'profession'
| is dying - or opened up for everybody to have a stab at it. I
| mean, there's thousands and tens of thousands of critics on
| YouTube.
| Tomte wrote:
| Well-known critics are valuable for two reasons, even if they
| have wildly different likes and preferences from me:
|
| 1. they have seen/heard a lot. A professional movie critic
| watches more films in a month than I have in years. That gives
| him opportunities to compare, or to draw connections that I
| cannot.
|
| 2. they are known quantities. We have a certain image of Roger
| Ebert (as an example) in our minds and can adjust his reviews
| to get closer to our hypothetical opinion about the film. Also,
| we get to know his mannerisms and idiosyncracies.
|
| Nothing makes Roger Ebert a priori a better reviewer than Mike
| from 4chan who obsessively watches films, but having a handful
| of critics we recognize is more valuable w.r.t. these two
| points than having thousands of unknown reviewers.
| Izkata wrote:
| > 2. they are known quantities. We have a certain image of
| Roger Ebert (as an example) in our minds and can adjust his
| reviews to get closer to our hypothetical opinion about the
| film. Also, we get to know his mannerisms and idiosyncracies.
|
| I'm guessing choosing him as the example means he's one of
| the biggest names in professional critics, but he's as
| unknown to me as Mike from 4chan. I really do wonder how much
| the average person actually payed attention to critics like
| him compared to trailers/commercials and friends.
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| Access journalism has damaged reputation of many professional
| critics. When a new product is launched, e.g. a video game,
| people want reviews on launch date, they aren't willing to
| wait. The only way to have a review out on a launch date is to
| get a pre-release access from the publisher. But the way to get
| pre-release access from the publisher is to have a good
| relationship with the publisher and you won't have a good
| relationship with the publisher if you are going to give
| negative reviews (even when it's well deserved).
|
| "IGN 7/10" became a meme in the gaming community for meaning
| "we think the game has some serious flaws but we don't want to
| appear too negative". People pick up on this stuff, if bad
| products are 7/10, then reviews get meaningless and people seek
| more niche critics who are more honest and are not afraid to
| rate the latest release 2/10 if it deserves it.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Fundamentally I think we want experts, not critics.
|
| It matters less to me that they're not as eloquent, not
| professional public figures, not well renowned or have a fancy
| title at some prestigious publication.
|
| In our fields we have many of that, I'm thinking at people like
| John Siracusa, with a background in doing things first, and
| using it to comment on stuff that pick his interest.
|
| In the musical field I see podcasts like Switch on pop in the
| same vein, where they're not critics by trade, and will dive
| into the music mainly from a technical viewpoint.
| braza wrote:
| > Fundamentally I think we want experts, not critics.
|
| I think both have their spaces, but honestly, I would like to
| have more critics.
|
| With the advent of podcasts and YouTube channels, we have an
| unprecedented level of access to experts. In my case, I was
| about to record an album with my band, and back in the day it
| was hard to get information on what happens in a studio. I
| saw one video from a band that I liked and got more or less
| the idea about the process and what it takes [1].
|
| Regarding the critics I agree with others that access
| journalism corrupted the role of the critics, and I tend to
| think that we're in thins moment another side of the layman
| or surface critics (in this context someone who can translate
| small nuggets of technical knowledge to a broader public, or
| infotainment) dictating part of the discourse based on
| cultural aspects.
|
| One example was the whole debacle related to the Disney Star
| Wars series Acolyte.
|
| The surface critics dunked the series on YouTube, and on the
| other side, the access journalism tried to protect the series
| due to the relation or personality of their authors.
|
| I watched the whole series and even though I personally rated
| it 3/10, I really would like to understand the artistic and
| technical aspects of why the show wasn't great.
|
| - Why the writing aspect was the main problem of the show? -
| What's the role of cinematography in the scenes? - How does
| this piece tie with the lore and what are its implications? -
| What are the issues with the sound and depth? - And regarding
| acting, which elements went wrong?
|
| I tend to agree that the old 3 superficial paragraphs
| critique is gone, but I do not think that the new critique
| via Podcasts and Youtube are great substitutes either.
|
| [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y40ZyDQXfoE
| corimaith wrote:
| This. People forget that when everyone's opinion matters, no
| one's matters. Alot of hobby cultures are alot more fragmented
| with the advent of social media today than in the early 2010s,
| and we do suffer for it. Fan OC works are down, modern works
| don't have lasting impact, it's the same tired discussions
| going in circles every year, there isn't really a sense of
| continuity in ideas anymore.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I find the whole concept of a critics bizarre. I don't need
| other people to decide whether to like something or not. If I
| like some music and the critic does not - what of it? He's just
| another human being with ears and an opinion.
| pmontra wrote:
| Sometimes the critics don't tell if it's good or bad, but
| what's in there. The story about Asimov and the critic
| explains that pretty well
| https://wiki.c2.com/?AsimovAndTheCritic
|
| TL;DR: "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you
| know anything about it?"
| saghm wrote:
| Yeah, this is a pretty big difference to lack of trust in
| "experts" and "institutions". If someone doesn't trust
| medical experts that they should vaccinate their kids, they
| perpetuate objectively dangerous illnesses. If someone
| doesn't trust critics, at worst they
| perpetuate...subjectively bad movies and music?
| llamaimperative wrote:
| An unbridled race to the bottom in art seems bad IMO.
|
| I expect an (ironically academic) argument about how
| monomaniacal focus on mass-market appeal doesn't
| _necessarily_ entail a race to the bottom.
|
| I'd be surprised if someone believes that _in reality_ a
| monomaniacal focus on mass-market appeal doesn 't entail a
| race to the bottom, though.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| The point isn't to decide whether to like it or not; it's
| whether to listen to it or not.
|
| You can't listen to even 1% of the music in the world in your
| lifetime. You need to filter somehow.
| llamaimperative wrote:
| And good criticism should deepen your experience of the
| art, whether a positive or negative critique.
| operator-name wrote:
| You don't, but it can be helpful if you find a critic that
| strongly aligns with your preferences, or even strongly
| misaligns with your preferences. Just like a reccomendation
| from a friend, you can use it to consider if something is
| worth even giving a try.
|
| https://youtu.be/lG2dXobAXLI
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I've never gotten any value from professional critics- their
| opinions are totally uncorrelated with my own, and before I
| realized this they would often turn me off from trying music or
| movies I later found I enjoyed very much.
|
| Moreover, they tend to seem jaded, and are either unable to
| enjoy anything, or feel the need to pretend not to enjoy
| anything to appear sophisticated. Seeing that negativity before
| experiencing something reduces the enjoyment of it.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Looking at the graphs, the mistake of professional critics isn't
| the idea that the second album tends to be worse, it it's the
| idea that the second album it's an outlier and the third, forth
| and fifth album are good.
| Al-Khwarizmi wrote:
| If we take the following ingredients:
|
| 1. Regression to the mean and survivorship bias (a band with an
| atypically good first album has much more chances to make a
| second, but can find it difficult to live up to the first because
| maybe it was mostly luck),
|
| 2. The album that people consider "the first" actually being "the
| first big hit" (e.g. how many people know the album that came
| before Jarre's Oxygene?),
|
| 3. The first hit done with no pressure, the following album under
| pressure and deadlines because there's a public wanting to hear
| it,
|
| I would actually be surprised if the discussed effect _didn 't_
| exist.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I prefer the "good art requires suffering" argument.
| notTooFarGone wrote:
| I'd say 3. is more of a "because there's the record label
| wanting to sell it"
| francisofascii wrote:
| I suspect 1 and 2 are related, in that the first album only
| becomes an actual album when is survives initial scrutiny and
| becomes good enough to be produced. The first album is
| essentially the "greatest hits" of the band in its infancy.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Led Zep 2?
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Yeah, well, Zeppelin were exceptional in perhaps _all_ ways.
|
| Robert Plant was an unknown just singing around with perhaps
| the greatest fricking drummer of all-time (at least legendary,
| for sure). And Plant is also just incredible.
|
| John Paul Jones was a multi-instrumentalist session player of
| renown, and Jimmy Page was already famous.
|
| It's one of those stories where the very first time they played
| together they just looked around at each other, nodded, and
| knew that it was special.
|
| Plus, they did the 2nd album while touring the first one
| (within a year, IIRC).
|
| And, wow, that second album has "What Is And What Should Never
| Be" and, my all-time favorite, "Ramble On". Just epic. And
| then, later, "Kashmir", "The Rain Song", the list goes on and
| on and on.
|
| And they also back up my point that alcohol is a pox upon
| humanity. RIP Bonzo. The alcohol-encouraging cultures on Earth
| are insane, but the ones that forbid it tend to be even worse
| in many ways. What a troubled bunch of kinda-monkeys we are,
| huh? Common sense just ain't very common.
| t0lo wrote:
| Or the second album is what turned fans into critics :)
| MrMcCall wrote:
| A person/group has their entire life to make their first album,
| but usually only a year or two to make their next one.
|
| Being able to conjure creativity on-demand and/or under deadline
| -- self-imposed or not -- seems to be the exception rather than
| the rule.
|
| My opinion is that perhaps 10% of artists continue to produce
| equal or greater work as their career goes forward, depending on
| their life circumstances, how they handle their success or lack
| thereof, and how their label treats them.
|
| They seem to be like programmers and Dunning-Kruger test
| subjects: 10% are exceptional, talented and humble craftspeople
| that produce work that is enjoyed by others as the years press
| on. The rest either only had a few good ideas or are such true
| artists that their explorations move them away from the kinds of
| art that their fans or critics enjoyed in their earlier work.
| dizhn wrote:
| I was about to post something similar. Agree with you 100%. A
| lot of really good indie bands can't duplicate their success on
| their second album because they've used up all they had, which
| is completely normal to do. They can't hold back and keep good
| songs for the second album which probably will never come. It's
| the sign of a very prolific band or member that they can keep
| pumping out quality albums year in and year out.
| alganet wrote:
| Great study. Let's see if their next research can reach the same
| level.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-23 23:01 UTC)