a can of worms

There exists an argument, one that can often be substantiated with proven examples, that says that a musical artist’s first releases are far superior to his later releases. An artist’s pure and true intentions are more evident early in his career, before the trappings of fame, fortune and expectations are thrust upon him. Conversely, it’s also been argued that some artists are able to thrive later in their career and improve on their songcraft with the previously unavailable resources now afforded them and the veneration of an adoring fan base.

What’s great about this debate is that there is no answer, it will never end. Ever. Not only is it based in subjectivity and the individual opinions that come with it, but the contentions would be patently weak, fraught with examples that could go either way, depending on who was making the case and how dedicated they were to its and their righteousness.

I’m thinking that this idea could be worked up into a really interesting essay or maybe even a book that only seriously discerning music nerds would read. Alas, I’m too unfocused to flesh it out myself and to unsure to stick with an opinion or view (even if it is mine). Maybe David Fricke or Lester Bangs (RIP) could do it, Chuck Klosterman--anyone but Rob Sheffield.