jick
Refugee
Re: Re: Glen Ballard...
When you talk about artists making their most commercially successful work in their 50's, these are artists who cannot compare with U2. U2 are all about millions in sales, not just a million. So maybe you can always find a no name artist sell 50,000 units per album, then into his 50's, he suddenly sells 500,000 and goes gold, but so what? No artist has had a monster of an album or done his best work into his old age, unless you want to talk about Santana's Supernatural and Clapton's Unplugged (and Tears In Heaven). Maybe U2 should do a Santana style thing and start dueting with Michelle Branch type artists. But I am not for that. I want U2 to be just the four of them. So instead of doing a duet with a Michelle Branch mold of an artist, U2 can do the next best thing by hiring a producer who produced Michelle Branch type music.
Well, you yourself said U2 is an old dog. So if you want to call them that so be it. But I'd rather have an old dog and another up-and-coming producer with young blood and enthusiasm, over an old dog paired with another old dog.
Cheers,
J
The King Of POP
Michael Griffiths said:But seriously, J, if you want a serious argument, I'll give you one: If you can't teach an old dog new tricks, then what is the purpose of hiring a young producer (who knows the tricks) to teach U2 what he knows (if U2 themselves are "old"). In this scenerio - according to your line of reasoning - U2 would NOT be able to benefit from it, as they can no longer be taught anything. Is that the conclusion you were aiming for? Obviously it was, but there are plenty of examples of artists in every field - music included - who have created their best work well into their careers. Take Moby for example (and this actually kills two birds with one stone, as he produces as well), or even Leonard Cohen, who wrote his most commercially successful album well into his 50s.
It's all a matter of perspective. Luckily, quite often we can choose that.
When you talk about artists making their most commercially successful work in their 50's, these are artists who cannot compare with U2. U2 are all about millions in sales, not just a million. So maybe you can always find a no name artist sell 50,000 units per album, then into his 50's, he suddenly sells 500,000 and goes gold, but so what? No artist has had a monster of an album or done his best work into his old age, unless you want to talk about Santana's Supernatural and Clapton's Unplugged (and Tears In Heaven). Maybe U2 should do a Santana style thing and start dueting with Michelle Branch type artists. But I am not for that. I want U2 to be just the four of them. So instead of doing a duet with a Michelle Branch mold of an artist, U2 can do the next best thing by hiring a producer who produced Michelle Branch type music.
Well, you yourself said U2 is an old dog. So if you want to call them that so be it. But I'd rather have an old dog and another up-and-coming producer with young blood and enthusiasm, over an old dog paired with another old dog.
Cheers,
J
The King Of POP