07-03-2015, 03:49
Why do artists need to be relevant,or more to the point,feel as though they need to be relevant with distinguished careers and the 'history' of who and what they are attached to their names????
I could name dozens of major artists who have not been 'relevant' in the last thirty years but still do what they do well for they most part...
Because I originally mentioned McCartney whom iv been a huge fan of since I was a kid discovering music I'll stick with him...
Does he really feel his last two singles,one with Kanye,the other with Kanye and Rihanna actually sold mega quantities because he was part of them...he'd be a fool to think that IMO.
Does he think working with Ronson on his latest album actually make him relevant and 'brand new' again,I don't think so...
And he's not the only one, they should all just get to the point where they say enough is enough its time to bow out gracefully before they embarrass themselves and become parodies of themselves.
I could name dozens of major artists who have not been 'relevant' in the last thirty years but still do what they do well for they most part...
Because I originally mentioned McCartney whom iv been a huge fan of since I was a kid discovering music I'll stick with him...
Does he really feel his last two singles,one with Kanye,the other with Kanye and Rihanna actually sold mega quantities because he was part of them...he'd be a fool to think that IMO.
Does he think working with Ronson on his latest album actually make him relevant and 'brand new' again,I don't think so...
And he's not the only one, they should all just get to the point where they say enough is enough its time to bow out gracefully before they embarrass themselves and become parodies of themselves.
"BTO....Bachman,Turner,Overweight
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.
They were big in the 70s....for five minutes,on a Saturday,after lunch..." - Me 2014.