How about this: Have you ever discussed with an artist whether rather they define themselves through that one hit song - or their full repertoire?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes, I indeed have occasionally. The tenor has been that most of them seem unhappy about people reducing them to a couple of songs, performances, books, paintings etc. Except the makers of one hit wonders are happy to be remembered at all [emoji3]. It could also be argued that sometimes albums are entire works of art, instead of a collection of individual songs.
And so, if Ludwig van would have just written the 9th he would have been a one hit wonder as well and most probably no-one would remember him today. Then he would just have been a noisy anomaly in contemporary music of that time, being hard of hearing and the first composer to introduce the technique of using your thumbs when playing piano (those days rather Spinets actually).
Also, as an artist it is great to be able to achieve something once, but being able to repeat it elevates the artist to the next level of achievement. I would also argue it is not possible to understand an artist when only knowing the masterpiece. On the contrary, it is important to understand how she got there and whether she was able to evolve.
I also do flip within my digital catalogue and Tidal and do enjoy it occasionally. But at the same time I am also listening to entire albums on vinyl and do enjoy that as well. With digital I also noticed at some point, that I was constantly testing different sound aspects and even just playing fractions of songs. That led to a decline in my enjoyment of music, a kind of ADHD listening. Vinyl kind of calms things down. But this comment should not be viewed as if it would be right or wrong to do one thing or the other, they're just two different personal listening modes.
I guess it might be a bit much to discuss the perspective of lifetime achievement here. But nevertheless, just wanted to point out an alternate view.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
