View Full Version : Why Does Work Worth More When Artist Dead?
ethics
02-14-2005, 10:23 AM
You've all seen this. A great artist is snubbed, ignored, moved aside, that is until they die and then all of a sudden they are <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/leisure_grammys_dc">awesome</a>.
Why is that? Why is an artist's work more valuable when he is dead?
Steve
02-14-2005, 10:32 AM
'Cause they ain't makin' no more. The product immediately becomes limited in quantity. Simple application of the law of supply and demand.
That explains value.
Popularity, I would guess, is explained by the fact that artists are supposed to be avant garde. If they're not, they're really not much of an artist, right? So, by definition, the works they create are not mainstream and so tend to be ignored until popular taste catches up with them. 'Course, by then, they're dead ;)
You've all seen this. A great artist is snubbed, ignored, moved aside, that is until they die and then all of a sudden they are awesome (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/leisure_grammys_dc).
Why is that? Why is an artist's work more valuable when he is dead?
You are right, but this isnt even close to a good example. Charles was worshipped while alive, and highly honored. If he had made it to these Grammys he would have been honored just the same, maybe not QUOTE as much but close.
In some cases, this among them I think, its as simple as the human penchance for failing to appreciate the greatness of something until its gone.
ethics
02-14-2005, 10:51 AM
I guess I should have been more specific and ask why did the coveted Album award was never granted to the man until he died.
MNeedham73
02-14-2005, 11:23 AM
Unfortunately, this sort of thing seems to be more the norm than the exception, Leon.
If memory serves, Johnny Cash received several high awards after his passing as well.
ethics
02-14-2005, 11:47 AM
YES! Another one. Johny Carson's quotes are all over the place now as well, especially his skit on <a href="http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?t=10267">Democracy</a>.
RetFireCapt
02-14-2005, 01:04 PM
I don't see them flocking to Tupac's noise while singing a paean to his scary talent.
ethics
02-14-2005, 01:05 PM
No offense to Tupac the person, but his stuff was sub-par. If he were not shot and died, he would have been in the same place as M.C. Hammer.
MNeedham73
02-14-2005, 01:08 PM
I don't see them flocking to Tupac's noise while singing a paean to his scary talent.
Heh, Kurt Cobain either. Still not sure what the big deal is about him.
tke711
02-14-2005, 01:10 PM
Heh, Kurt Cobain either. Still not sure what the big deal is about him.
While I liked Nirvana quite a bit, I'd have to agree. Everyone always credits him with creating the "Seattle sound/grunge" but that is simply not true. There were a number of bands before Nirvana in that category. Just check out the Singles soundtrack for some earlier examples.
MNeedham73
02-14-2005, 01:16 PM
After contemplating this for a few minutes, there are several artists that I can think of that didn't receive as much recognition (not necessarily awards) for their work while they were alive.
The two that came to mind immediately are a couple of my favorite musicians, Jim Croce and Harry Chapin.
Part of the reason that it happened to these two, I think, is because their careers and lives were cut short. But still, from everything I've read and watched (there was a good show about Croce on PBS last year), these two deserved more acclaim than they got.
Just my opinion of course.
RetFireCapt
02-14-2005, 01:18 PM
No offense to Tupac the person, but his stuff was sub-par. If he were not shot and died, he would have been in the same place as M.C. Hammer. Or the guys with the big alarm clocks around their necks?
Get the fuck out, get the fuck out, get the fuck out of my house.......BITCH!
Timeless lyrics.
MNeedham73
02-14-2005, 01:22 PM
No offense to Tupac the person, but his stuff was sub-par. If he were not shot and died, he would have been in the same place as M.C. Hammer.
At least Hammer didn't have to cuss every other word heh.
Sacchiridites
02-16-2005, 01:37 PM
A few adjectives have come to mind when I've tried to reason out this phenomenon for myself: anachronistic, altruistic, antagonistic.
I think people (i.e., labeled 'artists') are born with natural talent that is envied/feared. I do not think post-mortem fame is representative of a mournful attitude at all. I only see that here is the representation of all humanity that what we don't understand we fear. Until the 'threat' is gone, we refuse to acknowledge it's contribution to our own personal growth.
I can also compare this type of behavior to something else. I've noticed about most every person I've met that cannot sing nor are at all instrumentally or musically inclined appreciate the music even more!
Care to all,
Cie.
This last collaborative album from Charles isn't even particularly all that good. The grammy was given for sentimental reasons and as a monument to a career, rather than the merits of this album.
Sacchiridites
02-16-2005, 06:14 PM
You've all seen this. A great artist is snubbed, ignored, moved aside, that is until they die and then all of a sudden they are awesome.
Why is that? Why is an artist's work more valuable when he is dead? :vmad: What bothers me more than the snubbing/ignoring/pushing aside in an artist's life is the gnashing and clawing for any shred of what is left of warranted fame/fortune after an artist dies. (see this article from the same site (http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/ray%20charles%20estate%20sued))
ethics
02-16-2005, 06:35 PM
This last collaborative album from Charles isn't even particularly all that good. The grammy was given for sentimental reasons and as a monument to a career, rather than the merits of this album.
Well, that's wrong for other reasons.