Comments on: Discussion: Quantity or Quality?

By: Leeann Ward

Leeann Ward — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:35:39 +0000

“might mean doing a few more covers and sacrificing a few songwriter royalties.”

C’mon, plenty of artists write their own material and aren’t accused of only trying to cash in on the writing royalties. In fact, the Chicks have sung plenty of other people’s songs: Darrell Scott, Patti Griffin, Bruce Robbison, Radney Foster, etc. Usually, we have more respect for people who write their own material, not accuse them of being greedy. Right?

The Charlie Robbison comment was a cheap shot, because plenty of artists (and regular people) get divorced for various reasons. It’s not fair to blame one person for it and it’s no indication that she wasn’t dedicated to her family.

By: Kevin J. Coyne

Kevin J. Coyne — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:51:40 +0000

I’m always amazed how comfortable some people are taking potshots at the personal lives of celebrities, as if their public position makes them fair game. It’s so easy to tear people down, yet those who do it seem so impressed with themselves, as if they’ve actually accomplished something.

By: Paul W Dennis

Paul W Dennis — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:27:44 +0000

I’m sure Charlie Robison agrees

Okay, maybe “lazy” was a bit harsh but the fact remains that many acts these days coast on their past successes because they are awash with folding green – Strait has been doing it for years as far as touring is concerned and we haven’t heard much from Shania or Garth in a long time

Acts that are “hungry” tend to work harder on their recordings and live shows

By: Blake Boldt

Blake Boldt — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:40:58 +0000

The Dixie Chicks are guilty of a few mistakes (as clearly shown in the comments on this site, quite a few with which I agree), but saying that they are lazy is a little unfair and assumes what their reasons are for not touring and recording as often. They’re all mothers, and while their personal lives surely haven’t gone as planned, I’d imagine family is priority. Quite a few artists have taken time off in the past for this reason and other equally important ones.

Thank goodness for those pioneers that paved the way for today’s stars. The truly great ones are surely appreciative for the sacrifices made so that they can enjoy better benefits with less strain and effort.

By: Kevin J. Coyne

Kevin J. Coyne — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:38:52 +0000

The Chicks have put their work in service to their family. That’s a laziness that any great parent who could afford it would embrace.

By: Paul W Dennis

Paul W Dennis — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:00:36 +0000

1) I think that the pressure of producing two albums a year resulted in more variety. Willie produces two or three albums a year, and yeah they can be inconsistant BUT the funny thing is, albums he’s done that I think mediocre are often someone else’s favorite Willie album and some that critics have hated have been among my favorites

2) I would rather have an album that had some covers of great older songs, than an album that has all original,material, much of it mediocre.

3) There doesn’t seem to be a very strong correlation beyween the length of time it takes to issue a new album, and the quality of the album

4) Artistic integrity has little, if anything, to do with the length of time between albums. The two factors that do enter in the equation are the time spent touring and the desire for some leisure time. The money in touring is so good these days that artists don’t need to work as hard as they did in the past. Porter Wagoner or Ernest Tubb worked 300 dates a year and issued two or three albums – George Strait plays maybe 50 shows and puts out an album a year

The Dixie Chicks have made so much money that they’ve gotten a bit lazy. They could double their recorded output without sacrficing quality, although it might mean doing a few more covers and sacrificing a few songwriter royalties

By: Hollerin' Ben

Hollerin' Ben — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:44:10 +0000

I actually think that a good balance can be reached by an artist focusing on a full blown great record every 2 to 2 and a half years, but by releasing a live record, a songwriters demo, something that won’t be mass marketed and a single wont come from, but something that the fans can pick up and enjoy.

By: J.R. Journey

J.R. Journey — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:08:11 +0000

“and just see him make an artist type album, that’s less commercial.”

Kenny tried that with his Old Blue Chair album. It only had one charting single – unsolicited airplay I believe – but it did sell platinum.

By: Jake at MAMB

Jake at MAMB — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:55:11 +0000

This is somewhat off-topic, but I’d like to hear what people think about what Kenny should do with his career now. Someone mentioned earlier that fame fades quickly, so one thing I’m hoping for is that Chesney does the opposite of what he’s been doing for the past couple of years(not that what he’s doing is bad to listen to.) and just see him make an artist type album, that’s less commercial.

I prefer a happy medium as some said, but if I could only choose between the two I’d rather wait a while for a long period of time, especially if that wait’s worth it. The thing with artists that just release as much new material as soon as possible, is that people usually start losing interest in them because their albums are nothing fresh to them.

To me it’s not as much about quality or quantity, but more about the artist and what they do for each album, if they can hold that fresh appeal to each album or change things up for the better, than I’d consider that successful.

By: vp

vp — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:46:49 +0000

I feel the same Gail, I think he pumps out the singles too fast and since he is KC alot of other good artist or good singles get over looked and missed by many. As I speak both the local country radio stations are playing two different KC songs oh one just ended so I’ll probably hear another within the hour it makes me sick.