mjscarousal said:

MickyDolenz said:

Actually, the 1st post does say "after 50".

The thread QUESTION asks who are artists that still made good music after their prime which is not limited to JUST 50 and over. The overall theme of this thread is for people to give their input of artists over THEIR PRIME that still made good music. The artist doesnt necessarily HAVE to be over 50 thats the point.

The question in the OP says this:

"who are artists that you can think of that kept making great albums past the age of 50, whether it was on the charts or not?"

MickyDolenz said:

mjscarousal said:

The thread QUESTION asks who are artists that still made good music after their prime which is not limited to JUST 50 and over. The overall theme of this thread is for people to give their input of artists over THEIR PRIME that still made good music. The artist doesnt necessarily HAVE to be over 50 thats the point.

The question in the OP says this:

"who are artists that you can think of that kept making great albums past the age of 50, whether it was on the charts or not?"

After I looked at this thread, I read the title again:

Who are musical artists who have created great music past their prime?

I originally thought it was artists who could NO LONGER create. My bad to the OP.

But she also mentioned over the age of 50 in the thread paragraph... so anyone below 50 might be excluded idk...

motownlover said:

Santana : super natural

that album was huge

with that album he became a sell out imo

yuck

[Edited 6/18/11 12:49pm]

Timmy84 said:

After I looked at this thread, I read the title again:

Who are musical artists who have created great music past their prime?

That's kind of vague though. What exactly does 'prime' mean as stated by the OP? Is it when an act was most commercially successful or when their music was considered to be good quality, which is not necessarily the same thing.

Miles Davis

Sarah Vaughan

Duke Ellington

Billie Holiday

Dizzy Gillespie

I've always appreciated their musical transformation, come to think of it, most of the people I could think of who endured and still delivered great music past their prime are jazz artists(even though none of the ones I mentioned care to be associated as such).

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

After I looked at this thread, I read the title again:

Who are musical artists who have created great music past their prime?

That's kind of vague though. What exactly does 'prime' mean as stated by the OP? Is it when an act was most commercially successful or when their music was considered to be good quality, which is not necessarily the same thing.

I'm guessing the music they produced when they were young?

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

After I looked at this thread, I read the title again:

Who are musical artists who have created great music past their prime?

That's kind of vague though. What exactly does 'prime' mean as stated by the OP? Is it when an act was most commercially successful or when their music was considered to be good quality, which is not necessarily the same thing.

Prime is also very subjective, technically we could say the Beatles were past their prime when they got to "Rubber Soul" because they didnt monopolize the charts as much as they did, but thats when the best stuff all came out. So my response was to the 50 as the age because thats a straight forward non subjective (at best) kind of question.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

The question in the OP says this:

"who are artists that you can think of that kept making great albums past the age of 50, whether it was on the charts or not?"

After I looked at this thread, I read the title again:

Who are musical artists who have created great music past their prime?

I originally thought it was artists who could NO LONGER create. My bad to the OP.

But she also mentioned over the age of 50 in the thread paragraph... so anyone below 50 might be excluded idk...

the title is that but the Question in the post is aimed at 50 which is an honest question and sets a bar of reference, PRIME could be anything, and technically i could have put down about 1000 artists that record better stuff now just with no commercial bearing at all. The Beatles were past their prime technically in 1965 when the backlash started but thats also when the best stuff came out, so u can have artists whose Prime is at 18 years old, Selena Gomez is in her Prime now, i dont think thats where we want to take this thread now.

lastdecember said:

MickyDolenz said:

That's kind of vague though. What exactly does 'prime' mean as stated by the OP? Is it when an act was most commercially successful or when their music was considered to be good quality, which is not necessarily the same thing.

Prime is also very subjective, technically we could say the Beatles were past their prime when they got to "Rubber Soul" because they didnt monopolize the charts as much as they did, but thats when the best stuff all came out. So my response was to the 50 as the age because thats a straight forward non subjective (at best) kind of question.

That, to me, is a weak argument. Maybe the Beatles were past their commercial prime. Maybe. But they were, arguably, just entering their artistic prime. You will not find many people that will claim that the 1962-mid 1965 era is artistically greater than late 1965-1969.

Harlepolis said:

Miles Davis

Sarah Vaughan

Duke Ellington

Billie Holiday

Dizzy Gillespie

I've always appreciated their musical transformation, come to think of it, most of the people I could think of who endured and still delivered great music past their prime are jazz artists(even though none of the ones I mentioned care to be associated as such).

Yep.

I would include Ella Fitzgerald amongst this group too. She kinda had a "rebirth" when she teamed up with jazz pianist and her music director Tommy Flanagan in the 60's. Mr. Flanagan was such a lyrical player and he was able to bring out Ms. Fitzgerald's vulnerability. Listen to those two when she sings"Here's That Rainy Day" live, wow. Later in the 70's she teamed up for several albums with she and Joe Pass... voice and gutiar.

Dolly Parton is doing some amazing things as well, she's recorded a couple of bluegrass albums recently that have been excellent.

============================================

[Edited 6/18/11 17:38pm]

Stevie Nicks

Heart

Grace Jones

Cyndi Lauper

Tina Turner

[Edited 6/18/11 15:30pm]

I meant to say musical artists who create great music past the age of fifty--as a generous cut-off age for "musical prime," which is certainly a subjective term. Instead, I have changed it to "peak musical years." I am curious about musical artists' output after the age of 50--the number being a frame of reference...but perhaps the term "middle age" is more appropriate... By "peak" I mean what is considered an artist's "peak" output in terms of creativity, ability, and material--not hits on a music chart.

[Edited 6/18/11 15:48pm]

rialb said:

lastdecember said:

Prime is also very subjective, technically we could say the Beatles were past their prime when they got to "Rubber Soul" because they didnt monopolize the charts as much as they did, but thats when the best stuff all came out. So my response was to the 50 as the age because thats a straight forward non subjective (at best) kind of question.

That, to me, is a weak argument. Maybe the Beatles were past their commercial prime. Maybe. But they were, arguably, just entering their artistic prime. You will not find many people that will claim that the 1962-mid 1965 era is artistically greater than late 1965-1969.

How is it weak? Prime in what respect? Commercial? Or Artistic, saying Artistic Prime is way more subjective than anything, Prince has gone in and out of "artistic" primes, the Beatles point is a valid one because they were starting to find the "artistic" prime as the "commercial" one was not as relevant and their dominance was not what it was, and the so called Backlash started on them. So "artistic" prime to some is not the same to others, people will say that John Mellencamp was at his "prime" when he was doing Jack and Diane and Pink Houses, to me and to alot of others he didnt hit his "ARTISTIC" peak till 1994 and on, so again, all subjective.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

After I looked at this thread, I read the title again:

Who are musical artists who have created great music past their prime?

That's kind of vague though. What exactly does 'prime' mean as stated by the OP? Is it when an act was most commercially successful or when their music was considered to be good quality, which is not necessarily the same thing.

I'm guessing it's commercial prime.

lastdecember said:

rialb said:

That, to me, is a weak argument. Maybe the Beatles were past their commercial prime. Maybe. But they were, arguably, just entering their artistic prime. You will not find many people that will claim that the 1962-mid 1965 era is artistically greater than late 1965-1969.

How is it weak? Prime in what respect? Commercial? Or Artistic, saying Artistic Prime is way more subjective than anything, Prince has gone in and out of "artistic" primes, the Beatles point is a valid one because they were starting to find the "artistic" prime as the "commercial" one was not as relevant and their dominance was not what it was, and the so called Backlash started on them. So "artistic" prime to some is not the same to others, people will say that John Mellencamp was at his "prime" when he was doing Jack and Diane and Pink Houses, to me and to alot of others he didnt hit his "ARTISTIC" peak till 1994 and on, so again, all subjective.

Well, you will notice that I used the word "maybe" twice. That was because I disagreed with your assertion that by Rubber Soul they didn't "monopolize the chart" in the same way they did before. Huh? The Beatles were still massive with number one albums and singles right up until the end. They were releasing slightly less product but that was a combination of taking more time in the studio and exerting greater control over what their American label was releasing. If anything I would argue that from Rubber Soul on the Beatles achieved one of the greatest blends of commercial and artistic success of any artist in any genre.

The Beatles' career was fairly brief so I don't understand why you are comparing them to John Cougar Mellencamp. They basically only had a little over seven years as a popular recording unit and he has been around for thirty-five years, seems like a terrible comparison. The thing about the Beatles is that they broke up before they had a chance to decline, both commercially and artistically.

It's funny anyone would mention the Beatles since they never had a period where their greatest commercial success peaked. They were still having No. 1 hits up until the day they disbanded for chrissakes.

rialb said:

They were releasing slightly less product but that was a combination of taking more time in the studio and exerting greater control over what their American label was releasing.

I don't know about that. Capitol still released different albums even with later period material, like the Hey Jude LP.

MickyDolenz said:

rialb said:

They were releasing slightly less product but that was a combination of taking more time in the studio and exerting greater control over what their American label was releasing.

I don't know about that. Capitol still released different albums even with later period material, like the Hey Jude LP.

Eh, from 1966-1970 The Beatles catalog was essentially the same in the US and the UK. Pre 1966 it was a mess in the US where there were tons of bastadized albums being released. With a couple of exceptions Hey Jude was basically a greatest hits album. A bit different from the mess that Capitol made of the 1962-1966 era albums.

[Edited 6/18/11 18:09pm]

TD3 said:

Harlepolis said:

Miles Davis

Sarah Vaughan

Duke Ellington

Billie Holiday

Dizzy Gillespie

I've always appreciated their musical transformation, come to think of it, most of the people I could think of who endured and still delivered great music past their prime are jazz artists(even though none of the ones I mentioned care to be associated as such).

Yep.

I would include Ella Fitzgerald amongst this group too. She kinda had a "rebirth" when she teamed up with jazz pianist and her music director Tommy Flanagan in the 60's. Mr. Flanagan was such a lyrical player and he was able to bring out Ms. Fitzgerald's vulnerability. Listen to those two when she sings"Here's That Rainy Day" live, wow. Later in the 70's she teamed up for several albums with she and Joe Pass... voice and gutiar.

Dolly Parton is doing some amazing things as well, she's recorded a couple of bluegrass albums recently that have been excellent.

============================================

[Edited 6/18/11 17:38pm]

The Joe Pass sessions are just out of this world One of my fave collaborations ever.

mjscarousal said:

lastdecember said:

actually not really because if we are saying after the age of 50, MJ did nothing, and Prince well, Lotus Flower was great but it also had MPLsound with it, which stunk big time. 20ten is very good but still some holes.

Thats not what the thread said the thread said AFTER THEIR PRIME.. not after the age of 50...

In that case, you can definitely count MJ who released the Thriller album after his prime. Downhill from there though.

Well the title done changed so none of y'all are correct.

Timmy84 said:

Well the title done changed so none of y'all are correct.

Ah hells bells, I knew what purplethunder meant.

TD3 said:

Timmy84 said:

Well the title done changed so none of y'all are correct.

Ah hells bells, I knew what purplethunder meant.

She had to make things, AHEM, clearer for those who didn't PAY ATTENTION. I know you and a few others did but, er, yeah...

^ Word on that one.

MickyDolenz said:

mjscarousal said:

The thread QUESTION asks who are artists that still made good music after their prime which is not limited to JUST 50 and over. The overall theme of this thread is for people to give their input of artists over THEIR PRIME that still made good music. The artist doesnt necessarily HAVE to be over 50 thats the point.

The question in the OP says this:

"who are artists that you can think of that kept making great albums past the age of 50, whether it was on the charts or not?"

That WAS NOT the thread question.

The OP mentions it in the paragraph but it is not stated in the question but I see NOW HE EDITED BUT originally it was not included in the orginal question

[Edited 6/19/11 13:52pm]

^ But that WAS the original question, guess the question was worded wrong.

Timmy84 said:

It's funny anyone would mention the Beatles since they never had a period where their greatest commercial success peaked. They were still having No. 1 hits up until the day they disbanded for chrissakes.

They actually continued to dominate the charts with outtakes, reissues and compilations 30 years after they broke-up!

Imaginative said:

Timmy84 said:

It's funny anyone would mention the Beatles since they never had a period where their greatest commercial success peaked. They were still having No. 1 hits up until the day they disbanded for chrissakes.

They actually continued to dominate the charts with outtakes, reissues and compilations 30 years after they broke-up!

But not with these.

MickyDolenz said:

Imaginative said:

Timmy84 said:

They actually continued to dominate the charts with outtakes, reissues and compilations 30 years after they broke-up!

But not with these.

I remember my father having those albums when I was a youngster. That was my introduction to the Beatles. It wasn't until quite a few years later that I "discovered" 1962-1966 and 1967-1970 at a friends house. I was talking about these two great double album compilations but when I described the covers he told me I was wrong because his parents had the same albums and the covers were red and blue.