Wow. How dare an artist want "commercial success". How dare she contradict the OP's ideal for her. I get so tired of hearing fans talk about how an artist "sold out". What is so wrong with an artist wanting some financial success? I bet the OP isn't curing cancer or painting the Night Watch. He's likely doing something for money. I have two friends who are both exceptional musicians, one also an exceptional songwriter. They did not "sell out", and more power to them, but they've never made more than moderate money and are far from financially secure. I don't begrudge any artist who changes to obtain some financial reward from their chosen work.
It is not about staying in a box we create for them. It is about being true to their inner vision and not publicly announcing "Ok everybody I am selling out now! Buy my new album which I purposely wrote and produced to appeal to teenagers! Come on buy it and make me rich!" It was not a gradual natural artistic progression. It was purposely and blatantly selling out, even admitting it in interviews. There is a difference! She let greed and insecurities misguide her!
I agree with the original post. In my book Exile on Guyville is a tremendous record, and the two that followed were very good as well. Those are three fascinating records. At that point she was thirty years old. Could she have had a career with consistently challenging material, like Patti Smith, Bjork or PJ Harvey? Maybe she didn't have that much talent, or maybe she wouldn't have wanted to put in the effort, but she certainly seemed to have potential at the age of 30. The problem with the two albums that followed is that they were so uninteresting - at least compared to what came before. She was clearly allowing her creative energy to be "channeled" - and the result is what we've seen since. She'll be 50 years old in a few years, and you just have to wonder if we'll ever see any important work from Liz Phair again. Given what Fiona Apple has done, I wouldn't say it's impossible, so let's keep our fingers crossed. She certainly had the talent at one point. The other question is, even if she decides to make some serious music, will there be anyone around to buy it? It has nothing to do with "hipsters" turning their back on her. She built a fan base with three memorable albums of intelligent indie-style rock. When you turn out an album like S/T, which teetered between innocuous radio girl-pop and terribly forced "raunch" like HWC, those older fans who were expecting something challenging aren't going to like it. And, they won't buy anything more because they don't want to get burned twice. (How many of you bought Frampton Comes Alive, I'm In You, and then never bought another Frampton album?)
it's not just about whether the artist has sold out or gone pop in the interests of financial success -- from our perspective as listeners, it's whether the pop-oriented music is any good. Plenty of major musicians have had popular success with excellent music, like forum favorite the Beatles. A group such as Wire continually steps out of "the box" they started in, but usually toward more challenging styles, not less. hardly anyone here is saying that Phair's more recent, pop-oriented work is as good as, let alone better than, her first 3 albums, especially the first one. It's fine to defend her on principle-- even if her principles are questionable -- but would you really want to listen to the new stuff? That's the "tragedy" the OP is highlighting, I believe.
I gather you've had a lengthy discussion with Phair about her "inner vision" and how her goals have changed during her career. Otherwise your portrayal of the situation would have to be classified as naive if not childish.
I'm not a huge fan of her music but I have heard and read about her decline before. She does seem to be doing what she wants, which is what she should do. Unfortunately the public doesn't seem very receptive. That said, she is super freakin sexy!!!!
So according to you nobody on forums can ever discuss artists unless they are best friends with them? Forums would be a ghost town if every member thought the way you do!
At what point does it become "verboten" for an artist to change in any fashion to broaden their audience? I don't always agree with the path, as in the case of Phair, I didn't. That said, she had that decision to make. I agree with another post that said the hipsters turned on her, and that is the real tragedy. The other tragedy was the focus on her sexuality rather than her art. So she sexed up, so what? I find it funny us music snobs complain that artists keep repeating the same formula, but then take offense when the artist(be it good or bad)changes course. To quote my dear old Dad (r.i.p. 1/7/13) "You don't get to have it both ways son"
It is fine to evolve and change course. Look at the Beatles! But Liz did not change course and evolve artistically. She changed course to purposely sound MORE formulaic, and admitted she hoped to make more money from it! Big difference my firend!
By the way, let's not forget that Phair became a pretty ambitious artist once her Girly Sound demos started making the rounds. She made it clear to anyone who would listen that she wanted to make a hit rock album, and she got her wish with Guyville, which was a huge seller for an indie release. We shouldn't pretend that she was a babe in the woods with no aspirations of commercial success.
There is a difference between aspiring for commercial success but having artistic integrity like for example Nirvana, and PURPOSELY going in a more formulaic direction and hiring pop writers to try to reach commercial success. How can some of you not see the difference?
How terrible! Isn't that what most of us do?: take jobs to make money? Why do fans not permit artists the same freedom of choice. Whether you like the result or not isn't the point. Fans often couch their dislike of artists' commercial paths with terms such as "integrity". Give me a break. The artist, like anyone, should be free to choose a path to make money if that's what they want.
If Liz Phair is one of rock's greatest tragedies for switching to a more commercial indie rock sound then Boz Scaggs is a tragedy for switching to disco and blue-eyed soul, and Jefferson Airplane is tragic for switching to whatever the Starship was, and Rod Stewart and Stevie Wonder and Paul Westerberg and Belinda Carlisle and a zillion others are Shakespearean catastrophes. Google "rock sellouts" and the vast enormity of this meme will unfold before you — and Liz Phair is not even a moderate sized landmark in that darkling plain where moralizing music fans point fingers and bemoan their betrayal.
Agreed about her first three all great. The hit slick album was made for money. I don't really blame her. A critics darling goes so far and I remember her saying she wanted to sell records to help raise her daughter. She was a single mom. Yes it didn't work out for her career in the long term but there are way more far worse musical tragedies out there.
you're misunderstanding, I think, the principle of freedom of expression -- no one's questioning whether she was "permitted" to do whatever she did. But we are equally free to dislike the result. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism of speech. your working-for-a-living rationale doesn't go too far. Do you have an audience at your job?
I have no problem with folks disliking an artist's direction or result. What I object to is the high-ground moralizing about how they "sold out" or lost their "integrity".
Most people take jobs purely to make money and also to make money for the corporation they work for. If music is an artform then music is supposed to be an expression of art, not a purposely calculated widget pieced together to maximize profit. If Liz wanted money to raise her daughter she could have applied to jobs at offices. If Liz wanted to create art then go ahead and release albums. But do not blatantly switch gears mid career and hire successful pop songwriters and expect fans to lap it up like obedient puppies. She gained a level of success from her art, then purposely stopped making art and made a calculated widget instead.
You are like so many fans who feel that their image of what an artist should be trumps the artist's own choices. Why should she take an office j0b, when she has the skills to earn money from making music?
all right, though there's probably a way to lodge your criticism without accusing the other side of being self-righteous moralizers with their heads in the clouds. I think the issue for the OP is more local. He liked Liz Phair's early records and wishes she would make more like that. So my question is, did you -- and others who are defending her on general principle -- buy a copy of Liz Phair's s/t album? And would you buy another in that style?
An artist can make whatever choices she wants. But she chose to not be an artist with her self titled album and instead release a formulaic paint by numbers album on purpose to maximize revenue. Paul McCartney can release whatever kind of album he wants and go in whatever artistic direction he wants. But if he clearly states in interviews "I want my next album to go platimun in todays market and I am purposely hiring the top pop songwriters of today to achieve that" then that is no longer art but a blatant cash grab. If his career naturally evolved over time in a more pop direction then that is a different story. Or like with McCartney II he artistically tried something very different but not purposely because he thought it was going to sell millions. See the difference?