Dose anyone think it sad that it seems you have to Die before you get any recognition Sighting artist like Eva cassidy and Now James Brown destine for his biggest ever selling record. Sadly.

[krish]

Nothing insensitive about that Lisa, but I wouldn't group EC with JB
- she had no success or fame as a singer/musician whilst she was alive, so it wasn't as if the record company, and retailers (and in some cases the widow/ex) immediately capitalised on her passing ... unlike Elvis, Freddie Mercury, Kurt Cobain, George Harrison, John Lennon, Joe Strummer, and now James Brown.

Its certainly greed in that respect, but in the case of the consumers its also out of a sense of respect, admiration, and finally getting round to buying their music which they probably always liked; and yes its also sad it takes the artist's passing for perhaps even wider recognition. If I'm not mistaken Kurt Cobain was the highest earning dead rock star this year.

[samat2001]

James Brown was incredible...I saw the Chili Peppers back in 2004 and James Brown was the warmup act - he was even better than the chilis lol

[steptoe]

hi
it is sad but unfortunatley its nothing new. it happend to jimi hendrix back in 1970 voodoo chile went straight to number one after his tragic death .we all said then something like "thats not right man" but if your big you are always going to get the press and the record company wil churn out the songs to ride on that publicity .just to quote a line "you dont what youve got till you loose it" and that will always be true sad but true

[signs]

thing is once you die and the press coverage starts the artist is pushed to the forefront of peoples mind and you start to remember the good songs they have done, hence you buy them

[unique]

james brown was famous for 40 years before he died, he was far more famous in the 60s and 70s than now

there aren't many artists who became more famous after they died, eva cassidy and perhaps jeff buckly are two of the few

2pac was well known and at the height of his fame when he died, altho he probably sold more records afterwards, he has released more records after dying than he had out previously. i don't really agree with rehashing all that stuff like they did with hendrix, if it wasn't good enough at the time, why is it good enough now?

there can be increases in sales when someone like elvis, lennon, freddie, kurt, dies, but thats just because people are reminded of the artist. i don't think james browns sales are going to pick up dramatically in the uk now, i wouldn't be surprised if there was an increase, but i don't think anyone is going to go JB crazy. i think the people who would be into his music would buy it regardless

[overkill]

I think Unique is right - in the main. However, the likes of Cobain have done better since they died than when alive. It can also raise someone from being a 'star' into a cult icon. As in the case of Hendrix, Joplin, Cobain, Morrison. This is likely to make their sales less realistic. In particular in the case of Hendrix and the Doors, the latter bands UK sales were fairly minimal by comparison with the US.

The likes of Elvis just saw already stellar sales go into orbit.

I'm not a fan of JB myself, so I won't be rushing out to buy his stuff, but I don't doubt his fans will. Which is only to be expected.

What's nauseating, as someone says above, is the cashing in by the record companies, who love to issue tons of below par material after a 'star' dies, which quite frankly they are hardly likely to have sanctioned if they were still alive. Otherwise it would have made onto album first time out............. not to mention the dreaded 'greatest hits' compo's that follow someone like Browns death, due to his huge back catalogue.

[unique]

i suppose it's different if an artist dies at a young age like hendrix, jim morrison, cobain, when they are arguably at the height of popularity, or not far off it, as fans can always dream of how great they could have became had they kept on going, but getting back to reality, there are folks like lennon and mccartney, led zep, bowie, and even elvis, where after a few years of massive fame, they eventually end up making less interesting music, or music that no longer pushes the envelope in the same way as the old stuff. they might knock out something great once in a while, but the general public will say they aren't the same anymore

when someone dies young they get that cult status and leave a few albums behind and can't be criticized for spending the last 20/30 years churning out the same old "phone it home" albums

take james brown, his last great album was in the 70s. eric clapton, you could say the same again, so why would it be any different with hendrix? i'm sure once he got older he would mellow out like most people do, and perhaps be comparible with clapton. nirvana could still be popular, but perhaps in pixies or smashing pumpkins kinda way, now that grunge is long dead. he would have a cult following like frank black etc, but i don't think he would still be making cutting edge records

i don't think many artists with a long career have made cutting edge records all the way through, they normally end up fading away at the end, with perhaps a decent comeback album thrown in now and again, like supernatural by santana. miles davis was on top of things all the way thru till the 70s, but his last few 80s albums weren't all that, altho one or two were pretty good. bowie's current stuff isn't crap, but it's a world away from his 70s or even early 80s material

the folks i know who liked james brown were mostly people who were funk and soul fans, a bit different from your casual listener, and they will keep on buyin stuff from james, marvin, stevie, etc, regardless of what changes. i don't think any would rush out and buy anything more. i don't think JB passing will create that many new fans tho, partly as he kept on recording, touring etc until the end so people were always being reminded of his old great stuff from time to time when he was on tv etc, whereas with other greats, they might not have done much in later years, or at least nothing great, so the deaths will encourage people to buy catalogue material in memory. to people who follow soul/funk music, perhaps moreso in america where he was most popular, they don't care as much about buying old material, perhaps like jazz music, as they know the best music was from years past, so rather than want to keep buying the latest stuff, they would buy the older greatest stuff instead

[overkill]

This is it really. If you die young you are, if you're any good, going to become an icon. If you are at the end of a long career, your sales will carry on, but icon status? Forget it.

I think a 'tragic' death though, in a slightly sick way, adds to an artists status. Elvis died, in erm' 'tragic circumstances' as did Bonham and Bonn Scott, so they still maintain an 'aura' in terms of their image.

I find it a little unfair on those artists when the media make those sort of 'well they wouldn't be as famous if they'd lived' claims though.

I think it's inevitable that artists lose their way in terms of music later in their career. Let's face it, some modern artists find it hard to maintain quality of writing over a five year career, never mind twenty five year! Whats sad is that some people are still buying say, the Stones albums, a full thirty years after they put their last really quality LP out!

[krish]

Originally Posted by overkill

What's nauseating, as someone says above, is the cashing in by the record companies

I think I find it more nauseating from the likes of Priscilla, Lisa Marie, Courtney, and Roger & Brian

[signs]

Originally Posted by krish

I think I find it more nauseating from the likes of Priscilla, Lisa Marie, Courtney, and Roger & Brian

i totally agree
....yoko ono

my msn messenger friend in Georgia USA posted me this link which if your interested will play you the james brown memorial concert. Type James brown top search box on the right media player opens .

http://www.wjbf.com/midatlantic/jbf/...mes_brown.html

[overkill]

Originally Posted by krish

I think I find it more nauseating from the likes of Priscilla, Lisa Marie, Courtney, and Roger & Brian

Oh, I agree. The cashing in by all sides is sickening.

[krish]

Originally Posted by overkill

Oh, I agree. The cashing in by all sides is sickening.

Not that I condone it, but its entirely understandable and predictable by such a cut-throat greedy business only interested in their bottom line; but with the relatives or former bandmates its just prostituting a dead relative/"friend"

Priscilla and Elvis were already divorced and she's made zillions from her dead ex-husband (mostly spent on awful plastic surgery in recent years ); Lisa Marie recently sold the Elvis brand to some entertainment conglomerate (with some BS press announcement that she was excited to see her father's legacy continue and flourish with [company x] when its blatantly about the further zillions that she pocketed from the deal).

Roger and Brian carrying on with the Queen name (or QPR / Queen + Paul Rogers) over 15 years after the death of their unique and irreplaceable frontman, and the dignified retirement of John Deacon, is just a very bad joke ... surely Angie Watts doesn't need a new swimming pool

more james brown videos

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdail...e-james-brown/