Archives

Speakers Corner: The LF Forum > Posthumous album┬áreleases

Posthumous album releases are a tricky thing aren't they? Thinking back to the long list of people who have had material released after their deaths, the reactions seem to range from joy to horror - the most recent effort from Michael Jackson was met with negative criticism even from people who worked on the music with him, but recent news of an unearthing of material from Amy Winehouse seems to be met with praise.

Where do people sit on the argument, and at what point does it become a tacky thing to do to an artist's legacy?

November 7, 2011 | Registered CommenterI M S

It doesn't have to be a tacky thing. I guess it depends what the volume of work is, that's being released and whether it's done in earnest or of its just money grabbing. I'm sure there are many instances of artists passing away when they had nearly completed an album but it hadn't been released yet. In those cases the fans would almost certainly appreciate hearing the body of work (and I'd like to think that the soul of the artist would be at peace with it too).

But of course there are some odd cases (both positive and negative). how do we know for instance that tupac wanted all that stuff out in the public domain? He might have not completed it or finished it because he wasn't happy with it! yet future generations will hear it and think it's his actual work.

November 8, 2011 | Registered CommenterDenis-Jose Francois