I cannot stress enough how much I admire your angle on this essay. You acknowledge the greatness of 'Horses' yet make it clear that Patti's work after that monumental album is often unfairly judged by its standards. Music and art critics are often guilty of this. Thus, an artist tours a specific album and performs it in its entirety. 'Blood on the Tracks' is so often praised, one would think it was Dylan's last great offering. The same is true with Liz Phair's 'Exile in Guyville,' Neil Young's 'Zuma,' and Picasso's 'Guernica.' While these are all superb pieces of art, it is deeply unfair to ignore later works and periods of creation that come after.
Good artists constantly change, challenge themselves, move in different directions, and are inspired by various things. This also changes with time. 'Horses' was recorded at a specific time, and it should be respected as a pivotal piece in her catalogue, but her works that came after should definitely be listened to, appreciated, and critiqued on their own merit rather than judgments based on comparisons to a highly beloved or monumental piece created years before.
I admit I am no expert on her post-'Horses' albums, and I firmly understand this is my own narrow oversight of her catalog, but I would never sit in the pub arguing that Patti's creative peak was 'Horses.' Rather, I would sit back, listen to your take on the post-'Horses' catalog, and then be inspired to explore deeper and with a fresh perspective. Which is precisely what your essay has done (minus the drinks and good craic that meeting up in the pub would include!).
Thank you for this angle and for pointing out the weight that is placed on an artist. In many ways, this is probably why some artists stop challenging themselves and stagnate their sound (Oasis constantly tried to repeat the success of 'Morning Glory' rather than grow). Same with Red Hot Chili Peppers and 'Blood Sugar Sex Magic.' Both bands quickly became boring and put out uninspired music. Meanwhile, a band like Radiohead ignored everything and pushed forward. You never knew what you would get with each new Radiohead album. I suspect Patti's catalog is much the same (deeper explorations and challenging herself as an artist rather than trying to make 'Horses Part II').
Regarding age, this is something that constantly gets mentioned with women artists, actresses, or any high-profile woman. Rarely is age ever mentioned with men. It is sadly a much bigger, societal issue. Especially as most music critics, or those who mention a woman's age, are always men.
I look forward to your third installment in this series, Richard!
Thank you, I really appreciate this comment, Michael. One of the things I find really interesting about Patti Smith is that she’s an artist in love with art history and with style too. That means that she makes fascinating connections between artists and lives and histories. I think that’s why some critics knock her, because they read that fascination with style as meaning her art is all style and no substance. But it’s the way she weaves her art from her filtering of what has happened before that sparks something new. I’m mixing metaphors here but, again, that seems to be partly the point. I think I’m just trying to say that I find her love for art and the artistic life compelling.
As for aging, you’re right. There is still the ‘double standard of aging’ that Susan Sontag wrote about in the 1970s, and it’s writ large in the world of popular music.
I cannot stress enough how much I admire your angle on this essay. You acknowledge the greatness of 'Horses' yet make it clear that Patti's work after that monumental album is often unfairly judged by its standards. Music and art critics are often guilty of this. Thus, an artist tours a specific album and performs it in its entirety. 'Blood on the Tracks' is so often praised, one would think it was Dylan's last great offering. The same is true with Liz Phair's 'Exile in Guyville,' Neil Young's 'Zuma,' and Picasso's 'Guernica.' While these are all superb pieces of art, it is deeply unfair to ignore later works and periods of creation that come after.
Good artists constantly change, challenge themselves, move in different directions, and are inspired by various things. This also changes with time. 'Horses' was recorded at a specific time, and it should be respected as a pivotal piece in her catalogue, but her works that came after should definitely be listened to, appreciated, and critiqued on their own merit rather than judgments based on comparisons to a highly beloved or monumental piece created years before.
I admit I am no expert on her post-'Horses' albums, and I firmly understand this is my own narrow oversight of her catalog, but I would never sit in the pub arguing that Patti's creative peak was 'Horses.' Rather, I would sit back, listen to your take on the post-'Horses' catalog, and then be inspired to explore deeper and with a fresh perspective. Which is precisely what your essay has done (minus the drinks and good craic that meeting up in the pub would include!).
Thank you for this angle and for pointing out the weight that is placed on an artist. In many ways, this is probably why some artists stop challenging themselves and stagnate their sound (Oasis constantly tried to repeat the success of 'Morning Glory' rather than grow). Same with Red Hot Chili Peppers and 'Blood Sugar Sex Magic.' Both bands quickly became boring and put out uninspired music. Meanwhile, a band like Radiohead ignored everything and pushed forward. You never knew what you would get with each new Radiohead album. I suspect Patti's catalog is much the same (deeper explorations and challenging herself as an artist rather than trying to make 'Horses Part II').
Regarding age, this is something that constantly gets mentioned with women artists, actresses, or any high-profile woman. Rarely is age ever mentioned with men. It is sadly a much bigger, societal issue. Especially as most music critics, or those who mention a woman's age, are always men.
I look forward to your third installment in this series, Richard!
Thank you, I really appreciate this comment, Michael. One of the things I find really interesting about Patti Smith is that she’s an artist in love with art history and with style too. That means that she makes fascinating connections between artists and lives and histories. I think that’s why some critics knock her, because they read that fascination with style as meaning her art is all style and no substance. But it’s the way she weaves her art from her filtering of what has happened before that sparks something new. I’m mixing metaphors here but, again, that seems to be partly the point. I think I’m just trying to say that I find her love for art and the artistic life compelling.
As for aging, you’re right. There is still the ‘double standard of aging’ that Susan Sontag wrote about in the 1970s, and it’s writ large in the world of popular music.
Thanks again for engaging with these essays.