"Will they eventually be reduced to a really bad state and retaliate etc? Well, it’s a mathematical possibility but I just can’t see it happening. There’s just so much creativity and yearning. "
I have heard a lot of people say that, but I just don't agree. Some people actually look for an excuse to say, "Hey, this band sucks now; I don't have to spend anymore money on them." I don't, but I can definitely tell Radiohead are moving into a bad era. I see them as a band centered around Thom Yorke now, and their current approach is too minimal, even in a minimalist fashion, to sustain a good sound.
"There is also something to be said for just wanting to write great music or produce great art without the need to stretch envelopes."
If there's no statement, there's no need. John Cale and Lou Reed had the song "The Trouble with Classicists," where they said "The trouble with a classicist he looks at a tree/That's all he sees, he paints a tree/The trouble with a classicist he looks at the sky/He doesn't ask why, he just paints a sky." There's no point to just making music - That creative laziness has made some good bands go bad very quickly.
"Maybe that’s a question for DB, U2, Coldplay, Paul Simon, MGMT, Leader of Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, who appointed Eno as his youth affairs adviser in 2007"
Back in his day, he was a fine producer. I enjoyed the last DB/Eno album, but I am in no way a fan of modern U2, Coldplay, etc (And I'm certainly not a Liberal Democrat, or a Conservative Republican, or Golden Monkey with Polka Dots). That current stuff is badly written, over produced, and is lazy.
But Eno's own material since Nerve Net has served no innovative purposes, anyway. It happens to most artists, and Eno is only human.
- On my studying - I studied three hours tonight for Hist 1111. Spring Break is next week.