It may seem like a strange question, but I couldn’t find another way to phrase it. To me, it seems like artists such as Sublime and Nirvana are much more enjoyable than these new over exposed bands like the Creed or Nickelback. The same goes for older bands. I’d much rather listen to The Doors or Jimi Hendrix, than say The Rolling Stones. I don’t know, thats just me, what do you guys think?
I think all musical artists are going to die someday.
Except maybe Keith Richards.
We all know Richards died 30 years ago, but he used so many drugs, his body will take another 30 years to stop. 
It may not do anything for the impression they make, but it sure as hell is a shot in the arm for their SALES.
I’ve never really understood Americans’ obsession with artists who Tragically Died Young. It’s almost a surefire guarantee of posthumus fame and glory . . . not to mention a shot at being considered a “great” artist, whether or not it was true.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the Young, Talented and Dead would have slid into oblivion had they continued recording/performing out their normal life span. Instead, there’s an Unfinished Symphony mystique about What Might Have Been, though, in reality, it might have been a gradual decline into mediocrity and self-parody.
Good Call Lissa. Makes a good case for faking ones death eh? Cough Tupac. =)
I guess it makes what they did produce that much more precious, since we know they’re won’t be any more. And it certainly helps sales of every bootleg, compilation, live recording etc to get released and sold. I’m thinking here of Jeff Buckley, who only had one studio album.
Also, the “whoah, he really WAS bummed” factor comes into play with artists like Nick Drake.
I still admire Bob Dylan as a living legend more than any artist that burned out early, though.
Sonny Bono made quite an impression…
on a tree.
I’m convinced that Tupac is somewhere on the beach of the King’s secret private Carrebean island, siting in a beach chair knocking back margaritas with Elvis and saying “you waz right dawg, sales do go through the roof after you die!”
There have been what, 3-4 Tupac albums released since he “passed on”? 
The death of a lead singer or other influential member of a group doesn’t always ensure success. Take Blind Melon, for example. They had a huge hit with “No Rain,” then their lead singer overdosed. I still have yet to hear a second song of theirs on the radio.
Yes.
I think Shakespeare said it best in the Scottish play.
It stands to reason IMO that people get the impression that dead artists were better than the current crop.
Consider: if an artist isn’t promoted by the publicity machine anymore (because there are no new products to push), and after a few years (or indeed a few hundred years) of this he/she is still remembered this implies something about quality.
In other words: the dead artists you remember were better than the average dead artist.
This also means: if the average living artist is as good as the average dead artist was, the dead artists that you remember will necessarily be better than the average living artist.
I think it should be mentioned how badly most rock stars age. If you go to a concert with Paul McCartney or Rolling Stones or Iggy Pop or Brian Wilson or whatever today, you are going to be disappointed. They were all absolutely brilliant once, and it’s a bit sad to see how they look (and sound!) today.
If they die when they’re young, they’re prevented from ever starting a 7th reunion tour or hiring some semi-famous rapper or turntablist to do a bit on their latest single or teaming up with a cheesy hard rock producer or…
I mean, how much more rock cred wouldn’t Metallica have today if all remaining members of the band had died when their tour bus fell off a cliff or something, just after they’d made …And Justice for All?
No, dying is easy.
Ever considered that the passage of time is what’s responsible? The bands you reference are all 10+ years old. Time acts like a great big sieve for music, all the overhyped crap drops out the bottom and you’re left with the good stuff. Coincidentally, as time passes some of the artists die. You have noticed that of the music of 10+ years ago that still gets played, some of the artists are now dead.
I remember 10+ years ago when Kurt Cobain was still alive that people were complaining about “the crap that passes for music these days, unlike the good stuff by <insert 70’s/80’s artists here>”. Nirvana have just managed to hang on long enough to become appreciated, and Kurt’s death contributed by a) providing publicity and creating a legend b) halting the band’s progress at a point where everything was good and preventing them from making future albums that may not have lived up to the hype. The Metallica example above was a good one, had all the band members died along with Cliff, there wouldn’t be any images of them wearing mascara or accusations of selling out, and they would be remembered for the best work they produced.
And some artists are just generally overlooked until their passing reminds us of what we’ve lost. Sometimes their friends help remind us with Tribute albums. Case in point- Townes Van Zandt.
I was lucky enough to have a dream come true… I saw John Denver at his (IIRC) last concert before he died.
Does it change the way I feel about his work? No, other than the fact there will never be any new music, only new arrangements of his songs.
His death provided sick joke opportunites… Leaving on a Jet Plane takes on a whole new meaning now dunnit!! Haw bloody haw haw…
It can be that fans tend to remember the good that artist did IRL - if any - rather than any negative happenings.
But, no, my impressions of him are unchanged overall.
Gee, let’s see, Nirvana and Sublime=good music. Creed and Nickelback=talentless crap.
When John Cage died I observed 4:33 of silence.