Should artists retire after a certain point?

The VH thread inspired me ask this question: After a band or artist reaches or starts to pass their creative peak, should they retire/break up whilst still on top (Beatles)? Should they keep going, and run the risk of becoming a parody of themselves (Stones)? Discuss.

 

Sinatra sang well past his prime, Muddy Waters played the blues, Ray Charles still recorded and toured.

I say keep on going. Even if you aren't 25, full of spit and vinegar, the experience will still probably inspire.

Hmmmm.... when you are AT a Rolling Stones show - they really DO NOT seems like a parody of themselves. They seem more like a REALLY LOUD rock band that happens to play a truck load of songs you know, and has an energy level that is the rival of many younger performers. Is just that CLOSEUPS no longer do them justice.

 

I say go while on top. I always thought that was the reason the Beatles remain so popular today--unlike most bands, they didn't have a decline before they broke up, and arguably had some of their best material late in their career as a band.

Problem is figuring out when you're past your peak. Many artists, like Dylan, have had multiple comebacks.

I guess it's too easy to quote Neil Young here, but I'll do it anyway: "It's better to burn out then to fade away."

 

...as long as they can play, sing, and still make music...Why not? Like old fiends, I find comfort having them around...

 

I don't get this 'Go While You're Still Good' attitude! What is the difference anyways? It's probably just a lot of jealousy that these people still make tons of money if they aren't the same artists they used to be. Some of the great moments is one of these so-called washed ups come back and do something relevant. Anyone remember Johnny Cash and the American recordings? How about Jimmy Connors great run in the US Open Semis at the age of what 38? How about Loretta Lynn's new album? Roy Orbison's and Arthur Alexander's last albums were pretty darn good too!

 

Artists, no matter what their medium, should continue as long as they feel they're making a relevant contribution. Those on their 5th farewell tour who haven't released any new recordings aggravate me and should be ashamed.

 

As long the band/artist can still deliver the goods and has enough public support, then keep on performing.

 

I say retire while you're at the top of your game. that way if you come back and blow us away (a la Dylan, Brian Wilson), it's even *more* amazing ...

... and if you fall flat on your face, it makes us appreciate the prime-time that much more.

 

One of the things that I love about Classical music is how it's one of the few places in the world where one can be the wise old magician. Stokowski. Bruno Walter. Arthur Rubinstein. People who, the older they got, the more respect they got. You might even call it wisdom. When you think of the Lao-Tzus or the Gandalfs of this world, these are closest counterparts you will find.

Pete Townsend might have been Dumbledorf but he cut off his own legs with "Hope I'll die before I get old".

 

It depends on the artist - I just saw Willie Nelson on the CMA show tonight - he should keep going until he drops, or until he runs out of p-- (oh never mind).

 

No. Artists have a peak of five to ten years and after that there is a dip, but a level of quality remains (though not up to their peak). As fans, I would think we would understand this by now and enjoy them while they are still around.

The last "classic" Stones album may have been Tattoo You in 1981, but they have done nothing to tarnish their legacy since then. They are just as popular today as they would be had they broken up after the '82 tour.

I, for one, am glad we still have the Stones, Dylan, Paul Simon, McCartney etc. around.

 

Yes, after the VH thread, I felt this one was coming.
Its a tough, tough call. I think that people should keep going as long as they have something good to contribute. The problem is that inflated ego gets in the way of reason and objectivity. "Hey we were once great and we'll be great again". But time marches on and takes its toll on everyone. If it can catch up with The Beatles, Led Zep and The Who, then it can take anyone down. Remember: No one here gets out alive. By the same token, no one gets to be 27 forever, either. The Beatles said 'No' to reunions. They were smart enough to know that their time had passed. They knew the value of being creative and relevant, yet saw no value in being nostalgic. They knew that people didn't want THEM back, they wanted the 60's back. They wanted their youth and innocence back. And the Beatles knew they couldn't deliver that. Smart. The Page-Plant Unledded thing was a pretty good venture, mainly because they didn't really attempt to bring Zep out of the grave. They just took what they knew and presented it smartly. No, they weren't the Zep of 1973, but they knew they weren't, either. So they could do it with the dignity of men befitting their age. Would anyone REALLY like to see them try and do Led Zep today? Woah, not me. Seen Jimmy Page lately? He's a little, old man now. Plant can't sing even 10% like he once did. Its like wanting Reggie Jackson make a return and expecting to see the 1977 version. It can't happen. It isn't possible. The Stones are, IMO, a joke. They looked like a joke as far back as 1981 for me. Even then, my father noted that Keef looked like Jim Ignatowski! And that was 23 years ago. The Stones ARE a parody of themselves. A travelling wax museum coming to your town. With cash registers ringing.
A few years ago I was watching an interview with Rick Emmitt. Now I'm nowhere near a Triumph fan, but this interview was fascinating in a number of ways. He stated that ego and money got in the way of the band. He wanted to rehearse and keep on top, musically. The other two members didn't like to practice and were more interested in their studios and investments. Business stuff. He said that it would have been really nice to find a way to "keep our little team going, like Nazareth". But other distractions set in and he knew they were done, at which point he got teary and turned away from the camera. He also commented that "I don't want to shock you, but rock and roll is a young man's game, when you start to age physically, the thing starts to come apart." Very interesting stuff from a pretty honest guy, I thought. And now he makes albums the way he wants. They don't sell tons, but he carries on in a way that works for him. Even Peter Frampton, with his balding head looks at the camera and says with a laugh "the blond curls are long gone folks, and they aren't coming back". And although Clapton's music is nowhere near as interesting as it once was, at least he gives what he can, no apologies. He carries on in a dignified manner, distinguished British Gentlemanship largely intact. Satisfying his soul for anyone who cares to watch. That's cool.
So back to VH. They haven't hardly done anything of note in many years now. But why? Too much ego and not enough brains. There is a (very true) saying that talent and brains don't often go hand-in-hand. Can Eddie still play great guitar? I'm sure he can. But he hasn't got the vision to put himself in a situation to use his incredible talent. That's just a guy refusing to accept the fact that the Big Van Halen Rock And Roll Spectacular is over and he can't or won't reinvent himself to carry on. He has plenty more to give, if he wants. But he'd rather act like a petulant little boy and squander his abilities. I always cringe when people need a rekindling of the past too strongly. Does anyone really believe that Van Halen is going to come out on stage like the 1981 version again? Is DLR going to wear a long blond wig to cover his growing forehead? Is he going to yelp like a trapped animal like he did in Running With The Devil? Nope. Will never happen. I long ago realized the futility of craving a repeat of the past. The future is much more interesting. Take Slash. He gave up on the G&R thing and put a new outfit together to make himself (and his fans) happy again. He's looking ahead. Good on him. He's seemingly got no desire to rail on and bitch about his old lead singer. He moved on. And satisfying his need to make music. Blues guys, jazzers, folkies, country players don't have to concern themselves with the re-invention game. In fact many of these people often get better with age. But rock and roll is the ONLY music style indigineous to youth. It's born of a youthful attitude and requires it to remain vital. That's just a fact. We don't like to see our heroes get old, but they don't like getting old, either. All we can do is wish them well as they move into middle age and hope they can keep perspective of their lives and stay busy working their craft in an inspiring manner. No, they shouldn't trade in their guitars for walking canes when they hit 50, but its often in their best interests for them to come to terms with who they are, what they've done and what they can accomplish moving forward. Along with not expecting to be 27 anymore. Let's hope the VH boys give themselves a chance to surprise us one more time. Or two?

 

I just listened to Neil Diamond's last studio album, Three Chord Opera (from 2001). I bought it when it came out but only got through the fourth song and then gave it to my sister. I finally got to hear the whole thing and it ain't that bad. Yes there are some awful songs but he is in good voice here. On stage is a totally different matter...it's quite embarrassing.

 

As for the Stones, I am glad I got to see them live in 1994. It was then I learned that the real heart and soul of that band is Charlie Watts.

 

An artist has every right in the world to continue creating music. Whether the music is good or bad is irrelevant. That is what they do. It's their 'job', just like your job is your job and you'd be insulted if someone told you you should be put out to pasture.

It's up to us whether we buy the CDs or go to the concerts or not, though.

 

Well, it does seem a bit undignified for some sexagenarian to be singing about "getting it on" when actually to do so would probably require an oxygen cylinder and some Viagra!

 

That reminds me of the young bull and the old bull standing on the hilltop looking down at a heard of cows.

The young bull says "I'm going to run down there and get me one of those cows", as he takes off down the hill.

The old bull says "I'm going to walk down there and get ALL OF THEM".

What does that mean?

I dunno, it seemed appropriate.

 

Thank you. I'm tired of the "general wisdom" that the Stones are washed up, a parody, etc. The band I saw at Roseland two years ago wasn't a parody of ANYTHING - that show would stand up with the best rock concerts anyone put on at any time.

 

From the initial post onwards, it sounds like some people are dumping on the Rolling Stones, who managed to endure as a stadium draw well into their AARP years -- and judging from FOUR FLICKS, getting better with age and sobriety -- while making a virtue ("smart") of the Beatles's ego-induced disintegration.

You really wouldn't have wanted to attend a reunion concert, or heard some more albums? Yeah, right. You're the same people who are so hungry for "new" Beatles material you pony up for things like THE CAPITOL ALBUMS, the outtakes and outfakes ANTHOLOGY series, and solo albums that make DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS sound like, well, RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER.

Cue "When The Whip Comes Down," from the FOUR FLICKS arena show, on your DVD player. Self-parody? Have you seen and heard this? I'm glad the Rolling Stones have somehow managed to keep it together so long. Who would have bet in 1970 that among the sixties icons they'd be the ones to survive and prosper?

 

I just can't help but think of Warren Zevon, who kept right on going to the bitter end. The recent tribute album (I think the name is "Every Sandwich") has Springsteen doing an awesome cover of "My Ride is Here". It's one thing to perform in the face of sagging sales. It's another to perform in the face of death.

 

Zevon doesn't count. His last (final) album was stellar. The Stones last album? Not so much.

Equally, the Who can still rock, by all accounts, but have you heard the two new studio tracks? Really.

 

Nah. I think musicians do what they do for themselves first, fans second. As long as they are fulfilled making music and wouldn't be happy with retirement, why do it? Sure, the Stones aren't what they were 30 years ago, but you still have the Stones of 30 years ago to go back and listen to if that's what you want. Don't like the Stones of today? Don't listen to 'em. It doesn't mean they, or any band past their peak, should stop playing.

 

Everyone keeps talking about that Roseland show! I wonder if any of it showed up on that new live set?

The HBO/Madison Square Garden show on FOUR FLICKS is pretty hot stuff.

 

This is a toughie indeed, so many variables to take into account. Keep going, yes. But please do it with some style and sense of your place not only in music history but where you're at today. For that matter, where your audience is today. Let's look at some stellar acts still slugging away in the trenches....The Searchers (McNally's Searchers that is), a full schedule of events, look great in the suits, hammering away Needles & Pins, no attempt to bring anything new (and possibly embarassing) to the table, aging gracefully. Pete Best, still rocks like he's back at the Cavern, does the correct vintage, adds nothing new to the mix, aging gracefully. Status Quo, still the same good old boys banging it out night after night, no suits please, we know who we are, aging well. What I'm getting at is these are just a few who, shall we say, know their place and their time and make a fine living off of it. Just like hundreds of other "elders" that are still on tour. For all artists, there comes a time when they no longer need to contribute anything new to the legacy for the purposes of pleasing the masses. Maybe pleasing themselves but not the paying masses. If they wish to please themselves and can afford to do so, by all means, slug away. There will always be a small market for it with the faithful. But the greatest hits package will sell a thousand times better at Christmas.

Best!

 

I think this really depends on the artist. There are some who are vital and creative for a very long time. Richard Thompson has been at it for over 35 years, and each new album is wonderful, and his shows are still fantastic.

Some artists become really good nostalgia acts. I would put ths Stones in that category. Their live shows are still excellent, but they haven't put out a stellar studio album in at least 20 years (I would argue since Some Girls). I think there's still a place for these artists as long as you adjust your expectations. The Stones today are not the Stones of Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should break up.

I do think there's a third category that you wish would just hang it upbecause they no longer put out compelling new music and they embarrass themselves and their legacy when they perform live. I'd probably put the Beach Boys in that category.