When should a band/artist stop releasing music and retire?

So, Pink Floyd are retiring after nearly 50 years of making music. Is this a good thing, and should others of their generation follow? At what point, do you think, should bands or artists just call it a day. What factors should be taken into consideration? Is there a defining cut-off point for some, but not for others? Should it be simply down to how creative, successful or relevant the music is? Maybe they should just keep going, as long as they can, if the music is still good. David Bowie announced 'The Next Day' via his website on his 66th Birthday, an album that many regard very highly. Is he the exception to the rule? Artists will generally have more than one duff album in their catalogue, but is it ok to keep releasing music, knowing that the best has possibly already been delivered?

 

Never. Basically they should continue making music as long as they want to continue making music, whether it's until they're 70, 80, or until they're dead.

 

As long as they want to go.

 

+1.

It's not for the consumer to decide when an artist (regarding of discipline) should cease to create. Whether their works are successful or not is irrelevant.

 

Absolutely. Good point. I am glad you used the word create, as this is very different to releasing the music. Once the music is created, and for whatever reason is deemed not successful (in the artists opinion) they are doing the quality control, and not the consumer. But if it is released, it becomes a very different scenario. The recent Michael Jackson single springs to mind.

 

Metal Rules!!:Do you see yourself ever retiring, or will you rock till you drop!!?!?!

Ian Gillan:I have a certain regard for dignity, so I’ll Rock until I Roll.
​

 

And just look at Vera Lynn. She's almost 100, has been in show business for 90 years, and her music still has the most commercial value it's had in decades.

 

Pink Floyd haven't been active like a real band for ages. Who'll still involved?

 

When talentless people on the Internet decide for them, of course.

 

Just read this on the back of my Muddy Waters Hard Again CD, and I quote:

"Muddy revitalised his career and modern blues with Hard Again at an age when he could have retired or coasted on his legendary reputation. Instead he kicked ass, hard, again."

 

They can choose to keep music just as long as they like, just as we can choose to ignore it when it becomes inspiration-free rehashing of former glories.

 

It would be advisable for any artist to retire when the muse leaves them.

 

Also, sometimes the later stuff is so mediocre or outright bad, it gives you even more appreciation for the earlier stuff, and sometimes you start to dig the earlier stuff you didn't originally like. Eventually, as time passes, sometimes you even start to dig the later output you initially though sucked.

I'm describing how I came to like Bob Dylan's entire catalog.

 

Good example! With thanks to Johnny Winter who produced it.I agree with the opinion that this is not up to the consumer.

 

I think we've done this before.

Artists should retire when they want to.

Music audiences should simply stop listening to artists they think should retire.

I might make an exception for artists who aren't even trying.

 

After reading several similar threads over the past few weeks, I think the question is, why does it seem to matter to people so much if a band or artist puts out a subpar album? Does that somehow hurt their previous records? I wouldn't touch most of Love's post-'60s work, but that doesn't have any impact on how I feel about Forever Changes.

 

everybody should continue to do as they please for as song as they want. many times an artists older material trumps their earlier work.

 

The best thing of course is to not outstay your welcome and quit before anybody starts telling you to do so. But bands should quit whenever they feel it's time to do so. Really, I have no problem that Thin Lizzy, Badfinger and The Hollies are still out there. I'm not visiting their shows or buying their records, but let them keep playing shows and release albums as long as they want to. I used to care about this, but not anymore really.

 

I'm of the opinion that if they want to continue releasing music, they should...

 

Well I went to see Fleetwood Mac the other night and they sounded fine to me, I think some members are in their 70's....

 

It's easy to ignore things these days. 35-40 years ago, when all you had was the radio it was different. Since I don't have to hear the music, I couldn't care less if someone overstays their welcome, but then again, people can remember Jim Brown as the dominant player of the day, while, I have bad memories of past his prime Willie Mays at Shea and Muhammid Ali's final days as a boxer.

 

80 is the new 40...

 

They can all stay around as long as they want -- just don't charge $600 a ticket to see them live.

 

An interesting thought but I think this is what separates a great artist from a lesser one. Folks have mentioned Pink Floyd - I'd say the Waters muse pretty much expired on The Wall, with The Final Cut being something of a retread of some of the same ideas. And since then he's gone on to produce some fine material and some stuff that's not so good. I think when the "muse" is there you can be ambitious and overreach and still be successful, but once it's gone that artist has to find a more comfortable zone. There's a time for many rock artists when, as Costello once sang "Every fleeting thought is a pearl." Later on, not so much. At some point the artist has to become a professional. Some can do it gracefully, some can't.