You ever just think it's time for an artist to hang it up in the studio?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Price.pittsburgh, Jul 30, 2020.

  1. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    angelo73 likes this.
  2. lordcat

    lordcat Forum Resident

    I didn't realise that about Joel, reading the article it also explains why he is overweight and bald.
    He has just given up!
    Rethink things Bill!

    I often think it about Brian May,I think he's had two or three solo album's since 1991...why? The Queen tours and legacy can't take up all his time along with his astronomy!
    He surely must be capable of a nice sounding Brian May album every 10 years even!
  3. c-eling

    c-eling I never dreamed another way.

    Two of my favorite bands-
    Erasure/Pet Shop Boys- Or find another producer, geesh :laugh:
  4. Price.pittsburgh

    Price.pittsburgh Forum Resident Thread Starter

    I don't think artists should just say screw it once they've created a solid legacy. However, so many of them do release a lot of stuff past their prime instead of taking a good amount of time inbetween releases once they've gotten older. This could help with the muse.
  5. mwheelerk

    mwheelerk "You say you'll change the constitution"

    Gilbert Arizona
    Gosh, I have hung up my interest many times on many artists over the years. Occasionally I have had artists come back with something later in there careers to show me the error of my ways (John Prine, John Mellencamp, Keith Richard, Leonard Cohen etc)
    Jackson likes this.
  6. vinylontubes

    vinylontubes Forum Resident

    Katy, TX
    They should do whatever they want. I can understand a band breaking up because their output had dropped off. The Band did this. But if the artist want to continue with subpar releases, the listeners can just ignore them. These guys are musicians. Most don't have a university degree to fall back on. Being a musician is what they do to make money. Some don't need the money. But Fortune 500 CEOs don't need the money after their stock options have converted, and most keep doing the job. People go into a profession because they enjoy it or at least are good at. When you have the money and it stops being fun, they will quit. But look at Johnny Cash. Country radio pretty much abandoned the older stars in the '90s. He still put out the American Recordings. This kind of success isn't to happen for every artist. But why should others not keep releasing new stuff like Cash did?
    roolfie likes this.
  7. cublowell

    cublowell Forum Resident

    Pittsburgh, PA
    No. Even if I don’t care for an artist’s recent output, that’s no reason for them to stop creating. If I don’t like it, I won’t buy it, but creativity should be encouraged. Keep those songs coming!
  8. roolfie

    roolfie Well-Known Member

    I’ve always liked Billy Joel’s stance; I never thought of it as giving up — he’s still doing shows that he finds fulfilling, and it sounds like he’s satisfied with his body of work. Nothing wrong with that.

    But I feel that way because that’s what Billy Joel wants to do. I think there’s a difference between an artist making a judgment call about their future and calls from fans for an artist to stop creating because they don’t like the artist’s new output.

    None of which is to say there aren’t plenty of bands and musicians who would be held in higher regard today if they had called it quits on a high note (especially those who have just the one great debut album), but critical regard is just an abstract concept that I imagine is a lot less important when you’re a human being whose livelihood and family depend on you continuing to release new material.
  9. JoeRockhead

    JoeRockhead Forum Resident

    New Jersey
    You ever just think it's time for an artist to hang it up in the studio?

  10. krisjay

    krisjay Forum Resident

    Not really, but I've often thought certain artist, bands, etc, should hang it up live. With proper inspiration I think in a studio a band might still produce something great. Just my opinion, obviously anyone can do as they wish. I don't have an obligation tp spend money to see it though.
    Meyer likes this.
  11. Elliottmarx

    Elliottmarx Always in the mood for Burt Bacharach

    Los Angeles
    Even though we've been fretting about it for decades, I can't think of one artist who actually damaged their legacy by releasing poor records following their peak. This phenomenon doesn't exist.

    Yes, artists have damaged their career through bad behavior - yes, sometimes we abandon artists, but as far as I can tell we have never listened to a new work by an established artist and decided it was so egregiously awful that it detracted from their classics.

    So why not keep cranking them out?
    smoke and Man at C&A like this.
  12. MassHysteria

    MassHysteria Manic Vintage Enthusiast

    I don't blame any of the legends for giving it a rest. Especially as they get older. Life is too short and if they feel they're accomplished enough to take it easy, then so be it.
  13. idreamofpikas

    idreamofpikas Forum Resident

    No one is under any obligation to buy or listen to them. As long as the musician is enjoying it then they should continue.

    Ringo continuing to make albums has probably helped him far more mentally and spiritually than it has done financially. On the other hand Phil Collin's seems to have missed that part of his life and it may have meant he has deteriorated without that focus.
    MikeManaic61 and Man at C&A like this.
  14. Terrapin Station

    Terrapin Station Forum Resident

    NYC Man
    I'd rather that no one just abandon doing new work, and I don't think anyone should "wait for the muse"/"wait for inspiration." Make creating new stuff a regular task to be done, something to practice just like one would practice an instrument. You gain command of your skills on an instrument by regularly practicing it, whether you feel like practicing or not. The same goes for creating new work.
  15. fallbreaks

    fallbreaks Forum Resident

    I don’t blame Billy Joel at all. If you’ve had a twenty-year career that’s no longer fulfilling but which allows you to retire and enjoy life for the next nearly 30 years, why not? That’s better than most careers.

    And on the other hand, if you’re still feeling the urge to create, why not? Dylan took a lot of stick through the late 70s and 80s, even though there was some good stuff in there, but eventually he hit a late career high because he kept at it.
    smoke and idreamofpikas like this.
  16. WLL

    WLL Popery Of Mopery


    Also, they"re just not making The Music Of Today anymore
    It's like Frank Sinatra of Tony Bennett in the 70s. Even their original audience doesn't really buy their music anymore, even if they can sell lots of tickets to their shows of their vintage music.
  17. Man at C&A

    Man at C&A Forum Resident

    REM split up when they felt they had reached that point.

    I can't think of anyone I like that I think should give it up, but generally once an artist does two albums consecutively that I don't play once they are on my shelves, or I don't like, I lose interest or give up on them. This happens mostly with indie bands.
  18. Roger Thornhill

    Roger Thornhill Forum Resident

    Ilford, Essex, UK
    From the perspective of the artist, it's really up to them if they want to continue putting out new music or not if they're still enjoying it. If their fanbase thinks it's worth listening to then they'll listen.

    But they shouldn't just continue because there's an expectation from their fans that they have to carry on - you don't own an artist. If they want to retire that's really up to them. People in all other walks of life retire so why shouldn't musicians?
  19. let him run...

    let him run... Forum Resident

    Colchester, VT USA
  20. ShayLaB

    ShayLaB Forum Resident

    Northern Ireland
    Johnny Cash is a great example.

    He found a new direction/producer/way of doing things.

    A third act in a long career that only happened because he kept going.

    So the answer is yes...if it works.

    And no if it doesn't.
    idreamofpikas likes this.
  21. angelo73

    angelo73 ⬚⿻⬚⿻⬚

    Orbiting Sgr A*
    I'm of two minds on the subject. On the one hand I agree that artists ought to do as they please, then again, an artist's legacy and reputation - mostly the latter - can be stained by continuing to put out excessive amounts of relatively sub-par material. It may be considered to demonstrate a lack of deference to accomplishment and integrity, taking into account these values might be indicated in the first place. It wouldn't actually lessen the importance or necessarily the valuation of an artist's accomplished works to have thereafter captured evidence of their own decline, but it can subject the artist to criticism of their intentionality and
    contemplation of Aristotelian ethics, and a questioning of their instinctive value of aesthetics.
    smoke and JerryGarciaIsGod like this.
  22. tcbtcb

    tcbtcb Forum Resident

    sugar hill nh usa
    It's up to the artist. If they feel they have something more to say, or they simply enjoy recording, who am I to tell them to stop? If I don't like their new music, I don't have to listen. On the other hand, I respect Billy Joel's choice as well. In the end, it's their lives, their talent, and the choice is theirs.
  23. Celebrated Summer

    Celebrated Summer Forum Resident

    I think there needed to be some sort of FBI-like agency that sent notifications to musical acts requiring them by law to stop making music when said agency determined the acts had run their course artistically.

    For example, in early 1967 after "Good Vibrations" came out, The Beach Boys should all have been served notice with a letter saying something like this:

    "Look, you've done Pet Sounds and 'Good Vibrations' in one year. You will never top this. So, we hereby revoke your right to make music under the moniker The Beach Boys. Feel free to make solo albums or form a new musical group, but we've determined you've taken that name as far as you could. Good night and good luck."

    The Clash also needed to receive such a letter in 1982 and The Beatles should have gotten one on the day Brian Epstein died. Madonna needed this letter around the time the '80s ended, while the prog band Yes should have gotten one when the '80s began.

    And so on...
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020
    smoke likes this.
  24. maywitch

    maywitch Forum Resident

    I think I agree with this. It's like a muscle, it needs to be exercised on a regular basis to stay in shape. You don't want to abuse it but it shouldn't be something you only do when "inspiration hits". You aren't going to finish a marathon if you only exercise when you feel like it. :D

    This is actually very common advice given to writers or people who want to be writers - write something every day, no matter what it is. It doesn't need to be great or particularly inspired, it doesn't even necessarily need to be the type of writing you think you WANT to write, but it's important to get in the habit of just writing, putting your thoughts and words down, getting them out of your head and into a solid form, so to speak.

    It keeps the gears oiled so that way when inspiration DOES hit you'll be in good shape to take advantage of that inspiration.
  25. Derek Slazenger

    Derek Slazenger Specs, rugs & rock n roll

    Ringo, Elton.
    Michael and Jackson like this.

Share This Page