phaeton Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Ok, so instead of the "Acts That Should NOT Retire" thread, how about this one? We named a few in the "Acts That Should Retire" that should go out to pasture. But why? What makes an act no longer relevant? 1) Fan base dissapears or dies? 2) An act that was previously pioneering but is no longer such the case? 3) An act that fits into a genre that is no longer "popular". Folk music, maybe? Disco? Skiffle? 4) An act that puts out 100 albums over the course of 30 years that all sound like their first one? 5) An act that puts out 100 albums over the course of 30 years that don't sound anything alike? 6) An act that runs out of things to write about, so they write stupid songs with horrible rhyming dictionary lyrics? 7) Acts that return each year with a new gimmick, or rely on old tired gimmicks from the past? (When they are possibly just lamenting the loss of the spotlight and trying to regain it)? 8) Acts that "Sell Out" or make it apparent that they're just continuing on to make money (whether they need it or not)? 9) Acts that do several "Farewell" tours? 10) ???? 11) Profit!!! What do you folks think? What are the criterium for hangin' it up? C'mon, no need to bicker, we can have fun with this Dr. Seuss: The Original White Rapper . WWND? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Quite honestly, I don't understand the whole "retirement" thing. Either you're playing music because you love playing and feel compelled to do it, or you're in it because of money, fame or other secondary motivations. Not that these need to be mutually exclusive, but there are those who would play no matter how much or how little money they made at it, and others who see it as more of a career choice than an art. If you're in it for the money and fame, then it's time to retire as soon as people stop wanting to see you. If lots of people continue to be willing to pay lots of money to see you perform even though your heart may not be in it or you may have become a caricature of yourself, you have no reason to stop. If you're in it cuz you love it, the word "retire" doesn't enter your vocabulary. If your passion or creativity dry up, and playing doesn't make you happy anymore, then you should quit or take a break and do something else. Otherwise, nothing should stop you unless you become physically unable to play. I think the trouble starts when people get these motives mixed up. I'd rather play music I love for 25 people than music I hate for 25,000. But some people mistake the euphoria of playing in front of all those people, and/or the monetary reward from it, for love of the music. So they keep trying in vain to recapture that feeling in a bar for 25 people. That can be really sad to see. OTOH you've got people playing who "used to be" famous but now are playing in little clubs for whoever is around, because they love playing and they realize the music they love isn't trendy anymore. They might be doing this very well and be perfectly happy doing it, but in music-biz terms they'd be considered "has-beens." How silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Allow me to post a sacrilegious question here. If the Beatles had stayed together through the 70s...do you think they would have succumbed to at least one disco-esque song? "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylen Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Tedster: ...If the Beatles had stayed together through the 70s...do you think they would have succumbed to at least one disco-esque song? LOL hehe - Good one ! 'Disco Revolution #9' - ouch that hurts too much - stop !!! Well - who's gonna post the thread..."Acts that did retire but shouldn't have" ...or "Acts that didn't realize they were retired" I say keep on keepin on - I guess that's what you or Lee already said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shniggens Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I think that bands that lose a founding member (ala Widespread Panic) should go ahead and hang the hat up, or go their own direction. Amateur Hack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Flier Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by Tedster: Allow me to post a sacrilegious question here. If the Beatles had stayed together through the 70s...do you think they would have succumbed to at least one disco-esque song? LOL! Maybe, but it probably would've actually been GOOD. The Stones had "Miss You," which was actually good even though it was disco influenced. On the other hand, they also had "Hot Stuff." AARRGHHH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnorman Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 i think the rolling stones embody the principal reasons why groups should retire. if they werent still around pathetically trying to be hip, i MIGHT be able to remember them fondly from their really early work. as it is, i simply cannot stand them - they make me want to GAG - it is just like thinking of my grandparents having sex or something. jnorman sunridge studios salem, oregon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylen Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Oh - I forgot about some of the Stones Disco stuff - that made sense to me for some reason... jnorman - don't let your mind wander too far, hehe there's plenty of time for that later ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 8 Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 Originally posted by jnorman: if they werent still around pathetically trying to be hip, it is just like thinking of my grandparents having sex or something.Ah yes....the 'you're too old to rock' bit. This is odd, because the people that were inspiring groups like the Stones -back when they were young enough to rock- were often old guys who played the Blues. The Stones do not strike me as a band 'trying' to be hip. They pretty much do what they've always done. Whether or not it's 'hip' doesn't seem to be an issue. Actually, must be hip because it seems to keep well stocked with 21 year old supermodels! Obviously SOMETHING'S working! Super 8 Hear my stuff here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Gauss Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 it's all about growing old gracefully. unfortunately post 50's image-based pop music is not well-suited to that concept. did anyone have a problem with muddy waters, t-bone walker, or howlin' wolf in their old age? nope. as a matter of fact, as they were left behind by their previous black fan base, they were readily embraced by the "hip" young white college crowd. but as far as i can tell, they didn't wear makeup, dresses, or sing, "i hope i die before i get old." mick and keef sitting on stools in a club doing a bluesey "love in vain" is not embarassing. however, a 60 something year old jagger strutting around a stadium demanding "satisfaction" is kinda silly.... -d. gauss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.