Is there an age when rock stars should retire, or should they continue until they die?

 

Is it the same when they hit 40,50 or even 60 to sound or look the part of a 20/30 year old?

Steven Tyler is 60 and can sing and move better than most "rockstars" of today.

A difficult one to answer.

 

Rock Stars should retire when their creative muse and vocal/musical talent starts to desert them.

 

But in retrospect:

 

Frank Sinatra 1967 (after recording My Way as a final farewell song)

Elvis Presley 1969 (he'd just made his Indian summer triumphant comeback and should have left it there)

Beatles 1969 (after Abbey Road)

Rod Stewart 1974 (he has been close to a waste of space since IMHO)

Rolling Stones 1978 (after Some Girls)

John Lennon 1975 (his 1980 comeback material was over sentimental 2nd rate McCartney IMHO)

Led Zeppelin 1980 (after John Bonhom died)

Abba 1983 (at the peak creatively - The Visitors is artistically regarded as their best album, and music critics regard the last thing they ever recorded The Day Before You Came as the best thing they ever did, but Joe Public was deserting them)

 

However several David Bowie, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, etc have lost their mojo only to rediscover it at a later date.

 

The bottom line is they should do what Kate Bush did after releasing the near disastrous The Red Shoes album, disappear and only return when you've got an album to blow away the critics/fans (Aerial).

Stevie Wonder should have called it a day after Songs In The Key Of Life

 

whenever their musical creativity has died.

whenever their musical creativity has died.

 

Basically...

 

Whenever they start to become $h!t they should retire before they ARE $h!t. :lol:

Age ain't nothin' but a number. Keep it going as long as you want!

as has already been mentioned..... when their creativity dies.

 

imho pop/rock music should be youth lead, lead by the current generation, in that way they claim their identity. ok times have changed, in the past 'old' people in general didnt like pop/rock music, gigs were populated by the young, records were bought by the young.... nowdays though old people grew up with music and are more then ever buying it.

I like thisispop's list.

 

I'd also add...

 

David Bowie - when he formed Tin Machine

The Clash - when Mick Jones was sacked

I think as long as they have something to offer, it shouldn't matter how old they are...as long as they're

still young-looking and fit and don't look like the average old pensioner you see in the local post office.

If they're pushing 80 that might be a stopping point, unless you're Tony Bennett, his genre seems to suit

him.

 

A very difficult one for me to answer.... I mean, I was saying a few years back that Metallica were musically irrelevant in comparison to the new breed of Metal bands coming through, and that they'd been treading water since 1991, even earlier in 2008 I said on the Metal forum that Metallica doing a new album was pointless.... Then, the buggers only go and make what is their best album in over 20 bloody YEARS...... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Richard has a point, some artists do appear to "lose their mojo", sometimes for very long periods of time, then, it's like a bolt of lightening hits them or summat, and they just come back with a vengeance..... Metallica did it, Kate did it, Morrissey did it.... Maybe, some day, Johnny Lydon might stop endlessly regurgitating the bloody Sex Pistols and merely living off his once-good reputation and get his Mojo back...... :rolleyes:

 

Axl fukkin' Rose however, should just have bloody well stayed away..... <_<

The bottom line is they should do what Kate Bush did after releasing the near disastrous The Red Shoes album, disappear and only return when you've got an album to blow away the critics/fans (Aerial).

 

And you can add Killing Joke to that list as well.. Their two albums in the 00s have been nothing short of bloody staggering comebacks..... A long hiatus worked for them as well... Same for Echo and the Bunnymen.....

 

I'm inclined to agree with some other members - when their musical creativity died.

 

But if I had to name one it would be Queen after Freddie Mercury's death. Even though they enlisted Free & Bad Company frontman Paul Rogers.

Edited February 2, 200916 yr by Euro Music

Guns and Roses... they should've not released or even delay Chinese Demoracy... :(

Bland album, i've never heard something as bland as this before.

Guns and Roses... they should've not released or even delay Chinese Demoracy... :(

Bland album, i've never heard something as bland as this before.

 

Call it want you want, but it's not bland.

 

At best it's epic and grand, and at worst it's bizarre and difficult to appreciate. I don't think you can call it 'bland', seeing as I can't even think of a genre to call it. It just refuses to be pigeon-holed, and for me, you've got to give them some kudos for that. I loved it at first, and although it has NOT aged well in my record collection at all (in comparison to Metallica's Death Magnetic anyway), at least there's nothing quite as bad on it as 'My World' on Use Your Illusions II by the old GNR.

Call it want you want, but it's not bland.

 

At best it's epic and grand, and at worst it's bizarre and difficult to appreciate. I don't think you can call it 'bland', seeing as I can't even think of a genre to call it. It just refuses to be pigeon-holed, and for me, you've got to give them some kudos for that. I loved it at first, and although it has NOT aged well in my record collection at all (in comparison to Metallica's Death Magnetic anyway), at least there's nothing quite as bad on it as 'My World' on Use Your Illusions II by the old GNR.

I'm more that. ;)

Edited February 2, 200916 yr by funmaker11

Call it want you want, but it's not bland.

 

At best it's epic and grand, and at worst it's bizarre and difficult to appreciate. I don't think you can call it 'bland', seeing as I can't even think of a genre to call it. It just refuses to be pigeon-holed, and for me, you've got to give them some kudos for that. I loved it at first, and although it has NOT aged well in my record collection at all (in comparison to Metallica's Death Magnetic anyway), at least there's nothing quite as bad on it as 'My World' on Use Your Illusions II by the old GNR.

 

"bizarre and difficult to appreciate" I can live with.... Captain Beefheart.... Frank Zappa..... Lou Reed's "Metal Machine Music"...... Listened to them all, appreciated them very much as well.... "Chinese Democracy" is just plain crap.... :P :lol:

 

Each to his own. I think it was a very brave attempt at a comeback; Axl could have recorded Appetite For Destruction II and made millions if he wanted. But he didn't, and if for nothing else, he's earned a measure of my respect for that alone.

Axl could have recorded Appetite For Destruction II and made millions if he wanted. But he didn't, and if for nothing else, he's earned a measure of my respect for that alone.

 

You've pretty much said it here mate... "AXL could've recorded.....". ie, it aint a Guns N Roses record and should never have been advertised as such..... It was cynical of Axl to use the Guns N Roses name to promote an album that is blatantly an Axl Rose SOLO album..... :rolleyes:

 

I mean, did Lou Reed use the Velvet Underground name to promote HIS solo albums.....? No, he did not.....

Well, that we can agree on. Axl should NOT have used the Guns N' Roses name for the record.

 

The use of the GNR name doesn't stop me from enjoying the album, but it is wrong of Axl to market it as a GNR album when he remains the only original member.