I think it is time to retire

I think we have every right to debate topics like these whether we'd question it to their faces or not - it's all part of being a public icon. I certainly don't kid myself that Mick Jagger cares one iota what I think - I'm sure he doesn't, and I'm sure I wouldn't if I was in his place.

No doubt, if people enjoy the music or the show, more power to them, and nothing wrong with that. Being popular and being good aren't necessarily correlated. It's always interesting to see what mix these ageless bands play of their music - I'd bet Neil Young plays a lot more of his recent stuff than many people who have been making music that long, and I'd guess that that is correlated to the quality of his recent stuff.

Here's another way I think about it - what bands am I willing to buy the next released CD immediately for? It's a non-trivial list, but it's not endless. But if The Who was in the middle of their streak of great albums in the 60's or Stevie Wonder's streak of albums in the 70's, they'd both be on the list. In 2006, they're so far off the list it's comical. Whether I am interested or not, I would see reviews of either, because they would be covered in the press, and if they got rave reviews, I'd probably try to hear some of it and be interested. My point is, as great as those two artists were at their peaks, there are so many other bands / artists that are turning out stuff that I have higher expectations for, that they're not all that relevant or compelling anymore.

I don't think there is anything mean-spirited about the topic at all.

I remember debating if Pink floyd should hang it up right after DSOTHM was released because "they could never top that album".

I've complained about the Stones needing to retire. Bunch of grandpa's up on stage. But if I close my eyes, they do sound good. I've never been much of a Stones fan.

I listened to some of Van Morrison's last albums. His voice doesn't sound as clear as before, but it does sound good to me when he sings the songs on these latest offerings.

I bought XM to attempt to find new, current music that I can enjoy.

Ya' know what. I'm as picky now as I was when I was 16.

Long live rock and roll!

Sometimes they don't retire, they just die (drug overdose, alcoholism, anorexia, small private airplane crash, heart attack, complications of sexually transmitted diseases, etc). Then nobody wins. "Dead men tell no tales," and it could be added: "Dead rock stars sing no songs." Others are just now getting out of drug and alcohol rehab and returning to work. Hey, everyone's got to make a living, right? I say we should enjoy these geezers while they're alive and (somewhat) well. The old biological clock's ticking for us listeners, too. Plus, most of the new guys and gals just plain suck.

Mdhoover - I say a bumper sticker the other day along the lines of what you said.

"When I was your age, as least I didn't suck"

I think I'll pick one up just to embarress my kids.

Whenever this topic comes up, it is applied to rock musicians. If you substitute another genre, you may see it in a different light. Jazz musicians play until they drop and why shouldn't they? Even though Sonny Rollins is way past his prime, people still want to hear him. Ditto for a lot of classical giants. Perhaps the difference is musicianship vs. composition and songwriting. Songwriters tend to peak early. There are exceptions, but most songwriters' great work is in the early to middle of their careers. So their later recordings are spotty or lame even, but should they stop performing because of it?