Notice: All forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at

No disrespect intended -- but who should leave the stage?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    No disrespect intended -- but who should leave the stage?

    Is it fair to discuss the notion that some of the classic rockers need to get off the stage now (or soon)?   If you'd made a career using your voice as your instrument, it is only natural that your vocal chords are going to wear out, and your ability to perform will become increasingly difficult.  Regardless of performing, it's a potential health risk in general.  

    So to be real and honest, who are some of the truly talented rock and pop stars, the legends, who need to get off the stage?   They may be able to make a studio album now and again, but no more performing.   You've seen them on music award shows, you've seen them at some of the big stadiums, and it's now looking like an epic FAIL.   

    We are now at a turning point in rock history, where classic acts are lasting well into what would be "normal" retirement age for people in other professions, you see.   When is it time for them to coast and be happy with being a legend and know when to quit?

    Who comes to mind?   Who has lost it?   I know, I know, it's a free country and if they don't want to retire, that's not for us to judge.   But certainly, you've seen some performances that have made you cringe, haven't you?
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: No disrespect intended -- but who should leave the stage?

    In Response to Re: No disrespect intended -- but who should leave the stage?:
    In Response to Re: No disrespect intended -- but who should leave the stage? : Polar, I said I got to thinking after I saw the comments, I didn't say I agreed with them.  :)    And I agree that judging from the size of the event, the "best seats" were probably in front of a television.  The Queen wore ear plugs.  She knows how to plan for a rock concert.  :)   NOTE: I am hazarding a guess, but I am sure most of the negative comments were from younger rock fans -- who felt the acts were the "same old - same old" and wished they had been more representative of a wider British rock music scene.   You seem to be talking more about the recorded music, than the live performing aspect of some of the artists.  And again, I was just asking for opinions.  If you have never heard or seen an established act that made you feel this way, that's fine on you.   But that doesn't mean that other people don't have the right to just give an opinion, because that's all this is, opinions. It's not the Stairway convo.  And I was of the mind that it was a ridiculous suggestion, too.   But I think discussing music that you love vs the people who presented it to you performing live really is a different convo and a different perspective.   And yes, people will flock to hear their faves and be there for nostalgia and have a fantastic time.   BUT that STILL does not mean that other people aren't cringing because they sound awful.    Eye of the beholder, you know?  I think this is more like the art thread than the Stairway thread.   Just another slant.   I like your take, and always appreciate your opinion.   :)
    Posted by yogafriend

    Ok. If you really asked me I would say, yes there have been times I have cringed when listening to a performer live, but again, it is my belief that we should leave it up to the artist to decide when to exit stage left.

    I am not trying to say one's opinion does not matter. Just because I disagree with some on this issue, does not mean I don't respect what they have to say. In fact, I enjoy reading what other's think, otherwise I wouldn't be here.    

    I do see your point in "Eye of the beholder," though, and you are right.

    ETA: And apologies if I came on strong, it's just that I hate it when people are treated to a once in a lifetime free event, with some of music's greatest artists, and find something to bi**tch about. The traffic, chaos, yes, music no. But as you say it's only opinions. And believe me, I know you were only using it as an example  :)
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: No disrespect intended -- but who should leave the stage?

    I think the problem is just that musicians in a genre - rock'n'roll - build around youth are always going look at least a bit absurd and always a bit hypocritical once they become part of the establishment they rebelled against.  I realise that's a bit broad, but think it's largely true.  I'm not saying that therefore some/all should pack it in once they reach an age or status, but that they should - and probably are? - be aware of the risk of self-parody.  Not every genre has the same self-limiting age/image issue e.g. Folk, Blues, Jazz, etc.

    As an aside, when I saw Dave Cloud play a few years ago (around age 52) he put on one of the most brilliant, surreal, hilarious outsider performances I've ever seen (and I've seen many thousands of gigs).   I told him later that "I don't even really know what "It" is, but that is exactly how to do it."  He liked that, I think.