some people think that when you reach a certain age, it's time to step off stage. others believe that the artist should die doing what they love best. what do you think and why? i think that if you want to rock out, rock on out then. rock til you drop.
2007-10-10 02:24:00 · 23 answers · asked by SportyT 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
you all have great answers - this one is hard to choose a best answer. i'd give you all best answer if i could. i feel what each of you were saying. i'm for the rock til you drop, but it's true - spandex and wrinkles DONT go together, lol.
2007-10-11 21:53:15 · update #1
I don't know, I sort of feel like maybe the rockers should continue doing what they love until they physically can't do it anymore, but I also really think that rock n' roll is meant to be a youthful, rebellious genre of music. For me, seeing rock stars like the Rolling Stones continue to tour makes me sort of sad, because it detracts from their glory days. When you think about other acts who stopped performing or died or something, they seem more legendary because of it. Look at the Beatles, for instance. They quit touring at the height of their popularity to become a studio band, and then split up less than 10 years after they got the group together, and now two of them are dead, which pretty much dashes all hope for a "real" Beatles reunion, which makes them ever so much more intriguing than the Stones, who are STILL doing their thing after being a band for the past 45 years.
If I were an aging rock star, I'd hang it up at about 45 or 50 and start being a music producer or songwriter for other bands, or something like that.
2007-10-10 03:20:26 · answer #1 · answered by fizzygurrl1980 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It becomes a matter of aging gracefully and not trying to cop the image that made you famous. It's so sad when an artist becomes a virtual cartoon of themselves by dressing and cavorting around the way they did when much, much younger. Skin wrinkles don't go with spandex. I believe that everyone has something to offer, regardless of age, but be realistic when you look in the mirror! It isn't the recordings I mind, but I simply can't maintain respect if I see someone old enough to know better acting in a way that makes me embarrassed for them, ya know? Rockers will always have a message; I guess I'm just talking about the way in which they convey that message.
2007-10-10 10:23:31 · answer #2 · answered by the buffster 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I look at rockers much the same way as pro athletes. After a certain age, they just start to "lose it." It happens and there is no shame in this. Priorities change, focus changes as well as the natural aging process. Fifty would be a decent age to impose. The problem is that several of these over-the-hill bands have a rabid fan-base that doesn't seem to care that their band might suck now. So long as the fans keep shelling out the big bucks to see dinosaurs like the Rolling Stones, I don't see how you stop it. Blame it on the fans for being suckers.
2007-10-10 11:09:11 · answer #3 · answered by Rckets 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Personally, I'm with the frame that says do what you want, but you may want to consider looking at what you're doing objectively. I just think it's a real shame when bands lose it and tack on bad years and bad records to perfectly good legacies. Sometimes even worse than that when it just gets kind of sad.
I have a lot of respect for people who know when to hang it up and do.
**************
Well played Sookie, well played.
Also, good point Lovenrckts. I do agree that it is more the fans who want to see shells of the acts they love, and if they're willing to pay more power to them.
I definitely agree with Buffster too. I think the biggest mistakes old artists make is to pretend that nothing has changed since they were in their 20s. A compromise of dignity is truly the gateway to sad.
2007-10-10 14:04:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
As long as one can perform, age should not be an issue. There are some thirty-somethings out there who can't perform for $hit, and then on the other hand you have the Rolling Stones who still put on an awesome performance after all these years.
2007-10-10 12:18:14 · answer #5 · answered by kontrolfreak66 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think you should quit after you sell out. So many bands get into the regurgitation of music, the same type of song and the same types of lyrics over and over just to keep making it. When you reach that point, it's time to quit. The one band that really came to mind for me on that was Def Leppard. Just the same music over and over.
Other bands continue to truly rock, such as Sabbath, Ozzy, Priest, Metallica to a degree, Rush, Aerosmith and ZZ Top. I'm on the fence over ACDC though.
2007-10-10 10:17:43 · answer #6 · answered by dr_quatto 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Long As I Got Rock N Roll I'm Forever Young.......
2007-10-10 20:47:32 · answer #7 · answered by Hakim 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I saw the Stones for the first time last year and they were great! If they want to rock, and people want to see them, why should they quit!?! As for new bands to follow, the new bands out now are crap! Will the fall out boys ever replace Bob Dylan? I don't think so!
2007-10-10 10:30:26 · answer #8 · answered by marie 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I'm a rocker and I say rock til ya die. That's what I'm going to do. Why should anyone have to give up what they love?
2007-10-10 09:34:07 · answer #9 · answered by spinner 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think that if the band is doing well, and going strong, the day they croak is they day they stop making new stuff. there should be no stopping age unless the individual rocker thinks they should stop. I'd put money on the fact that the Stones are going to die onstage!
2007-10-10 11:00:33 · answer #10 · answered by Ansley119 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋