Aging artists: retire or perform till the bitter end?

[SteveWZ]

Don't know if Springsteen for instance has financial problems ....

Kinda doubt that he needs to make money.
Springsteen fans can be hardcore and probably dont care if the "Boss" is not at his prime any longer.
But then again, who is......?

[robotmonkey]

Many of the old artist should probably retire, but old age is definitely not a problem for really creative people. And the fact is that most of the border-pushing creative and original music today is still made by people who started out in the end of 60's or in the 70's because those artist have creativity in addition to excellent technical skills so many of the todays artist lack.

Some of the artist who should have retired already are:
Yes and the various people related - they have been doing nothing good at all for decades but still insisting on going on. Nothing interesting or creative I have seen.
Klaus Schulze - I'm really sorry to say this but his later works have been boring crap. It's more of the same old same old.

And some counter-examples:
Peter Hammill - his career really has seen some serious creative revival on the past decade. Every album his made since the 2006 Singularity has been either fantastic or very good. And the latest one, especially in its 3 CD form, is nothing short of an amazing. And his comeback with Van Der Graaf Generator has produced some of the best music of 00's.
Steve Hackett - another artist who has seen sort of explosion of creativity in later part of his career. Hackett's albums since the Darktown (1999) have all been top notch and he seems not to be slowing down.
Gong - Gong was rocking so hard til the very end. All the modern Gong albums have been very strong and it just makes you smile every time you listen how good they are, especially as some of the people there were in their 70's.

[Mister Natural]

at a certain point - artists like Stones or Bruce likely will decide if the trouble of going on the road to do a series of shows is really worth it

I kind of think it's not about the money for these (very wealthy) cats - but it's for the love of performing rock & roll in front of a thousand+ adoring humans

It's about making music - not making $money

peace

[kangul]

Real artisit rarely depends on other people opinions, that's one of the things that make them an artists.

They are free to do whatever they wanna do, no matter what we think about it.

We are free to avoid their works and not to pay them though.

[bibz1st]

John Foxx will be 68 this year, I will be sad if he thinks about retiring

Wow, never even gave it a thought til you mentioned that, time surely flies

[Timfonie]

Should any artist retire because of their age? Of course not. As long they find good reasons to keep on performing and they still have a fair share of fans to sell tickets to it's all fine.

[aMUSEd]

Peter Hammill - his career really has seen some serious creative revival on the past decade. Every album his made since the 2006 Singularity has been either fantastic or very good. And the latest one, especially in its 3 CD form, is nothing short of an amazing. And his comeback with Van Der Graaf Generator has produced some of the best music of 00's.

Hammill is amazing full stop.

[GaryG]

John Foxx will be 68 this year, I will be sad if he thinks about retiring

I saw him a couple of years ago with the Maths, still in great voice and I see no reason for him to even consider it.

[skipscada]

It's kind of depressing that artist stay in the limelight for a generation thanks to only a handful of good songs they wrote when they were young. Can't really complain that musicians want to keep making music and play gigs as long as they feel for it, though. The problem is rather that people of the same (advanced) age as these artists command important posisions in media and keep giving them attention that their current output doesn't merit.

I have much more tolerance for relatively low-key old artists (even top tier names like Brian Wilson, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, Scott Walker, who drift in and out of the limelight) than the ones that have been constant features, personal life included, in mainstream publications since before I was born (Dylan, Stones, McCartney). Mostly a question of being bored of the same old same old.

[whyterabbyt]

Peter Hammill - his career really has seen some serious creative revival on the past decade. Every album his made since the 2006 Singularity has been either fantastic or very good. And the latest one, especially in its 3 CD form, is nothing short of an amazing. And his comeback with Van Der Graaf Generator has produced some of the best music of 00's.

Hammill is amazing full stop.

Saw the VdGG reformation tour the year after he'd had his heart attack. Couldnt believe the power an intensity he put into it, was kinda worried that he'd give himself another one.
Hard to believe that's over a decade ago now!

[spaceman]

In my opinion, artists can do whatever the hell they want to. Why would they need constant confirmation just to justify being artists? So what if they "suck" sometimes, suck in the eye of their "fans" anyway?

[trimph1]

David Brock and Nik Turner. Both still rockin'

[Psyclapse]

Good to see the consensus is live and let live. If an artist wants to keep performing and an audience wants to keep listening then whats wrong with that?

The alternatives don't bear thinking about. (a) every artist must retire at 45 or (b) there is some kind of ridiculous Old Age Artist License committee.

[fluffy_little_something]

Of course it is every artist's own decision. That's not the point...

[Psyclapse]

Well what is your point?