Should a band hang it up at some point?

The Super Bowl this year, specifically the halftime show with The Who, got me to thinking. I believe that some bands just hang on too long. Whether it is because the need the money, know no other lifestyle, or other internal and external pressures, they just hang on. Art is inspiration, creativity, expression certainly, but art is also evolution. More specifically being an artist is about evolution. Some bands seem to evolve, in some cases becoming better, in some cases not. There are other bands that never evolve and retain the same sound, the same signature elements that defined them first long ago. Again in some cases this serves a band and in other cases, exposes them.




In this first category of evolution for the better you have bands like Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, Metallica, Slayer, and Rush. You don't personally need to agree with me, that is not the point of this. However these are bands that through time, evolved and matured their sound and either retained or even expanded their audience. You have other bands that tried to evolve and didn't succeed as well. Bands like Anthrax, Thin Lizzy, Jethro Tull, etc...bands that definitely realized their heydays in the early portions of their careers.



Then there are the steadfast bands that keep the same formula going successfully. Bands Like ACDC, KISS, The Rolling Stones, have all pretty much kept that signature sound and have done very well with it. Then you have those steadfast bands that don't have what they once 'had'. The Who are in this category for me. Also bands like Cheap Trick and Venom. When I was watching that halftime show, I felt bad for Roger Daltry and Pete Townsend. Not for them personally, because they are still crazy successful, no matter what happens really. I felt bad for the memory of what they once were, and how they cannot maintain that or even come close.



Don't get me wrong, every one of these bands I have mentioned I'm a fan of. However I think that some have done better for themselves than others, either by retaining that 'magic' that got them to success or by evolving into something even better. I still play music (although I'll likely never realize the heights of any of these examples) and I'm looking at my mid 40's coming up. I have fun, I will probably be doing it to some degree until they shovel dirt on top of me. So I'm not judging anyone, simply trying to understand the differences in why some bands make it, some continue making it, and some fritter away into dotage. I welcome debate on this topic, but don't look for strong opinions from me because I'll simply listen and absorb your viewpoint. I have not made up my mind on this after all, and probably never will.



Is it the difference between an intellectual approach to music vs. three chord party tunes? Zappa was intellectual, Alice Cooper is, Rush is, U2 is. They evolved because their approach, their abilities, their dedication to the craft would not let them sit still. ACDC is not like that. There is nothing cerebral about their approach and they make no apologies, they're just having a great time. They found a winning formula, and they are riding that beast to the gates of hell. KISS is much the same way. Their attempts at evolution didn't fare quite so well, and even worse it began to turn off fans. So to their credit they realized this was happening and they adjusted back to what works. Every band is different. Every motive is unique, sometimes even within the bands themselves.



There is also a stark difference between a band hanging on too long, or an artist as an individual. Any artist that wants to keep on keeping on should do so. You do this for yourself primarily and hope that you can take some people along for the ride of course, but you play for you. At least a true artist does. Many of us may have started out with different intent, whether getting laid or partying or being popular, but anyone that persists into their second or third decade of making music is sincere in my thinking, as flawed as that may be. You should keep going on until you WANT to stop. I do think however there are bands, collections of musicians making a certain sound, that have shelf lives. Some of them can go for a long time, others maybe not so. Everything follows it's own natural progression from inception to maturation to retirement.



I'm getting older so I really like to see bands continue to rock hard, as long as they have something good to offer still. And yes to not be a hypocrite I have to allude to the fact that if a 'band' wants to keep going despite the external opinions and influences, good for them. Rock on! Screw what other people think after all, but don't be surprised when the reactions are tame. But all in all I can get behind those that keep it going. It gives me hope to see that barriers are being broken and that limits are being ignored. Next we'll have a band that doesn't even REALIZE their initial success until they are mature in life. And that gives me hope, maybe I have a world tour or two in me after all... :)