Maybe they all want to retire. Raising the ticket prices, to mortgage payment levels, is just their way of saying, "see.... we can't hack it anymore, no one will pay to see us, time to call it quits"
This is exactly how i feel. Paul Stanley and David Lee Roth doing leaps and splits on stage when they were in their 20's was cool, now that their near 60, do away with the acrobatics (which i think both of them have).I think they should play as long as they can. I just wish they would age gracefully.
Honestly I don't think any of them give a flying rats-a$$ about their long-term legacy. Why would anyone worry about what other people think about them after they're dead. That's something their fans worry about.So, at some point, these guys could be damaging their long-term legacies and reputations by having too many of the really bad performances saved for all time on the internet.
Oh, I disagree.Honestly I don't think any of them give a flying rats-a$$ about their long-term legacy. Why would anyone worry about what other people think about them after they're dead. That's something their fans worry about.
It's all very clear when you're 16 how silly adults can look when they're over the hill and pretending they're young. However, most people lose this insight once they're over the hill. Hopefully you won't. I didn't. I know how ridiculous I could look at 56 by trying to do certain material or to try to look the part in more youthful bands.With this question, I'm referring to the rock and roll bands who hang on into their 60's, 70's, and (gulp!) beyond. Your "Rolling Stones", "Queen", "Aerosmith", "Paul McCartney" types of acts. At what point should they say, "OK. Enough. I'm embarrassing myself and look/sound ridiculous. I am officially retiring from performing music for money." ???
Personally, I feel that once you sound much worse than you used to and are no longer overly entertaining, you should hang it up and enjoy spending your money in retirement. You can't hide your flaws any more. In this world of smart phone video recordings from all angles throughout every arena that you perform in, people are going to know what you really sound like. So, at some point, these guys could be damaging their long-term legacies and reputations by having too many of the really bad performances saved for all time on the internet.
I feel as though we're on the verge of that with some hall of famers and wanted to see what others thought.
The work, or rep, is harder to destroy than you might think. The early, great stuff will last despite the decades that may follow of sub-par performances. It's the original songs and the playing that endure, and those can't ever be erased.Oh, I disagree.
If I were a world famous performer / song writer, I'd care about what people might think about me some day after I was gone. Your work is your legacy. It's the footprint that you leave behind. I would want my grandchildren and great grandchildren to see and hear me at my best. I would want to be remembered for my top work. Whatever my peak and best material was - that's what I would want people to remember me for.
I think you're missing the third reason (besides money or rep) why aging rockers keep at it. They've got plenty of money, and their reputations are secure for generations to come. Why keep at it?If I were already super rich, cashing in on those people still willing to pay me (even though I sucked) would be less important to me than my reputation.