Entertainment For Lively Minds
R etirement E xpected M aybe?
Posted by David Wright on 22 September 2011 - 11:43am.
With R.E.M. calling it a day, perhaps they will set off a trend. Who else should follow their example, before they go past their sell by date and need to think about purchasing some pipes and slippers before slipping comfortably into retirement?
The Rolling Stones look set to go on forever and forever don't they?
Who should and shouldn't be thinking of retiring?
- More from David Wright.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I can't take any of this splitting up business seriously...
R.E.M. have split up. Big media brouhaha. Five years go by in a flash. Media and general public forget that R.E.M. have actually split up and instead think of them as having taken a break. R.E.M. get bored and /or need to top up their pensions and play "reunion" tour that is or isn't a huge success. R.E.M. "split" again.
Whether or not R.E.M. make another record or tour again, their music will be ever-present (in record shops, on iTunes, on You Tube etc etc), so in a sense it won't feel like they've split up at all.
I don't know why bands bother to make statements like that.
Automatic For The Pension Fund
Yes, they maybe should just have taken a few years off and not officially retired. I wish Scouting For Girls would do us all a favour and retire though!
Actually
the Rolling Stones may be no more, according to reports in the press Mick is a bit miffed about Keith's book, particulary the extracts regarding the size of Jagger's old boy.
I think U2 should call it a day, they've done it all haven't they?
You're not the only one
Just posted this in the other REM thread:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-%26-entertainment/u2-still-refus...
Agreed
They’ve certainly be treading old ground since, All That You Can’t Leave Behind. I think Achtung Baby and Zooropa were their last great albums.
Furthermore
(as I may have pointed out before) Bono is now 5 years older than Jagger was when THIS cover appeared on a certain other magazine cover.
At that point in time, the Stones (whilst still paying, um, lip service) to the notion of a new album were happy tacitly say it was just an excuse to go out and tour rather than make any sort of artistic statement....
U2
The last U2 album I bought was Under a blood red sky, so I am hardly a fan - though I think the GLW has a singles CD. But can't we leave them alone?
Nick Lowe is 10 years older than Bono, and I dont want Basher to call it a day. I don't think he's done it all. You could make a case actually that U2 have been more artistically experimental than Nick (which I do not mean as a good thing). (I mention Nick partly because his banner ad is on the page, and partly because I saw him support REM in Newcastle and have been a fan since So it Goes).
U2 and the Stones, go on because it is their job. They enjoy it, and millions of other people do - though I don't quite get it myself. Leave them to it. And consider the options - promoters want someone to fill those stadia. It won't be anyone the Massive think should be selling out stadia. It might as well be U2 or the Stones, or god help us Superheavy.
REM lost me at New Adventures in HiFi - and I loved them till then. But seeing as I am not buying their CDs their retirement hardly really matters. If they come back in 5 years with good stuff, maybe I shall listen. Probably not.
Well Randy Newman shouldn't
Radiohead
could pack it in, go solos, open restaurants and make television programmes. If they haven't already.
Please, go away
U2
The Wiggles
Everyone else can stay a bit longer if they need to.