There's singers who were at the peak of their talent yet they refuse to retire in their prime. Cher, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson, Madonna, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, etc.

Do you agree that the 1970's, 80's, and early 90's singers should have retire in their prime and be remembered when they were at their best? or they should continue on with their careers and prove to everybody they haven't past their prime?

Artists create art, popular or not. Part of the process of art is exhibiting it to others. This shit isn't just a "career".. it's what they do as people.

How can you ask anyone to stop what they're doing when they are doing it best?

Picture Prince 1988. Wow, Lovesexy! He can't top this. He better start painting now.

PANDURITO, are you saying Prince fell off in `89... hmmmmm

prince is certainly past his prime.

i'm glad they don't retire. they ain't like boxers - it's still a joy to here music by these legends, even if creatively they might have lost some of the spark that was there before.

TheFrog said:

True. Most artists still manage to come up with the occasional gem long after their creative peak.

fucking hell, i spelt "hear" as "here".



i need to stay off the crack.

TheFrog said:

Krytonite said:

Take Cher for instnace.

I would say her prime was in the Sonny and Cher era when she was incredibly popular and she had 3 #1 hits on her own and 1 with Sonny.

Look what came after: Moonstruck which won her an Oscar, and a whole bunch of really good movies she was featured in. Plus the "Believe" album which was the biggest thing of her entire career.


I think we can relate examples like this to all the above listed and many more for that matter. They should retire when they feel comfortable with it.

CinisterCee said:

No. I mean you'd never know if they retired

PANDURITO said:

Oh then I don't agree with you

CinisterCee said:

Oh my God. What'll I do now?

Krytonite said:

What is past their prime?. That can only be said when it's all said and done. The prime may be yet to come. True, when you're doing the same album 10/20 years later (and wearing the same clothes), it would seem that there's no hope for innovation. You kinda wish that it would stop 'cause what doesn't change, stagnates. But if you're doing it right, and being true with it...

Singers should never retired just because they're no longer popular and selling millions of records. Everyone can't be on top all the time, year after year. Look at that piece of shit 50 Cent - he's on top at the moment breaking records etc, but when he falls off the charts he'll still have his fans (why, I don't know). Look at Tony Bennett - the man has been singing for over 50 years. He hasn't been in his prime for 30 years or more, but many people, including myself still love to see him perform. Why should anyone retire just because they're past their prime. As long as they still have some talent, I say let them sing!! 50 on the other hand can just go away!

Krytonite said:

But what was Cher's ppeak, for example? Her biggest selling album come out in 1998 (it didn't sell til 1999-2000). And even after that she released a greatest hits set that sold very well (and what about the tour). She still might not have reached her peak? Same for all those ohter artists (although at this rate, I don't think MJ can ever top himself).

Tina Turner: 65 years old with a #1 album. And she didn't die or have a film biography out to get it like Ray Charles.

That's all I have to say.

WhamBamGlamSlam said:

Although I'm sure the popularity of the now 12 year old "What's Love..." film hasn't hurt her popularity, though, but you're right.

WhamBamGlamSlam said:

hey, ray charles and chaka had a hit with "I'll Be Good To You" in the early 90's. I the fact that MTV played that video on heavy rotation..


shit like that will never happen again.

sosgemini said:

That's actually Quincy Jones' hit.

WhamBamGlamSlam said:

fascinating...

sosgemini said:

Im glad you thought so
my post didn't post

jayaredee said: