I think it is time to retire

No mean-spirit intended, none taken. I'm honestly fascinated by the subject. Had the Beatles made 3 or 4 more albums that weren't "Revolver" quality, how many people would be upset out there? Not me. I like the fact that there are still Stones albums out there that I might still take in, if I have an inkling to. Every now and then I hear a Stones song that I've never heard before. I like that. On the other hand, every Beatles song in existence is sunk into our DNA by now. There's no more.

Put another way - What is your preference for rock career management:

The Police - 5 albums, all great.
The Stones - 30+ albums, a dozen great.

?

grace slick said it best,nobody wants to see an old broad up on stage anymore.

a 80 year old mick jagger in skin tight spandex :( YUK!

WTF? The new David Gilmour album is awesome, and the the live show at the Gibson Amphitheater in L.A. was a sonic and musical masterpiece.

I think we have every right to debate topics like these whether we'd question it to their faces or not - it's all part of being a public icon. I certainly don't kid myself that Mick Jagger cares one iota what I think - I'm sure he doesn't, and I'm sure I wouldn't if I was in his place.

No doubt, if people enjoy the music or the show, more power to them, and nothing wrong with that. Being popular and being good aren't necessarily correlated. It's always interesting to see what mix these ageless bands play of their music - I'd bet Neil Young plays a lot more of his recent stuff than many people who have been making music that long, and I'd guess that that is correlated to the quality of his recent stuff.

Here's another way I think about it - what bands am I willing to buy the next released CD immediately for? It's a non-trivial list, but it's not endless. But if The Who was in the middle of their streak of great albums in the 60's or Stevie Wonder's streak of albums in the 70's, they'd both be on the list. In 2006, they're so far off the list it's comical. Whether I am interested or not, I would see reviews of either, because they would be covered in the press, and if they got rave reviews, I'd probably try to hear some of it and be interested. My point is, as great as those two artists were at their peaks, there are so many other bands / artists that are turning out stuff that I have higher expectations for, that they're not all that relevant or compelling anymore.

I don't think there is anything mean-spirited about the topic at all.

I remember debating if Pink floyd should hang it up right after DSOTHM was released because "they could never top that album".

I've complained about the Stones needing to retire. Bunch of grandpa's up on stage. But if I close my eyes, they do sound good. I've never been much of a Stones fan.

I listened to some of Van Morrison's last albums. His voice doesn't sound as clear as before, but it does sound good to me when he sings the songs on these latest offerings.

I bought XM to attempt to find new, current music that I can enjoy.

Ya' know what. I'm as picky now as I was when I was 16.

Long live rock and roll!