I've had a really odd relationship with Coldplay - for one, I see them as one of the true musical acts of the past few years that have actually gotten better with each release...Viva La Vida being probably in my top 10 releases of 2008 so far. But, I also dislike the majority of people who follow them, almost religiously, and the amount of bands that rip them off, plus Martin's almost Bono-esque "god-like" personality of changing the world...still, he's a lot more tolerable and genuine than Bono is. I guess I hate to love them, but I think since Viva La Vida was released I've officially become a fan. And, this news today makes me puzzled: I completely respect them for doing such a bold move after a fantastic album, yet I feel that they have at least 1 more album in them before calling it quits.
I've written previously about how I think Dream Theater, if they are to still continue, to at least put effort in, rather than churning out releases just to please the fans - here, Coldplay are wanting to pack it in because they're getting too old, in their eyes. I certainly understand this view, because a lot of musicians reach a peak and then fade - perhaps Viva la Vida being their peak. But, I think another shot at an Eno influenced album would not go amiss - I think they still have the drive in them to create great music, but that's their choice. At the same time, I am kinda glad they are giving up - because what if they didn't actually create a good album, and then fans wanted more?
Moving away from this example, however, Martin's view on bands continuing past 33 really interested me. Does, or should, age be a factor on performers continuing to play music? I look at bands like The Rolling Stones, who have been around for over 4 decades, and they all, on stage, still put on a relatively fun show, but they are in reality, a bunch of old rockers playing the hits to make some extra money (as if Jagger et al needs more money anyway) - despite that, they must be given respect for sticking it out so long and still being passionate in their performances. Of course, no musician can always have that initial, almost naive approach to their music as they did when their music career started, simply because they get experienced and see the shit the music industry and fans do to them.
Another example that comes to mind is Aerosmith, who have been around for over 3 decades, and they haven't released any new material in a number of years, yet they still tour for the extra money, and to me, they probably have lost their passion, and since "I Don't Want To Miss a Thing" got so big, I doubt they feel like they need to release another single or album.
And, don't get me started on bands that "reunite" - sometimes, I feel that some bands broke up, JUST to get back together again in a few years and do a big reunited tour and earn more than they were making, simply because they had, again, reached their peak, or the label weren't interested or fans found a new band to adore. I exclude Rage Against the Machine and the 'Pumpkins from this list though, as they both simply could not work together after a while, with egos getting in the way - and I'm very glad both reunited.
Still, when is a good age to stop? I wouldn't say 'age' per se, more like "when do I realise that I have reached my musical peak and accomplished all I've wanted to achieve?" Perhaps Martin's age excuse was a subtle way of saying "OK, we released a great album, we can't top it but our pride says we can't admit it".
The classic line "it's better to burn out than fade away" comes to mind right now.
Iain
No comments:
Post a Comment