Who do you think should retire from music?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Mudbugfish

Babyface
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
27
Location
Manchester
OK, enough is enough, who do you think should stop making a fool of themselves and pack it all in!

'Start Me Up' sang Mick Jagger in 1981, (he's now 65).
Are 66 year old Paul McCartney's troubles still so far away, or can't he remember that far back?

Should Madonna be dressing like an 18 year-old?

Will Michael Jackson ever 'Beat It?'

Is Elton John 'Still Standing?'

If you fancy voting for who you think should retire
go to This day in Music
 
U2. And most of the others named on that site, actually.
 
Metallica. In the 90's they were pansies, and now, after two albums of trying to be badass and reclaim the metal throne, they've become caricatures of themselves.
 
Metallica. In the 90's they were pansies, and now, after two albums of trying to be badass and reclaim the metal throne, they've become caricatures of themselves.

You know, that new song starts out kinda good, and then he starts singing and it just sucks so friggin bad. Agreed, they should retire.

The Who. The Eagles. A lot of bands should retire.
 
For real?

What with you being here for eight years and all, I'm surprised you'd question such an answer.

Alas, I'd say the same. Also the Romantics, since Khan said they were still going. But the Stones should never retire. If they were going to, it should have happened twenty odd years ago. However, that hasn't been the case. So they should still ROCK THE FUCK OUT/ON.
 
What with you being here for eight years and all, I'm surprised you'd question such an answer.

Alas, I'd say the same. Also the Romantics, since Khan said they were still going. But the Stones should never retire. If they were going to, it should have happened twenty odd years ago. However, that hasn't been the case. So they should still ROCK THE FUCK OUT/ON.


1- A) Even though I'm Mr Pryck, I've gotta ask because my sarcasm meter doesn't work so good. In this case, he was being serious, which is fine with me.
B) I think I'm gonna give U2 a chance to redeem themselves from the last tour, before I make up my mind on whether or not they should retire.

2- The Romantics?

3-The Stones make U2 look like sperm. Did you hear that Ronnie is shagging some 20 year old Russian chick? Good for him.
 
Larry Mullen Jr - Frigging interfering old goat...MYOB about creativity and keeping it going Mr. Jr....that kind of talk is for kids with fresh ideas only :down:
 
1- A) Even though I'm Mr Pryck, I've gotta ask because my sarcasm meter doesn't work so good. In this case, he was being serious, which is fine with me.
B) I think I'm gonna give U2 a chance to redeem themselves from the last tour, before I make up my mind on whether or not they should retire.

2- The Romantics?

3-The Stones make U2 look like sperm. Did you hear that Ronnie is shagging some 20 year old Russian chick? Good for him.

No worries, then. I had thought the same in regards to tours, but to be fair, I think they should have retired much earlier. Different strokes, crew.

"What I Like About You".

Yeah, and he's also living on vodka. Good for him, again.
 
u2, rolling stones, acdc, michael jackson, coldplay (they should never have started in the first place), there are many others i'm sure.
 
I think it goes without saying that I second that notion.

And I'd say the Stones too. These albums keep getting good reviews, but they aren't 1/5 the classics that Exile or Sticky Fingers are, and they aren't writing very unique songs, either. As spotty as U2's recent albums may be (depending on who you talk to), at least we know they're still capable of writing a Greatest Hits-worthy song (and the same goes for Steely Dan).

The Eagles--someone shoot these guys already. Lebowski agrees.

Michael Jackson--should have retired after Dangerous. No one wants to hear music from a...guy (depending on your definition of "guy") twice-accused of child molestation, who everyone thinks is a pervy creep anyway. Hang it up, you're a freak.

Van Halen--ASSHOLES (the two brothers). And I love David Lee Roth, but it's kind of sad watching him try to recapture the glory days.

Aerosmith--Haven't made good music since the late-70's. Quitting drugs didn't help either. Guns 'n' Roses did your thing even better, and you should have stopped when they put out the album (Appetite) you could never have made in a million years. Nice guys, but like, the least important and most disposable "classic" band I can think of.

Guns 'n' Roses--It will never live up to the wait, or the hype. Just kill yourself and keep 'em wondering forever.

Stevie Wonder--Well, he's kinda retired anyway.
 
i agree with pretty much everything that's been posted here. especially aerosmith. their music has sucked so hard since kicking drugs. why do bands turn to shit after going sober? and the rolling stones...jesus christ. they need to hang it up like they said they would.
 
What bands/musicians should retire? The ones that want to. The rest can keep going until they drop if they want. If I don't like them, I just won't listen to them. :shrug:
 
Madonna. Acting like a slut in your 40's and 50's is pathetic.

Paul McCartney. His last good album was what, Band On The Run?

U2 if their upcoming album is a real masterpeice. I want them to end on a high note.

Sigur Ros. They haven't released a good album since 1999.

The Who. Two out of four isn't enough.

The Stones of course.

Any of these teeny boppers from the 90's and this decade.
 
Ouch!

I guess maybe if acting like a slut is having children and getting married. Good gravy, Screw, you have got some issues! :hmm:

I can sort of see Screw's point on this one.

madonna_candy.jpg


:barf:
 
Back
Top Bottom