I'm just curious how everyone feels about this. There seem to be a lot of musicians with long careers who are still out there earning livings by touring. If they're not still releasing new material ~ whether it sells or not ~ are they still credible and contemporary in your eyes, or is it just an exercise in nostalgia?

linda,

good question.

as long they tour as themselves and don't use the words "nostalgia" or "oldies" or "former member of" to try to sell it the remain relevant.

also, many of the older artist go a long time between albums now.

renny

If bands are true to what made them as great as they were from the beginning, then I think they are pretty much legit. I still wish The Rolling Stones would go all the way back to the roots and cut an entirely all-Blues album. A Bigger Bang was a step in the right direction, but they need to totally reconnect and not just hint at it here and there.
Neil Young continues to be a viable artist in my mind because he keeps throwing curve balls at us with frequent albums. That kind of goes with his personality. There's a ton of us who are smacking our heads against the wall over the whole Archives thing.

I can sympathize with the idea that the juices may dry up as one gets older, but I think an artist has to keep doing new things to remain vital: writing and recording. If you can't get a record contract, record at home and put it on the web, make bucks playing live. But don't just relive the glory days. Move forward.

I don't think reproducing old material for lots and lots of money is really showing a lot of integrity. Unless you take risks, put yourself out there, and create more original material, you will stagnate as an artist.

I use the same standard as the great jazz and blues artists. Sonny Rollins doesn't need a new album as an excuse for a tour or a concert. As long as the band is using live performance to be creative. I don't have a problem. If an artist is just going through the motions then I have no use for the performance.

Pretty much what Pip (who is evil) says. If you stop producing music, then you're no longer an artist, you're someone who used to be an artist.

Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make someone a bad person or take away from their previous accomplishments. But I don't believe an artist or band on their third greatest hits tour has the same artistic credibility as even the worst of acts putting out new music -- because the worst of acts are at least creating something, while the greatest hits band is painting by the numbers.

I agree with Pip and Horton-I think artists need to keep recording or they become
"oldies"acts. While there is nothing wrong with that, I think those artists who continue to record deserve more credit.I've always thought that artists who don't make new records are being lazy and complacent. This probably doesn't apply to all, but to at least some.Of course, there is something to be said for the performer who feels that they just don't have anything to add to their body of work that will be up to previous standards.

It depends. The Who (and I like the Who) have pretty much been a nostalgia act ever since 1975 when they released "The Who By Numbers" and then went on tour playing, at most, only two songs from that album. The thing is, Townshend has always been the first to proclaim the Who irrelevant.

On the other hand, you have artists whose perceived slowdown in recording has been due mostly to their inability to get a record deal--John Sebastian toured as a nostalgia act during the eighties, playing songs that wouldn't see release until 1993's "Tar Beach". While this might also be chalked up to "irrelevency", one should make a distinction between "recording" and "songwriting".

"Artistic credibility" can be an elusive concept. You either have it or you don't. I think most of us are simply jealous of anybody who is successful enough to where they can take a whole year...or three...off.

The first great jazz musician Buddy Bolden refused to record because he was afraid other musicians would steal his ideas. So there is no record of Buddy Bolden's music for posterity.

A fair point in 1993, but today one can do very good recording fairly cheap and release it without a record deal. Gotta get the music out there.

Depends what you mean by artistic credibility. The failure to record new material doesn't erase previous accomplishments. An artist doesn't owe fans new material. Failure to replicate earlier success can't help but diminish credibility, though. And who do you want to see in concert, an artist who's been putting out consistently good material for 20 years, or a one-hit wonder?

Writing and creating new material, but only playing that material live, is fine. To me, the key is the act of creation, not the act of distribution.

Though as Pip points out, these days there are no legitimate roadblocks to getting your music out there. It's affordable and within reach for anyone.

That aside, as I said before, in my opinion once you stop creating you're no longer an artist, you're someone who used to be an artist.