Not fade away

Is it better to burn out or fade away? In rock 'n' roll, its much more romantic and memorable to go quickly. Neil Young originally wrote that it was indeed better to burn out way back in 1979, so it's a little ironic that he is still making records at 60 plus. Kurt Cobain certainly believed in the burn out. He wrote it in his suicide note, and it did wonders for his career, as it did for many others as well. You really don't even have to die to burn out either. Bands and artists who are able to go out on top maintain a certain mystique about them. The Beatles broke up after about eight years in the limelight, never making a major misstep, and were all the better for it. The Velvet Underground made only four albums -- all of them classics, and are one of the most respected bands in history. \nSadly, today's music scene is littered with withering reminders of the old guard; those who have chosen to fade away. This summer you can go see Tom Petty or Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young play songs that are over 30 years old; songs that you've heard over 1,000 times. Another obvious example is the Rolling Stones. Being a huge Stones fan, nothing is more painful for me than watching or listening to them these days. It's like watching Michael Jordan play for the Wizards or watching Sammy Sosa hit .221 for the Orioles. \nIt's not that these elder statesmen such as the Stones or Petty weren't once great; they were, but it's time that they step aside and let some new blood have a chance. Rock really has become the domain of the aged. Think about it. Are there any true rock stars under the age of 40? If Chris Martin or Billie Joe Armstrong is the best you can do, then we are all in trouble. In addition to being irrelevant, those refusing to bow out gracefully have set back the entire music industry. Maybe the major labels would actually sign and promote new young talent if they weren't too busy pushing the next Billy Joel/Elton John tour. \nNot knowing when to step away is not a phenomenon limited to rock 'n' roll. TV and film are full of other examples. "The Simpsons" keeps continuing its never-ending run, with every season bringing fewer quality episodes. Robert DeNiro, arguably the finest actor of his generation, the man who played Travis Bickle and Jake LaMotta, now will apparently do any movie they put in front of him ("Hide and Seek," "Shark Tale," "Godsend"). Even my hero, Larry David, is seemingly out of ideas, as he spent the entire last season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," sullying the reputation of what was once the funniest show on television. \nMaybe the reason that all these figurative dinosaurs continue to roam is that we are completely out of original ideas. Maybe we will be content singing "Satisfaction" or "Tiny Dancer" 100 years from now. Maybe our grandchildren will still be watching Bart Simpson. Hollywood, with all of its remakes, sequels and biopics, is so devoid of new ideas that "Snakes on a Plane" actually looks really interesting. \nIn all seriousness though, it seems like new generations of what will be the next great music, films, and shows are being overlooked to continue to celebrate past accomplishments of former greats. Just because you were great once doesn't give you a pass to be mediocre now. I know that there are a lot worse things to pick from these days than the Stones or "The Simpsons," but you just can't hold on forever; you have to move on.\nBurning out is not necessarily the answer to not fading away. As long as you are consistently challenging yourself or your audience, it is possible to go on and remain relevant. Look at Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen. Both continue to make thought-provoking music without having to fall back too much on old standards. And I still love the Stones, but I just want my own version of them, free of wrinkles. I guess Sick Boy's unifying theory of life from "Trainspotting" was right: "At one point you've got it, then you lose it, and it's gone forever." Well, when you start to lose it, maybe it's time to think about packing it in.