Out On A High : Qutting While You're Ahead
By Sean Lynch (@thatlynchyguy)
Sir Paul McCartney, without question one of the
single biggest influences on music and pop culture in the last century,
recently took to the stage at the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.
He was, for a man of more than 70 years, perhaps not at his optimal
performance capabilities. But should he have to be? He is, after all, a Beatle.
His sub-par performance raises a very poignant show business question : When is the right
time to leave the stage? Is it possible to go out on top, to leave the
spotlight at your peak? Leave the crowd wanting more?
Many have tried. The Beatles themselves quit at
their peak, Seinfeld jumped ship while on top (although, in hindsight,
many argue the show was already on the decline), while the likes of Nirvana,
James Dean, River Phoenix and John Lennon were immortalised thanks
largely to not
being given a choice.
History shows those who disappear are indeed more
revered, they are
mythologised, they are left untainted by a bad performance that could
potentially undo all their hard work.
But on the flip side, think of the joy the comebacks and rare
appearances like McCartney's bring to fans. Those who may have little
going on in their lives, who are at the end of their rope, who survive
on the dream of showbiz to keep them from jumping from the nearest
bridge?
Sure, P-Mac wasn't as his best - but
the joy such a performance brings to the millions who saw it surely far
outweighs the damage it does to his career. Or should he have actually
stayed dead when the rumours surfaced during the Rubber Soul recordings?
Then there's the likes of The Rolling Stones and Kiss, who still kick
on (even when some suggest they should hang up the leather pants once and for all). But again, isn't
the joy they bring even on their worst days far more important than a
potential bad performance?
Thousands still fork out hundreds of dollars
for tickets and rock out with their metaphorical cocks out. It's simple
economics - supply and demand.
Looking
at it another way, would you prefer to never have had the chance to see
Michael Jordan play at his peak - or see one mediocre game with The
Washington Wizards? I know I'd be hunting down a scalper for court side
seats for the slight chance to be in his presence!
People despise George Lucas for "raping their childhood" by releasing
three new Star Wars movies and a fairly average fourth Indiana Jones.
Yes, these movies tainted the legacy of the originals... but they also
made a huge amount of money (and continue to do so), proving that (much
like picking a scab) even though we know it's bad for us... there is
pleasure in pain.
Isn't
it better to feel something (even anger or shame) than nothing at all?
Of course it is! Didn't you learn anything from Robin Williams'
Bicentennial Man?!
One could argue that legends of showbiz performing well into their
golden years ISN'T EVEN ABOUT THE FANS! The same way those of us living
ordinary lives indulge in drinks, drugs and sex when we shouldn't
(because the benefits feel good) - isn't it fair to assume that the
appeal of having millions of people cheering you on is an impossible
thing to turn your back on too?
Put yourself in McCartney's shoes. If THE MOTHERF**KING QUEEN OF
ENGLAND asks you to play a few songs, would you say no?
Therein lies the crux of the argument - those who complain about
legends sticking around too long simply have never been in a position
of being wanted (in their prime, let alone many years after
it).
Jealously is a curse - and insignificance is, for all but a small few,
inevitable. So let's indulge the immortal, even at their worst, at
least they gave it a go.
What are your thoughts? Is it better to be a "Has-Been" or a "Never-Was"?
|
