Should There Be Term Limits For Really Important Stuff....

.....Like, Say, Rock Bands?

This was a query from a listener who called in to 'Sound Opinions' after Greg and Jim lamented the release of yet another sub-par REM album. (mp3Link @55':20'')

The guy who called suggested that maybe ten years should be the limit.

Now, at first I thought it was a bloody stupid idea.

But then I thought about it while riding my bike through the snow (in Lotusland?!) on the way back to the VW (not-so)Microbus that I'd stashed just off campus after I dropped littler e. off at school this morning (Bigger E. stayed home sick).

And by the time I was done scraping the frost off the the inside, yes the 'inside', of the windshield, I reckoned the guy had a point.

After all - would The Clash have been better if it had hung on for another seven or eight, or even two, years?

Or Zeppelin?

Or The Beatles?

And would The Stones actually be something more than a caricature of their former selves if they'd taken a powder right after Exile on Main St. rather of creaking along on their totally manufactured Steel Wheels?

I dunno for sure.

But I do think that maybe Neil was right.

About the burn-out vs. the rust I mean.

OK?


_______
And groups like Crazy Horse and E Street don't count, because they're backing bands not Rock Bands in the true "all-in" collaborative sense of the word.

.