featuresfans.com
message board| wiki| fmb archive| album art| blog
the features message board
main | posts | members | statistics | search
Poll Choices Votes Statistics
Is it better to burn out? 13 [65.00%]
Is it better to fade away? 7 [35.00%]
TOPIC: Burning Out vs. Fading Away
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 1:31 PM
Post 1 of 14
I've come to the conclusion that it's better to die while you're on top, rather than spend years embarassing yourself into obscurity.

There are so many examples...Phil Spector is now charged with murder, Michael Jackson should have died right after "Thriller," and of course, the best example, Elvis....
That's so NA.
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 1:37 PM
Post 2 of 14
In general, I would say the former. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Johnny Cash.

Of course, if it were a loved one, I would say the latter. But we're talking about celebrities and not actual people, right?
Daigle is all we need to make the night complete
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 1:39 PM
Post 3 of 14
"Quote from carligula on Nov. 20, 2003 at 1:37 PM"
In general, I would say the former. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is Johnny Cash.

Of course, if it were a loved one, I would say the latter. But we're talking about celebrities and not actual people, right?
Yep. Just celebrities. Good for you for thinking of Johnny Cash, though. There are of course the few and proud who avoid the fading away fate. Although Johnny could have easily gone either way.
That's so NA.
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 1:44 PM
Post 4 of 14
the problem with burning out is you really dont know when you are at the top of your game or not.
certain artist keep surprising us with their revivals that it would be sad to think they just wouldve cut off there.
people like david bowie, evlis costello, van morrison and james taylor might not be at the top of their career now but they still produce a lot of music that their fans really do enjoy.

therefore id rather see LEGIT artist fade away. Ja Rule should burn in whatever flames we can find though.

edit: ditto for actors.

(Edited by Superflks at 1:45 pm on Nov. 20, 2003)
Eh.
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 2:16 PM
Post 5 of 14
Seinfield,
Michael Jordan (Then he fucked up and returned.........twice) then faded away.
Sampras (sort of) he knew when to quit

Stockton and Malone shouldve retired a long time ago.


I guess it really depends on what kind of artist you are. If you are trying to satisfy pop culture, its probably better to burn out. If you are trying to satisfy physical fitness, definitly burn out. If your art appeals to a wider scope of people, and you are original and the art can continue to evolve, fade away.

(Edited by GrungeSlobTearPants at 2:18 pm on Nov. 20, 2003)
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 2:22 PM
Post 6 of 14
The Simpsons should have burned out about 3 years ago. It's still a pretty good show, though, when I can catch it.
Daigle is all we need to make the night complete
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 3:52 PM
Post 7 of 14
By the way....Jonathan Brandis died.
That's so NA.
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 4:09 PM
Post 8 of 14
"Quote from MissSeptember on Nov. 20, 2003 at 3:52 PM"
By the way....Jonathan Brandis died.
what the fuck?
oh the drudgery of being wet
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 4:12 PM
Post 9 of 14
weird.
Eh.
Posted  Thursday, November 20, 2003 at 4:20 PM
Post 10 of 14
"Quote from GrungeSlobTearPants on Nov. 20, 2003 at 2:16 PM"
Seinfield,
Michael Jordan (Then he fucked up and returned.........twice) then faded away.
Sampras (sort of) he knew when to quit

Stockton and Malone shouldve retired a long time ago.


I guess it really depends on what kind of artist you are. If you are trying to satisfy pop culture, its probably better to burn out. If you are trying to satisfy physical fitness, definitly burn out. If your art appeals to a wider scope of people, and you are original and the art can continue to evolve, fade away.
if someone's art is still evolving... I hardly consider them to be fading away... even if they lost some popularity
Posted  Friday, November 21, 2003 at 1:22 AM
Post 11 of 14
"Quote from GrungeSlobTearPants on Nov. 20, 2003 at 2:16 PM"
Stockton and Malone shouldve retired a long time ago.
rubbish. stockton was still better than half of the point guards in the league half his age.
We'll miss you Mr. Hooper.
Posted  Friday, November 21, 2003 at 12:16 PM
Post 12 of 14
"Quote from damon on Nov. 21, 2003 at 2:22 AM"
"Quote from GrungeSlobTearPants on Nov. 20, 2003 at 2:16 PM"
Stockton and Malone shouldve retired a long time ago.
rubbish. stockton was still better than half of the point guards in the league half his age.
and Malone is averaging a double-double this year. That's pretty good when you've got Shaq and Kobe trying to do all the scoring.
Posted  Friday, November 21, 2003 at 12:17 PM
Post 13 of 14
"Quote from damon on Nov. 21, 2003 at 1:22 AM"
"Quote from GrungeSlobTearPants on Nov. 20, 2003 at 2:16 PM"
Stockton and Malone shouldve retired a long time ago.
rubbish. stockton was still better than half of the point guards in the league half his age.
Oh Yes, Stockton was amazing, but how long can you bear to watch men who are getting up there in age, get beat up on by young, cocky 18 year olds. At some point you just want them to throw in the towel so that they can have a little bit of self respect when its over. We all know Payton and Malone sold out and joined the lakers just so that they can have a ring before they retire....I'm not saying thats really wrong, but its kind of degrading to thier old teams, and what we knew them as before.
Posted  Friday, November 21, 2003 at 12:22 PM
Post 14 of 14
Malone has stated that the only reason he hasn't retired yet is because he wants to set the all-time scoring record. At this rate, he'll have to play until he's 45 to do that, and he says he plans on doing that. I can't even begin to imagine what old-man Malone will be like 5 years from now. He should definitely burn out within the next two seasons.