Question on "aging musicians"

[johnnie]

This comes from the Rod Stewart thread.
When should a musician/artist give up working? I realize it is "cool" to bash people like McCartney, Stewart, Jagger and other "rock stars" that are still out there making music, but when it comes to people like Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, Barbra Streisand and the like, people don't seem to mind them performing as they get/got older.
So should people who have played "rock" music give it up when they turn 30? Is rock music just for the kiddies and jazz, contemporary, classical, blues, country, reggae and almost all other musical forms for all the other ages?
Or does it just come down to jumping on the bandwagon when the "older musicians" are being bashed for "hasn't had a good song since...", "should have given it up after blah blah album", "never did anything good when they went solo".. an so on.
My opinion is that if they are making music and still living off of it, that's cool. If a band gets back together for a reunion because they need to make some money, that's fine.
Hell, I don't know why so many people get off on bashing so many musical artists anyway. There is room for them all and if you don't like them..then don't listen to them.
Any thoughts? If not then .. well, then that's cool too.:)

[Beware the Beast Man]

1. Not all should give it up.

Look at Bowie- at 57, he's still one of the hippest cats out there. I think a lot of people dog on the Stones mainly because they exist less as a rock & roll band and more as a corporation/travelling museum exhibit. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's all about heart. Some of the "aging" musicians only seem to be on the road for money and nostalgia (but not all of them).

[Atlas Mugged]

3. Speaking of corporations....

...you do realize that Bowie had an IPO a few years back, don't you?

[johnnie]

5. Yeah, the poor Stones

I saw them a few years ago and they rocked. They played a lot of really cool tunes. By the end of the show they were almost dying. They aren't as much as a money making machine as people think. They play because that's what they do. I think a lot of people, specially non-musicians, don't understand that music is in your bloodm and it's not that easy to give up.

[Beware the Beast Man]

8. I agree.

And I commend Rod Stewart (though I never liked him) for at least branching out and trying something new.

Maybe the Stones were a bad anaology. Kiss is a better one. It's my belief that Gene Simmons secretly hates music. Okay, maybe it's not much of a secret...

[johnnie]

12. LOL

Did you ever see that Kiss Unplugged? The one when Peter and Ace came out and the place was going crazy. They had a shot of Gene and his eyes were wide open and I swear I saw $ $ in his eyeballs. I think he is an admitted money whore. <--- Can I use the word "whore" on here?

[no name no slogan]

2. If they can still make good records, more power to 'em

Iggy Pop's latest was as good as anything he did in the 70s or 80s-- coincidentally, it featured a reunited Stooges on several cuts.

If an artist can still make relevant records, I say let them be. However, if they're only in it for the money, then there's no amount of scorn that should not be heaped upon them. :evilgrin:

[johnnie]

10. It seems to me

We all work to make money. "Relevant records" is sort of a relative term. I still get some people's music that are long forgotten, but I think they still make good records. In the case of say McCartney's last album "Driving Rain", it was a great record. But people compare his stuff to what he did in The Beatles and they don't think that what he is doing now is any good. I personally think the music on there was as good as a lot of his stuff with The Beatles, but that's relative.

[Heidi]

4. I agree with you completely.

I hope that nobody just decides one day that I'm too old to paint, or if _anybody_ decides that, it's me.

[progmom]

6. If all they have left in them is greatest hits tours...

And their voice is shot...
And their "new" records are re-recordings of their hits...
And the group has one or fewer original members....

Then yeah....forget about 'em.

[johnnie]

14. But somewhere someone likes them still

Look at Steppenwolf for example. It's basically John Kay and some other guys. He plays a lot of the old hits and hasn't had his own hit in decades, but he still rocks.
The only one that doesn't fit in your list is a shot voice, but he is still making a living and his band is pretty good.

[progmom]

16. You're totally right.

I was just being a snobby smart-ass.

It goes back to my record store days. :hi:

[johnnie]

17. Oh yeahhhhhhhh

The dreaded "record store person".

[progmom]

18. you forgot the eyesroll smiley

:eyes:

[SteppingRazor]

32. You're totally wrong! :)

There is a terrible loss of vitality and credibility that comes with riding out early fame. You cannot be a vital artist without the act of CREATION -- it is the one thing that makes an artist (whether music, visual, whathaveyou) what he/she is.

If you give that up and just bring on a bunch of new guys and play your 30-year-old greatest hits to a bunch of aging hippies, you are raping your own creations.

I see nothing inherently good about that.

[mcscajun]

7. Musicians get better as they older.

Instrumentalists just get better chops. :)

Vocalists have to change what they sing (or how they sing it) as they age, 'cause it's inevitable that the voice changes.

It's marvelous to watch and listen when musicians become 'master musicians'. If a hack band hasn't improved with age, and just wants to cash in on nostalgia, that's their business, but I probably won't be in the audience.

Folks who bash on the basis of age are just ageist. Folks who never have anything good to say have fun bashing older musicians, or never liked them when they were younger.

Some people think that only their opinion is correct and forget that like many other things, musical taste is subjective. Musical taste is not a contest; someone else doesn't have to 'lose' for my opinion to 'win'. If I don't like a musician or a particular style of music, that doesn't mean it sucks, it just means I don't like it. Same as I may prefer pizza to sushi, or prefer well-written drama to martial arts films. YMMV, and variety is the spice of life.

[SteppingRazor]

33. I realize criticism is a subjective art, but...

Some music, some vocals, some whatever -- is just horrible, I don't care what you say. And gawddamn it, I'm right, and you're wrong.

I'd say this about a lot of bands and genres that would probably get a lot of disagreement, but I need only tell you to google the name "Florence Foster Jenkins" to prove my point -- some music is just plain bad.

[mcscajun]

35. Some music IS bad. And it doesn't get that way with age.

It was bad to begin with. I'm speaking only of those musicians who were good to begin with, and just keep getting better.

Not everything improves with age...(unless you prefer vinegar to wine).

[Shell Beau]

9. If the fans are still going to

the concert and buying the music, then more power to you. If you enjoy what you do and are still successful at it, why quit?

[Lannes]

11. Despite what I said in the other thread

I dont believe there should be a mandatory retirement age for musicians.Some Blues musicians go strong into their 80s.My beef is with those who cant sing anymore and are doing the same dance moves they did when they were young...badly.

I love the Stones.Saw them in the 80s.Mick still had the voice and the moves back then and he was old by rock standards.The difference being he could pull it off then I dont believe he can now.

I also dont think any criticism leveled at a musician is "bashing" they
arent exempt from criticism.Its too easy a word to throw out.

[johnnie]

13. Critiquing someone is one thing

But there is quite a lot of bashing on here and everywhere when it comes to music. Hell, I used to do it when I was a teen too. It just took me some time to understand that everyone has different tastes and just because it isn't my cup of tea, that doesn't mean that it is bad.

[Lannes]

15. I guess we have a different interpretation of the word "bashing"

Posting that you dont like this artist or that artist isnt bashing IMO unless you repeatedly start a thread about it.If a musician doesnt want to be criticized he should stick to playing at home because sooner or later he or she is going to run into a music critic or someone who didnt enjoy the show and wants to express that sentiment.I dont believe they shouldnt be prevented from doing so if they please.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Yeah...but that's blues, not rock and roll

old people can get the blues...see my post below

[KG]

19. two words - Pink Floyd

also - most of my fave artists are older than me - and still putting out fresh new music.

[MN ChimpH8R]

20. It depends

Some personas age better than others. Mick Jagger is starting to look foolish, but any other 60-year-old man whose schtik is dancing like an electrocuted chicken would too. Keef still seems cool, because a guitarist can age in to a presentation like the old bluesmen or jazzmen and still seem hip.

Bowie has never stopped trying new things; Bryan Ferry has proved that suave ages a lot better than Jaggerism. Both are as cool as they ever were.

Pink Floyd (and to a lesser degree the Moody Blues) break all the rules because they always made the music the focus, not their individual stage personalities. Those bands could play effectively until the toe tags show up.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. I Think There's No Age Limit

If you can still do it in a way sufficient to get people to want to hear it, then go ahead.

I admit that i have some issues with people mellowing their material because they're getting older. Not more sophisticated, just mellower. Methinks that's the problem many have with Stewart. His new material of choice is obvious pandering to a bunch of fans who've gotten old and think it's not ok to rock anymore. But, since they grew up on Rod and The Faces, they're still a touchstone.

So, he dumbed it down. That's a problem for me.

But, McCartney is still performing songs HE wrote. OK, some may not like the stuff he's done in the past 20 years, but they still come from within him. He's not changing his whole milieu to avoid offending some old pukes that used to be fans of the Beatles. (Like me, except i wouldn't be offended if he still rocked.)

But, although i really don't like the Stones, if they can still get people to pay that kind of dough to see them live, then they should do it. They won't get my $, but they didn't get it in 1973 either. They have stayed consistent to their vision. They didn't dumb it down either.

So, as long as one stays true to one's self, there shouldn't be an age limit. But, if you have to COMPLETELY shift gears in style in an effort to keep doing it, maybe you should unplug. Then, age doesn't matter either way.
The Professor

[johnnie]

25. Speaking for myself

I was in "rock" bands all my life and did the whole rock thing. These days I don't like to play that stuff as much as I use to, but I still kick it out when I am in the mood. I have always loved some of that old classic stuff and I have always played it and sang it. I enjoy it and probably always will. I think Stewart just wanted to get those old standards out of his system and felt the time was right, I don't think he did it to appease the "old people". If you look back on his career, he did a lot of those styles on a lot of the songs he wrote and recorded.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Sorry, Just Don't Agree

I was a big Rod and The Faces fan, too! But, i think his voice is woefully unsuited for the classics. He's quite horrible doing it. To me, it's obvious that he's never really committed to any style, preferring to pursue a star trip rather than a "singer" trip. ("Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" and "Tonight's The Night"? Come on, Rod!)

I still play in a band. I don't wear spandex on stage. (I'd look ridiculous. I'm 48!) And i went the opposite way from you. I did jazz piano interpretation of the standards before i played in a rock band. So, i know that path too! But, i would never seek out such material that didn't suit my style and skillset. I think Rod is doing that here.

If he wanted to lower the volume, why not pursue the more folky elements of his own past. Why the treacly material he chose? He's not doing Gerswhin, here.

Lastly, as some jazz guys aged, they went back and did standards as well, but they consciously avoided reproductions of the old versions. They put their own spin on them. Syrupy strings and 40's style arrangements are not advancing his legacy. They're stopping it completely!

One can rock less, & still do interesting music. No? Well, perhaps not if all it's come down to is an attempt to continue the startrip.
The Professor

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. When they start pushing fucking pablum

Ella Fitzgerald recorded well into her 70's but never recorded crap.

Now..when it comes to Rock and Roll...rock and roll is rebellion music. Thus far the only group to do innovative hard hitting rock into their 50's is Aerosmith. Why? Because Tyler as their frontman is still a fairly rebellious figure.

Bottom line is when you start recycling fomulaic crap like the Stones do...or your voice starts sounding like it's scratching a chalk board on classic tunes as does Rod Stewart's...it's time to shut the fuck up...go take Viagara...host an episode of "What Are They Doing Now?" on VH1...but please stop acting as though you are fresh.

[johnnie]

26. See, in my opinion..

Aerosmith has done formula music for the last 15 or so years. I don't mind what they do, but I haven't seen anything "innovative" from them since "Permanent Vacation".
I am just saying that when you are an "artist", it's not that easy to give it up. It is what they do and have done most of their life, and they either have to make a living or they have to play to keep themselves from getting bored shitless.
Does it really hurt anyone that Rod Stewart is doing his music the way he does it now? He seems to be selling them, so someone is buying them. It comes down to the classic saying "if you don't like it, don't listen to it".

[Squeech]

24. Contrarian argument

Rock has somewhat different premises from the other popular genres, it's supposed to be explicitly about the ideas and aspirations and hormonal afflictions of young people. One of the seminal rock songs said "Hope I die before I get old," and while Townshend is on record as being glad he didn't have to stand by that line, it's still a powerful indicator of what rock was supposed to mean.

I say this as a fifty-something who wants there to be a rock music that speaks to me and my peer group. (Assuming I have a peer group, which may not be true, but that's a whole 'nother issue.) I see Pete Townshend sucking worse and looking more pathetic with every post-Who project. I don't like anything Paul McCartney's done since Venus and Mars. Don't even talk to me about Rod Stewart-- Never a Dull Moment was his last gasp.

I have some (grudging) respect for Fleetwood Mac as a rock band for maturity, especially the Rumours period when they had to sing about their crumbling relationships, staring across the microphones at the other halves of those relationships, but that's certainly not my highest aspiration as a wanna-be musician-- making a hit record and having it cost me my marriage doesn't seem like an ideal tradeoff. See also Richard and Linda Thompson.

There's more to say about this, but the only thing I can think of offhand is that Bob Seger's line "Sweet sixteen's turned thirty-one" badly needs to be updated and extended.

[johnnie]

29. The problem there is

"Rock" has splintered into 1,000 pieces since "Rock and Roll" kicked off. I think a lot of the older people who put down the people they used to like are thinking too much about what the artist did in the past.
And as you state "I say this as a fifty-something who wants there to be a rock music that speaks to me and my peer group.", but when they do people put them down for not "rocking out".
Rock music is not much different than any other genre of music, all it takes is some distorted guitar. What is the definition of rock music? Were The Beatles "rock" when they released "Yesterday" or "When I'm 64"?
Once again, it's all relative to each person. There just seems to be too many broad strokes when it comes to most people's opinion on music in general, not just "rock".

[grace0418]

27. There needs to be some growth, not just a nostalgia act.

Neil Finn continues to try new things (some work, some don't) and push his writing into new places. If a musician can do that, they can tour as long as they live.

But, like someone else said, if they're just a travelling museum it doesn't work. Even when you play the old favorites, you have to breath some new life into them or else why bother?

[Swede]

30. If they can make a living at it,why not?

Change the channel as the saying goes.

[SteppingRazor]

31. Speaking as a professional rock-music critic...

Pardon me while I get up on my soapbox here. OK. There we go.


All right. I think, actually, it depends. Yes, McCartney did his best work 40 years ago. However, look at Bob Dylan or David Bowie. Dylan's last album was his best one since Blood on the Tracks back in the mid-1970s. And Bowie's last couple of albums have been a return to the swaggering of the early 1980s. So, it completely depends on the artist in question, I think. But as for Rod Stewart -- well, I think you can hardly call him a "rock" musician anymore, given the content of his last several records. Not that there's anything wrong with aging gracefully, but what Stewart does is not "rock" by any means. The man has crossed genres. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's a fact of life (although, really, I think the man has sucked ever since he found disco and started crooning about how sexy he was).

[Squeech]

34. I couldn't agree more

Perhaps that's because I'm a former rock critic myself.

Part of what's going on here, I think, is that we're "conflating" (to use a rock-critic word) rock as a style with rock as an attitude.

Bowie was alienated youth well before he plugged in, years before there were Spiders from Mars, and even though he's in his 50s today, he still clearly speaks to an outsider perspective. In that sense, if in no other sense, he's true to his craft.

Stewart *was* singing from a similar perspective-- not really from outer space, but what do you love about "Maggie May" if not that it's the cry of a man who doesn't belong where he is, and is trying to put a brave face on it?

He may try and claim that it's always just been about good times-- the title "Five Guys Walk Into a Bar" suggests that too-- but that's horseshit. He was a bluesman once: see Steampacket, see Jeff Beck, see Gasoline Alley. Now he's a drink-soaked popinjay.

[kwassa]

37. if it's got a good beat and you can dance to it ..

I saw Rod's band rehearse for a national tour, complete with blow-up set, on a sound stage in Hollywood in about 1980 or so. I was working on a movie set next store. Rod wasn't there yet, the band was going through it's paces, and they were great. Rod eventually showed up, and he was clowning around. Very funny guy. I wasn't that much of a fan, but was very impressed by the band, at the time.

[Orsino]

36. Whenever they stop entertaining.

It doesn't matter whether time or fashion peels off part of the audience. As long as you are moving people, I say keep playing.

You can sleep when you're dead.