[Riordan]

my listening fare has always included oldtimers like bob dylan, neil young or johnny cash, so i know there's no such thing as "too old to rock'n'roll". even chuck berry and little richard are still up and about, so that's that.

there remains that other question of whether to burn out or fade away, though... (the one hamlet really wanted to ask but didn't dare). i'm all for fading, as long as the fire doesn't go out. the untimely death of joe strummer just as he was getting back on track deeply saddened me.

now in a recent "uncut" issue (the british music mag that bridges the generation gap better than anything outside of head-fi

i saw two photos that astounded me, mugshots of musical heroes i grew up with, of men that embodied eternal youthful fire for me the way richards/jagger did for an earlier generation.

one was j. mascis, long-haired as ever - but graduated from dinosaur jr. to dinosaur sr now. the man's sporting probably the longest gray mat in musical history.

then, some pages later: bob mould, candy apple gray as well.
those two are among the founding fathers of alternative rock (the real thing, not the cash machine), they reconciled punk and earlier rock traditions. judging from the color of their hair, they're old history now. both look good and well, though, nothing to worry

so what do we learn from here? (or reinforce, if that lesson is nothing new to you because you're not getting any younger yourself

i'd say: youth is in the heart (as is maturity), or, in the words of another gray-haired hero of mine, new model army's justin sullivan:
"live real fast, and still not die, and never get old".

 

[markl]

Quote:

"live real fast, and still not die, and never get old".

Well... for me, it's "grow old gracefully". I don't want to live in denial of my age. And I don't want my musical heroes embarrassing themselves like the Mick Jaggers and Aerosmiths of the world.

There's no shame in getting old, and for me, rock is definitely "big enough" to enable its better artists to continue to evolve and address the real concerns of people their age, isn't that what it's all about-- staying relevant? It creeps me out when I see 50, 60-year old men singing about lusting for teenage girls. It's also laughable to hear them continuing to flog their back catalog that centers on activities/concerns of teenagers, at some point it becomes silly to me.

I think the key if you are a serious musician who expects a real career in music, is to always be doing mature "adult" material from the off. Look at all these MTV pop-tarts, rap "artists" and those whiny pseudo-emo-pop bands of today. What's their future? That's not material you can do when you're 40 or 50, it's just laughable. They were born obsolete.

I don't mind if my favorite artists go "soft" as they age, so long as they do soft well and don't embarrass themselves. Everyone grows up, and I don't think that's a crime. I want music that relates to me at every stage of my life, I think I'd get depressed if all the music I listened to reminded me of faded glories I can never return to, or I was stuck watching musical heroes struggle to stay "hip" and "young" and appeal to the kiddies. He/she's *my* artist, I want him/her to appeal to me, speak to me, not abandon me for a younger, hotter audience.

That's all...

 

[Riordan]

the difference between "age gracefully" and "never get old" is not all that big, in fact it is one and the same, for the very reasons you stated.

nice meeting of avatars & shades, by the way...

 

[gratefulshrink]

You are both making some excellent points, and this is an issue I have struggled with for some time. I think there are two aspects to this issue:
1) bands that try to sound young and hip, when it is clear that they are old and out-of-style; and
2) fans (i.e. us) who want to listen to fresh music, even though they are growing old and maybe post-hip (but no broken hips, please!)

The first issue I had to deal with when I was in high school in the 70's with the Dead. IMO, they were already past-peak, but they continued to play (for another 20 years as it turned out, plus another ten after Garcia died). I just decided to only listen to the earlier stuff. It alwyas seemed a bit pathetic when they and other 60's rockers tried to keep rockin', but really couldn't keep up. Some artists I think can age gracefully, and slow their style down somewhat, and maybe write lyrics more approapriate to their own age/stage in life. That's probably easier for a singer-songwriter like Lou Reed, but I guess some bands can pull it off.

But the second issue is what makes trying to listen to new music more interesting. Tons of people when they get past maybe 30 or so, just keep listening to the rock bands they liked in high school and college. They either don't have the time or energy to keep checking out new music. Alot of these folks mourn the loss of the "good old days" of classic rock, or punk, or post-punk, etc. Frankly, I think some of that is just self-righteous laziness, as there are always going to be talented rock musicians in each generation. So, I agree that hearing 50+ guys in leather pants singing about teenage lust is a bit silly. So I'll either listen to their old recordings of that music, or find some fresh performers who can do pretty much the same thing without embarassing themselves.