How old IS too old to Rock and Roll, anyway?

[Erik Rupp]

In the 70's Jethro Tull had an album called, Too Old To Rock and Roll - Too Young To Die. (I love that title...)

Now, 30+ years later we're seeing a lot of the Classic Rock bands playing into their 60's. That would have been unthinkable back then, but most of these bands are pulling it off really well (Deep Purple, KISS, Ted Nugent, Aerosmith - when Steven Tyler isn't falling off the stage). And then you've got the Rolling Stones, who has members pushing 70 for crying out loud!

Chuck Berry played into his early 70's, and he really was the first guitar hero of Rock and Roll.

So how old is too old for Rock and Roll?

To me, I'd say that 70 is really, really pushing it. I suppose Ronnie James Dio could pull it off past 70's - but not much past 70 (his voice is starting to go, just a bit).

For a band like KISS or Aerosmith it almost seems like the mid 60's should be the end point for the band.

What do you think?

[Erik Rupp]

Here's a good example of how guys CAN still cut it past 60:

[Black Diamond]

Alice Cooper is 61 and he still rocks like a monster. His show is still as spectacular (if not more) as in the 70s.

[Erik Rupp]

Alice is a great example - while he looks his age he still performs at a VERY high level, and as you say, possibly better than in the 70's (when his alcohol and drug problems caused him to be somewhat erratic and inconsistent).

[wrongo]

I saw Jethro Tull at Harrahs Rincon for their 40th anniversary tour last summer, and they were efinitely NOT too old to rock and roo.

Had tickets for the Aerosmith/ZZ top tour, but Steven T. is too lold..

Does osteoporosis ring a bell???

[uwshooter]

I don't know... but the greatest bands of all time seem to make the best music and live shows in their mid to late 20's. Go down the list and you will see it:

U2, Stones, Zeppelin, the Who. One of the worst things to watch is a dinosaur band going through the motions. The days a band played as if it was their last day on Earth was more than not before they were 30.......

[Bob Forsythe]

I'd say when they lose their voice. I remember reading something Baez said about 10 years ago when she told an interviewer that she had never taken voice lessons in her life, but had to do so upon reaching 55 because her vocal chords weren't what they used to be.

The problem with Rock is that with a few exceptions, such as Elvis and Morrison, who were baritones, most every Rock singer is/was a tenor and as they get older, tenors' throats fade - just can't be opened up the way they once were.

=Bob

[wrongo]

Off the see Mr. Roger Daltry tonight down at Humphries. He was in pretty good voice last year with the Who (ie the Roger and Pete show).

Hopefully will be a pretty good concert.

BTW: Foreigner are playing at the BellyUp in December. Yet another check mark on my bucket list.
[This bucket list is not for me kicking it, rather getting to see them before THEY kick it... ]

[Erik Rupp]

Oct 18, 2009 15:08:23 GMT -5 wrongo said:

Off the see Mr. Roger Daltry tonight down at Humphries. He was in pretty good voice last year with the Who (ie the Roger and Pete show).

Hopefully will be a pretty good concert.

BTW: Foreigner are playing at the BellyUp in December. Yet another check mark on my bucket list.
[This bucket list is not for me kicking it, rather getting to see them before THEY kick it... ]

Hopefully you let us know how Daltrey sounded. (At Humphrey's you'll have great sound so you'll be able to hear him really clearly.)

I'd agree with Bob, too, about when the performer loses his or her vocal range (singificantly) then it's time to hang it up. I've always looked at it as a matter of ability. As long as the band/artist can still bring it and deliver the goods live then they absolutely should continue. But as soon as they can't (not counting nights that are just one off bad nights) then it really is time to give up touring.

[donconca]

Oct 1, 2009 12:43:18 GMT -5 uwshooter said:

I don't know... but the greatest bands of all time seem to make the best music and live shows in their mid to late 20's. Go down the list and you will see it:

U2, Stones, Zeppelin, the Who. One of the worst things to watch is a dinosaur band going through the motions. The days a band played as if it was their last day on Earth was more than not before they were 30.......

I think it's the same as with a great athlete. Everybody is going to have a downturn in their career and the trick is to either know when to quit or to tweak things a bit to carry on for awhile. In baseball, many great players are able to just DH and pinch hit to prolong their career for several years. Rockers can do a bit of the same.

I saw Rush a year and a half ago and although Neil Peart can still bang on the skins as good as ever, Alex Lifeson's guitar work is what a friend told me he observed a couple years earlier. Lifeson just can't jam like he once could, which presumably explains why they didn't do Working Man and a couple other great tunes. That was a bit disappointing but it was still a great show.

I also saw the Who's last tour before John Entwhistle passed away. Regardless of his age and hard life the guy remained the greatest bassist I've ever seen.

But all you guys have talked about is performing. An additional issue is relevance as it's obvious that although many guys may still be able to perform, they have long since lost the ability to record anything that anybody except their most ardent of fans will buy. Somebody needs to tell those old farts they are ruining their legacy by doing that. I won't name names but the list is damn near endless, unfortunately.

[Erik Rupp]

Oct 19, 2009 14:51:27 GMT -5 donconca said:

But all you guys have talked about is performing. An additional issue is relevance as it's obvious that although many guys may still be able to perform, they have long since lost the ability to record anything that anybody except their most ardent of fans will buy. Somebody needs to tell those old farts they are ruining their legacy by doing that. I won't name names but the list is damn near endless, unfortunately.

But what is relevance? And relevant to whom?

I mean, really, I find a lot of, "Relevant," music to be unlistenable. A lot of so-called, "Relevant," bands sound like glorified teenagers, a lot that I'm not interested in relating to in the least. Not today's teenagers, and not the teenagers of the last decade, either.

I'd rather listen to a, "Dinosaur," band playing to their established fanbase than to most relevant bands playing to a younger fanbase. If a relevant band plays with conviction and maturity (or just plain old energy and enthusiasm) then more power to them - I'll give them a shot.

But those Dinosaur bands can still crank out music that I enjoy, and that's what it's all about. How does entertaining their long time fans tarnish their reputations in any way? Those fans, like me, aren't likely to find new bands that can take the place of the classics.

So that's why, for me, performing ability is the most important thing. Can you still bring it? If so - BRING IT!

If not, then call it a day. But as long as you can then there's no reason to stop.

[uwshooter]

Oct 20, 2009 22:31:44 GMT -5 Erik Rupp said:

Oct 19, 2009 14:51:27 GMT -5 donconca said:

But all you guys have talked about is performing. An additional issue is relevance as it's obvious that although many guys may still be able to perform, they have long since lost the ability to record anything that anybody except their most ardent of fans will buy. Somebody needs to tell those old farts they are ruining their legacy by doing that. I won't name names but the list is damn near endless, unfortunately.

But what is relevance? And relevant to whom?

I mean, really, I find a lot of, "Relevant," music to be unalienable. A lot of so-called, "Relevant," bands sound like glorified teenagers, a lot that I'm not interested in relating to in the least. Not today's teenagers, and not the teenagers of the last decade, either.

I'd rather listen to a, "Dinosaur," band playing to their established fanbase than to most relevant bands playing to a younger fanbase. If a relevant band plays with conviction and maturity (or just plain old energy and enthusiasm) then more power to them - I'll give them a shot.

But those Dinosaur bands can still crank out music that I enjoy, and that's what it's all about. How does entertaining their long time fans tarnish their reputations in any way? Those fans, like me, aren't likely to find new bands that can take the place of the classics.

So that's why, for me, performing ability is the most important thing. Can you still bring it? If so - BRING IT!

If not, then call it a day. But as long as you can then there's no reason to stop.

Interesting topic. I don't know how many of you watch "Palladia". It's a live concert channel that has concerts from the early 60's to the present. You never know what you will see on this channel. Tonight they had a recent show by John Fogerty..and he played really good. Good energy and stage presence for an old rocker. They also had a recent Springsteen show, he is o.k. I guess (not a fan) but his band looked, and played, old and going through the motions. I think Plant had it right by not continuing the recent Led Zeppelin tour. He knew it was not in his heart and he would be just going through the motions. Unless a performer is 100% behind the music and performance, the mystique would surely be tainted. Hate to bring up my favorite rock band of all time, the Rolling Stones, again.... but there is an example of a band that played way too long and damaged their legacy.

[roadrat15]

Really . . who are we to put age limitations on our performers? Bluesmen tour until they drop; B.B. King is still performing. I thank God that a band as old as Kiss can still put out a cracker album such as SONIC BOOM . Alice Cooper's last three albums have been brilliant.
Neil Young & Bob Dylan are still relevant. So to me, age is not the issue; it's the hunger & drive to perform.