Re: Fwd: Wrinkly rockers not dying before they get old

[Lev Polinsky <polinsky@husc.harvard.edu>]

On Thu, 2 May 1996 DANwhoIEL@aol.com wrote:

> I don't think this went out the first time, so here goes...
> 
> In a message dated 96-05-02 02:57:02 EDT, DANwhoIEL writes:
> 
> << Hello all, again-
> 
> A lot of comments about the relevancy of a 51 going on 52 (or whatever) rock
> icon still trying to deliver the goods to a supposedly young audience...I
> think the comments made so far have hit the mark:  PT still puts out great
> material/performances, but less people are being "inspired" by him---or lets
> just say not as many people are purchasing his albums...You know what I mean.
>  Anyway, what we need to keep in mind is this:
> 
> Rock and roll is just starting to enjoy its second generation of existence.
>  Remember-- the people who put rock music on the map are for the most part
> still alive and well---and not boring.  The Beatles, The Stones, The Who,
> Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton and others ensured rock music would
> endure.  But remember, they were pioneers in the truest sense of the word!!
>  They have no rock icons to look up to or compare their careers to.  The
> surviving members of these bands are still writing the rules concerning how
> long can a rock legend can continue to perform.  Twenty years from now, Eddie
> Vedder and Dave Grohl could look back to the 1990's and say:  "Hey Townshend
> was still touring in his fifties...why can't I??"
> 
> So to say these rock stars are too old to tour is ridiculous.  What other
> rock stars are these critics comparing them to??  We NEVER had fifty+ year
> old rockers touring until the 1980s (people like Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley).
>  So I say again, there are no precedents set for how long a rocker can tour.
>  Artists like Pete Townshend, The Allman Brothers Band, Bonnie Raitt and The
> Stones are still establishing those ground rules and other precedents.

The problem is, there's a very low level of quality and almost complete 
inability by rock bands to put out consistently high-quality material 
when they get past a certain age/album number.  The stuff the Stones have 
done since about 1975 could _maybe_ fill one LP of truly good material; 
the stuff the Who did after '75 was mediocre in comparison with the music 
they released before then; the solo careers of 90% of rock stars are 
nothing to mention, and even those of Lennon, McCartney, Townshend, etc. 
have been far from good.  A good question to ask:  would anyone even 
remember <It's Hard/Steel Wheels/etc.> had they been put out by a 
nameless band?  I somehow doubt that a band coming out with Steel Wheels 
as their debut album would be charging 3-digit ticket prices.  So while, 
it's true, the rock stars of yesteryear are defining what a rock star 
should do when (s)he's 50, it's not a definition that's horribly 
high-quality.
> 
> Critics also seem to forget that the listeners of rock music have grown
> older, too.  And no, we don't just listen to whatever is being currently
> released, nor do we just wallow  in the glories of previous decades,
> either...Personally, I feel that the greatest music ever made has already
> been recorded...others will certainly argue that.

I dunno; as you worded it, there's little to argue with.  The best movie 
ever made has already been made also.  Now, will there be better music 
made in the future than what has already been made?  Since there's no 
definition of better in the case of music, I'd say that the answer is 
probably no; just as most people of the 19th century probably wouldn't 
appreciate rock very much, so the people of today would probably have a 
rather difficult time enjoying the music sensation that's sweeping the 
nation 100 years from now.  Future events may prove me wrong.

>  But I would venture that
> most fans of rock music listen to the old stuff and the "cutting edge" new
> releases.
> 
> Now as far as Pete Townshend (or The Who in general) remaining relevant to
> today's teens, that my friends is up to us...We probably all have younger
> brothers or sisters and nieces and nephews full of angst and self doubt that
> could use a healthy dose of "Substitute" or "Quadrophenia"...But don't rely
> on MTV, the radio or the newspapers to keep The Who's music alive and in the
> forefront of today's rock and roll scene...
>  
That's the thing--the Who are NOT, however much you or I would like it, a 
part of today's rock scene.  Their message could perhaps help some of 
today's rock listeners if they heard it, but so would Beethoven--that 
doesn't make Beethoven a part of today's music scene.  Today's music 
scene means having a bunch of crap--a hundred Zombies for every Who--and 
a few gems that will join the 'classics'.

--LP.