Rock 'Til You Drop?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Barrie on October 31, 2008 at 4:09pm

What a complete arse......... youth cannot buy experience..... if it werent for mature musicians the young kids of today would still be scratching their nuts. I hope that when John whats-his-face is mature in age some jumped up arsehole tells his readers that they shouldnt be reading his stuff because hes too old.... what a complete twat..... how old is he ???? any idea??

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Roy on November 1, 2008 at 4:47pm

I do tend to agree with that initial statement but for one major problem and that is simply that ROCK music which was started in the mid fifties by 18-22 year olds and lets face it a 19 year old punk kid was on the throne for the 1st time in popular culture and that image IS rock music forever, but through the 60s up to the late 70s a lot of boring, very limited talent young people started getting involved in what rapidly became an easy money business until the very idea of ROCK disappeared . Its easy to say its a young persons game but the trouble is that there are no young people that are ROCK in the true essence of the term since those days ,we are all now 55-75 year olds so ROCK TIL YOU DROP i say.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ron Pryce on December 10, 2008 at 7:29pm

In this age of throw away, computer generated drivel, where fame is the name of the game and the cloning of a pretty face entry on a reality TV show the route to success, it's refreshing to see that the older generation of music makers are still plying their trade succesfully. The reason for this is that certain "something" that the current generation of music makers lack. Probably the experience of true human interaction as opposed to computer interface giving the music a "real" or "human" feel formerly known as SOUL. This means we can enjoy making the music we make whether we make it big or not and paying our dues the hard way doesn't become a chore. To my mind, the I, Me/must have generation have it too easy, are too adept at hiding behind their PCs, laptops and mobile phones and as such seem to avoid personal contact at every possible opportunity and therfore miss the point. Music is about emotion, something that needs human input and no amount of Pentium processors, Gigabytes or Bluetooths will ever replace that (Or is it that I am becoming one of those Grumpy Old Men?)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alazarin on December 10, 2008 at 8:22pm

My parents, who are in their late 70's went to a Rolling Stones concert a couple of years ago and one of the first things they commented on was the wide age range of their audience. Everyone from 8 up to 80+ was found there. I think it's too easy to be dismissive of young people or people who use computer-based systems (anyone remember the hysteria merely about using synthesizers back in the 80's and how they were supposed to be the nemesis of true music? seems quaint nowadays!) or anything that one doesn't quite approve of or accept.

First, it is today's young people who can become a new addition to your audience. Their ears and minds are still fresh for new ideas. Does one merely confine oneself to ever-diminishing circles or does one reach out?

Secondly, computer-based systems are merely a tool. Don't blame the tools or instruments, look to the person using them. For example Cubase can be used to create mind-numbing techno, a symphony, country & western, heavy metal, banghra or anything you care to imagine. It's the driver at the wheel who controls what it's used for and whether it's used well or not. Just like the Stradivarius violin. Sure, a great violin helps but if you can't play to begin with it ain't gonna sound any good.

Third, we have always had the shallow as well as the deep and reflective. Leave them be and concentrate on your own life. It's pretty much impossible to change anyone else's life so why waste the energy? Focus on what can be done and the peripheral background noise of life will fade away.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alazarin on December 10, 2008 at 8:49pm

Finally I do not agree with Strausbaugh's premise. It is ageist and smacks of body fascism. It also smells of a rigid control freak who has very fixed ideas of what people should or should not be doing at various stages of their lives and careers.

Talent and musical genius do not always land in the bodies of the handsome, winsome or young. It frequently bursts forth in people who are unattractive, awkward or late in their life. Should Meatloaf have been denied his career on the grounds of being fat and ugly? What a loss that would have been... his songs touched everyone who heard them. Should Charlie Watts be frogmarched to the old folks home? And what about the good old boys playing bluegrass on their banjos and fiddles?

Rock music is an easy entry point for many musicians. Some bring exquisite artistry while others bludgeon it to death with a blunt stick. Some move on quickly to other forms of music while others stay there for their entire working life. What does it matter so long as it's played well and the musicians are enjoying themselves? There's nothing worse than a band of miserable professionals.

All generations have something to give and to learn from each other. Older musicians have their knowledge to pass on. Maybe we older musicians need to re-learn that sense of wonder that is so prevalent in the young.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe Chapman on December 11, 2008 at 11:09am

From a drummers perspective I am in awe of some of the talent that is emerging from our schools these days and one reason for this is the development of Rock Music as subject in its own right. I recall the frustration of waiting to play the snare drum in one of my music lessons (1967) so that I could show off my skills to class mates. When did full drum kits first appear in schools? And the development of equipment is far superior today than it was in the 50's and 60's. Can anyone remember when Hi Hat cymbals consisted of two planks of wood, hinged at one end, with a spring in the middle? If you can then my guess is your are far too old to be logging in to this discussion!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by CHRIS MORGAN on December 11, 2008 at 1:58pm

Me and my friends(40year olds)sons (16years old) went to maiden lastyear and watched them,thay 50 year old?And must say the older thay get that better.I went to my first gig when i was 14 it was y&t.still remember it as if was last week.next ozzy then maiden in cardiff,just when to as meany as poss! still do..i read that peace of rubbish aswell,these 55 year old balding potbellies are still in the rock mags my son gets and in the guitar mags i get,will the young guy playin the stages now be sill giging when my son is my age?? i bloody hope so.And if you got some music in you,do it matter if you 18 or 80,some one will want to see it played!! LIVE...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Si on December 11, 2008 at 5:11pm

Lets look at the facts...
Is there ever a spare seat in the house at a Rolling Stones concert ?,the act everyone was waiting for at live 8 ?,i do beleive it was Pink Floyd,one of the best live acts ever,Areosmith.AC/DC are back together,you see where im going with this.The point is old rockers rule,and they rule for good reason.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ron Pryce on December 15, 2008 at 8:38pm

Alazarin said:

Finally I do not agree with Strausbaugh's premise. It is ageist and smacks of body fascism. It also smells of a rigid control freak who has very fixed ideas of what people should or should not be doing at various stages of their lives and careers.

Talent and musical genius do not always land in the bodies of the handsome, winsome or young. It frequently bursts forth in people who are unattractive, awkward or late in their life. Should Meatloaf have been denied his career on the grounds of being fat and ugly? What a loss that would have been... his songs touched everyone who heard them. Should Charlie Watts be frogmarched to the old folks home? And what about the good old boys playing bluegrass on their banjos and fiddles?

Rock music is an easy entry point for many musicians. Some bring exquisite artistry while others bludgeon it to death with a blunt stick. Some move on quickly to other forms of music while others stay there for their entire working life. What does it matter so long as it's played well and the musicians are enjoying themselves? There's nothing worse than a band of miserable professionals.

All generations have something to give and to learn from each other. Older musicians have their knowledge to pass on. Maybe we older musicians need to re-learn that sense of wonder that is so prevalent in the young.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tommy on December 20, 2008 at 10:48pm

I understand this point of view but I belive it depends on what the middleaged guy or girls is playing and how they project themselves.
During the summer my brother bought us tickets to see Whitesnake and Def leppard in concert. Having been a fan in my youth I was hoping to see some experinced and mature musicians playing music they enjoyed so much in they're younger days but with a certian amount of decorum and tongues placed firmly in cheeks. NO CHANCE!!! They last time I seen so many topless oiled up men take themselves so seriously In such a short space of time was that beach volleyball scene in Topgun. I ecpected this from Whitesnake but still couldn't help but cringe when the singer now nearly 60 yeras old repeatedly brought attention to his crotch and hung a girls g-string from his hip pocket! Def Leppard where no better. In fact I found the only way to enjoy the show was to close my eyes or stare at the floor. At least the level of playing was good which partially saved the night.
Fast forward a couple of weeks later and I'm sitting watching Lou Reed peform Berlin in the Waterfront theater. This guy shuffles out on stage in jeans and baggy t-shrt looking all of his 60 odd years of age and proceeds to teach us all how powerful, beautiful and downright wonderful rock and roll can be.
The lesson is that certain types of rock and roll belong to a certain age and certain era while other forms are timeless and can be played at any age in any era
Long Live Rock and Roll
T.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matt Brown on December 23, 2008 at 1:21am

Hmm - weren't the original rockers inspired by 50/60 year old blues artists? That part of the book sounds like a pile of arse to me but then an extract like this was never going to be a hit on a site like this! It's been pointed out in other posts but I think Strausbaugh confuses age with passion - and anyone who's not playing with some kind of passion probably shouldn't be doing it, whatever age they are. And anyone who does should! End of.

Here's to a wilful refusal to grow up!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joe Chapman on January 3, 2009 at 4:45pm

Bang on the nail Tommy, it's how mature muso's project themselves that is all important. To some extent you are distracted by good musicianship but are still drawn to the style of clothing and moves that don't quite work these days. But I also feel that historically, age and experience has influenced young budding rockstars. However, once the knowledge has been passed on we must all realise our place and not become too pretentious. I think this site is a good meeting place for the "old and sometimes not so wise" but comparisons with younger muso's should be avoided at all costs. Everyone has a value in "rock n roll" it's shared learning!

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page