Entertainment For Lively Minds
Hope I get old before I die: why is rock star the only age-proof showbiz job?
Amid all the outrage about Arlene Phillips being sidelined from "Strictly Come Dancing" for a younger model, Jo Whiley being moved into the pensioners lounge at Radio One in favour of Fearne Cotton and the government seeking to make it impossible for firms to forcibly retire employees at 65, I'm amazed nobody's pointed that there is one profession where age discrimination doesn't seem to operate - rock star. If there was ever a job that seemed built exclusively for the young it's this one. Nobody set out to be in a rock band thinking they would have a nice secure future. But that's what an uncanny proportion of them have ended up with. In the process the median age of the rock star seems to have moved up by about ten years.
And they're not being tolerated out of politeness. They're the most powerful economic engines in the business. 2009 in particular has been The Summer Of The Old Gits. Leonard Cohen has the biggest payday of his entire career forty years after he started making records; Paul McCartney is playing rooftop concerts in New York forty years after he apparently went into retirement; Glastonbury is headlined by Neil Young (64), Bruce Springsteen (59) and Blur (in their forties); Madonna is 51, Kylie is 41, Morrissey is 51, the Specials reform in their fifties and, as David Quantick points out in the current issue, Mott The Hoople are playing with a singer who was teething at the outbreak of the last war.
One of the fashionable complaints about Live Aid at the time was that it was dominated by an older generation of musicians, who ought to have packed up and made room for the new wave of talent. In fact Freddie Mercury was 39, Elton John was 38, Francis Rossi was a boyish 36 and even Paul McCartney, who was greeted on the day like an elderly prophet, was a relatively boyish 44. Nobody was over 50, let alone 60. If they did it again tomorrow it would probably be dominated by many of the same acts, more than twenty years later. Some of them have been suspiciously successful in retaining the thickness and colour of their hair, of course, but the indications are that when it comes to live shows the audience don't overly care about a few wrinkles. Surely this can't go on for ever?
- More from David Hepworth.
- Login or register to post comments
-
That said
In most cases the people attending the gigs are there to hear songs written by the performers before they were 30.
True, but....
That's undoubtedly true, but it has been notable at Springsteen's gigs over the last couple of years that his new songs are getting, if anything, a bigger reception from sections of the audience than the older stuff.
Also, the same argument can be made with regard to much younger acts - isn't everyone going to see Oasis only really wanting to hear the stuff from the first two albums?
Two or three good years = maybe two or three great albums = 30 to 40 years of guaranteed support/income/adulation. That's the model that has existed since Live Aid and the renewed interest in `vintage' acts sparked by the launch of CDs in the mid 1980s.
Also do you think their appeal
will continue and this isn't some sort of last hurrah?
Those Live Aid ages are quite telling I must admit at the time I thought they were all impossibly old hasn't Elton always been about 44?
Henry's unfinished debut album rumoured to be "a scorcher".
if you think it
Randy Newman will write a song about it
I cannot tell you how much I heart Randy Newman
In an ideal world he'd be on TV every night.
I agree.
Harps & Angels have improved my journey home so many times this year.
Is golf showbiz?
Tom Watson is 59.
I will refrain from mentioning the OGWT hitmakers involved in producing this fine publication (but their combined ages must be at least 127 years by now...).
One thing that connects the wrinkly rockers
Is that they were, once, young and have produced music for about a gazillion years. There remains no appetite in rock for people to enter the biz if they are already knocking on a bit. It would be great if a band of unknowns in their 40s/50s got together and started touring etc and hit the big time. Can't see it happening but, in theory, there is no reason why not.
The "last" war...
"...Mott The Hoople are playing with a singer who was teething at the outbreak of the last war...“
The Hoople playing with a 5-year old singer isn't exactly underlining the theory.
It will not go on forever..
Most of the acts mentioned will die off ,retire and I think that will be it.
I do not think the industry will allow for the development of acts with a long term career making music as in previous decades.
It will be down to artists themselves to continue making music if they feel so compelled to do so, but not selling the mega amounts needed to fuel the labels, recording studios,PR companies,entourage,personal habits.
I think the one thing about the tech break throughs in recording are that they allow music to be created without the need for the "bank" of the record label and also the marketing or the sad press release "the most important artist since jesus walked on water etc " come to think of it he was only 33..hmm
People complain that it allows too many people to "create" music but they say the same thing about blogs -they said the same thing when they invented the printing press -too many people "the common man" (or woman) will be reading and have access to knowledge, power, information, have an opinion expressed etc
I don't agree
Acts only need "the industry" during their early years. After that their greatest asset is their name. The Rolling Stones haven't sold records for hundreds of years, nor do Oasis or Bruce Springsteen or Neil Young or even Madonna. It's the name that sells the tickets and names no longer recede like they used to. Witness Led Zeppelin who are now far more famous than they were when they broke up.
To Clarify my point
My point was that all the acts you mention are past and that while there is more music being made now most of todays acts will never sell as many records or have catalogs that will sustain over as long a period of time .
Acts today will not be given a chance to make their name and will not sell long after they are "gone" creatively as in the case of the stones or literally as in the case of Led Zeppelin, Beatles amongst many. Also today it very difficult to be marked out as a pioneer in music like alot of those acts are from 50's 60's, 70's and even the much revised 80's..the "classics" will always be with us, its just I do not see anything approaching any of them today in the current lot because of all the widespread changes at all levels
It is downhill for things like live aid and the spectacle as everything is down sizing (is this a bad thing ?)..even U2 are trying to tell us now that they want "intimacy" in the round with a show that would not be out of place at nurenberg rally but thats another item...
Ooh,
interesting.
"a show that would not be out of place at nurenberg* rally" How so?
* I assume you meant Nuremberg.
The day rock's sperm stopped swimming?
Could this observation just be further evidence of what some of us suspect, that rock effectively became sterile after 19 January 1977 - the date of Rory Gallagher's final appearance on the BBC (a live Sight and Sound in Concert simulcast from the then-Hammersmith Odeon)?
In other words, are the only people who now merit being recognised as Proper Rock Stars those who were already up and running on that date?
Erm,...
Kurt Cobain, Liam and Noel Gallagher, Morrissey, Prince, Metallica, Jack White etc etc - I think that lays your theory to rest Archie.
Not really
When AC/DC were on tour recently, the reaction in many quarters was one of excitement and awe. When have, say, Metallica ever generated that? Yes, they can probably still fill a stadium, and yes, they've been going for a good while, but Proper Rock Stars? None of those you cite do it for me, sorry. (Morrissey is a pop star; let's not confuse our terms here.)
I reckon the last Proper Rock Stars to emerge were Bruce Springsteen and Tom Petty, both of whom achieved that status barely a year before my (not at all arbitrary) cut-off date.
hmm...
.... I'd argue that the last Proper Rock Stars to emerge were Kurt Cobain, the Gallagher brothers, Marilyn Manson, Jack White, and *whisper it* Chris Martin.
I'm not a huge fan of all of the above, but they've all made a significant impact of some sort
Marilyn Manson?
Surely he is of no relevance to anyone over the age of eight?
I dunno...
... he had a massive influence on a whole subculture. And all the Mansonites I knew were between the ages of 14 and 20... to be fair, he's got a couple of very decent tunes under his belt, the Blur-apeing 'Fight Song' being one to check out.
He's a massive Beatles fan apparently. Mental.
Well said
risles,there's a tendency to decry anything that occurred after our prime. There's tons of good music out there and the fact is that the likes of Glastonbury etc has these old acts on because Their middle class high earning fans are the new audiance for a lot of these festivals. Hence a lot of the snobbery found on here about bands and genres that don't quite fit the proper demographic.
Hang on
We're not talking about "good music". We're talking about acts capable of filling Hyde Park and generating the kind of coverage that Springsteen and Neil Young have had this summer - a level of rock-godhood that not even U2 and their Mighty Claw can compete with.
At the risk of introducing a more controversial note
I think it's to do with acts having apparently won their spurs in an earlier era. In that sense it's a bit like football. I know football fans waste a lot of breath trying to insist that their club is "bigger" than another but the fact remains that Chelsea will have to win the Premiership a few more times before they will be worth as much as Man Utd, Liverpool or Arsenal, all of whom trade very successfully on their heritage. Like Neil Young does.
Tottenham/The Rolling Stones....
Both now trading off their relative successes in the sixties and both having done nothing of note since the early 80's, aside the odd cup or Start Me Up/Undercover....
True.
Can fill Wembley as well.
Bill Nick is...
Andrew Loog Oldham.
Gulp.
It's not rock, it's history ...
When people too young to have seen them in their prime go to see the Stones or the Who they get to feel that they are connecting with that era of history - swinging London, the hedonistic 70s, and a faint lingering whiff of danger. All packaged and safe and very slickly delivered with fries and a T-shirt on the side.
I remember seeing Santana in 1984 and marvelling that I was standing in front of a band that had played at Woodstock. That was a great feeling. I was 17.
In the UK at least one of the bigest live draws must be Oasis. As I said a few threads over they had become a heritage act by the time the 'Be Here Now' Tour ended. Since then (I suspect) record sales are down but ticket sales remain bouyant. They can fill stadia essentialy off the back of those first two albums and a handful of singles. Creatively stagnant but a hugely popular live act ... sounds a bit like, well Neil Young, the Stones, the Who etc. These days there is no time, no opportunity and frankly no need to build up a 20 year career before becoming a heritage act. That's the big difference.
In 20 years time Oasis will still be churning it out, but by then the Britpop era will be re-discovered history for the teenagers. But those same teenagers will still want to go and see the Stones live even by then it's only Keith and a hologram.
Correct.
.
The new Rolling Stones
Current acts will still be going in their dotage. REM and U2 are in their 50s and are second or third generation to The Stones, The Who, Neil Young etc; acts after them (Oasis, Coldplay, Radiohead, Blur) or at least members thereof will also be going in their 60s I reckon.
Your statement of ages at Live Aid has made me shudder - Paul Macca 44, Elton 38, Rossi 36. Blimey, I really am an old man now.
The Wembley Live Aid line-up...
...and the ages of the main performers that year:
Francis Rossi 36
Paul Weller 27
Bob Geldof 34
Adam Ant 31
Midge Ure 32
Gary Kemp 26
Elvis Costello 31
Nik Kershaw 27
Sade 26
Sting 34
Phil Collins 34
Howard Jones 30
Bryan Ferry 40
Paul Young 29
Alison Moyet 24
Bono 25
Mark Knopfler 36
Freddie Mercury 39
David Bowie 38
Pete Townshend 40
Elton John 38
George Michael 22
Paul McCartney 43
No way of calculating the age of the band of the Coldstream Guards who played the fanfare.
Just out of interest...
how old is Jed?
!
That is a great set of startling facts - real eye-openers when I compare them to my own age. Our perception of our own age compared to others we haven't grown up with is particularly odd. I'm almost as old as Live Aid's Francis Rossi. And I still haven't grown a pony tail... Wasted my life...
I am increasingly disturbed that an increasing number of work colleagues weren't even born when Live Aid too place.
Liam & Noel and Damon Albarn and Thom Yorke
All are now older than Dylan and Clapton were at Blackbushe.
Bryan Ferry and Pete Townshend being the same age -
surprised me. I'd have thought of them as being from different generations, with The Who passing their peak just as Roxy Music were starting out.
60s vs 70s
There have been some others over the years that seem odd but I've always thought the oddest one is that Debbie Harry is older than Sandie Shaw. That just seems wrong.
Good lord that
really makes me feel old.
That answers something I was thinking about the other day.
"Alas Smith and Jones", the 1980s sketch comedy show, spoofed The Who during its first series: "People try to get me down / talking 'bout my operation." They pointed out a few acts who'd been around for a while - and we laughed about it. This was before Live Aid. So The Who then were younger than Oasis are now. About my age, in fact. I had been wondering.
Here's a typo from the "Review" section of Saturday's "The Daily Telegraph": "From La Roux to Little Boots, this year's crop of keyboard-loving kids all copy the icy electro-pop template created 20 years ago by Gary Numan." That would be 30 years ago. And Gary Numan didn't create that particular template by copying the sound of 1949.
The Daily Express reported that Charlotte Gainsbourg is 31 years old. 31 years and at least 60 months, I'm guessing.
I used to think that having to perform the same song hundreds of times each year for the rest of your life, that one you wrote in ten minutes when you were seventeen, must be tough at times. It appears that it takes years off you.
There are lots of older entertainers
There are surely lots of "entertainers" over the years that have gone on performing well after normal retirement age. At the moment we have Broocie & Des O'Connor who both seem to be going strong. Liz Smith made the news last week because she retired, if she'd had a "normal" job, that news would have been posted some 20 years ago. In the US, David Letterman, for example, is in his 60s. There are quite a few film actors that are getting on a bit, the one that immediately springs to mind is Michael Caine but there are others.
I overheard some youths in their late teens discussing
Springsteen´s age at his last of three shows in Stockholm.
- How old is he?
- He must be at least 40, dude.
- When did he make his first album?
- A really long time ago. At least 10 years.
It made me smile (and feel a bit old at that). Youth is indeed wasted on the young. Bless them.
Different for girls?
Nobody has mentioned that it's primarily the women who get pushed aside by younger types in entertainment/showbiz world - including TV news, whereas the men can continue. Clearly this is because a wrinkly old bloke whose looks have gone, or who had none to start with, is considered acceptable where a supposedly unattractive, wrinkly old woman isn't. Although ironically there's probably more tolerance in rock world where good looks matter less than in pop. Chrissy Hynde seems as though she might go on and on, heritage style, though many women in rock seem content to do other things with their lives, after peaking, perhaps not needing to maintain a massive ego as much as the men by ensuring they're still getting the love from the audience - though of course those who go on also do so because they still enjoy the experience, and why not? Madonna though must be running out of time fast, unless she radically changes her act pretty soon, since it is all about a sexual, glamourous, scantily-clad image.
Of course, if you are a respected 'legend' with past glories you tend to be treated more as an artist who can do as they please, as opposed to BBC employees who, when all is said and done, tend not to have the same status and are just employees, and it's the employer (BBC etc) who thinks the employee is too old though the public, as rock world shows, are probably quite happy with people in entertainment being old, as they used to be in case of radio 1 deejays, for example. I think the BBC are misjudging what the audience wants in making these changes and in thinking youth always attracts youth.
Hoary old rock stars also tend to be like other creative types - writers, painters, etc. who just want to go on until they drop, and the public accepts this idea, finds it romantic even. Whereas pop stars are often more controlled and dependent on others, like if they don't write their songs, and are more dependent on image, an image that is usually about youthful good looks.
Not many to start with
Is it not the case with women in rock that there aren't very many to start with and the ones that we do have are often active (in rock) for only a very short period. This means that they don't give themselves the same platform to launch a "career" in rock. How many women are active for 5 years let alone 25? As most women in rock seem to disappear from sight while they're still young it would seem that it's not to do with looks but maybe that men are more willing to undergo the indignities of a life on the road more than women do.
Having said that, there are some exceptions like Patti Smith, Diana Ross, Aretha Franklin, Kim Gordon.
You are probably right
I think that there is definitely different treatment of women in other areas of showbiz though - and those mentioned in initial post who are not rock stars and have been moved on are all women. Rock may well be an area where actually, if you have been around long enough and had 'classic' records, you can go on and on as a woman just as you can as a man.
old rock stars
The one thing that is being overlooked, is that the main audience for these golden oldies is older music fans trying to rediscover a part of their lost youth.Hearing that voice and those songs again deadens reality for a few moments.I cant write anymore as my rose tinted glasses are steaming up.
Our Dads.........
...It could , perhaps , be argued that , in Our Dads' Generation's pop music performers , Ella and Benny and Frank filled clubs and theaters , sometimes ( Well , " bad boy " Frankie . ) arenas , essentially til' the end...
I HAven't Read Every Post here , so...