When we see a 90 year old bluesman still playing the same tunes he played when radios had tubes we nod admiringly and thank him for keeping his traditions alive. When we see an old rock&roll musician playing oldies from 30 years back we say "how pathetic." Seems like there's a contradiction there.
The 90 year old guy probably didn't disappear from the face of the earth between the ages of 40 and 90, he kept plugging away at it. Rock&roll may have meaning for us that we associate with youth and rebellion, but that may just be us. When a musician writes a great song it's not just a great song for us, it's a great song for him. If he isn't tired of it I can't see a reason why a later generation shouldn't hear it straight from the source, like we did.
If you got what you paid for when you bought the record/ticket/download the musician doesn't owe you anything. S/he doesn't have to stay 20 years old and angry/sexy/agile. They went thru just as much as you did between that first album and now, and the people on stage bring all that with them. If that spoils it for you stay home. It's just a reminder that we're all hurtling toward Doom, chased by our demons and ex-wives and the ghosts of friends who didn't make it to rehab.
When we see a 90 year old bluesman still playing the same tunes he played when radios had tubes we nod admiringly and thank him for keeping his traditions alive. When we see an old rock&roll musician playing oldies from 30 years back we say "how pathetic." Seems like there's a contradiction there.
The 90 year old guy probably didn't disappear from the face of the earth between the ages of 40 and 90, he kept plugging away at it. Rock&roll may have meaning for us that we associate with youth and rebellion, but that may just be us. When a musician writes a great song it's not just a great song for us, it's a great song for him. If he isn't tired of it I can't see a reason why a later generation shouldn't hear it straight from the source, like we did.
If you got what you paid for when you bought the record/ticket/download the musician doesn't owe you anything. S/he doesn't have to stay 20 years old and angry/sexy/agile. They went thru just as much as you did between that first album and now, and the people on stage bring all that with them. If that spoils it for you stay home. It's just a reminder that we're all hurtling toward Doom, chased by our demons and ex-wives and the ghosts of friends who didn't make it to rehab.
I think you hit on it, there is a difference between blues and rock and roll. Traditional Blues has always been played by older people that have experienced much turmoil in their long lives and express it through the Blues, it actually seems strange to hear Mississippi Delta blues played by younger people. Also traditional blues musicians generally play the same songs so it is as it always was, not better or worse regardless of how long they have been doing it. Really it all comes down to the music though, if the music starts to sound formulaic and tired because this group has been continuously putting out music for 50 plus years, that seems like a natural progression. I mean how long can the same people stay together and sound fresh and new? That is quite a daunting task that precious few can pull off. It is not an indictment on the artist at all, it just is what it is. From the artists perspective though, you are correct they owe us nothing and can do whatever they want, just as I am allowed to think to myself that they look silly doing it.
Robert Johnson - possibly the founding member of the 27 club.
Location: right behind you. no, over there. Gender:
Posted:
Sep 23, 2011 - 10:26am
sirdroseph wrote:
I think you hit on it, there is a difference between blues and rock and roll. Traditional Blues has always been played by older people that have experienced much turmoil in their long lives and express it through the Blues, it actually seems strange to hear Mississippi Delta blues played by younger people. Also traditional blues musicians generally play the same songs so it is as it always was, not better or worse regardless of how long they have been doing it. Really it all comes down to the music though, if the music starts to sound formulaic and tired because this group has been continuously putting out music for 50 plus years, that seems like a natural progression. I mean how long can the same people stay together and sound fresh and new? That is quite a daunting task that precious few can pull off. It is not an indictment on the artist at all, it just is what it is. From the artists perspective though, you are correct they owe us nothing and can do whatever they want, just as I am allowed to think to myself that they look silly doing it.
Robert Johnson - possibly the founding member of the 27 club.
When we see a 90 year old bluesman still playing the same tunes he played when radios had tubes we nod admiringly and thank him for keeping his traditions alive. When we see an old rock&roll musician playing oldies from 30 years back we say "how pathetic." Seems like there's a contradiction there.
The 90 year old guy probably didn't disappear from the face of the earth between the ages of 40 and 90, he kept plugging away at it. Rock&roll may have meaning for us that we associate with youth and rebellion, but that may just be us. When a musician writes a great song it's not just a great song for us, it's a great song for him. If he isn't tired of it I can't see a reason why a later generation shouldn't hear it straight from the source, like we did.
If you got what you paid for when you bought the record/ticket/download the musician doesn't owe you anything. S/he doesn't have to stay 20 years old and angry/sexy/agile. They went thru just as much as you did between that first album and now, and the people on stage bring all that with them. If that spoils it for you stay home. It's just a reminder that we're all hurtling toward Doom, chased by our demons and ex-wives and the ghosts of friends who didn't make it to rehab.
All a part of that rich pageant of life.
I think you hit on it, there is a difference between blues and rock and roll. Traditional Blues has always been played by older people that have experienced much turmoil in their long lives and express it through the Blues, it actually seems strange to hear Mississippi Delta blues played by younger people. Also traditional blues musicians generally play the same songs so it is as it always was, not better or worse regardless of how long they have been doing it. Really it all comes down to the music though, if the music starts to sound formulaic and tired because this group has been continuously putting out music for 50 plus years, that seems like a natural progression. I mean how long can the same people stay together and sound fresh and new? That is quite a daunting task that precious few can pull off. It is not an indictment on the artist at all, it just is what it is. From the artists perspective though, you are correct they owe us nothing and can do whatever they want, just as I am allowed to think to myself that they look silly doing it.
Location: right behind you. no, over there. Gender:
Posted:
Sep 23, 2011 - 10:14am
Lazy8 wrote:
When we see a 90 year old bluesman still playing the same tunes he played when radios had tubes we nod admiringly and thank him for keeping his traditions alive. When we see an old rock&roll musician playing oldies from 30 years back we say "how pathetic." Seems like there's a contradiction there.
The 90 year old guy probably didn't disappear from the face of the earth between the ages of 40 and 90, he kept plugging away at it. Rock&roll may have meaning for us that we associate with youth and rebellion, but that may just be us. When a musician writes a great song it's not just a great song for us, it's a great song for him. If he isn't tired of it I can't see a reason why a later generation shouldn't hear it straight from the source, like we did.
If you got what you paid for when you bought the record/ticket/download the musician doesn't owe you anything. S/he doesn't have to stay 20 years old and angry/sexy/agile. They went thru just as much as you did between that first album and now, and the people on stage bring all that with them. If that spoils it for you stay home. It's just a reminder that we're all hurtling toward Doom, chased by our demons and ex-wives and the ghosts of friends who didn't make it to rehab.
My whole take on this subject is they can do whatever they like, bands such as REM and the Stones have enough money where they are beyond market bearing principles so it doesn't matter whether people like or buy their music or not to determine whether they are able to continue. Now, if bands are interested in their legacy and what people think of them then they should listen to the critics and what people say about their latest works as well as listening with an objective ear and be honest with themselves as to whether they think it sounds fresh or creative. Also they should look in the mirror; old people playing rock music is generally not cool. That doesn't mean they should not play, they have free will and this is a free country they can do what they want. They just need to be aware they will probably look silly being bloated and old playing hits from the 60s. That's a fact. Personally I really don't care what any of these bands do. If I like them I listen to them, if I don't, I don't. It is not my legacy.
Your points are well taken. And I must concur with you in that bloated rockers from generations past look silly up on stage playing music that was for all intents and purposes, the music of youth.
When we see a 90 year old bluesman still playing the same tunes he played when radios had tubes we nod admiringly and thank him for keeping his traditions alive. When we see an old rock&roll musician playing oldies from 30 years back we say "how pathetic." Seems like there's a contradiction there.
The 90 year old guy probably didn't disappear from the face of the earth between the ages of 40 and 90, he kept plugging away at it. Rock&roll may have meaning for us that we associate with youth and rebellion, but that may just be us. When a musician writes a great song it's not just a great song for us, it's a great song for him. If he isn't tired of it I can't see a reason why a later generation shouldn't hear it straight from the source, like we did.
If you got what you paid for when you bought the record/ticket/download the musician doesn't owe you anything. S/he doesn't have to stay 20 years old and angry/sexy/agile. They went thru just as much as you did between that first album and now, and the people on stage bring all that with them. If that spoils it for you stay home. It's just a reminder that we're all hurtling toward Doom, chased by our demons and ex-wives and the ghosts of friends who didn't make it to rehab.
This is one of those topics that I'm thoroughly interested in: when should a band hang up their rock 'n roll shoes? Being of the generation that witnessed rock coming out of its infancy and maturing into its rebelious and creative high-water mark, I've developed differing conclusions concerning different bands and the type of rock music that they created. I was never a rabid Stones fan but certainly dug their music, especially from the Beggar's Banquet to Exile era. I actually purchased their last studio effort but found they had little left to say and nothing new to spark my senses. I was a rabid Who fan however, but have sadly watched them decline into marketing desperados who are constantly looking for new ways to repackage and resell their past glories. They should have respectfully said goodbye with the passing of John Entwistle. I've always had the greatest respect for Led Zeppelin, for choosing to let their body of work and reputation remain intact and to call it over when they lost their amazing drummer, John Bonham.
As a moderately enthusiatic fan of R.E.M. I have a great respect for their body of work and think this was a timely and graceful way in which they announced their parting of ways. They too will enjoy a great reputation and contribution the the history of rock and perhaps will get back together to do a show or two in the future to take their fans back to special times in their lives. Cream did it as well as Zep and the Police and it was great.
On a local note, I've had the great pleasure of befriending a local band here from SLOtown called StillTime. Incredibly talented and gifted young players who released two excellent CDs and a tasteful collection of their early formative years as Cal Poly students all crammed into a mobile home. They toured the country and had a very great following but due to financial considerations of a six-piece band trying to compete in these troubling times, decided to move on with no regrets and again, leave behind a strong body of work for all of us grateful fans to listen to and feel the love of all those great gigs and the music they got on record.
In the end, I raise a glass and toast R.E.M. for their contribution to our lives and their decision to go out on top.
My whole take on this subject is they can do whatever they like, bands such as REM and the Stones have enough money where they are beyond market bearing principles so it doesn't matter whether people like or buy their music or not to determine whether they are able to continue. Now, if bands are interested in their legacy and what people think of them then they should listen to the critics and what people say about their latest works as well as listening with an objective ear and be honest with themselves as to whether they think it sounds fresh or creative. Also they should look in the mirror; old people playing rock music is generally not cool. That doesn't mean they should not play, they have free will and this is a free country they can do what they want. They just need to be aware they will probably look silly being bloated and old playing hits from the 60s. That's a fact. Personally I really don't care what any of these bands do. If I like them I listen to them, if I don't, I don't. It is not my legacy.
No apologies - I'm one of those die-hard Stones fans who still digs 'em. It's better to burn out than to fade away...
This is one of those topics that I'm thoroughly interested in: when should a band hang up their rock 'n roll shoes? Being of the generation that witnessed rock coming out of its infancy and maturing into its rebelious and creative high-water mark, I've developed differing conclusions concerning different bands and the type of rock music that they created. I was never a rabid Stones fan but certainly dug their music, especially from the Beggar's Banquet to Exile era. I actually purchased their last studio effort but found they had little left to say and nothing new to spark my senses. I was a rabid Who fan however, but have sadly watched them decline into marketing desperados who are constantly looking for new ways to repackage and resell their past glories. They should have respectfully said goodbye with the passing of John Entwistle. I've always had the greatest respect for Led Zeppelin, for choosing to let their body of work and reputation remain intact and to call it over when they lost their amazing drummer, John Bonham.
As a moderately enthusiatic fan of R.E.M. I have a great respect for their body of work and think this was a timely and graceful way in which they announced their parting of ways. They too will enjoy a great reputation and contribution the the history of rock and perhaps will get back together to do a show or two in the future to take their fans back to special times in their lives. Cream did it as well as Zep and the Police and it was great.
On a local note, I've had the great pleasure of befriending a local band here from SLOtown called StillTime. Incredibly talented and gifted young players who released two excellent CDs and a tasteful collection of their early formative years as Cal Poly students all crammed into a mobile home. They toured the country and had a very great following but due to financial considerations of a six-piece band trying to compete in these troubling times, decided to move on with no regrets and again, leave behind a strong body of work for all of us grateful fans to listen to and feel the love of all those great gigs and the music they got on record.
In the end, I raise a glass and toast R.E.M. for their contribution to our lives and their decision to go out on top.
Yeah. I think officially breaking up means they don't have to keep their schedules coordinated, even if they didn't have anything planned. They can cut their agent loose and not be so bothered with requests to appear, etc. I'm sure they'll play together again sometime.
Although the cynic in me thinks, here comes the reunion tours.
Yeah. I think officially breaking up means they don't have to keep their schedules coordinated, even if they didn't have anything planned. They can cut their agent loose and not be so bothered with requests to appear, etc. I'm sure they'll play together again sometime.
Yeah. I think officially breaking up means they don't have to keep their schedules coordinated, even if they didn't have anything planned. They can cut their agent loose and not be so bothered with requests to appear, etc. I'm sure they'll play together again sometime.