In a message dated 12/23/02 11:39:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, Nvinokur@aol.com writes:
<< this rasies a question I've been thinking about for a while. While Bowie has delt with being an aging rock star better than most,
who HAS done it better than him, or been exemplary? >>
Dylan, just saw live, Stones, saw live at Garden, they give support to all of us aging people, Neil Young, Ray Davies (maybe) Richard Thompson, Patti Smith, Lou Reed, XTC (if they count as aging), if yes, Elvis Costello, Van Morrison, just to think of a few who are not an embarrassment.
Tom Waits is a credit to his age group, and I'll second Costello who in March of this year released his strongest album in years with "When I Was Cruel." Springsteen is still putting on two and a half to three hours shows a night, which ain't bad for a guy in his 50s. Dylan does 20 songs a night, and he plays about 100 shows a year. A lot of bands a third his age don't keep that pace. And let's not forget Ozzy Osbourne who in his 50s is enjoying the biggest year of his career, though it's arguable whether he's doing it with style and grace. He has, however, made mumbling a cornerstone of the national dialogue. Tom
on 12/23/02 8:51 AM, Samerivertwice@aol.com at Samerivertwice@aol.com wrote: While Bowie has delt with being an aging rock star better than most, who HAS done it better than him, or been exemplary? Hands down, NRBQ win. Nobody else this side of Jerry Lee has ever been so perfect at making music that blows off questions of age. The recent Dylan has really done a better job of dealing with it than anyone except Randy Newman (check out BAD LOVE), in terms of being able to make songs out of it and lead better bands than he's ever had (save for THE Band). Neil Young is certainly dealing with it well, as is McCartney. Joni Mitchell has done well, but I never thought she related to being YOUNG all that comfortably, so I guess I'm saying she grew into herself. Zappa seemed to work best when he distanced himself from rock after a certain point. Big problem -- rock'n'roll at its most vital doesn't isn't designed for the participation of grandparents. Unlike country music, where age and experience are actually a means to credibility, rock'n'roll -- in order for it not to suck -- needs that "wop bop a loo-bop" factor in there (why I don't care for Elvis Costello). And to look at Little Richard of recent years, it really does seem like that sort of thing is generally best handled by brash, unembarrassable young people. Now that the punk rock era leading lights as hovering around 50, it's pretty interesting to see who has remained vital (Dave Alvin, Mike Watt, Jello Biafra, Stan Ridgway) and who has become an oldies act that critics love (the "new" Dead Kennedys, X, Fear, the Sex Pistols). The thought of a 50 yr old Henry Rollins is sure intriguing... What will really be interesting is how the hip-hop guys age. skip h
participants (2)
-
Samerivertwice＠aol.com -
skip Heller