Hope I Die Before I Get Old

May 4, 2006 9:27 AM

I'm doing a write-up about rock musicians and age. Who are the good, bad, ugly, and new? Is Rock and Roll strictly for the young and hungry?

Help me think of artists who have continued to do great work in the Rock realm from their debut as youth into their middle age? That is, those who haven't lost the fire in their bellies over the decades.

Additionally, who has just gotten terrible as they've gotten older? Sting's tragic fall from Punk to Muzak Mogul comes to mind.

And thirdly, are there any recent emergent artists on the scene who are just now making a splash in their middle age (for purposes of this question, I will include folks in their 30's)?

posted by sourwookie to media & arts (77 comments total)

Sonuc Youth.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:29 AM on May 4, 2006

Sonic Youth.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:29 AM on May 4, 2006

Neil Young
posted by apple scruff at 9:34 AM on May 4, 2006

Those were the first two that came to my mind.
posted by sourwookie at 9:37 AM on May 4, 2006

The Roolling Stones certainly get a mention (although IMO they've definitely "gotten terrible as they've gotten older").
posted by Rash at 9:37 AM on May 4, 2006

Highly subjective, but I think Morrissey, David Bowie, and Madonna have all managed to remain popular and relevant, either by being timelessly cool or continuously reinventing themselves.

I would say that Wayne Coyne (of The Flaming Lips) is more respected now than he was ten years ago.
posted by justkevin at 9:38 AM on May 4, 2006

Morrissey
The Cure
Red Hot Chilis
posted by ed\26h at 9:39 AM on May 4, 2006

(Of course I meant Rolling but on preview Rooling's rather amusing because it rhymes with drooling)
posted by Rash at 9:39 AM on May 4, 2006

Aerosmith and the Rolling Stones are the two that come immediately to mind.
posted by geeky at 9:41 AM on May 4, 2006

Elvis Costello.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:42 AM on May 4, 2006

Kraftwerk.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:42 AM on May 4, 2006

Additionally, who has just gotten terrible as they've gotten older?

Liz Phair, Weezer, Rod Stewart, Eric Clapton, Metallica, Aerosmith.

In most cases I guess you could replace "older" with "sober".
posted by dobie at 9:44 AM on May 4, 2006

Is Neil Hagerty too obscure? Pussy Galore in the 80s, Royal Trux in the 90s, The Howling Hex in the 00s. All solid bands.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:45 AM on May 4, 2006

Bob Dylan, who IMO become unlistentable (and thus worse with age) during the 80s and early to mid 90s, had some kind of inspiration in the late 90s. he changed is whole band up and kind of reinvented himself into this travelling minstrel thing and had, I believe the only grammy of his career with Time Out of Mind (maybe). So he was great, got worse with age, and then got great with age.

Of course, someone below will disagree.
posted by poppo at 9:46 AM on May 4, 2006

Iggy Pop
Frank Black (and the rest of the Pixies, I suppose)
John Paul Jones
Dave Grohl
Ian Astbury
New Order
Bad Religion
Mike Ness (& the rest of Social D)
Wilco
Lucinda Williams
Johnny Cash
Bonnie Raitt
Eric Clapton
David Lowery (from Camper & Cracker)
Perry Farrell
posted by JekPorkins at 9:47 AM on May 4, 2006

*some kind of inspiration in the late 90s: sometimes attributed to a trip to the hospital for a heart disease
posted by poppo at 9:48 AM on May 4, 2006

um, the poster asked multiple questions, and just mentioning an artist's name without telling him which question you were answering is not very helpful
posted by poppo at 9:49 AM on May 4, 2006

What poppo said.
posted by rolypolyman at 9:51 AM on May 4, 2006

Help me think of artists who have continued to do great work in the Rock realm from their debut as youth into their middle age?

The Edge

Additionally, who has just gotten terrible as they've gotten older?

Bono
posted by bondcliff at 9:51 AM on May 4, 2006

Fugazi / Ian Mackaye.
posted by badger_flammable at 9:57 AM on May 4, 2006

Sorry, my first list was artists who I think have improved as they've aged. Well, maybe not Clapton, but he still rocks.

Clapton has done the Dylan thing: Great beginning, crappy mid-career, much better now.

Really, though, I think a list w/o label is good, because it allows sourwookie to make the judgment call on which category they fall under.

Here's a few who I think have gotten terrible as they've gotten older:

Jimmy Page
McCartney
John Lennon
Rob Halford
Every singer Van Halen has ever had
Springsteen (but his downward spiral started just after Nebraska)
Lenny Kravitz
Robert Smith
Ozzy
Aerosmith
Lou Reed
Neil Young (yes, he's good, but compared to his early career, he sucks)
Elvis Costello
Bowie (does anyone actually listen to his new stuff?)
and I'm gonna have to say Aerosmith one more time.


Oh, and I'll second the Ian MacKaye as one who gets better and better.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:02 AM on May 4, 2006

Bruce Springsteen would have been my vote for someone who used to rock but has gotten pretty damn sucky as he has gotten older; however, his new album is the tits (mefi discussion), so I guess he can be my vote for still rocking despite being old.

As for bands only starting to get noticed after thirty, The Wrens, whose members range in age from 33 to 40, were pretty unknown until they put out The Meadowlands, and now they are pretty popular.

The ultimate "every day they age they get lamer and lamer" band is of course, R.E.M.
posted by ND¢ at 10:06 AM on May 4, 2006

Tom Petty has matured well: His recent stuff is arguably much better than his early stuff in the mid-70s.

As for musicians who are just now making a splash in their 30s or later, does it matter if they've been playing music for many years without getting super-popular? By which I mean, are you looking for brand new artists, or simply artists who weren't known until they were older?

I think Lucinda Williams falls into that latter category: While she was known, she wasn't known in pop music until a few years ago.

Rufus Wainwright was 28 when "Poses" came out. Not quite 30, but "old" for stardom.

Moby was 34 years old when "Play" came out and made the charts.
posted by brina at 10:11 AM on May 4, 2006

Barry Manilow went from bad to worse.
Van Morrison, all-around great, forever
Sad what happened to Sting musically
Ry Cooder, from musician to musical anthropologist
Warren Zevon (sob)
Billy Joel,Elton John; I always wished that they had become Rogers and Hammerstein. Musicals might have had a chance.

this is a fun exercise. (although maybe the writer is older than lots of me-fites)
posted by lois1950 at 10:12 AM on May 4, 2006

I've mentioned Chris Whitley on MeFi before, he died last year at the young age of 45, but his integrity - both personally and musically - was remarkable, all throughout his relatively short life. His body of work is all over the map in terms of musical styles, but his potent guitar skills were always there in full force, and inside of him lived the soul of a old Delta Blues musician. Too see him play live on a good night was a religious experience, a pleasure I enjoyed from when he was in his teens through his forties.

Todd Rundgren is another example of someone who has been involved in Rock since the beginning, both as a musician and producer. While I can't say I'm thrilled with all his activities - joining the lineup of the "New Cars" is a bit silly and a kinda sad grab for some bucks - his output includes some great, relevant tunes ("Fascist Chris", from No World Order, could have been written yesterday, yet it's 13 years old). He's one of the great American musical treasures, IMO.

And hell, off the top of my head I can think of Link Wray, Buck Owens (Country, you may think, but that man could ROCK), John Lee Hooker and Johnny Cash (his cover of NIN's Hurt is better than the original). Radiohead just seems to get better with age as well, experimenting with anything and everything at their disposal.
posted by dbiedny at 10:13 AM on May 4, 2006

Help me think of artists who have continued to do great work in the Rock realm from their debut as youth into their middle age?

I agree with many above, plus:
Einstuerzende Neubauten
Bjork
M. Watt
David Bowie

Additionally, who has just gotten terrible as they've gotten older? Sting's tragic fall from Punk to Muzak Mogul comes to mind.

Nick Cave (although the recent double album was better than his last few)
Mike Ness
Brian Setzer
David Bowie
posted by illovich at 10:16 AM on May 4, 2006

FASCIST _CHRIST_. You would think I would get that right. Jeez-Us.
posted by dbiedny at 10:18 AM on May 4, 2006

I completely agree with the Wrens, who, for a bunch of middle-aged guys (heck, it would be true if they were a bunch of young guys) totally rock. The Meadowlands was fabulous.

And nobody has mentioned Radiohead, most of whose members are quickly approaching 40, but whose music continues to remain relevant. (Ok, on preview, now someone has.)

We've mentioned Wilco, but not Billy Bragg. Mermaid Avenue came out after he was already 40, and that was a great record.
posted by dseaton at 10:19 AM on May 4, 2006

Robert Fripp was behind the original incarnation of King Crimson (from the late sixties), and when I saw him play live a few years ago, he blew my mind.
posted by dbiedny at 10:20 AM on May 4, 2006

The Ex just celebrated their 25th anniversary last year. Their live shows continue to dazzle.

Captian Beefheart's is a pretty compelling story.
posted by minkll at 10:21 AM on May 4, 2006

Frank Zappa was really in a whole separate musical category. A close buddy of mine always wanted to have a radio show called "Frank & Frank" - alternating Zappa and Sinatra all day long. I still think this would be awesome.
posted by dbiedny at 10:22 AM on May 4, 2006

Not rock 'n roll per se, but I got sucked into Biography's Dolly Parton episode the other day, and marvelled at how her songwriting talents are even better now than they were 30 years ago. As performers, Loretta Lynn and Emmylou Harris have each had a renaissance recently as they've been discovered by a younger generation of music fans. (Loretta Lynn with Jack White, Emmylou Harris with Conner Oberst)

And I've found Bruce Springsteen's evolution into Bob Dylan (particularly on The Ghost of Tom Joad) quite interesting.
posted by junkbox at 10:28 AM on May 4, 2006

While Tom Waits may have plateaued a bit, he's still damn interesting 33 years in. Also, he only started making what a lot of folks consider 'Tom Waits music' about 23 years ago with his ninth album, Swordfishtrombones.

Joe Strummer was doing good, solid work with The Mescaleros when he died at 50.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:30 AM on May 4, 2006

And of course, in terms of "Good, Bad & Ugly", there's always Motorhead's Lemmy Kilmister.
posted by dbiedny at 10:31 AM on May 4, 2006

I am obliged, of course, to mention Paul Weller, who started off as an angry young mod with the Jam in 1977 and just received the lifetime achievement Brit Award earlier this year.

Neil Finn (Split Enz/Crowded House/Finn Brothers/solo) has also consistently made excellent music for more than 30 years.
posted by scody at 10:32 AM on May 4, 2006

An interesting case might be the Replacements and particularly Paul Westerberg. They have a new album coming out with some new material on it; at the same time he for a long time defined rock as a young person's game who had troubles later in the game. I guess whether or not it's relevant will be related to whether the new material is any good.

+1 for Billy Bragg as well. The 60's-70's cases are well known by now, but the 80s performers are also starting to get up there in age and might be more interesting to consider. I'll repeat Mike Watt as well.

A case of getting steadily more horrible with age could very well be David Lowery of Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker. Perhaps that has yet to be seen, but on recent form it's leaning that way.
posted by mikel at 10:33 AM on May 4, 2006

Paul Simon
Roger Waters
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 10:40 AM on May 4, 2006

Bob Dylan, who IMO become unlistentable (and thus worse with age) during the 80s and early to mid 90s, had some kind of inspiration in the late 90s.

I agree, though Oh Mercy is one exception to that. It's the only post-70s Dylan album I have, and I think it's my favourite.

Gillian Welch quietly continues to get better. Ryan Adams' suff is, too, though he hasn't been around for too long.

The Tragically Hip just get worse and worse. I stopped buying albums. Same for Liz Phair - I'm tragically disappointed with the last two albums.

Pearl Jam isn't impressing me of late. I haven't heard their last album, but all reports indicate that it, too, is laclustre.

Neil Finn's stuff isn't nearly as good as the Crowded House days.

Someone who really surprised me lately is Evan Dando. I bought his latest and it's great. It's A Shame About Ray is one of my favourite albums, and it's good to see he can still get it on.

I find it hard to distinguish between good music and music that I've been listening and loving for a long time and that really means something to me, but might not be as good. Radiohead is a good example. I still like the early stuff best, but their later stuff might be better music.
posted by jimmythefish at 10:42 AM on May 4, 2006

Prince is pushing 50.
posted by macadamiaranch at 10:47 AM on May 4, 2006

Rock and roll is about poise, posture, and one's approach to the world, not about musical quality or instrumental ability. As such, it does not mellow, and does not mature, and even great bands, although they can get better, tend to crap out after a few really good ones. In fact, it's interesting how universally the rule 'three albums, then crap' holds true. Sometimes it's four, if the band/lead man is extremely intelligent or 'on,' but it's almost never longer.

Oppose this, par ejemple, to the standard set in other realms of music, where the opposite is true: since quality of music tends to correlate in classical or even jazz with musicianship and musical intelligence, quality routinely goes up in these kinds of music when musicians age.

Also, an important factor to note is the effect of the drugs.

By the way, I have to dispute this comment:

JedPorkins: "Clapton has done the Dylan thing: Great beginning, crappy mid-career, much better now."

Clapton sucks now, as anyone who likes rocking can tell you. And while Dylan doesn't suck so much, unless compared to who he was, any Dylan fiend will tell you that he was more in his game in the 1970's than in the 1960's. I'm not really a gigantic Dylan fan, but I've met a few people with closets-full of his stuff, and every damn one of them has said that his best record is "Blood On the Tracks." Those records, right up to the christian phase, are the best of his career. I've heard some even say that the 'rolling thunder' stuff put together on that 'bootleg series' disc a few years ago represents his greatest achievement, and on some nights, I agree with them. Suffice it to say: Dylan transcends the paradigm. He matured, but I think he got tired after a while, and anybody who's seen him on his 'never-ending tour' will agree that his current work doesn't match his glory days in the 70's.
posted by koeselitz at 11:04 AM on May 4, 2006

koeselitz, I fail to see how R.E.M. are an example of the three albums then crap rule. Automatic FTP was their eighth album. Sure, Out of Time was a steaming pile, but Murmur, Fables, Dead Letter Office, Reckoning, Life's Rich Pageant, Document . . . are only crap if you don't like R.E.M. to begin with.

And Clapton no longer rocks, but at least he's willing to just play the blues now. The Cream reunion was pretty cool, too. Dylan did get better, then worse, then marginally better. Your synopsis, koeselitz, is a good one.

Oh, and Elton John is totally an example of the "was good and gets progressively worse" paradigm.

So is Pavarotti.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:14 AM on May 4, 2006

I must dispute JekPorkins' assessment of John Lennon as well. He may not have had a Beatles sound in his later work but why would we want him to? Also, just what do you mean by him "getting older" since he died at age 40?
posted by Lynsey at 11:17 AM on May 4, 2006

koeselitz: you're right of course. if i say to myself, "is anything bob dylan has done since the 70s as good as the rolling thunder era stuff, or several other mini-dylan-eras?" of course not.

but if asked which of the above categories does he fall into (i.e. still great, became terrible), which would you put him in?
posted by poppo at 11:31 AM on May 4, 2006

also i'm going to assume you have actually seen one of the shows i refer to, rather than getting reports secondhand
posted by poppo at 11:34 AM on May 4, 2006

Tom Waits immediately comes to mind, but also Glenn Danzig who first fronted the Misfits, then Samhain and finally the metal band Danzig, who had their mainstream breakthrough for the live video of "Mother" in 1993... when Glenn was 38!
posted by jacobjacobs at 11:39 AM on May 4, 2006

I agree with koeselitz's comment about poise being integral to a rock star's career. David Bowie's career is a great example of that: He's basically put out 2 decades of shitty, shitty music and is still considered great because he hangs out with models and champions young bands.
posted by dobie at 11:45 AM on May 4, 2006

poppo: I've seen some "neverending tour" shows. (In fact, I saw him two weeks ago in Albuquerque.) I'm not lucky enough, nor old enough, to have seen Rolling Thunder. But if I had to put Mr. Dylan into a category, it'd be: "if he wants to keep going, then why doesn't he hire a better band? And if he wants to keep going, why doesn't it show?" I have this nagging feeling that he really is exhausted. Maybe he should just retire from touring-- his records have been really consistent lately, and certainly not the worst of his career. Recording ought to be enough. But I don't know him; he's the kind of guy to have a reason for doing what he does.

So far as REM goes, Jek, if history ever got told straight, it would detail a meteoric rise, comprised of three records: Murmur, Reckoning, and Fables of the Reconstruction. Dead Letter Office isn't an album, but a collection of b-sides which happen to suck. (As I recall, the liner notes admit this.) Lifes Rich Pagaent is really good, and I can admit that it makes REM an exception to the rule, a 'four-album' band, but Document... well, there are some moments, but a lot of them are really bad. (Like "The End of the World" and "The one I love.") In fact, if Document hadn't happened and shown them that they could make it big with crap, the boys might've packed up their things and quit, as perhaps they should have. Then, instead of spending all of our time explaining to our friends that they don't know the real REM, the awesome REM, we'd be telling them that there's this cool little band they'd never heard of that they ought to check out. And we wouldn't have to put up with "Automatic" ripoff bands like the Goo-Goo Dolls.

Given the shortness of a great band's career, in fact, maybe bands should be forced to pack it in after a few, at least to reinvent. Think of what a better world it'd be.

By the way, I agree with JekPorkins on John Lennon, not because Lennon's late music sounds bad (it doesn't), or even isn't fun to listen to (it is), but because he got bitter as fuck. Yoko didn't break up the Beatles, who were bound to at some point; but she sure turned John into a bitter asshole.

And finally: Sonic Youth haven't made a good record since their first. And fame has turned Thurston Moore into the biggest, most pretentious hipster ever to walk the planet.

I guess the 'poise' thing was more about this: rock is about attitude. The Who made some incredible records, really beautiful and intense, but they went sour when Pete started to get tired and feel indulgent because it's about how you feel and how you approach it, not about what chops you have or what skills you have. Bowie made his best record (Low) at a time when he was tired of most of the labels, like 'glam' and 'retro,' he had languished under and just wanted to make interesting music that sounded good. His records stopped being great, not because he forgot how to play his instruments, but because he got wrapped up in just being himself in public. A great jazz musician works; he goes out every night and tries to play something great, learning and incorporating and building. If he's like Sonny Rollins, maybe he's looking for some lost chord, and he burns all his bridges, but it isn't like rock; the transitory moments are stitched together, and build off each other. Classical music has many layers, and has its genesis in a quiet place in the human spirit, no matter how loud or soft its execution is; as such, it can grow, or it can decline. With rock, you only get one chance; that's its glory.
posted by koeselitz at 12:06 PM on May 4, 2006

I've seen some "neverending tour" shows.

just wanted to make sure your opinion was from firsthand experience

I'm not lucky enough, nor old enough, to have seen Rolling Thunder.

me neither

in any case, i agree with you for the most part, i just can't place him in the same "became terrible" category as the stones or aerosmith (although it sounds like you wouldn't either)
posted by poppo at 12:12 PM on May 4, 2006

I'll be the lone voice disagreeing about Bowie. I think his two last records are good.

R.E.M.'s last album was pretty terrible. I am trying to believe they will one day suddenly make a great album again.
posted by edlundart at 12:12 PM on May 4, 2006

koeselitz, I think I love you.

I get your point with R.E.M., and I almost totally agree. But Document was good for a concept album (the concept: start every song with a snare drum hit).

And "good" doesn't cut it if you're David Bowie, imho.

Yeah, rock is about swagger, which is fleeting at best. Lennon had it, then lost it, replaced by a different brand of arrogance. Rock is an explosion, not a slow burn. For it to last, it's got to be one huge explosion, and even then, it doesn't last long.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:21 PM on May 4, 2006

By the way, it just occured to me, after rereading the question, that it was about the new, too. And, in my opinion, there haven't been any really interesting bands for a long time. Especially in places like New York City. (And there, especially in Brooklyn.) Hipsterism has taken over everything, starting with bands like the Strokes and the White Stripes and finally leaving us today with such drivel as Franz Ferdinand. It seems as though us youngsters lack originality and confidence to such a great degree that we've been reduced to aping the dress of mods while we construct noise that's not so much 'music' as 'a concatenation of influences worn on the sleeve.' Nearly every band praised, for example, by a certain website named after a farming implement can be easily categorized by what its members are 'into.' I think maybe rock really is dead; it's only a pastime nowadays for young bands who seem to think they're being original because they dress snappy and get reviewed well. In actuality, they're too much a product of their times to be really interesting.

While we're somewhat disappointed in the art of aging heroes who have returned to their art-- I'm looking at the last generation of heroes here, too: Mission of Burma, Wire, the Pixies, etc-- we try to tell ourselves they've still got it, because we have nothing else to hold on to. We 'youth of today' are totally unoriginal.

Rock was about the transitory, and about living in the moment. After Kurt Cobain died, somebody asked Joe Strummer what his death meant. He said: "The point of all of this, the point of rock and roll in general, is: it is good to be alive. It's a hell of a lot better than being dead."
posted by koeselitz at 12:49 PM on May 4, 2006

Does the music being produced have to be Top 100? There are tons of old rockers who may not be top 100 anymore but who are still putting out good sounds. Ray Davies just released a solo album, Ian Anderson (of Jethro tull) did an excellent solo album (that actually made the Classical charts), Peter Gabriel's last album and his soundtracks still work for me.
posted by Gungho at 12:52 PM on May 4, 2006

I agree that Wayne Coyne has just gotten better and Lou Reed has lost his edge.
I think Johnny Cash probably belongs in the "got better" category, but I can't really just ignore that terrible album of cover songs (with the possible exception of the NIN song that dbiedny mentioned.
posted by rmless at 12:58 PM on May 4, 2006

Paul Simon's Graceland album was easily as good or better than everything he did in the 60's.

It's rock and roll only in the general sense, though, not the "ROCK AND ROLL!!!!" sense, which is intrinsically a young man's (or very occasionally woman's) art.
posted by dagnyscott at 1:16 PM on May 4, 2006

still got it, or even getting better:

Jon Langford/The Mekons
Arto Lindsay (from no-wave to producing Música Popular Brasileira and making several great genre-bending albums of his own in the last ten years)
Jonathan Richman
David Byrne (maybe not musically, but his career continues to be interesting)
John Cale
Brian Eno

lost it:

The Beach Boys (except for Brian Wilson)
The Bee Gees
Grace Slick/Jefferson Airplane
Steve Winwood
The Eagles (I never liked 'em, but boy did these guys churn out solo-career crap in the 80's)
Paul McCartney
posted by hydrophonic at 1:18 PM on May 4, 2006

I know they're a special case and perhaps not quite so "rock"* as the other artists mentioned, but I will gladly put a plug in for They Might Be Giants, who have soldiered through eight studio albums (not counting the children's album or the numerous live or b-sides releases) over the past twenty years and still have the "it" that brought their fans in.


*If you count such piddling details as not employing a live drummer until their fifth album, that is. And, also to be noted, the debut album featured a very anti-rock-ethos-laden track called "I Hope That I Get Old Before I Die."
posted by kittyprecious at 1:20 PM on May 4, 2006

Back up the bus...TMBG? A one trick pony that has been sounding the same since song three.

Which is to say does long term viability require change, or is doing the same old thing really good good enough?
posted by Gungho at 2:03 PM on May 4, 2006

They Might Be Giants have sold out. They're working for fricken Disney! They have several very good albums, but lately they've been trying too hard.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 2:16 PM on May 4, 2006

I don't have a terribly specific answer but you should absolutely watch the recent Metallica documentary "Some Kind Of Monster".

And I think everyone's being unfair to Sting. He's always been a wanker. He just concealed it better in the early days.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 2:31 PM on May 4, 2006

In sharp contrast to Sting, Stewart Copeland continues to rock.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:33 PM on May 4, 2006

By most accounts, Sting was never "punk" - he (and the rest of the Police) already had a disreputable history, by punk's standards, as part of other decidedly non-punk '70s bands. They were a marketing invention of Miles Copeland.

Leonard Cohen didn't even START recording until he was in his thirties, I believe, having spent his twenties as a poet/writer.

Hydrophonic's list is spot-on for my particular musical tastes.

I think They Might Be Giants are hideous.
posted by mykescipark at 2:38 PM on May 4, 2006

What about artists who are struggling to become relevant, despite having a devoted fanbase no matter what they do.

Ministry has been painting-by-numbers for years but Al is trying damned hard these days

same thing with Neil Young and Bob Dylan, who're known for doing something amazing after decades of dreck
posted by elr at 3:03 PM on May 4, 2006

MC Frontalot is too old to be a rapper:

"every year I'm alive, add to my vocabulary.
gonna do it till I'm staring at the ceiling in the mortuary.
plus I'm probably wise by now
and could do all the things old people talk about
like count pills, argue bills at diners,
get a little tiny funky car and be a shriner,
go to the haberdasher so I could look dapper,
get stroke and forget I'm too old to be a rapper..."
posted by equipoise at 3:15 PM on May 4, 2006

People who sold out AND put out consistently mediocre music:
all the Doors but Densmore (especially Ray Manzarek)
Blondie
Ozzy
Metallica
John Lydon (fuck the sex pistols,
Carlos Santana
Herbie Hancock (god, it's hard to say that)

People who not only have aged gracefully but still kick ass
Bill Laswell
Afrika Bambaataa
Brian Eno
The Orb
Negativland
Bjork
The Ex
Ween
Mojo Nixon
Fred Frith
The Last Poets
a large number of great bluesmen


people who just stopped delivering the goods:
Tori Amos

people who have returned from the edge of obscurity/irrelevance:
David Bowie
Wayne Kramer
Johnny Cash

people who rock a live show and still record, but aren't really putting out the goods, album-wise
Patti Smith
Iggy Pop
Parliamentfunkadelic / George Clinton
Buddy Guy

Dead guys who rocked it to old/late-middle age:
Fela Kuti
Frank Zappa
Eric Burdon

I don't know where to put:
Lainbach
posted by elr at 3:18 PM on May 4, 2006

I guess the 'poise' thing was more about this: rock is about attitude.

Blah. I guess it depends on what you mean by "rock." But if you're talking about music, I have to disagree, and I hate that way of thinking. Good albums don't come from rebellious attitudes, they come from musical inspiration and craft. Musicians whose output declines as they age aren't losing it because of some inherent inability of middle-aged people to rock; they're losing it because, in some ways, they were hacks to begin with. As was alluded to, there are plenty examples of classical composers (and painters, writers, etc.) who did some of their best work in their later years. Rock stars seem to lose it because they're untrained and lazy. Anyway, end rant.

A band that got awful as they aged is weezer. Their first record was released in 1994 when Rivers Cuomo was 24. Their last one came out in 2005, but they've been sucking since 2002 or so.

Guided by Voices formed when Robert Pollard was in his early twenties, and they continued to be prolific and relatively successful until disbanding in 2004 when Pollard was 47. He released a 26-song solo album this year.

As for artists becoming popular in their 30s, The Decemberists just signed to a major label and have become popular in the past couple of years, and Colin Meloy is 32 now.

I believe James Mercer of The Shins is in his early thirties now, but can't seem to find confirmation. The first incarnation of the band formed in 1992.

Ben Gibbard of Death Cab for Cutie and Jenny Lewis of Rilo Kiley are both 30 this year.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:20 PM on May 4, 2006

John Darnielle of the Mountain Goats has got to be in his 30's, at least, and "The Sunset Tree" (2005) has definitely been his most popular album to date. Although he's not exactly a rock musician.
posted by bubukaba at 3:29 PM on May 4, 2006

Hm, good call about Darnielle, but I can't find confirmation of his age anywhere.

Some others occur to me: John Vanderslice, whose 2005 album was, I believe, his most popular, is 39 this year.

Stuart Murdoch of Belle and Sebastian, whose 2006 album was likewise their most successful, is 38 this year.

And ditto about The Wrens.
posted by ludwig_van at 3:43 PM on May 4, 2006

Apparently Will Oldham is in his 30's too, and he's still putting out good stuff.

and we could ask Lalitree how old John is
posted by bubukaba at 4:12 PM on May 4, 2006

here it should've said "fuck the sex pistols, but public image ltd. was great"

add Wire and Whitehouse to bands that came back from the dead and still had it, Elvis Costello to artists that had nearly lost all relevance, Lee "Scratch" Perry, Bernie Worrell and Merzbow as dudes who never stopped kicking ass, James Brown and the Isley Bros as guys who kicks as much ass as ever without putting out any decent albums, and Ani DiFranco as a woman who's aging well and not losing her edge

also Les Claypool's output is spotty, but he's experimenting and his bass work is still some of the best out there, it's just no longer surprising
posted by elr at 4:22 PM on May 4, 2006

It's a lot easier to observe artists who were once burning hot and then declined than to see it happen in reverse, simply because we aren't going to notice the earlier, lamer stuff. Were (insert band name here) interesting back when they were called (insert previous band name here) and they hadn't really figured what they were doing? Or before a record company groomed and packaged them? Usually not.

Ministry has been painting-by-numbers for years
But on the other hand, a lot of artists have had long careers after a false start with a sound and image that was heavily influenced by a record company. Ministry's a good example, as might be John Mellencamp. There's got to be more...Alanis Morresette? Bjork? She was an pop singer in Iceland in her teens, before the Sugarcubes. (But I had no idea how much of her teen sound was influenced by the record company.)

This thread is about artists who've made big changes to their sound over their careers, and you'll see a lot of the "lost it" people there, along with a handful of the "still-got-its"

Add Neko Case as another artist getting more attention in her thirties, both in her solo stuff and with The New Pornographers. But sourwookie, the thirties is not middle-aged. Please.

Oh, and I left Stevie Wonder off my "lost it" list.
posted by hydrophonic at 4:46 PM on May 4, 2006

see also: this book
posted by nuclear_soup at 5:02 PM on May 4, 2006

Thinking about this question ... a friend of mine, an older, white musician, used to bemoan the fact that if you were a black musician the other side of forty, you were regarded as a treasure, but if you were a white guy you were just an old has-been.

I think that was true a few years ago, but it's much less true now. People have started thinking about Clapton and Brian Wilson not as has-beens but as neglected icons.

Perhaps the loss of people like George Harrison is making people re-evaluate these "living treasures", even the white ones. The loss of people like Lennon, because it was tragic and violent, isn't the same thing as the loss of someone just through age and illness.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 5:20 PM on May 4, 2006

XTC (Andy Partridge & Colin Moulding)
posted by D.C. at 11:43 PM on May 4, 2006

Aimee Mann made it big later in her career when she was nearly 40, after a false start in the 80's and almost a decade of fighting with her record company. Her latest album was a bit disappointing, but it's too early to tell if it was merely a concept album that didn't make or the beginning of the downhill slide.
posted by junkbox at 6:18 AM on May 5, 2006

Bowie, Iggy, Costello, Nick Cave, Tom Waits, The Fall... all have released really good material in their later years.
Waits and Cave both released albums last year that I'd rank right as being at the top of their game.

Beefheart released two superb records shortly before he retired ("Shiny Beast" and "Doc At The Radar Station")

Disturbingly (for an old punk like me, anyway) I hear rumours that the reformed Buzzcocks latest is actually rather good. I don't know if there's any truth in those rumours though.
posted by Decani at 7:55 AM on May 5, 2006

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Robert Plant from Zeppelin. He was the archetypal 70's rocker, and his band is responsible for many of the seminal rock n roll songs.

The change in Robert Plant's music is amazing. It's astounding that someone capable of such great and well-written music during the 70's can write such crap today.
posted by Paul KC at 8:09 AM on May 5, 2006

ludwig_van: "Good albums don't come from rebellious attitudes, they come from musical inspiration and craft. Musicians whose output declines as they age aren't losing it because of some inherent inability of middle-aged people to rock; they're losing it because, in some ways, they were hacks to begin with."

Look, I'm not saying 'rebellious' attitudes, and I'm not really pointing up some sneer that good bands have to have. I'm talking more about an approach to life. You can probably see why: punk happened, and I'm trying to incorporate that, since it's what's most relevant to kids in my generation. The Feelies, Wire, the Fall, the Swell Maps, Pylon... the list goes on, bands that knew little to nothing about 'craft' and yet made generally beautiful music. That's because they aimed at a kind of music they needed not know-how but rather dedication and the fire and blaze of youth and an approach that was new. It's hard to categorize these groups, but that's how I'd do it. They are what I look to when I try to find life in current rock.
posted by koeselitz at 8:56 AM on May 5, 2006