In Defense of the Aging Musician
Does rock really have an expiration date?
When Grace Slick retired from music in 1990, she left by saying, “All rock-and-rollers over the age of 50 look stupid and should retire.” Yet, we continuously see plenty of our favorite rock stars taking to the stage and rocking the house, regardless of their age. But is Grace right? Does rock and roll really come with an expiration date?
Rock and roll was derived from the blues, which emerged in the deep south in the 1860s. The roots of the blues can be traced back even further, back to the music of Africa. The genre was pioneered by Black Americans — in a world that was all too ugly to them, the blues provided bits of beauty. The blues were a way to express difficult emotions as well as cope with them, and so, more often than not, blues singers and musicians were people who had lived through genuine struggle. In most cases, brilliant blues musicians weren’t teens coming of age with hope twinkling in their eyes — they were adults. Muddy Waters was 30 when he recorded his first album, while Lightnin’ Hopkins was 34 when he recorded his. Not ancient by any means, but considerably older than the young stars to come.
As the blues were picked up by other artists and molded to their liking, the genre slowly developed into what would become rock and roll. Rock, like the blues, would also evolve, birthing genres like punk, metal, prog, psych, alternative, and the list goes on. Unlike the blues, however, rock was characterized by being a part of youth culture. It was almost exclusively led and supported by youths, something that, up until that point, no one had ever seen before. Before the 50s, teens and children were to be seen and not heard. Now, however, they were loud, proud, and rebellious, growing out their hair and hiding satanic Beatles records under their floorboards.
The skyrocketing of The Beatles’ success was pushed almost entirely by teenagers, many of whom had become disillusioned with religion and turned towards something else to fill that void: music. The Beatles themselves were hardly adults when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show. At that time, John and Ringo were both 23 years old, while Paul was 21, and George was just 20.
As more rock bands entered the limelight, they were continually led by young people. Robert Plant was 20 when he joined Led Zeppelin, Keith Richards was 19 when he joined The Rolling Stones, and David Gilmour was 21 when he joined Pink Floyd. This pattern continued well after the 60s, too — Tommy Lee was 19 when Motley Crue released their debut album Too Fast For Love. Dave Grohl was the same age when Nirvana released Bleach. Kicking off wildly successful music careers at such young ages, however, has proven to come with one pitfall: the world would be watching as you age.
Aging is, inarguably, demonized. From anti-aging creams to Botox to facelifts, root coverup sprays to tummy tucks to micro-needling — people will do anything to cling to their youth. So when the entire world is watching you age, does there come a time to retreat from the limelight and sequester yourself away to grow old in shame? According to Grace Slick, yes — according to hundreds of other rock musicians, the answer is a resounding no.
In 2022, we have witnessed some of the world’s most beloved musicians return to the stage to do what they love. 80-year-olds Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson, 81-year-old Ringo Starr, 78-year-olds Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, and countless more have all returned to sold-out arenas packed with crowds of screaming fans. Their looks may have faded, but their passion remains an eternal flame. Passion is far more important than youth or even musical skill. A good musician has talent, but a great musician has passion. You can be a wickedly talented drummer, but if there’s no burning passion behind it, it has nowhere near the same effect as a beginner who lives to drum. Mick Fleetwood, for instance, is a prime example — he’s not a virtuoso by any means. He’s a self-taught drummer who, even in Fleetwood Mac, would lose the beat in bouts of what he called “rhythmic dyslexia.” His style is pretty straightforward and has hardly ever changed, but what makes him an astounding musician is his ferocity and dedication. He is perhaps one of the most impassioned and devoted drummers on the rock scene, and that is what granted him success. This, to me, is a universal rule in anything — passion comes first, and the talent part can be worked out later.
I conducted a poll in which I asked my audience a few questions on the topic of aging musicians. The results were both astounding and reaffirming. One thing to consider about the demographic of this poll is that it was largely made up of young people — teenagers and very young adults. When asked whether they thought good musicianship stemmed from talent or passion, 83% responded passion. When prompted with the question “When at a concert, do you believe it is more important for a musician to sound just like the studio recording or to put on a great show and have fun?” 92% agreed that it’s not important for the musician to sound perfect, that it’s all about the experience of being there. Instagram user @annamsnoww replied, “When I’ve seen an older artist, I’m so in awe of who it is that I don’t even notice or care if it’s not the same.” I wholeheartedly agree.
When asked if musicians should stop performing once they reach a certain age, 92% responded no. Instagram user @missdeedeemoon eloquently explained, “As a young rock fan who wasn’t able to see artists perform in their heyday, it is extremely special for me to see my favorite artists still performing after so many years! If the passion is still there, I’m all for it!” This point is one I find to be extremely important — young rock fans like myself weren’t able to see our favorite musicians perform during their prime. Many of us would move heaven and earth to have been there, but there’s very little we can do about being born too late. The fact that we have a chance to see these musicians at all is an honor, one that is, more often than not, taken for granted by older people.
This year, I’ve had the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see some of my favorite musicians live. I’m still reveling in the fact that I got to hear Robert Plant sing “The Battle of Evermore” in person, that I was in the audience as Motley Crue played “Home Sweet Home.” I watched in awe as Joan Jett played “I Love Rock N’ Roll,” as Poison played “Every Rose Has Its Thorn,” and as Def Leppard sang “Photograph.” These musicians are legends and I got to see them, I got to hear them in person. I still struggle to wrap my head around it. The prospect of being there is so exhilarating that I hardly noticed if the singer didn’t quite sound the same as they used to or if the guitarist flubbed a note. In all honesty, Joan Jett could’ve dropped her guitar mid-song and I still wouldn’t have cared. The magic of being there elevates the experience so much that silly mistakes or harsh critiques simply evaporate.
To experience these musicians perform live is almost emotional — there are so many musicians we lost far too soon, yet we often take for granted, or flat out rebuke, the ones who still play today. @cassidyyyyl said on this subject, “I hate criticism of musicians aging like normal people because we lost so, so, so many good musicians way too young and I would have loved to see them age.”
One can only imagine what Janis Joplin or Jimi Hendrix might have done today if we hadn’t lost them so soon, what Jim Morrison or Amy Winehouse could have accomplished if not for their untimely deaths. It’s for this reason that I refuse to miss any opportunity to see my favorite musicians live, regardless of their age or how they sound. People have routinely slammed artists like Paul McCartney or Vince Neil for not sounding the same as they did in their prime, often forgetting how lucky we are to still see them perform at all. Or worse, forgetting that these artists are just people. They, too, have dealt with their fair shares of trials and tribulations, regardless of how well off they seem because of their celebrity status. They, too, have loved and lost, struggled and triumphed, and have been molded by their experiences. We all change as we grow older, why do we expect performers to be exempt from this rule?
Most young people like myself would do anything to see their favorite musicians live. We don’t care how old they are or how perfect they sound; we care about the experience. The experience of witnessing our favorite musicians give it their all on stage, to feel the indescribable energy of being in the same room as them and witnessing their magic firsthand. In my experience, most criticism of aging musicians has come from older people. Perhaps this is because they watched as these artists changed, perhaps it’s because they had the chance to see these artists in their heyday, or perhaps, it’s because they, too, fear growing old. Whatever the reason, they can often be cruel, leaving comments berating Vince Neil for having gained weight, as if they aren’t peering over their beer bellies at their phones. They criticize the changing voice of Robert Plant as if he didn’t spend years screaming “Dazed and Confused” for crowds of thousands. As if he wasn’t quite literally labeled one of the best vocalists of all time. They speculate Mick Mars is faking his guitar playing on stage as if it’s not a miracle that he’s on stage at all due to his painful degenerative bone disease.
Rock and roll does not come with an expiration date. If you are passionate about something, whether that is music or something else entirely, you deserve to exercise that passion for as long as you’d like, up until your dying breath. What’s more, if you have built an entire career out of that passion, have accumulated millions of adoring fans, and created countless pieces of art, why should that be revoked with old age, as if aging deserves punishment?
This world can be terrifying. It’s filled with horrors and atrocities committed every single day. It is the least of our concerns whether Vince Neil can hit that note or sustain that phrase the same way he could 30 years ago. We all have a habit of taking lighthearted things far too seriously while ignoring the actual issues at hand.
At the end of the day, who cares if Paul McCartney doesn’t sound the same now as he did when he sang “Yesterday” for the first time? I, and many other young rock fans, surely don’t. I would give anything to hear him live, regardless of how he sounds. I will be in that audience, and I will be enchanted.
References:
(wikipedia is largely used solely for dates & ages referenced in this piece, everything else is of my own opinion and experiences)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muddy_Waters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues#Etymology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightnin%27_Hopkins
https://groovyhistory.com/david-gilmour-pink-floyd-syd-barrett
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Lee
