15 of 151

Timeless

Write now Article Tools

What's that saying about beauty being in the eye of the beholder? I think that can also be applied to this question or debate of whether certain aging rockers are too old to perform.

But one thing that is not up for debate is the fact that the music they created in their prime, is not only timeless, but still as relevant and important. As a person who lived their teenage years in the 70's, I'm constantly amazed at the number of teens today who wear the same rock T-shirts I wore 30 years ago. Look around anywhere, and the faces of Jim Morrison, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, and Bob Marley (just to name a few) adorn the chests of so many of today's youth that you'd think you were back in the 70's.

And there's no question that albums such as Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road, Let it Bleed, and Sticky Fingers continue to make an impression on listeners forty years or so after they were recorded and released. But the question here is do we care to see a bunch of older guys hopping around on stage as they try to prove they still have what it takes to rock?

My view is it's entirely up to the individual paying the ticket price, and if there's a demand for these older artists to perform, then why not? It's not like they're professional athletes competing physically with youngsters in their prime. In fact, it could be argued that the older musicians are just as qualified (or maybe more so) in playing their instruments as they've had decades of practice.

I attended a reunion concert of 80's superstars the Police earlier this year, and I went to the show with limited expectations. I assumed the band might be less than talented or enthused during this tour after a 20 year hiatus. But much to my pleasant surprise I found the opposite was true as I witnessed one of the best concerts of my entire life, plus the band members now seemed much happier and looked like they loved being up on stage in front of the adoring fans they had been separated from for so many years.

And that's really all that matters, because for some of us, music is a love affair that is so much a part of our lives that age just doesn't matter. I would still pay to see certain aging rock performers if there was a desire to do so, and the only thing that would matter is the music. Besides, Mick and Paul look pretty good for guys in their 60's anyways, and nobody ever got on John Lee Hooker or B.B. King's case for performing, and they were way older than the other guys. Even Frank Sinatra toured late in his life, and I don't think I ever heard of a show not selling out.

So if the artists we love want to continue to perform, and we as fans are prepared to shell out the money to watch them, then everything else is simply irrelevant. Except of course to tabloid publications that are obsessed with trying to embarrass or denigrate celebrities in any way possible, and to earn a buck in doing so.

Learn more about this author, Shane Christensen.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Are aging rock superstars like Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones timeless or too old to perform on stage anymore? ?
We want to hear your view. Write now!