1 of 151

Timeless

Write now Article Tools

It's a conundrum. Or, to put it in terms of a record, it's an "A" side and a "B" side. On the "A" side, there's nothing more pathetic than a fat. balding guy with a guitar, poured into tight pants and a ripped t-shirt, trying to recapture his former glory onstage. Flip the disc, however, and you have to admit that there's nothing more inspiring than seeing a favorite performer who can still "bring it" even as he or she approaches retirement age.

I come down on the side of enjoying the rockers who can still rock in their fifth and sixth decades. I admit that rock-n-roll is about young people, about energy, about breaking the rules - and that's no place for a senior citizen. But rock is about other things, too. It's about getting onstage and doing your best. It's about spreading joy. It's about memories and about being together. It's about exploring new types of music and new themes, as you gain experience over your lifetime. In those ways, rock and age work beautifully together; you might call it the "rock of the ages."

The question isn't so much should an aging rocker stop performing. The heart of the matter is whether the performer still has the energy, presence, and musicianship to put on a quality performance. In recent years, I've seen great shows by The Stones, Bruce Springsteen (nearly 60 years old, by the way), and James Brown (now deceased). And I've seen pathetic performances by others who I won't embarrass by name.

Furthermore, I've seen blues legends like Muddy Waters put on great shows while nearly 80 years old. Was Muddy moving around the stage like a teenager? Of course, not. He sat on stool, played gentle songs, and told stories. And then every once in a while, his face would light up, he'd snap to attention, and he'd send his fingers flying across the strings. The show was as artistically pleasing and dynamic as I could have wished to see.

So the point is for each musician to take a good, hard look at himself, and decide if he can still give the public what it expects. Some performers have stayed in good condition - Mick Jagger, Springsteen, and Jimmy Cliff come to mind. Some surround themselves with excellent support that takes some of the burden off - Madonna is a good example. Some didn't rely on energy as much as they do on their other talents, such as songwriting and vocalizing - like James Taylor or Van Morrison. Van's voice is still intact, so let's bring it on. Maximize your strengths, and minimize your weaknesses.

The other issue for performers as they age is whether they want to do their decades-old tunes, and thus become essentially a greatest-hits and oldies tour, or whether they want to keep exploring new material. It's definitely better to keep writing songs and exploring new ideas. Springsteen and Bob Dylan are masters at this, and it's why they are still relevant decades after hitting the big-time. It's even OK for a performer to shift styles a bit, as Muddy Waters did in the performance I saw.

Where does it end? Will Springsteen perform in a wheelchair some day? Well, I doubt it. But for anyone who saw 89-year-old Pete Seeger come onstage during the celebration concert for Barack Obama, the idea of age as a limit for a performer is hard to define. Pete stood out there in the cold - I was there, so I know it was cold - in a flannel shirt and a funky knit cap, and he did a beautiful rendition of "This Land is Your Land," in tandem with Springsteen. If you can still do it, then you should.

Learn more about this author, B. B. James.
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!