NEWS: You're Never Too Old for Kool-Aid, so...

MUSIC: You're Never Too Old for Kool-Aid, so...

David Lister doesn't have the answer, and neither do I, but he asks the question: why can't rock stars of a certain age write good songs like they used to?



I'd quibble about including Dylan as evidence for the prosecution. It's a matter of taste, of course, but personally I'd pick practically anything off his last few albums over "Like a Rolling Stone," which is, honestly, probably my least favorite Dylan song. Nevertheless, the general point stands. And even if Dylan still writes great songs, he certainly does it less often than he used to. (Maybe that's a reflection of the song market as much as his declining powers - I really have no idea.)



So why isn't Pete Townshend stepping up as, in Roger Daltrey's words, "the chronicler of middle-age angst?"



My first reaction to reading this was to think, well after you've made your first million the impulse to make sure your songs are good might take on a little less urgency. But maybe there's more to it than that?



(via Largehearted Boy.)

hmm....it really depends on the artist
I don't think it's age as much as the AMOUNT of music you write.
whether it be over a period of decades or a period of months, most people only have so much really incredible music in them.

I'd take pre-1982 Bowie over post 1982-bowie, but only by a hair.

They get lazy. They get greedy. They lose the fire. They develop a comfortable formula. They're no longer surrounded by the circumanstances that inspired them. They're not desperate. They run out of ideas. Their original style becomes unfashionable. Their innovations are so widely copied that they're taken for granted. People get bored of them. They start to believe their own hype.

They can get some satisfaction.



[Edited on Sep 13, 2005 by Keith]

After a few hits, they aren't hungry anymore...there is no more desire. While some artists work on the sound of their music and the content suffers, some lean more towards the content and sound suffer...I say just listen to what you know, look for something great and don't think too much of those who "something/someone" cloud the once grandiose vision they had.

To add to Keith's post; their inspiration is gone and/or they sober up.

Thankfully, there are exceptions. The Indigo Girls' "Come On Now Social" is as good as anything they did in their heyday. Missy Elliott's new one still has the same spark her earlier work did. Dave Matthews Band's "Busted Stuff" stands up easily to "Crash" or "Under the Table". Faithless keeps putting out thoughtful music. But yes, too many great musicians have jumped the shark.

"...our house is a very, very, very fine house, with two cats in the yard, life used to be so hard..."

I've always wondered about this because it seems to be unique to rock artists. Classical composers, writers of all types, visual artists, they continue making masterpieces for decades. Often the quality of their work only grows over their lifetimes like Brahms for example. So why does it only happen to rock artists?

That's not saying much.




Sorry, I gave you the Indigo Girls but I had to stop you at DMB.

Or, it's partly because we get older, and we change, but the motifs of rock don't.

What's important to a 50 year old musician is not necessarily what was important to him at 25, but what rock music fans generally want to listen to is what's important at 25.

Some rockers burn out, some burn through their catalogue of good ideas, and some just don't bother trying anymore - but some, I think, just age.

Rock stays young, but rock stars don't.