I’ve seen many old blues artists perform in their 70s, 80s, and 90s (I hung out with Pinetop Perkins before a show two years before he died at 98). They all toured out of pure economic necessity. After a show in Pittsburgh, Koko Taylor looked like she might need an ambulance, although sipping water and fanning herself eventually helped settle things down.
Cher is 67. Am I missing something here? Surely the royalty checks are still coming in, right? It’s just hard imagining a 67 year old woman wanting to sing Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves.
It is what performers like Cher do. Jeez, look at Joan Rivers - gorgeous Park Avenue apartment = plenty of money, and she still does those awards runway shows.
She probably wouldn’t know what to do with herself if she didn’t perform regularly…
Tom Petty is 62 and said he’s going to tour until he’s dead (or is physically unable to). It’s his passion. Of course the difference is that as far as I know Cher isn’t constantly on tour. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers seem to always be on tour or at least be out and about playing gigs.
Actually looking at wiki, she’s been at Caesars Palace for the last 3 years (192 shows). So it’s not like she’s been taking it easy. My guess is that that wrapped up in 2011, she took a year off, probably did some writing and recording, then put together this tour which starts next year. It’s not like she’s been inactive for the last 20 years and decided she need a quick 5 million to dig herself out of a hole.
Except that doesn’t hold up often. It’s not like Cher - I presume - isn’t delivering the goods in her shows.
That does happen somethings, though. The reports from Sinatra’s final tour were that he couldn’t sing and sometimes lost the thread of songs in mid-stream and had to start over. I hope we’d all agree that at such a point a retirement is called for.
Still, if you can deliver a quality show and people want to see them, I see little reason musicians shouldn’t go out on tour. Should they suddenly decide to STOP making money because someone thinks they’re too old? I certainly don’t think so.
Heck, Rush is still touring, clearly don’t need the money after seeing millions of records over 40 years and selling out shows for that same amount of time. Should they stop what is a more rigorous schedule - they do the full road show thing and not many many dates in Vegas or New York - just because they’re no longer 27?
My guess it that nothing gives her a rush like hearing screaming fans calling her name. She could stay at home and roll around naked on her pile of money, but without an audience, it wouldn’t be satisfying. Of course, if she set up a webcam…
I gotta assume it’s like all the other performers who have more money than they’d ever need (especially given their age) and haven’t created anything new in many years; They’ve gotten used to the touring lifestyle. They don’t know what to do with themselves sitting at home because they’ve never learned how.
About two years ago I had a conversation with a 60ish supermarket cash register clerk. She had just seen Cher in concert and raved about how good the show was, how energetic Cher was, etc. I said when you think about, Cher (and Sonny too) has had one of the most interesting show business careers of the last 50 years. They both had success, and setbacks, but always kept moving on to find something that works.
Her new album just debuted at #3 on the Billboard 200 chart. Her highest solo album debut ever. Not exactly a sign of being washed up.
If I had an album that reached #3, let alone debuted there, I’d think that touring would be something that a lot of fans would appreciate.
I don’t see whether she needs more money is an issue. A lot of performers continue to perform long after being rich enough. Does Harrison Ford need to make more movies? (But I’m sure concerts, even for Cher, bring in a lot more money than album sales.)
As far as voice quality and live performance goes, since so many 20 year old singers lipsync during concerts and get away with it, I’m sure she doesn’t technically have to sing live. Plus Bob Dylan has already set the bar for how bad one can sing and still sell tickets.
I, for one, cannot even begin to imagine just how addictive the sound of 20,000 people all screaming that they love you can be. My wife is the only person who tells me that she loves me, and I can’t imagine living without that. Multiply that by 20,000?
I’m going to go ahead and assume that it ain’t cheap to keep her in the style she’s become accustom to. Also performers ARE performers because they need attention. And, the ever true, fame is THE most addictive drug ever.
Age doesn’t necessarily stop someone performing well, either, as the references to old bluesmen earlier makes clear. Buddy Guy is 77, and playing and singing as well as ever, just to pick one example. I’m not a fan of Cher, but there’s plenty of people who are, and of various ages as she’s been successful for many years, in many styles. As long as she wants to perform and people want to see her, she should keep going.
Hell yes! My wife and I saw Howard “Louie Bluie” Armstrong at Rosa’s here in Chicago, and he must have been 90 or very near it. And he was playing his pick-up band off the stage - a couple of kids in their 30s who kept wanting to take a break.
Also, survival of the fittest. If you can handle the road for more than 30 years, there is little short of a nuclear strike from orbit that will take you out. Some friends toured opening for the Dirty Dozen Brass Band, and said that they learned their lesson about trying to keep up with these guys when they were partying after a show.
