Part of the joke, of course, is that Peter Wolf is pretty fucking good. Check out the album ‘Midnight Souvenirs’ to hear for yourself.
I don’t know about all this. There is a real point to the criticism of old rockers, and their fans. Rock and Roll never was purely about the music, as art, it has always mainly been about youth and sex, and indeed, about youth giving the finger to the older generation, and reveling in its own exuberant sexuality. There is something pathetic about going through those same old motions, either as artist or audience, and no matter how skillfully it is done, when one is old oneself. Enjoyment of “oldie rock” has much more to do with nostalgia for lost youth than with the very different emotions it aroused when it was fresh and its fans were young.
I speak as someone who is (and always has been) almost as old as The Rolling Stones. I am not young and exuberant any more. I admit it.
Well put, njtt.
When I was in fifth grade, in 1980, I wrote an English class composition about how Mick Jagger was admirable because he was willing to rock out even in his old age.
He was 36 at the time! 70 is something else altogether.
And I don’t know about that. Sure, R&R was about giving the finger to the establishment…and what if the establishment says you’re not supposed to be sexual and rocking out when you’re 70? What’s more in the spirit of R&R than saying “Fuck you” to people who don’t approve of how you’re living your life?
Tens of thousands didn’t come just to see her. It was Glastonbury outdoor concert, so the bill of musicians was fairly extensive and Blondie was not the headlining act.
FTR, I’m as wistful and nostalgic for my days of youth as the next guy. That’s why watching Blondie now is anti-thetical to those memories. It reminds me of the one thing I’ve come to understand too well: (almost) nothing good comes with age. 
You’re right; it’s not at all what I meant. I cringe to the same extent watching pasty and fleshy Duran Duran up on stage. Along with many other aging rock musicians.
I think njtt’s post hits the nail on the head. Like it or not,a certain dignity imposes itself on you as you age. The more you fight it by hanging on to your glory days, the more ridiculous you look. Trying to recapture your youth 30 to 40 years down the road makes a mockery of both your youthful self and your current self. They both deserve better.
Please, that’s something that Boomers tell themselves to puff up their already overinflated egos.
“We had Woodstock, man! We knew what rock and roll was about! It’s 45 years later and nobody rocks we did! Because I’m a rock expert, man! My opinion on anything is all that matters! Shit, when did I become ‘The Man’?”
But that’s not what njtt’s is saying. Every generation had its heydays. Every generation has its rockers and rebels. But if you’re still rebelling about the same damn thing 30 years down the road, you begin to look a little pathetic.
Who’s rebelling? Rock hasn’t been about “rebellion” since… well, ever. I’m sure these lads absolutely made people scared with their matching suits and perfectly combed hair and inoffensive music.
Some rock musicians might be about rebellion, but most aren’t and most never were.
Hey, it hasn’t bothered Joe Biden.
Perhaps you were listening to the wrong kind of rock?.. 
Rebellion has always existed in music. Unless you’re into REO Speedwagon, I guess. It’s one of the most common F.U.'s that the current generation can effectively offer the previous generation. Sure it’s impotent and temporary and the pattern repeats itself with every new generation, but rebellion is the message.
Just because this applies to some rockers doesn’t mean it’s essential to Rock and/or Roll itself.
In the 50s and 60s, rock itself was young, and therefore many rockers were young, and their attitude and material reflected this.
I’m not at all convinced that rock and roll is all about anger and rebellion.
Was Fats Domino angry? Was he a rebel? No- he was a nice guy playing fun songs.
Was Elvis giving the finger to the older generation? The polite young Southern boy who doted on his Mama, went to church, and always called his elders “sir” and “ma’am”?
Were the Everly Brothers angry rebels fighting against The Man? Was Buddy Holly?
Was Chuck Berry seething and snarling as he duck-walked?
What about a proto-rocker like Louis Jordan? Was “Caldonia” his way of raging against the System? Or was he acting silly and having FUN?
To me, that’s the key- are older acts still putting on a good show, and are they still fun to watch? If they are, let them perform until there’s nobody left who wants to pay to see them.
Completely agree. Nobody should get the hook off the stage because someone else feels they’ve peaked long ago and are no longer relevant. If people want to see Blondie and Duran Duran, by all means, buy the ticket and see the show. But it doesn’t invalidate my point, which is that watching some of these acts now makes me a little sad for them.
I do also want to make this point… When show producers put on an event that has the following roster of contemporary bands: Glastonbury 2014, it’s unlikely the people who attend these kinds of things will opt out because they think Blondie is years past their prime. They’re going to see a variety of bands and if Blondie is among them, so be it. People will recognize and enjoy the music. But my feeling is that the won’t find them as relevant. Caveat being, this is music and what’s *relevant *is very subjective anyway.
Certain songs may sound silly or creepy, coming from old men. “Hope I die before I get old” carries less impact when you’re already 70. “Christine Sixteen” might sound edgy coming from a 30-year-old man, but from a senior citizen it sounds a little pathetic.
ON the other hand, songs about having 8-tracks and cassettes, and Richard Pryor on the video can be played for nostalgia value in a warm-hearted way, I think.
To my mind, the issue is whether they are growing, changing as musicians.
Take the example of Johnny Cash: he was recording music right to the end, and his stuff when he was elderly was, in my opinion, better than his stuff when he was young - his voice, as it aged, grew in character, and he took on more and different genres. There is nothing “pathetic” about hearing his stuff performed as an older man - rather, it is moving.
ON THE OTHER HAND - artists who do nothing but perform the same old hits they had when they were young, over and over, for decades - well, that has got to be kinda sad. Being stuck in one groove, set when you were young, and never being able to leave it - that is unfortunate. Particularly if the “groove” in question happens to be a celebration of youthful exuberance, sexuality, and/or rebellion.
Very much this.
Sting and U2 are other such examples from the same era. I was a fan of the early stuff but less so in more recent years. But they have continued to create new music and even though I’m no fan of their current work, I recognize that they have evolved.
I like Rush’s take on this:
:DThis. I’m a huge, unabashed Alice Cooper fanatic, but I came to be so late in his career, around 2005. If he’d have stopped doing what he loved only during his heyday (which I would’ve been too young for), I’d have never gotten to see him live (sadly, it’s only been twice anyway, but that’s irrelevant) and my crush would’ve been relegated to just his 70s hits. So, I’m grateful he’s still putting himself out there, putting on some of the most kick ass concerts ever. People should do what they still can.
And rock ‘n’ roll as rebellion? Puleeze. Only some to some. I don’t listen to classic rock because it reminds me of my youth (because in those days, I was very much the fundamentalist who only listened to Christian music), but because the beats are catchy, I know all the words and it makes me happy. That’s all that matters. Everything else seems like pretentious claptrap to me.
Seems to me the difference in approach depends on whether one is viewing music as an art, or as a craft.
If one is viewing music as an “art”, and musicians as “artists”, it is sort of sad to see them doing the same old thing they did thirty years ago - no growth, no change.
OTOH, if one is viewing music as a “craft” and musicians as “craftspersons”, then as long as they are still putting bums on seats, what’s the problem? No-one finds it “sad” that a chair-maker is still making the same chairs 30 years later - as long as they are comfy, and sell well. Presumably, after they are finished a day’s work, they wash up, take their pay, and go home to their partners and families, happy with a day’s work well done.
You’re being sarcastic, but you are totally wrong. The Dave Clark Five, however dated they may look to you now, were totally part of what was upsetting the establishment and the parental units in the early to mid '60s. For one thing, hair like that was still outrageously long in '63 (their peak). The Beatles wore suits too, and much of their music was a lot softer than Dave Clark’s, but there really were people who thought they spelled the end of civilization.
The Dave Clark Five sucked, but they used a much heavier beat (even more primitive and animalistic, as was said back then) than The Beatles, and, for a brief moment, in 1963 Britain, before The Stones really caught fire, they were the cutting edge, “worse than The Beatles”, of long-haired, negro influenced music to scare your parents with.
And I am totally not saying that youth rebellion was only something that happened for the boomers, in the '60s. So far as I can see, each successive generation has had its own version, often ratcheting up the level each time. That is why the older versions, like Dave Clark’s look so tame now to those who don’t know their history. Of course, part of each generation’s rebellion is rebelling against, and sneering at, the earlier versions of youth rebellion. By sneering at boomers, you fit right into the pattern.