I listen to a lot of, er, vintage music--rock n roll vintage.
What has recently struck me is how YOUNG those guys were back when in the 60s and 70s.
To name the big names, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Larry Corryell, Leo Kottke and the Who.
Of course those guys were some years older than me, but not that much. Now I look at album covers and think, jeez, this guy was considered the hot shot [name your instrument or vocal] yet he was only into his 20s.
Now these guys are in their late-50s or 60s. The Stones, my gawd, Mick looks like something dug up from the grave, and do his partners.
Not sure where this is going. But, dang me, they do look so very young on their early albums.

did we ever look that young? And do we look that old now? Damn!

Some of them refuse to admit they aren't young studs anymore. I see members of the Scorpions in leather pants and open shirts and my skin crawls. They were hot studs in 1980. They are geriatric dowagers now.

Plus some of these guys live very, very, very hard lives .....

I'm just glad I'm still damn* good looking in my upper 40's .... :thumbsdn:

When I went to college to play FB, I weighed 227 at my playing weight. For track shot putter I bulked up to the upper 230s. After breaking my shoulder bone (can't remember the one, but out from the neck and where the shoulder socket is) and the last of 5 knees, I quit trying to play. I loved to play, shheett.
I quit eating like I was trying to maintain mass, and eventually dropped down to about 160--what I weighed as a freshman in HS. In 2000 when I had back surgery, I weighed 158. Now, gulp, I weigh 200. Dog got old, then died, and those LONG walks are history.
Don't know what this has to do with anything, but damn the years keep spinning on by whatever we try to do, eh?

Jeez, I was 15 when I started going to concerts, other than the ones my parents took me to. I had hair, no wrinkles and i was a lot thinner.

My friends and I tried to watch the Stones on HBO a few years back but we had to change the channel. We all remember them from 69 and some of my friends saw them in 65 when they played the Academy of Music, a small venue, and it was like watching a bunch of Street Fighting Old Farts prancing around on the stage.

By and large rockers don't age well. Doo woppers age more gracefully.

The thing I find funny is that these guys were in their 20's when they recorded some of
the stuff we're still listening to. I've been playing guitar since I was 12, and I'm 37 now; I listen to the stuff I wrote in my 20's and cringe-WTF? Wrong drugs? I think I write a lot better now than I did then. Really makes me feel like an underacheiver though, to think Mick & Keith wrote "Jack Flash" when they were about 25-26.
The Beatles were the same age, roughly, when "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" came out. I think Townshend was the same age when he wrote "Tommy". Springsteen too, for that matter with "Born to Run". Sigh. I guess it helps when that's all you have to do all day and don't have to worry about the rent or the car insurance.
I remember back at about 22 taking some 'shrooms, plugging the guitar in, and waiting for MY psychedelic masterpiece to come floating out of the spheres. When they hit, I just fell off the amp laughing. Some revelation.
Dan

It's interesting that as many rockers age, they tend to age badly, but the bluesman tend to, somehow, seem even better. John Mayall is now in his 70s, for example.

As an amateur songwriter, I am constantly amazed at what Buddy Holly accomplished both as a performer and writer by the ripe old age of 22. If there are any nominations for best age to accomplishment ratios, I'm all ears...

When I was in college, I had hair down to my shoulder blades.

The only hair on my shoulders now is the little that's left falling out. No "hipster" pony tail for me, thank you.

I like hats (http://pops-hat.blogspot.com/).

When they hit, I just fell off the amp laughing. Some revelation.


Boy that brings back memories...some fond.

dear pmsummer-- a) worth-walden, a fixture in my neighborhood since i was a child, is gone. jefferson blvd is now el mercado from one end to the other. not complainin', just sayin' and b) did you go to UD? i'm thinkin'....you did. same here, sr. 75

dear pmsummer-- a) worth-walden, a fixture in my neighborhood since i was a child, is gone. jefferson blvd is now el mercado from one end to the other. not complainin', just sayin' and b) did you go to UD? i'm thinkin'....you did. same here, sr. 75

RIP, Worth-Walden. Dang.

I went to UD for some Graduate work in the mid-eighties. I think I went mainly because of O'Neil Ford (even though I was studying theology). UT and SFAI in the seventies. LHHS '69.

PM

Back on topic: I watched the Super-fixed Bowl this year with a bunch of friends in their 30s and 40s. I was positively EMBARRASSED to see Mick Jagger prancing around onstage like an extra from The Night of the Living Dead remake. He made Iggy Pop look healthy.

What puzzles me is why their musicmanship peaked so young. The Stones really peaked in the early 70's, the Beatles peaked, well, when they ended. Why is it they can't write or play as well? Lots of other musicians keep creatively strong into their late years of life, but many of the "great" bands of the 60's and 70's just make mediocre music, if they do anything at all. Not to beat up the Stones here, but does Bigger Bang come close to Exile on Main St.?

My first thought is that kids? were more mature back then. People had to grow up and do adult things at an earlier age. You think anyone today in their early 20's will have a mortgage and kids? Good luck with that! Now, young people wait til their 30's to start a life.
I listen to some older stuff... I keep forgetting that Blondie, Linda Ronstadt, and Heart's Wilson sisters are in their 50's now, as compared to their 20's. The music doesn't age for me... but mentally I forget the artists do.
Tom

Not to beat up the Stones here, but does Bigger Bang come close to Exile on Main St.?


In my humble opinion, HELL NO!
Maybe it has to grow on you, but I haven't listened to BB more than 3 times.
I guess I don't want to!
Can't say that about Exile on Main St.

Hi Guys,

Wonderful thread :-)

I am listening to "Whole Lotta Love" by Jimmy/Plant. The other day, I saw Jimmy on VH1 prancing about showing off his dancing skills rather than playing! He was all dressed up and dancing about like a mime. When he does play; it's mostly a statement that he has got better. Something is missing and that is; his fears are making him move and not love. I saw Mick Jagger on VH1 stage and was embarassared myself hahahahahha :-))))

A man gets old, fear sets in and he tries to outdo his fears by living in spite of it, hoping it would go away. Heheheheh :-) It never does .... only knowledge of the knowledge that knows that knowledge is not needed to know knowledge can remove fear ....

But I love Jimmy/Plant and Mick/Keith so ..... as Mick says "It's all rock n roll to me ...."

Thanks :-)
cosmicdust.

.... only knowledge of the knowledge that knows that knowledge is not needed to know knowledge can remove fear ....


My brain is smoking.
Every time I think I understand, it smokes a little more.
Is this a sign I'm getting it? :confused: :o :D

hahahahahah :-)))

A man gets old, fear sets in and he tries to outdo his fears by living in spite of it, hoping it would go away. Heheheheh :-) It never does .... only knowledge of the knowledge that knows that knowledge is not needed to know knowledge can remove fear ....
Thanks :-)
cosmicdust.

Well gearhead, Dusty lost me too...

Poetry of any sort usually does :smoke:

What puzzles me is why their musicmanship peaked so young. The Stones really peaked in the early 70's, the Beatles peaked, well, when they ended. Why is it they can't write or play as well? Lots of other musicians keep creatively strong into their late years of life, but many of the "great" bands of the 60's and 70's just make mediocre music, if they do anything at all. Not to beat up the Stones here, but does Bigger Bang come close to Exile on Main St.?


Justen,

Maybe it has something to do with this specific type of music. I think that classic rock bands seemed to generally have a limited shelf life. They almost all have a period of time during which they peaked as live performers and as writers. And it's not just the individual musical talents that are key, but rather the way they all came together at that specific moment when these bands were on top of their game. When a band comes out with a big album that showcases it's sound, it can be a real challenge to keep it up on successive albums. It either happens or it doesn't.

I think some of it has to do with the drugs. The lifestyle just is not compatible with longevity for an artist/band that is a musician and a composer. For example Led Zeppelin were phenomenal from 69-72 onstage. In the later 1970s they really took a nosedive. The hard lifestyle must take a toll on the creative element. As a rocker, maybe you can only juggle and keep all the balls in the air while you are in your 20s.

In the modern era of rock there has been so many fads and gimmicks in addition to the music (ie think of costumes and makeup), that probably help to make these artists run out of gas pretty early in the game. The good news (bad news?) is that they have a second tank that allows them to relive their salad days by touring endlessly. If we're lucky, they will only play a couple tracks from their most recent attempt at making a new album, which is generally terrible.

I think that period of time from '68 to '78'ish was absolutely amazing. It pretty much directed my taste in music and is huge part of my collection.
It seems like raw talent and creativeness just exploded and changed the direction of music forever. Legends like Jimi, Janis, Jefferson Air, Cream, The Who, Stones, Beatles, Doors, CSN, King K, Led Zep, etc., etc. etc., established a whole new set of "standards". Sure, there's plenty of 'good' new music today, but nothing that sets new standards like that timeframe did. I was lucky to be in HS & college in the early & mid-seventies and fortunate to see lots of them live. Some of the aging artists may be a little less able to deliver now, but I think they've earned their place in History and the right to do whatever they want do do. So what if some look goofy.

Entire post IMHO, of course. Each to his own.

I thought my wife just 86'd the album (oh-oh), but she actually restarted the track and cranked it up. Life is good.

The most bizarre old rocker has to be Sly Stone. A major R & B/funk innovator in the late 60s/early 70s. He looked like death warmed over with a Mohawk at the Grammy awards this year. Sad what years of cocaine and PCP can do.

I think that period of time from '68 to '78'ish was absolutely amazing. It pretty much directed my taste in music and is huge part of my collection.


I pretty much agree with you, for me it was from the release of 'Rubber Soul' in 1965 to the death of John Bonham in 1979 and the break-up of Led Zeppelin. That was the greatest period in Rock music. :music: