Do rock stars just dry up?

uglymusic

This discussion was created from comments split from: Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, Hall & Oates and Stevie Ray Vaughan back catalogues.

Docfoster

Wasnt Bob in the Travelling Wilburys? Surely his finest hour, start there! )

I'm afraid there are very few great (pop/rock) musicians who preserve any quality at all beyond a certain age. Certainly those that continue to insist on writing their own material into their 40s, 50s and 60s are usually a travesty of their former greatnesses. (Please note 'usually'. I am sure that there are some exceptions, perhaps with those who stumble across a new exotic genre (Paul Simon?), or stick to basically the same old stuff (BB King, etc.,...).)
There is plenty of brilliant stuff in the Wilburys back catalogues, and I'm sure they hugely enjoyed working together, but it was a mistake for anyone at the time, or now, to assume that what they were doing together in the early 90s had very much to do with their individual work 20 or 30 years earlier.

It's hardly a pretty and impressive vista is it...?

uglymusic

Very few. 

Having had a quick scan through my collection, I'm left with thinking about David Sylvian (he's been experimenting with all kinds of genres, including integrating song with free improv) and perhaps Tom Waits, but his last album wasn't one of his best.

However, the story is very different in jazz. I'm not just talking about the cocktail stuff. Some of the oldies are playing some of the outest (if that's a word) jazz around. Their art just continues to evolve as the years go by.

Docfoster

Very few. 

Having had a quick scan through my collection, I'm left with thinking about David Sylvian (he's been experimenting with all kinds of genres, including integrating song with free improv) and perhaps Tom Waits, but his last album wasn't one of his best.

However, the story is very different in jazz. I'm not just talking about the cocktail stuff. Some of the oldies are playing some of the outest (if that's a word) jazz around. Their art just continues to evolve as the years go by.

The jazz thing occured to me (tho' I don't have your encycolpeadic knowledge of jazzers) when I typed that, this my insertion of 'pop / rock'. Not sure about classical composers. It's an interesting issue. May be pop/rock music is somehow more defined by its youthfulness and by its exponents being youthful than is the case in other genres. May be there a sense in which other genres are more actually and self-consciously 'serious'/'scholarly'/'learned'/'skilled', and so youthfulness alone is not sufficient or even desirable.

uglymusic

Or maybe with rock/pop the genre is more limited so that artists just hit the limits comparatively early in their career and end up repeating themselves.

uglymusic

Talking about stars drying up. I had the misfortune to hear the latest Madonna album, MDNA, today.

She's still trying to play the same shock schlock she played in the 80s, and it just sounds stupid from someone her age. For someone who reputedly stays at the top of her game by constantly changing, she's stuck in a rut so deep she can't see out the top of it.

Docfoster

she's stuck in a rut so deep she can't see out the top of it.

Actually Dave, I think you'll find she's got into the groove (boy).

Jim

I think a lot of them dry out eventually
)

uglymusic

I was waiting for that one from the time I put the thread up :-)

Alan

Sometimes they go back to their roots - the new Dr John is a return to the hoodoo of yesteryear. According to the linear notes, Mac is very pleased with it, but on a brief couple of listens I think the old stuff is way better. I'll have to give it a fairer go, but I cant share his enthusiasm just yet.