Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Long Live Rock

Right now I'm thinking that this guy could be 1000, and I'd still rock out at a Bon Jovi concert. That's probably because I'd be 1000 too, but that's not the point.

The point is that beside the fact that Jon Bon Jovi is a smokin' hot, stone cold fox (and I know I say that about a lot of my faves, but Bon Jovi ranks right up there next to My Tommy Brady) the dude STILL rocks. Hard. And tours, and makes new music, and deserves his place in Rock and Roll history. Dead or Alive. (a little Bon Jovi humor there)

The fact that Bon Jovi will turn 48 on March 2 means nothing to the rock gods in heaven. He's still sexy as HELL, rocks hard, fills stadiums, churns out hits regularly and his music still sounds hot. Heck, Bon Jovi even crossed over into another genre (country) and had a huge hit a few years ago. That's what I call staying power. The boys are still relevant.

So what's all the hub bub about aging rockers?

Look at The Rolling Stones. Mick and Keith and the boys just finished touring and wrapping up a Martin Scorsese documentary about the band and Mick is 66 and Keith is 65. Neither of them look bad for being dead, but you can't deny, the dude's still have it. Let's face it the Stones still rock, and the abundance of hot young ass thrown at their feet, to this day prove it. They don't even need to make any new music, their catalog of hits from decades ago stands alone and still has relevance. Because it's the music of many generations. It's the music we measured key moments in our lives by and it plays in the soundtrack of our memories. The Rolling Stones may just be untouchable.

So why was The Who's performance at the Super Bowl halftime show so greatly criticized?

Steven, (the dude looks like a lady), Tyler of Aerosmith is 62 and possesses arguably one of the greatest singing voices of all time. Lately, Tyler has seen better days. Rumored to be battling drugs and alcohol after a twenty five year period of sobriety, Tyler reportedly quit Aerosmith in November.
Yet right up until that time, Tyler and Aerosmith were churning out hits and selling out stadiums all over the world. Dare I say, Aerosmith may be more relevant now than ever in their forty year spanned career.

So what was it about The Who's performance at Sunday's Super Bowl that sparked this "when should old rockers say when" debate? Was it 65 year old Roger Daltry's short hair and bespectacled appearance? Was 64 year old Pete Townsend's sound not inspiring? Were they just not good?
I don't see how it's possible. Beside the fact that they "sold out" some of their music catalog to CBS for their Crown jewel CSI series, their music still stands alone. This Hall Of Fame band still has the chops and the music and is considered one of the most influential rock bands of all time. And if you were wondering, The Who has plans to release an new album in 2010 and a World Tour.
Say what you will about Green Day and rest, I give them props too. But I like my rock and roll served up with a heaping side helping of Rock and Roll Royalty.


RW said...

I was 18 years old in 1971 and caught the tail end of the Woodstock Phase. By 1976, at 23, I was there for the birth of true punk (Richard Hell and the Voidoids, Dead Kennedys, Sex Pistols, early Elvis Costello and such) and this represents the music I attached myself to more than the earlier stuff because I was totally in my prime at that point and not just trailing after the hippie-dippies of the Woodstock generation.

Now, in my 50's, I have no problem tuning into Emilie Autumn and I think Ludacris' "Stand Up" is fantastic.

For me it isn't "classic rock" and do I need to hold on to that - it's more "ok we did that, what's next?"

A hit of nostalgia is okay once in a while but I could never do a steady diet of it. The Who, I feel, belong to their era and just aren't relevant to me anymore. That was then. This was now. When I want that hit of nostalgia I'll turn to something from their era but that's that. And - as I am a hetero male type person - the relative residue of hotness of this or that aged rocker is basically a matter of complete indifference to me.

I'm not saying the old stuff is bad. It has it's place. I can still listen when in the mood for it. I wouldn't buy a ticket to a show, though. I've already seen it.

Show me something new now.

wigsf said...

Bon Jovi is from New Jersey. That is all.

Mrs. Holly Hall said...

interesting take on the situation.

i really didn't feel the who during the superbowl. I felt like the lights were doing a lot of work for them.

but then again, i don't have any emotional connection with the who, or the rolling stones.

beastie boys, pearl jam- the late eighties/early nineties stuff (NOT GREEN DAY DEAR GOD NO) is what is cemented in my mind when i think of bands that i love and will provide for me in my old age.

Led Zepplin though, the more I listen, the more i realize they are not your average 70's rock band. holy good lord with that band!

but, i give it up to the who. I just wished pete townsend would have tucked in his shirt. when he did the windmill he showed a little too much belly. that's all i'm saying.

B.E. Earl said...

I used to think like RW up there, but in the past 2-3 years I've found myself listening to more of my old music than anything new. First time in my life that has happened. But I've always listened to The Who. Quadrophenia is my favorite album of all time.

Anonymous said...

I think most of the hubbub about The Who's performance is because their last studio album (according to Wikipedia) was released in 2006, and the studio album prior to that was released back in 1982. There are two generations of people who may have heard of The Who, but don't know/relate to their music.

As for the age thing, I don't think there should be an age limit on rockin' out. Look at Tina Turner, she can blow them ALL away, and she's pushing 70, if not already.

The main point in all this I think is 'relevance' (Read: sex appeal). If a band or singer can keep themselves relevant it works to their advantage in life's popularity contest.

Bill Stankus said...

Remember, Roger Daltry and Pete Townsend were just part of the Who ...Keith Moon and John Entwistle have been dead a long time. So much for a 1964 band.

I saw them in their prime - Sunday, all it took was hearing a few notes and I left the room. Doing decades old stuff - poorly - was fingernails on a blackboard.

I think there was a bit of ghoulishness in watching them ... will one of them have a heart attack or stroke from all the excitement?

Surely the NFL can find some younger entertainerswho won't rattle their corporate empire? (Mustn't wrinkle "the Suits")

Candy's daily Dandy said...

@Corey James-Tina Turner? you. are. so. right.

I saw her this fall and I can testify that she still blows everybody away.

I was thinking on the way to work today...would i like to see a J Giles band reunion?

SkylersDad said...

The Who's work is an amazing collection, and they deserve all of the accolades they have received over the years.

But, they are not any good anymore. Daltry can't sing, and Townsend can't hear well enough to know how he is sounding.

I asked my brother in law who owns a recording studio outside of Seattle what he thought, and he backed up my claim that Townsend can't hear well enough to know when he is above or below pitch, or ahead or behind the rest.

BeckEye said...

My roommate's complaint was that they were lip synching, but I told him that pretty much all performers at the Super Bowl do now, even the ones who perform the national anthem, because of the acoustics and the noise. I think if you can still rock, then rock. And The Who still rocks. Roger Daltrey isn't Rod Stewart, who has turned into a cheesy lounge singer.

Andy said...

I get what you're saying, but they are choosing those aged rockers not because of their performance ability, but because they are the safe choice. If they had all this before Janet's nipplegate, that would be one thing. But the performances all have the cloud of the FCC hanging over them, so it's harder for me to believe it is what CBS or Fox really wanted.
And if it was just one or two every few years, great. I get it, and it's good music. But they disregard all types of other top performing acts in the process.

Captain Dumbass said...

If they can still make it work, it doesn't matter how old they are, but when its just half-assed because somebody has thrown a bucket load of money at them? Maybe it's time to give it up.

The Dental Maven said...

Remember that old saying that, "children should be seen and not heard?" Well, aged rockers "should be heard and not seen." Just sayin...

Furtheron said...

I was born the same year as Mr Bon Jovi... heck!

The Who played the Superbowl - bizzare.

One reason could simply be that The Who will always be a bit out of place in that kind of corporate arena - the music for them was as much rebellion and political statement as it was showmanship, they were the anti-Beatles in the UK in the 60s to a degree. Similar to how The Clash were much more a political band than the Pistols ever were. Therefore bands like them always have an attitude and rub up against the establishment. I wouldn't be surprised if that has more to do with it than anything else.

Won't get fooled again -- eh?