In the
last five days I've read three separate articles about how music is
for the young.
The first
one was claiming that pop music is obsolete for anyone over the age
of twenty seven, another that punk's for rebellious teenagers, –
quite specific that one with the punk window only being open for
those between thirteen and nineteen – and the last was stating that
in general anything original only appeals to those who are under
thirty.
These
articles come along every once in a while in a manner akin to buses.
You don't
see one for ages, and then three arrive at the same time, but what is
the purpose of them?
Apart
from the obvious, and that's that they're old arguments being dusted
down and used as filler for some column inches, do they actually have
any credence?
Is the
appreciation of music to be treated on some level like Logan's Run.
Should we
have a crystal implanted into our palms that counts down the time
that we have left to listen to new music, and then when it shines a
certain colour are we to be relegated to the rut of only every
listening to the evergreen hits of our own youth?
Should
fresh new music never darken our doorway again?
Frankly
it's a ludicrous assertion.
Why
should there be age barriers to the enjoyment of listening to music,
any music?
Can you
imagine if we were to transfer that argument across to other forms of
entertainment.
We would
have men in their thirties talking about the first three Die Hard
films, but carrying a sense of emptiness around with them as the
fourth came out just after the cut off point for action films.
The
upside of this is of course that they may have just managed to miss
the Star Wars prequels and the last Indiana Jones film, but I
digress.
How about
books?
How
frustrating would it have been if Rowling released the final Harry
Potter novel a month after the birthday that signalled the end of
reading fantasy books?
WHAT THE
HELL HAPPENED TO HARRY?
Who is
going to sit the twenty-something down and tell them that the future
only holds Patricia Cornwell and the occasional Nick Hornby novel for
them?
Lets turn
this around as well.
If we
reach a certain age and are to be excluded from listening to new
songs by younger artists then why should we let younger ears listen
to the stuff that we grew up on?
The
Beatles were still together when I was a kid so I can listen to them,
but the Clash split up before the birth of my son so he will have to
leave the room if I want to blast out some 'Know your rights'.
It's only
fair.
If they
want to keep the new stuff for themselves, then maybe we should wrap
the older artist in a tight embrace and exclude the young from
listening to them.
We can
see who will break first and want to share.
I'll have
The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Clash, The Sex
Pistols and more.
They will
have JLS, Justin Beiber and Coldplay.
Seems a
tad unfair doesn't it?
Okay I'm
weighting that in favour of us oldies, but you get the point.
Anyway
these articles promoting this ageist crap are really empty of logic.
Of course
certain styles of music are rebellious calls to arms, and ultimately
designed to piss off the older generation, but isn't there a kid
inside us all that still wants to stick two fingers up to the
generation that came before us, and why shouldn't we indulge that
inner kid with some punk, some dubstep, or even LMFAO with their hit
about vitamin D deficiencies leading to softening of the bones and
how that lends itself to a shufflin' gait.
No one is
even saying that when we all get to a certain age we must keep our
minds open to everything that is being churned out, but hell, I want
the right to keep listening, and I can't see anyone coming along with
a piss poor nonsensical argument that is going to stop me.
Apart
from that I reckon the young artists are quite happy to get the
revenue that we slip in their pockets every time we buy one of their
CDs, attend a gig, or the worst cardinal sin of all for the ageist
journalists who churn this bollocks out.......buy a groups t-shirt
and wear it in public.
It's something we've been trying to get across for ages, that bands who were 18 in '77 can still make credible 'new' music when they hit 50. It's a tough call though when you see the likes of Rebellion Festival acts who are, let's be honest, just churning out all their old songs to a, more or less, nostalgia crowd. They have no intention of trying something new or even making new records. It's just a nostalgia trip. Frankly I think there is nothing more pathetic to look at than a 50 year old bald bloke dressed in tartan bondage trousers trotting out 30 year old shouty/macho songs that were shite back then. These are the people I believe are being critisised. People like Bowie, Neil Young and many others have proved that you can still make vibrant and valid music well into your 50's, and normally leaving people half their age stuttering in their wake. As for the people who write these articles, let them show us the younger acts who are treading new ground, who are causing a stir and who are making a difference. I suspect they have trouble filling the fingers of one hand.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't have much of an issue with bands retreading old ground for either a nostalgia audience, or for young fans who weren't able to see them first time around.
ReplyDeleteSeeing The Stooges do Raw Power and Mott the Hoople playing live gave me a huge kick.
The bottom line is that no one is making the punters go.
It's a niche and if a band can make a buck from it then fine.
Although I would add that I prefer that when a band has a second bite at the cherry that they do so with a fresh outlook and attempt to bring something new to the table.
The first two reformed NY Dolls albums are a good example of that.
We could mention Wire and Gang of 4 here to.
Then again we are being open enough to discuss what is going on rather than creating little boxes for people to reside in dependent on age.
That's the problem with these articles, and the people of 50 who sneer at 18 year olds at punk gigs.
At each extreme they are looking to make music exclusive, when it bloody well isn't.
Everyone should go and see who they want regardless of the age of the band or the audience.
As an aside have you heard the new Neil Young album?
He's taken a bunch of old songs and broken them down to then rebuild them in a way that they now have virtually no resemblance to the original material.
Sounds fantastic.