I remember well the music of my parents' generation (in the sense of the music they matured with): big bands and then vocalists in the Sinatra school; cool jazz. They played it all the time while I was growing up and then, like so many people their age, they were shocked! just shocked! by the birth of rock 'n roll.

And as much as I still like rock 'n roll (and as popular as it is: witness the success of "classic rock" FM stations), I'm beginning to have a problem with it.

It doesn't age well, at least in the following sense: Frank Sinatra and the big bands; cool jazz artists -- they could all continue to perform credibly as they got older (yeah, Frank lost some of his voice, but the music still fit him).

But, in this sense, rock sucks. I just ran across a broadcast of a recent concert featuring the (remaining two members of ) The Who (and several other people backing them). Yuck (and, mind you, they did all my favorite Who tracks). The Rolling Stones are apparently going to play during the Super Bowl halftime -- all I can say is "We'll see."

Now, this isn't universally true: the recent Eagles concert DVDs have been great. But, damn, some people should know better. Generally, this business of geezer rock, getting all these old bands out on stage for more performances, is just pathetic. Rock just doesn't age well.

Perhaps, though, the biggest irony is that , along with the original recordings of all the rock 'n roll stuff I matured with, I really like the Frank Sinatra collections on CD these days. And, needless to say, there's been almost nothing of any value at all recorded since about 1985. (And I had to walk five miles to school through blizzards, uphill both ways...)

Here's an early Happy New Year, all. HPH

 

Doc,

It's funny that you should mention this. Just this evening I was listening to Teresa Brewer, Patti Page, Jo Stafford and Eddie Fisher.

In the early 50s my mother and father used to listen to this music on the radio, I remember a show on WOR in New York called "The Make Believe Ballroom", and I've always liked it.

I don't know about the geezer rock. The old doowop groups still sound good when they do the oldie shows. I agree that the rock groups of the 60s and 70s seem to have lost something, but their music on record and cd sounds as good to me today as it did when I first heard it.

Just the other day I was listening to some of my Dylan CDs and I was, once again, amazed at how very good the music and lyrics are. My favorite Dylan is the pre Nashville Skyline music.

In terms of live performances, I tend to agree with you. The rockers seem to have lost something over the years, but if you listen closely to the performers of the 40s and early 50s as they approached the end of their careers, their voices changed too. Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz sounded much different than the Judy Garland in the 1960s singing the same "Over the Rainbow". Sinatra's voice and style changed too. Listen to Tony Bennet from the early 50s and listen to him sing "I Want to Be Around" today. Same song, different sound.

(Sorry that I meandered a bit but I like talking about old music.)

 

I suspect this is more a case of cultural braggadario than an actual reflection on the musical capabilities of geezers.

In the last few years I have seen David Bowie, Yes, Roxy Music, Jethro Tull, Joe Cocker, The Pretenders and a few others, and they've been just as rewarding as they were in their heyday.

Cocker is 61 and peeled paint off the walls of the auditorium. His keyboard player for this particular tour was 21.

However, I know of many boomers who feel a sense of embarassment or social cringe if they admit they still enjoy Black Sabbath. Frank Sinatra is seen as cool, because his music is as bland and soulless as it is innocuous.

Boomer music came from rage and social upheaval. It fuelled a transmogrification of attitude and change, and was aimed specifically at those that wanted to maintain a 1940's style status quo ("whatever you want...whatever you need...").

It may no longer relate to change in our communities, but it still kicks ass, and still represents our era.

Let the wrinklies have their crooners. Rock belongs to the Boomers.

 

From the reviews I've read the Rolling Stones still got it. The Allman Brothers got it in spades. Fleetwood still pounds the drums, Buckingham still plays great guitar, Nicks still looks good in witch's clothing. All depends on which group you're talking about I suppose. Check out Cyndi Lauper singing her new version of "Time after Time" on her website. Heart hasn't toured in a few years, but boy, those sisters are still great.

I didn't think much of the Eagles reunion. Get off your stools for goodness sakes.

I like the singer-songwriter group more. James Taylor is better than ever. Dylan is still Dylan. Judy Collins still has the sweetest voice. And just the other night Mama Cass was singing to me in my dreams.

Hey remember those Australian guys singing about vegemite sandwiches? That guy still sounds good.

 

Colin Hay...a wall-eyed Scotsman, actually...

 

The more recent geezer concerts I've been to were the Simon and Garfunkel reunion last year, Tom Jones last summer and Aerosmith last month. All were fantastic. So some of the geezers haven't lost their touch!

 

It's certainly true that many of the '70s groups can still perform, in the sense that their skills and so on are still there. I guess for me it's a question of whether they should. There's something about rock 'n roll (post-Beatles) that just doesn't lend itself to arthritic people jumping about on a stage.

I still like the music; it's just that the newer live performances don't work so well for me, in many cases. HPH

 

Then I would ask how Tony Bennett and Frank Sinatra would be any different?

 

Generally speaking, I see the problem with "geezer rock" as the onstage equivalent of movie sequels. When people are paid to show up and walk through their lines knowing that they will be paid long before movie goers cringe at the sight and sound of a movie that should have stayed dead after its first life was over, we can be sure that we will continue to see examples of bad nights out.

We saw Dylan last year and would have walked out were it not for the fact that I was with a bunch of people. He looked and sounded drunk. OTOH, we saw Paul McCartney a few weeks ago and he was great.

Some of these folks do loose the quality of their voices that made them big in the first place. Others loose their instrumental chops, too. But, for the most part, it's because they had long since stopped using their instruments at a level necessary to keep them "tuned". When you look at how many classical musicians/singers play at a high level well into the years that are revealing Geezer rockers to sound like garage bands, it makes sense that "use it or loose it" is a major factor in life.

 

Nobody has mentioned the Cream reunion tour. Did not get to see them live, but on the tube it seemed like they lost nothing over the years.