I encourage anyone who disagrees with this article to e-mail the author and tell him to kiss our collective behinds.
I already have, in a polite way of course!



Who should put away their drumsticks and hang up their rock 'n' roll boots? The Who? The Stones? Neil Diamond?
By John Sinkevics | The Grand Rapids Press
November 14, 2009, 5:08AM

Are the Rolling Stones too old to tour again?
A friend asked me recently if I'd pay to see the Rolling Stones in concert again if they decide, as rumored, to mount another world tour next year.
At first, I said I probably would. After all, having seen them at Ford Field on their 2002 tour, I was blown away by the show and the band's energy. The Stones' subsequent "Bigger Bang" tour of 2005-2007 even became the highest-grossing tour of all time.
But Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were in their 50s when I saw them at Ford Field. They're now 66 and 65, respectively, and I have to believe the physical toll of another tour means there's no way "Jumpin' Jack Flash" can jump as high as he once did. Shoot, the band might even need a battery cable hookup to jump-start "Start Me Up" these days.
Look, I'm in the not-as-spry-as-I-used-to-be stage of life myself, and I fear the crinkled Stones can only tarnish their legacy -- and frighten young children -- with another tour. Seven years ago, Q Magazine named the group one of the "50 Bands to See Before You Die." Now I suppose that could be reworked as one of "50 Bands to See Before They Die."
All of this discussion comes amid controversy over whether 61-year-old Steven Tyler, after suffering various injuries, had left Aerosmith. Although things temporarily have been patched up, it begs the question: Should this band and other classic-rock dinosaur acts finally consider retirement? After all, members of The Who are in their mid-60s, Neil Diamond and Bob Dylan are 68, Tina Turner is 69.
I wrote a column nine years ago congratulating Turner on retiring from touring, but voila, she returned to the road this year, trotting her famous, now-69-year-old legs back out on stage. It's tough for these stars to give up the spotlight, especially because some fans are willing to pay big bucks for nostalgic -- if flawed -- recreations of the old days. But after hearing 62-year-old Brian Johnson try in raspy vain to shriek out many of AC/DC's biggest hits earlier this year, I'd rather he just give it a rest.
Maybe that's why I have newfound respect for somebody like Robert Plant, who's embraced more apropos and more compelling projects despite pressure for a Led Zeppelin reunion tour. As much as I'd love to see Led Zep, it's probably better -- vocally and physically -- that he pursue a follow-up to his more-laid-back, Grammy-winning collaboration with Alison Krauss than trying to relive past glories 30 years after his previous band's heyday.
It's also impressive to see former Led Zep bassist John Paul Jones team up with David Grohl and Josh Homme for Them Crooked Vultures, which releases a fab-sounding new rock album next week. After a nice, one-off Led Zep reunion concert, these guys seem to realize it's time to move on.
You can read my column on the subject in Sunday's Press, but until then: Which bands do you think should hang it up and why?

E-mail John Sinkevics: [email protected]



Here is what I wrote:

Dear Mr. Sinkevics,

"Frighten young children with another tour?"

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here by discouraging people to see the artists they want to see.

Many people, like myself, simply want to be in the same room with the artists and hear the music they grew up with once more in a live setting.
Others want to see the legends they have never seen live for the first time.

I've seen the Stones many times over the last four decades and I will welcome, even travel to see them again if they tour.
Who cares if Mick can't jump as high or Keith can't nail every note like they used to?
I think the vast majority of people wanting to see these guys are going to know that going in.

I'm not the first to wonder this, but why do some people & journalists continually slag older rock-n-roll bands while leaving other artists alone, such as the old blues artists, to perform well into their golden years?

Give us a break, will 'ya?

Sincerely,

Lee Pullen
New Orleans, Louisiana

P.S. Mr. Sinkevics, I would like to share any response you may have to my e-mail with my friends online. Please include your permission to do that.

Brian Johnson is singing better now than ever and clearly better than Daltrey or Tyler showing how far they have declined.

The old blues men & rock & rollers that The Stones admire are still playing into their 70's, there's no talk about them hanging up their shoes, I wonder if Robert Plant didn't have his success with Alison Krauss, would he go with Led Zep for a reunion, but then again, his voice is shot as far as singing those old Zep classics, he had to sing in a lower key at that last show they did 2 years ago, The Who are not really The Who without that great rhythm section of the Ox & the Moon, a lot of the old classic rock bands & artists are still playing, the only one who is not, who I think retired is David Bowie, but most of the artists from the 70's are still going, those that stand out, that is.
If old blues men can do it, why not The Stones.

nancy sinatra

Heart Of Stone wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 6:51am:

The old blues men & rock & rollers that The Stones admire are still playing into their 70's, there's no talk about them hanging up their shoes, I wonder if Robert Plant didn't have his success with Alison Krauss, would he go with Led Zep for a reunion, but then again, his voice is shot as far as singing those old Zep classics, he had to sing in a lower key at that last show they did 2 years ago, The Who are not really The Who without that great rhythm section of the Ox & the Moon, a lot of the old classic rock bands & artists are still playing, the only one who is not, who I think retired is David Bowie, but most of the artists from the 70's are still going, those that stand out, that is. If old blues men can do it, why not The Stones.

Exactly!  The boys just hit what they admired...becoming old blues guys.

Muddy was in his 80's, if memory serves, when he played his last gigs.  The Stones will keep going as long as they can.  It's in their blood.

NOBODY should hang up their R&R boots ~ if they made it this far, they should go all the way to their graves and be burried in those R&R boots! So many have died young, it's an accomplishment to live to an old age and still keep the music going!

Bitch wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 9:31am:

NOBODY should hang up their R&R boots ~ if they made it this far, they should go all the way to their graves and be burried in those R&R boots! So many have died young, it's an accomplishment to live to an old age and still keep the music going!

I agree with you Miss Bitch, you don't hang up Rock n Roll shoes, it's like old lovers, the old shoe fits the foot the best.

---

AngieBlue wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 9:21am:

Heart Of Stone wrote on Nov 14th, 2009 at 6:51am: The old blues men & rock & rollers that The Stones admire are still playing into their 70's, there's no talk about them hanging up their shoes, I wonder if Robert Plant didn't have his success with Alison Krauss, would he go with Led Zep for a reunion, but then again, his voice is shot as far as singing those old Zep classics, he had to sing in a lower key at that last show they did 2 years ago, The Who are not really The Who without that great rhythm section of the Ox & the Moon, a lot of the old classic rock bands & artists are still playing, the only one who is not, who I think retired is David Bowie, but most of the artists from the 70's are still going, those that stand out, that is. If old blues men can do it, why not The Stones. Exactly!  The boys just hit what they admired...becoming old blues guys. Muddy was in his 80's, if memory serves, when he played his last gigs.  The Stones will keep going as long as they can.  It's in their blood.

Muddy died just after his 70th birthday - his last show had been about 6 months earlier.
So he was just a couple of years older than most of the Stones will be on their next tour.

But the point you make is correct, and the issue of age goes over the heads of critics who see it in purely in terms of white rock/pop acts, as they think music didnt exist until about 1956 or so.

If you go back to at least 1981, you begin to see these highly creative "music critics" begin to write our boys' obits.

In 1981, with the Stones in their 40s, I remember the first of the "too old to rock anymore" crap.
I remember one guy, might have been Richard Corliss, from Time magazine (not sure) shitting all over the Stones as looking like something bad scaped off a piece of cheese.  Douchebag.

In 1989, The Steel Wheelchairs Tour, I recall the first "wrinkly rocker" characterization that has pretty much been required writing for these idiots since.
Apparently Mr. Creativity here has advanced to "crinkly rockers"
That's thinking outside the box!

Just the other night I was thinking about the second Soldier Field show of the Bigger Bang tour.
That cold night where I thought they'd cancel because it was so frigid.
Not only did they not cancel, they put on an awesome show, premiering She Was Hot and just working through rough conditions.  I remember Mick running way down into the crowd in front during Brown Sugar to get every last frozen ass off their seat and singing along WOO WOO WOO WOO WOOOOOOOOOOO!

Yeah he was what, 62 at the time.

I bet the writer gets winded running to the kitchen for Ho Hos.

I figure the Stones and other aged musicians are easy targets for these writers.
They can't work up a decent storyline so they take cheap shots.

Bring on the tour!!!

Somehow when I think of rock & roll news and who might actually be knowledgeable and informative.... I just don't think of the Grand Rapids Press. :blankfriggingstare1

This guy is writing for the Grand Rapids Press..wow big gig buddy...He should be delivering papers not writing for them.

Gazza wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 9:42am:

Muddy died just after his 70th birthday - his last show had been about 6 months earlier.

Yes, and John Lee Hooker just after his 84th birthday on June 21, 2001 (Thursday) his last gig was in San Francisco the previous Friday!! Almost drop dead on stage!

Bitch wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 9:31am:

NOBODY should hang up their R&R boots ~ if they made it this far, they should go all the way to their graves and be burried in those R&R boots! So many have died young, it's an accomplishment to live to an old age and still keep the music going!

How true!  I saw Ray Davies of The Kinks about a year ago and it was a GREAT show!
He was full of energy! Ray is 65.

There is no reason in the world The Stones should not tour.  Mick, Keith and Charlie are looking good!

Got a pretty quick reply from Mr. Sinkevics. Here it is:


Lee: Actually, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from going to see the artists they want to see. Devoted fans will always seek to attend concerts by some of their favorite bands. I respect all of the artists I mentioned and have seen all of them in concert more than once. But I also think it's reality check time for many of these bands -- especially because they often charge more than $100 per ticket for their shows -- and a good number clearly don't perform at the same level they did a decade ago. The average, hard-working blue-collar fan still deserves to get his or her money's worth, especially in this economy.
No one wants to retire from a job they love. But out of love for these influential artists, I also hate to see this deterioration on stage and worry about the toll on their health from another tour. I know many people disagree with me and that's fine. And there certainly are exceptions. Bob Seger's comeback tour a few years back was phenomenal. And I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong if the Stones next tour blows everybody's doors off.
- John
blog.mlive.com/soundcheck

Feel free to share this.

Bitch wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 9:31am:

NOBODY should hang up their R&R boots ~ if they made it this far, they should go all the way to their graves and be burried in those R&R boots! So many have died young, it's an accomplishment to live to an old age and still keep the music going!

I totally agree, Bitch. And Edith Grove...your letter was great. :) You know, even if some of the "old" bands or solos don't sound as good as they used to, or don't leap and jump and foam at the mouth the way they used to, they have a right {and maybe an obligation!} to keep on rockin'......nobody is forced to go to any shows. We go willingly, knowing pretty much what to expect. So, if you don't like the program, just change the channel. :) Besides, our generation just ain't gonna get old. Well, not old and clueless, or old like our grandparents did. Rock & Roll keeps us young. :) Same with our idols... 8-)

Mr. Sinkevics is at it again, two days in a row!

Perhaps he got enough e-mail response to feel compelled to justify his position.



Stars of rock 'n' roll's golden age have reached their golden years
By John Sinkevics | The Grand Rapids Press
November 15, 2009, 5:44AM

Perhaps the time has finally come.
Aerosmith, just pull the plug.
The Rolling Stones? Time is no longer on your side, so you might consider rolling into retirement.
The Who? Who are you kidding?
Consider it evasive action to avoid debilitating injury and the tarnishing of a legacy.

Do it before another one of your own tumbles from another stage, tears a knee ligament, breaks a hip or embarrasses himself with hoarse, screeching vocals that can't begin to hit the intended notes.
Do it for yourself, and do it for your fans.
The prospects of honest-to-goodness retirement stares an entire generation of high-profile, graying rock stars squarely in the eye. It's an unsettling truth for those who crave the spotlight, even if they've earned more than enough money to settle comfortably into hammocks on the Riviera.
Consider this: Many rockers who soared to fame and fortune (and avoided a drug-induced demise) in the '60s and '70s are now, well, in their 60s and 70s. Let's me put it another way: We've reached a critical juncture in the history of rock 'n' roll as stars from the golden age become golden agers.
This way-past-mid-life crisis came into focus last week when word leaked out from Aerosmith guitarist Joe Perry that dynamic frontman Steven Tyler was quitting the legendary band, which seemed fine with Perry because it opened the possibility for touring with a new lead singer.
The statement came after an especially rough year for the 61-year-old Tyler, who pulled a leg muscle while performing, then broke his shoulder and gashed his head when he fell off a stage.
Of course, many fans' message to Perry was: Dream on. Aerosmith without Tyler? Are there toys in your attic?
Now, Tyler, apparently getting wind of all this hubbub and fretting that his golden Aero-goose was about to soar off without him, quickly joined Perry on stage in New York a few days later to make it clear that he's not leaving, according to Billboard.com.
But the cracks in Aerosmith's wings are starting to show, so I'm thinking it won't be long before they all move on, pack up their platinum records and commence a chair-based sort of rocking.
As one commenter on my blog noted, it's not like they "haven't earned time off" after 39 years. Absolutely. Devoted fans also don't deserve to have Aerosmith's reputation besmirched by an impersonator crooning "Sweet Emotion" while Perry & Co. pad bank accounts with cash from $125 tickets sold to nostalgic baby boomers. Aerosmith simply can't be Aerosmith without Tyler's gaping lips and twirling scarves.
The crisis is even more acute for older rock acts, but they, too, have turned their deaf ears to the quit-while-you're-ahead message.
Word on the Internet is that The Who, essentially now a duo with a current average age of 64.5, and The Rolling Stones, average age of 65.25, are planning tours again next year. (Drummer Charlie Watts, 68, recently dismissed rumors that he was quitting the Stones, which really would have signaled a need to put this band to rest.)
Now, this doesn't pose the same dilemma for folk singers, blues guitarists and jazz musicians. Renowned bluesman B.B. King can still entertain fans at 84 -- which he did quite admirably last month at DeVos Performance Hall -- because he stays seated on stage during shows. No one expects a stage slide from B.B.
But fans do expect that from forever-youthful rock stars, especially those playing arenas and stadiums. They're supposed to scramble to and fro, leap from speakers, fling mic stands, bend backward for guitar solos, do windmills and utter occasional screams and falsetto yelps.
That's significantly tougher at 65 than 45. My cousin, Dr. David Zadvinskis, informs me that older rockers have less cushioning on their joints and are "further accelerating arthritis by physically stressing them." They also don't recover as quickly from injuries and are prone to reinjury.
Of course, Stones singer Mick Jagger (always in tip-top shape) and guitarist Keith Richards (who's not, but he's probably not human) have proven they can handle more touring stress than the average rocker. And with the help of trainers, personal physicians and muscular roadies who cart all that heavy equipment, The Stones and other bands have managed to extend their careers.
But as much as I've long admired these bands, there will come a day when fans will sadly shake their heads and wonder why these much-faded, wrinkled stars have mounted another world tour, a day when Jagger can only shuffle -- not shimmy -- down a runway.
It can be a reality check for local musicians, too.
After undergoing knee surgery awhile back, 58-year-old Grand Rapids blues guitarist and singer Weezil Malone (aka Larry Fitzgerald) certainly feels his age, knows his limitations and now restricts the number of live shows he does. He no longer pretends he's a 20-something act.
While he still enjoys being on stage, "if it wasn't for 5 Hour Energy, I don't think I could do the third set anymore," he quipped. Loading gear at 3 a.m. just adds to the strain.
"It's just like a football player. There's a time when you've got to let the next generation take over," he advised. "You blazed your path, you planted your seed, you sowed your crops and now someone else owns the land."
E-mail John Sinkevics: [email protected]

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/11/stars_of_rock_n_rolls_golden_a.html

I guess I see it a little differently..

As long as my rock and roll heroes can still sing, have a band backing them that can still make good music, and they don't decide to charge outrageous prices for me to see their old arthritic bodies on the stage, I will go to their concerts. If they don't have new material and are touring on their past glories, they had better play a variety of their catalog or I will not waste my money to see them a second time. (Unless there is a Summit involved ;))

I much rather spend my limited concert funds  seeing a rock and roll band that is still creative and putting out new music, despite their age.  Dylan doesn't have much of a voice left but he has a great band and he is always creating and reinventing his NET- plus the price is right.   The "World Wide Big and Better Than Before Tour" (see U2, BJ,) monstrosities are just ridiculous and I pray that the Stones have enough old age common sense to realize that those days are gone.  

Good point.

Furthermore, for every act who 'should hang up their rock n roll boots', theres several others who should never have put them on in the first place because they either dont fit or they look fucking stupid wearing them.

Any performing act should have the right to keep going as long as they want - even if its not out of economic necessity - and its really up to the fan as to whether or not they're still doing themselves enough justice to warrant continued support. There are several acts I've seen in the past some years ago and who I've always liked, but whom I wouldnt go and see again simply because I think they're long past the age where they're capable of putting on a good show and who have descended into self parody. Chuck Berry being a prime example. Saw him once about 15 years ago and it was great to finally get a chance to do so, but at 83 and with his skills in steep decline? No thanks....and one of the main reasons for me not wishing to see him anymore is that he charges a ticket price that I dont think reflects the brevity of his show and the decline in his playing.

Which leads on to another issue entirely - whilst I dont have any problem with an artist playing until they drop, I do have an issue with them having ticket prices which are designed to exploit their 'legend' status and which bear no reflection at all to any declining skills. Value for money is still relevant no matter who the performer is.

gimmekeef wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 11:06am:

This guy is writing for the Grand Rapids Press..wow big gig buddy....

In order to be successful in life, does one have to work for a NYT or Washington Post? To be condescending for where he works makes no sense, criticize him for his opinion, not where he works. I'm sure we can criticize everyone here for where they work, according to your standards. I'm not from the school of judging people on where they work, but rather who they are as a person. Richard Nixon had a nice gig, so did a lot of Catholic priests.  :blankfriggingstare1

Bingo wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 3:26pm:

gimmekeef wrote on Nov 14th, 2009 at 11:06am: This guy is writing for the Grand Rapids Press..wow big gig buddy.... In order to be successful in life, does one have to work for a NYT or Washington Post?

I'd say they'd have a tad bit more credibilty than the Grand Flippin Rapids Press. :nanker

In that case, I guess no one here is qualified to write anything about anything.  Should a brilliant scientist from Grand Valley State University be shunned if he/she found a cure for all cancers?

On the flip side, are all NYT/Washington Post writers credible? Does the name Jason Blair ring a bell?

Was BB King a failure/have no "cred" since he never sold out MSG or a Stadium show?  8-)

Bingo wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 4:01pm:

In that case, I guess no one here is qualified to write anything about anything.  Should a brilliant scientist from Grand Valley State University be shunned if he/she found a cure for all cancers? On the flip side, are all NYT/Washington Post writers credible? Does the name Jason Blair ring a bell? Was BB King a failure/have no "cred" since he never sold out MSG or a Stadium show?  8-)

No one here is curing cancer,that's for sure. It's only rock & roll and some guy from a small town newspaper is trying to make a name for himself and get noticed on the internet....In that way,it's a lot like you and me. It's not up to some guy from Grand Rapids,Poughekeepsie,New York or London to declare the death of Rock & Roll. It's up to each inividual person who desides to play or listen to music to decide what they want to do.

point. counterpoint. it's all someone's opinion anyway.

Ahhhhhhh......so Keith Richards is probably not human. That explains a lot.  ;) :areyoufuckingserious

I guess football {American} players should hang it up at a certain age.....but tell that to Brett Favre.  ;) ;D :keithpunky

Sioux wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 5:30pm:

Ahhhhhhh......so Keith Richards is probably not human. That explains a lot.  ;) :areyoufuckingserious I guess football {American} players should hang it up at a certain age.....but tell that to Brett Favre.  ;) ;D :keithpunky

THANK YOU FOR THAT!

---

Bingo wrote on Nov 15^th, 2009 at 3:26pm:

gimmekeef wrote on Nov 14th, 2009 at 11:06am: This guy is writing for the Grand Rapids Press..wow big gig buddy.... In order to be successful in life, does one have to work for a NYT or Washington Post? To be condescending for where he works makes no sense, criticize him for his opinion, not where he works. I'm sure we can criticize everyone here for where they work, according to your standards. I'm not from the school of judging people on where they work, but rather who they are as a person. Richard Nixon had a nice gig, so did a lot of Catholic priests.  :blankfriggingstare1

Dont get your correlation to priests but you are entitled to your opinion. But my point was he's hardly in a position to see most aging rock bands in Grand Rapids to actually make any assesments of how well a band can still play. And even if they play like crap what gives him the right to say stop?

I really have to wonder if part of these types of discussions come from somewhere else.  (insert band name here) should stop so they don't tarnish their reputation, end up playing bars, get too old, etc.  Find me a musician that stops playing until health dictates otherwise.  Fame isn't the issue.  From the fan/critic point of view fame seems to be more of it.  How much of what our writer from Grand Rapids is saying is his own wish to hold on to his youth?  So what if Mick doesn't shimmy like he used to do?  I can't play tackle football with my boys the way I used to either.  Is seeing (name the band here) aging bothering him because his own youth is gone?