We've heard the term "dinosaur rock" bandied about for at least a quarter of a century. In fact, a bunch of '60s San Francisco types christened their band The Dinosaurs as a nod to their supposed obsolescence (which is why Dinosaur Jr. had to tack on the "Jr.") And that was back in the '80s.
I guess that by now, you could refer to what went on in the '60s as "trilobite rock." But does that mean survivors of the era should pack it in and head for the old folks' home?
This newspaper ran a two-part story over the weekend, "Boomer backlash," in which twenty- and thirtysomethings made observations about the generation that preceded them. One paragraph in the second installment really grabbed my attention:
"Young adults also are ready to wrestle away their piece of the pie from boomer politicans, from 'helicopter parents' who hover over their adult kids, and even from aging rockers who have yet to give up the stage."
I think the first part of that equation is a really good idea, and I'd tend to agree with the second. But why should "aging rockers" have to "give up the stage"?
Let's turn back the clock a bit. Say it's the early '70s, and Edward Ellington Kennedy is hitting the road with his jazz band. Is anyone begrudging the Duke, calling him an "aging jazzman," telling him to go away and make room for Weather Report?
When legendary vibes player Lionel Hampton was still playing concert in his 90s, where were the cries that he should have hung up his mallets decades ago?
Would you rather see 80-year-old B.B. King on tour or on the shuffleboard court?
Now, I know jazz and blues aren't quite the same as rock 'n' roll, and I'll admit that some '60s-70s "classic rock" fare gets way too much exposure nowadays. Hearing The Band's "The Weight" help peddle cell phones, or Led Zeppelin's "Rock and Roll" convincing folks to buy Cadillacs, is kind of distressing. And I'd personally rather hear Vince Lascheid play the organ throughout Pirates' games instead of loud rock music (although I did enjoy listening to the Grateful Dead's "One More Saturday Night" booming through the PA toward the end of last season).
The Rolling Stones at Super Bowl halftime? Now, that's just getting ridiculous. What if there's a Keith Richards "wardrobe malfunction"?
But to the casual observer, it would seem that today's artists du jour get the lion's share of attention. Nelly, Shakira, Gwen Stefani, Kelly Clarkson, the Black Eyed Peas - don't tell me no one is paying them any mind.
In the not-too-distant future, the inevitable will cause "aging rockers" to finally "give up the stage." In the meantime, let's try to enjoy those trilobites while we can, without worrying about "my generation vs. your generation." (Yeah, Pete Townshend's probably had second thoughts about writing that one ...)
I guess that by now, you could refer to what went on in the '60s as "trilobite rock." But does that mean survivors of the era should pack it in and head for the old folks' home?
This newspaper ran a two-part story over the weekend, "Boomer backlash," in which twenty- and thirtysomethings made observations about the generation that preceded them. One paragraph in the second installment really grabbed my attention:
"Young adults also are ready to wrestle away their piece of the pie from boomer politicans, from 'helicopter parents' who hover over their adult kids, and even from aging rockers who have yet to give up the stage."
I think the first part of that equation is a really good idea, and I'd tend to agree with the second. But why should "aging rockers" have to "give up the stage"?
Let's turn back the clock a bit. Say it's the early '70s, and Edward Ellington Kennedy is hitting the road with his jazz band. Is anyone begrudging the Duke, calling him an "aging jazzman," telling him to go away and make room for Weather Report?
When legendary vibes player Lionel Hampton was still playing concert in his 90s, where were the cries that he should have hung up his mallets decades ago?
Would you rather see 80-year-old B.B. King on tour or on the shuffleboard court?
Now, I know jazz and blues aren't quite the same as rock 'n' roll, and I'll admit that some '60s-70s "classic rock" fare gets way too much exposure nowadays. Hearing The Band's "The Weight" help peddle cell phones, or Led Zeppelin's "Rock and Roll" convincing folks to buy Cadillacs, is kind of distressing. And I'd personally rather hear Vince Lascheid play the organ throughout Pirates' games instead of loud rock music (although I did enjoy listening to the Grateful Dead's "One More Saturday Night" booming through the PA toward the end of last season).
The Rolling Stones at Super Bowl halftime? Now, that's just getting ridiculous. What if there's a Keith Richards "wardrobe malfunction"?
But to the casual observer, it would seem that today's artists du jour get the lion's share of attention. Nelly, Shakira, Gwen Stefani, Kelly Clarkson, the Black Eyed Peas - don't tell me no one is paying them any mind.
In the not-too-distant future, the inevitable will cause "aging rockers" to finally "give up the stage." In the meantime, let's try to enjoy those trilobites while we can, without worrying about "my generation vs. your generation." (Yeah, Pete Townshend's probably had second thoughts about writing that one ...)


0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home