Rockin’ to the Oldies

I know that the Baby Boomers like myself have been controlling most of western society for the last decades, and I know that we have also been controlling much of the radio airwaves for a while as well, resulting in the abundance of “easy listening”, “gold rock”, and similar approaches to programming as an attempt to please us, but to be honest, judging from the irritating stuff from our local stations in this area, I thought the effect was fading.

No so, it seems. Either we still hold tremendous sway or are dragging a lot of younger people with us for the musical ride.

Witness the excitement over Paul McCartney possibly playing an outdoor concert at the Halifax Commons this summer. Witness the excitement over the Eagles playing outdoors at Moncton this summer. Witness the attendance figures of the Rolling Stones concerts in Moncton and Halifax in the last couple of years.

Are there no music stars able to draw these kinds of crowds from the younger artists? Or are the younger artists just not interested in grassy fields in Maritime cities?

People— Paul McCartney is 65 years old! (In fact he’ll be 66 by the time he plays Halifax!) We’re talking OAS here—old age pension time. Could get a room at the manor if he applied. Mick Jagger should be turning 65 about now, and Keith Richards of the Stones turns that milestone a bit later this year (although Richards appears to be just short of 90, courtesy of a life of dabbling in drugs and alcohol, hanging a cigarette permanently off a finger, and the recent coconut-on-the-head incident while in the Caribbean—though they say he’s fully restored after surgery for that, a relative thing).

And the Eagles— the key members include Don Henley, who turns 61 this summer, and Glenn Frey who turns 60 later this year.

Now I don’t mind these ages, since I’m into this range myself, though trailing what I like to think is “well behind” McCartney and the lead Stones.

It just seems peculiar to me that these are the only people who can pack a hundred thousand people into a field at this time in history. What happened since their original fame back in the 60’s and 70’s? Have we only had music stars whose popularity waned after a decade or less, or are we Boomers still exerting our powerful influence on the music industry even as we move into retirement?

I can’t think that it’s a matter that aged stars are the only ones willing to take on these venues. The Stones weren’t getting $500 a night to play Moncton and Halifax, and I imagine McCartney will go home with enough Canadian dollars stuffed in his pockets to handle his divorce settlement for at least a few months. Tickets are not cheap, and these concerts have been some of the most expensive ever for the Maritimes. There seems to be a realization that if new music stars of the last while were booked, they might have trouble filling a parking lot, let alone a huge field. Somehow these old rockers seem to drag whole families along, perhaps the younger ones fully brainwashed by lolling in their car seats to the sounds of the Stones emanating from the family 8-Tracks.

This Friday Ellen and I are heading for the big city to take in the Anne Murray concert at the Metro Centre. This is Anne’s last tour, and although that label has been used before by artists who manage to come out one more time, and one more time as the money get short, I suspect with Anne this will be it. Anne is just a year older and I, and has been somewhat pulled back from the industry for a decade, though a smart producer talked her into the latest “Duets” album and this largely resulting tour, both of which are hits.

We probably wouldn’t have gone, though we might have liked to—the tickets aren’t cheap, but few concerts are these days unless it’s Buddy Whatisname and the Other Fellers, and we have prime seats. A concert in Halifax also usually requires a long drive and a night in a hotel since Boomers are not as into driving in the wee hours of the morning as we used to be.

We’re going because I had the good fortune to win tickets, a hotel stay, and VIP treatment, featuring a limo to the concert and meet and greet with Anne herself afterward. We’re certainly looking forward to it, though Ellen’s wondering whether or not she should curtsey at the meeting. I’m going for a simple bow. Anne has come a long way from when she was teaching phys. ed. at a high school in my home town, and she can draw them at 62 like the others can, though I don’t think she could fill a Commons field, nor would she like to try.

It’s a fact that these oldsters, like Anne, will one day give up on the touring, though most of them will fight it all the way (“to the bank” if nowhere else). Mick Jagger might still strut his stuff, but it will be limiting in a walker. All things come to an end, and it’s rather optimistic to feel any of them will be drawing crowds even in five years or more when they hit 70.

You just have to wonder who’s coming behind them. The stage wings seem rather bare.

3 thoughts on “Rockin’ to the Oldies

  1. If I may, I would say that this current trend has a lot to do with the excessively individualistic nature of current ‘pop’ society. You see, it seems to me that in the . . . ‘previous’ generation, people listened to music because they thought it was ‘good’. Although the term good can mean a lot of things, I shall allow it to in this instance. These days, however, people listen to music for many more reasons.
    Because it is what everyone else is listening to, would be the chief among them. Even so, oddly enough, in close second would be ‘because it’s not what everyone else is listening to’. Very odd motivations indeed. Where the relative ‘goodness’ of the music typically now sits on the back burner. Due to this, what is ‘best’ is now entirely non-existent and completely unrecognized, as if a band were to be ‘the best’ they would be shunned by about half of the listening population simply by virtue of the fact that they cannot be ‘the best’.
    Big rock groups back in the 60’s absolutely dominated, one at a time. Elvis, the Beatles, the Stones, U2, they each ruled the world in their own time. This never happens these days. Well, U2 still does their share of ruling, however they don’t count as they are now over three decades old as well, their lead singer a meagre 47. But I digress. Over the years the primacy of these dominant bands distilled further, as people forgot about the even slightly mediocre ones, and continued to focus on the giants, making a few bands even more prominent in retrospect.
    What do we have today? A sprawling and struggling music industry ravaged by the blind individualism and greedy impatience (piracy) of its own supporters.
    But then again, that’s just my opinion.

  2. I’d have to correct you on lumping U2 in with Beatles, Stones, and the like, since they didn’t form until ’76, making them “young” by comparison. The Beatles formed in ’57, though they were not fully formed and named as such until ’60– the year Bono was born! The Stones formed in ’62. U2, however, judging from the hype about their possible playing Halifax or Moncton, might be the one act under the age of 60 that could fill the fields, but their appeal would likely be below the Boomer age.

  3. I didn’t really mean to say that U2 was a part of the boomer era, more that they are the last vestige of the mindset that there can be unanimously great bands out there, and that as such followed in the footsteps of the Beatles, Stones, etc, as likely no others will after their time.
    Sounds so epic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *