Are we killing our rock stars?

[elle]

https://www.loudersound.com/features/are-we-killing-our-rock-stars?fbclid=IwAR0CTmok8M7lcoPzHdAYqHFIb9Y7gd9XKDrUrYLItzyPCl7h0JTYosF0cXI

Are we killing our rock stars?
By James Cleveland (Classic Rock) 22 minutes ago Classic Rock

Rock is getting old, and no one ever, ever retires. Why?

Mick Jagger, Ozzy Osbourne and Stevie Nicks
(Image: © NurPhoto / Dimitrios Kambouris / Frazer Harrison / Getty Images)

If there's anything that sums of the perilous state of affairs on the nostalgia circuit, it's the Rolling Stones pulling out of the New Orleans Jazz Festival due to illness, and their replacements Fleetwood Mac pulling out for the same reason.

Rock is getting old, and no one ever, ever retires.

Ozzy's current No More Tours II tour - the sequel to the Mo More Tours tour of 1992 (Ozzy was clearly beleaguered enough to consider retiring 27 years ago) - has been beset by illness and injury, and the dates now stretch into 2020.

When Bob Seger launched his Runaway Train tour in 2017, he lasted only 13 of the 32 shows before his vertebrae came a-callin' and the rest of the tour was postponed. After months of physiotherapy, he's back on the road, still fulfilling those obligations.

Brian May has a long list of Rhapsody dates to fulfil with Queen and Adam Lambert, but just two years ago he cancelled a UK tour in order to deal with a persistent illness he described as "destroying my energy and my will."

We could go on. And we will. Examine the awful list of musicians we've lost over the last few years, and the common denominator in almost every case is the same: they were still active. They might not be recording, but they were on the road, unlike the rest of us. While we look forward to sedentary retirements they're piling up the milage, pounding the boards, moving from hotel to hotel and accumulating air miles. It's not a healthy life style, and it's no wonder so many are susceptible to illness.

No one's denying a musician's right to tour. Once you've experienced the undiluted love a crowd can offer it must be a hard thing to forego. And as for the "they don't need any more money" argument for retirement, well, when did that apply to anyone, ever?

It's our fault. Every time a band tours, we get a diminished version of the previous experience, and we still pay up. The Rolling Stones of 2018 may have been a blast, but were the No Filter dates really as good as the Bigger Bang shows a decade ago? Or the Voodoo Lounge dates the decade before that? At some point diminishing returns must come into affect, and performing with a band is an athletic task. Usain Bolt retired at 31, so why are we expecting our rock stars to play into their 70s?

Why do we go? Is it just to be in the same room as these legends, one last time until the next time? Is it to pay tribute to who they used to be? Look at Brian Wilson: there's no doubting his genius, but if you distill his career down to the bits that really, absolutely matter, you're looking at an eighteen-month stretch more than half a century ago. Yet, as a live draw he's bigger than he's ever been.

Why can't we let rock stars retire?

The truth is we know the truth. We've struck bargains with our favourite musicians. We've given them a career and they've given us a lifetime full of memories. And that's the key word: lifetime. They've been an intimate part of our relationships and they've been there when others haven't. They're around for for the birth of our children. They've filled our homes and soundtracked our summers. And they're still doing it.

There's no statute of limitations on such a deal. It goes on until the very end, and is only torn up when one party or the other topples of the stage one final time and heads off into the darkness.

Rock stars don't burn out. They don't fade away. They just stop. Usually without warning. Usually when we least expect it. And never when we're ready.

[button-lip]

Yes to all of this!! :thumbsup:

And Brian May better stay healthy!!! :nod:

[elle]

No one's denying a musician's right to tour. Once you've experienced the undiluted love a crowd can offer it must be a hard thing to forego. And as for the "they don't need any more money" argument for retirement, well, when did that apply to anyone, ever?

It's our fault. Every time a band tours, we get a diminished version of the previous experience, and we still pay up. The Rolling Stones of 2018 may have been a blast, but were the No Filter dates really as good as the Bigger Bang shows a decade ago? Or the Voodoo Lounge dates the decade before that? At some point diminishing returns must come into affect, and performing with a band is an athletic task. Usain Bolt retired at 31, so why are we expecting our rock stars to play into their 70s?

Why do we go? Is it just to be in the same room as these legends, one last time until the next time? Is it to pay tribute to who they used to be? Look at Brian Wilson: there's no doubting his genius, but if you distill his career down to the bits that really, absolutely matter, you're looking at an eighteen-month stretch more than half a century ago. Yet, as a live draw he's bigger than he's ever been.

it's the greed of the older bands and their management. squeeze outta them everything you can while it's still possible.

it's the need for adulation once they experienced it.

and for concertgoers - the need to be in the same room with legends, while they are still around. the need to notch that checkmark, if you were too young to see them before.

[michelej1]

Some of them need the money.

Some of them need the adrenalin rush. Going home and being doting grandparents to the children of the children they neglected isn't enticing to them. They need the lights, the crowds, the adulation.

Most of them do not want to retire. I can't blame them for that. They want to die how they lived. Fine. They'd be lousy retirees anyway.

I just feel sorry for the ones who don't have the income to retire and continue to tour out of necessity.

That's not true for any of the Macsters except Mick -- and I hate him, so I'm not too concerned about his fate.

[FuzzyPlum]

For a lot of them its down to their managers and other money men. Their managers need them to tour because they want their money. On the one hand its a bit lame when Christine says its up to their management whether they play Glastonbury or not. On the other hand I can understand there's probably a degree of truth in there somewhere. Older acts tour (and tour certain markets) because the money men tell them to.

[SteveMacD]

I mean, how could/why would anyone turn down ridiculous amounts money to play a few hours of music, their life’s passion and legacy, to adoring crowds? They get the adulation, they get to travel in style, they get to stay in the nicest accommodations, and they get a big payday when it’s all over. It’s not like they’re working the coal mines.

I mean, McCartney is a billionaire and he still tours, so it’s not even a matter of needing the money. But looking at sheep through the window only goes so far. “Well, I could spend three months looking at the sheep, or I could play in front of tens of thousands of people who think I’m royalty and make a small fortune. What would the young Paul in Hamburg do? He’d probably kick my ass for even asking.”

[BombaySapphire3]

What would the young Paul in Hamburg do? He’d probably kick my ass for even asking.”

Nah ..he would have had Lennon do it for him.

[SteveMacD]

Nah ..he would have had Lennon do it for him.
:laugh:

:thumbsup:

[elle]

i thought this post by someone over on Steve Hoffman boards was interesting:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/whats-the-point-of-these-bands-still-going-on.811728/page-9#post-20975161

Bassist
Zungguzungguguzungguzeng
Location: London

We are not far from a situation where none of the music of the 60s and early 70s will be being performed by the original artists. Then it truly becomes less Classic Rock and more Antique Rock. As in classical music there will undoubtedly be an Original Instruments / H.I.P craze. There will also be Marsalis types who draw a line in popular music history sometime around 1982 and call all that pre-dates that point "heritage music" and all that comes after it will be declared apostate unless the creators accept the rules that determine what constitutes the good and correct in Rock. The dividing line will be pre Fairlight / PCM music versus post. "Real" music versus the evil sampler. Rock artists will advertise their concerts listing the repertoire they are going to play in the exact order they are going to play it. Just how classical concerts are marketed. You will be able to hear note perfect versions of the standard pop / rock canon any day of the week in every major city. The music of the 65-75 era will never die, in fact you wont be able to get away from the stuff. Musicians who could be reaching for the new and the challenging will opt for being able to produce note and inflection perfect renditions of other people's records bereft of context and shorn of all the sacrifice, angst, love and inspiration that contributed to their creation. Those remaining few artists keen to keep pushing the boundaries of the music will go to the furthest sonic extremes to separate itself from the heritage canon and will alienate all but the most adventurous listener in the process. And that's the point where the music of the pre Live Aid era finally (and it has taken a while) loses what is left of its vitality and settles for being an exhibit rather than a real time visceral and emotional experience.

Last edited: Today at 2:41 AM

[cbBen]

Neil Young does it right. Goes out for 8-12 shows, takes time off, then goes out for another 8-12 shows.

[snroxman]

I'm all for artists continuing as long as they want and are able. But, do it smartly - more time between dates, take breaks, etc. It sounds like Neil Young is doing it right!

[michelej1]

And while it is new for rockers, it's not new for entertainers in general. Many of those blues and jazz artists continued to perform into their 80s and 90s. And when I say they performed I mean they were touring for 2/3s of the year. When B. B. King was alive, you could point to any day on the calendar and he was likely to be on the road.

Jerry Lee Lewis married all of his teenaged cousins and killed all of his wives and he was still on the road until his stroke last month. He's 83. The guy had to cancel shows when the stroke happened.

In their youth, these people spent so much time away from their families that they don't feel comfortable "at home." They don't have those community or relationship bonds that we have. They want to die on the road, if they had their druthers.

[SteveMacD]

They want to die on the road, if they had their druthers.
Sure as hell beats Hospice.

[BLY]

It’s their life and all they know is the road. Some do retire like Grace Slick, REM just to name the first two that comes to mind. It’s not always the money but I’m sure the high that an entertainer gets from the energy of a live audience is like a drug to many.

[bombaysaffires]

Which is why La Nicks’s nonsense about wanting to retire to her apartment to dance is such crap

Just like a few years back she was whinging on about retiring to her trailer in Malibu— never happened

Or before that retiring to some cliff side castle to write. Never happened.

She only does three shows a WEEK. The rest is in presidential suites with minions taking care of everything. This is a woman who moaned about the difficulties seeding a couple weeks with her family over the holidays.

[BombaySapphire3]

:Which is why La Nicks’s nonsense about wanting to retire to her apartment to dance is such crap

Just like a few years back she was whinging on about retiring to her trailer in Malibu— never happened

Or before that retiring to some cliff side castle to write. Never happened.

She only does three shows a WEEK. The rest is in presidential suites with minions taking care of everything. This is a woman who moaned about the difficulties seeding a couple weeks with her family over the holidays.

:laugh: I remember in a Wild Heart era interview when she was 35 she mused about retiring when she was 40 and "everyone else doing it was 14" .Demented old hag.

[HomerMcvie]

:
Demented old hag.

Marry me? :p

[singertobe]

:

:laugh: I remember in a Wild Heart era interview when she was 35 she mused about retiring when she was 40 and "everyone else doing it was 14" .Demented old hag.

You wonder why she didn't retire at 40. She has expressed interest in having children and she'd still be fertile at that age. Was it really that she wanted to keep making music? Or was this the managers' doing?

[lovethemac1]

You wonder why she didn't retire at 40. She has expressed interest in having children and she'd still be fertile at that age. Was it really that she wanted to keep making music? Or was this the managers' doing?

My guess is that she can't live without being the center of attention,:shrug: ie. being in the limelight.

[Macfan4life]

Interesting article but the answer is simple. Its not just the money but the amount of money. The amount of money a classic rock artist makes from touring today can be greater than all the years of touring in the 70s and 80s even with inflation worked into the equation. I will use Stevie as an example. I would bet she grossed more money on the 24K Gold tour than all of her prior tours combined. I bet the ON WITH THE SHOW tour grossed more money than most Mac tours combined.
Lets look at some figures:
In 1983 I saw Stevie with Joe Walsh for $12.75. They played to a 3/4 full arena (10,000) which grossed around $127,000 without T shirt sales. I bet Stevie probably made about $50,000 each night (approximately). In 1983 that was probably someone making $200,000 each night today with inflation. Artists actually made more money on album sales than touring. Touring was mostly about promoting the album. Today, rows of tickets sell for over $1000 with many tickets $200-$400 range. A sold out arena can gross 1.5 million. Stevie probably made close to a million dollars each night. Lets be conservative and say $750,000. Its so much money and money they are making in one year that would take them 20 years to make in the 80s. Its just too much damn money to pass up.

[michelej1]

But when you're seventy, what can you do with all of that money. You have real property and expensive assets already. In Stevie's position, I couldn't get all that excited about leaving all that money to her niece.

Now, Stevie probably feels an obligation to her solo tour crew who now make their living off of her. So, she wants Waddy and Sharon to be financially set for their retirements. Lori will be treated like family in her will, I guess.

But at some point, even the lure of more money seems empty.

The adulation is a different thing. I suppose the rock stars want that until they take their last breath. They like being iconic and powerful, large and in charge.

[luminol]

It’s their life and all they know is the road. Some do retire like Grace Slick, REM just to name the first two that comes to mind. It’s not always the money but I’m sure the high that an entertainer gets from the energy of a live audience is like a drug to many.

Yes! I was going to mention R.E.M., too (one of my all-time favorites and definite soundtrack to my life growing up in Georgia in the '80s). I had mad respect for them for continuing on without Bill Berry (post aneurism) for 15 years, and even more respect for being self-aware enough to know when to call it. They had great successes, made an indelible impact on the music scene for a couple decades, continued to tour and make albums for years (with Berry's blessing), and then realized, "We had a great ride and it is time to move on." There's a lot to be said for that. They're all still dabbling in different projects (music oriented and otherwise) and appear to be enjoying life post-R.E.M.

I do 100% understand how it would be hard to walk away though. As many here have stated, once you experience the thrill of the adulation and cheering manic crowds (and GOBS UPON GOBS OF MONEY), it would be nearly impossible to walk away. I'm amazed Christine retired for as long as she did... and also was not surprised when she came back for the same reasons.

[bombaysaffires]

But when you're seventy, what can you do with all of that money. You have real property and expensive assets already. In Stevie's position, I couldn't get all that excited about leaving all that money to her niece.

Now, Stevie probably feels an obligation to her solo tour crew who now make their living off of her. So, she wants Waddy and Sharon to be financially set for their retirements. Lori will be treated like family in her will, I guess.

But at some point, even the lure of more money seems empty.

The adulation is a different thing. I suppose the rock stars want that until they take their last breath. They like being iconic and powerful, large and in charge.

I think this is what it comes down to for Stevie. Having fallen off her perch at the top of the industry back in the late 80s/90s until The Dance, she knows how the biz treats you when you're up vs when you're down. She likes being UP. She likes being well-regarded. It reminds me of a recent comment by Lindsey Graham about why he would embrace Trump after what Trump said about his bestie John McCain. Graham said it made him "feel relevant" being at the center of all the key decisions being made. I think same for Stevie-- she likes being part of the conversation about who's doing what in her industry; she likes 'her band' being among the top of the charts with their tour; she likes being 'relevant'

[bombaysaffires]

You wonder why she didn't retire at 40. She has expressed interest in having children and she'd still be fertile at that age. Was it really that she wanted to keep making music? Or was this the managers' doing?

Stevie likes to tell that story with that slant because it makes a great tragic story, all the children she might have had.

The reality is she never was willing to make any sacrifices to her career that a personal life would require. She could have had children at any point; indeed she ended pregnancies rather than have kids. So I don't buy that sob story in this case as much more than a great drama.

[button-lip]

Stevie likes to tell that story with that slant because it makes a great tragic story, all the children she might have had.

The reality is she never was willing to make any sacrifices to her career that a personal life would require. She could have had children at any point; indeed she ended pregnancies rather than have kids. So I don't buy that sob story in this case as much more than a great drama.

My guess is that she never wanted to have children, which is ok, but apparently her image of Saint Stevie got tainted if she told the truth. And of course it makes a great tragic story for her fans who believe whatever sugarcoated story she wants them to believe.

So, that's when the question of why does she need so much money comes to mind. For who? Her niece and her niece only? Her parents are dead, she's not exactly in a great relationship with her brother, she doesn't speak with Robin's son. So, yeah, one wonder why she needs all that tainted money.

[Street_Dreamer]

My guess is that she never wanted to have children, which is ok, but apparently her image of Saint Stevie got tainted if she told the truth. And of course it makes a great tragic story for her fans who believe whatever sugarcoated story she wants them to believe.

You have to remember, being in Fleetwood Mac was "like being in the Army". Fleetwood Mac prevented her from having the family she dreamed of, not her.

[BombaySapphire3]

Yes! I was going to mention R.E.M., too (one of my all-time favorites and definite soundtrack to my life growing up in Georgia in the '80s). I had mad respect for them for continuing on without Bill Berry (post aneurism) for 15 years, and even more respect for being self-aware enough to know when to call it. They had great successes, made an indelible impact on the music scene for a couple decades, continued to tour and make albums for years (with Berry's blessing), and then realized, "We had a great ride and it is time to move on." There's a lot to be said for that. They're all still dabbling in different projects (music oriented and otherwise) and appear to be enjoying life post-R.E.M. .

Michael Stipe is one of a tiny handful of rock superstars who is a true introvert so I don't think he ever really had a great desire to be a rock star.

[jmn3]

You have to remember, being in Fleetwood Mac was "like being in the Army". Fleetwood Mac prevented her from having the family she dreamed of, not her.

I have cringed at that line for 20+ years. She is truly delusional and it's not just in the last year...

[sodascouts]

We're not killing anyone. They make the choice. They must accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice, whether they are positive (loads of money, adulation) or negative (health issues or, God forbid, death).

[The Chain]

she's not exactly in a great relationship with her brother.

this is something thing I've wondered about these days, haven't kept up with.. any specifics, was there a falling out? I mean I know he's supposedly a shady dude, but what's the latest story regarding him and Stevie's relationship?

[HomerMcvie]

this is something thing I've wondered about these days, haven't kept up with.. any specifics, was there a falling out? I mean I know he's supposedly a shady dude, but what's the latest story regarding him and Stevie's relationship?

I was wondering the same. If I were him, I'd be sucking up to that money train like nobody's bidness!

[lovethemac1]

My guess is that she never wanted to have children, which is ok, but apparently her image of Saint Stevie got tainted if she told the truth. And of course it makes a great tragic story for her fans who believe whatever sugarcoated story she wants them to believe.

So, that's when the question of why does she need so much money comes to mind. For who? Her niece and her niece only? Her parents are dead, she's not exactly in a great relationship with her brother, she doesn't speak with Robin's son. So, yeah, one wonder why she needs all that tainted money.

I didn't know this about Matthew. What happened there? I thought they had reconnected after he grew up??

[luminol]

Michael Stipe is one of a tiny handful of rock superstars who is a true introvert so I don't think he ever really had a great desire to be a rock star.

Truth indeed. Mike Mills doesn't exactly fit the generic bill for "rock star" either but Peter Buck is still out there rocking gigs and putting out new music (with Joseph Arthur recently, appropriately called Arthur Buck).

I didn't know this about Matthew. What happened there? I thought they had reconnected after he grew up??

I wondered the same thing. Curious what happened.

[Feather Blade]

I didn't know this about Matthew. What happened there? I thought they had reconnected after he grew up??

Did something happen? I thought the last we heard about him was them spending the day together on that 24K tour stop that she dedicated Landslide to him?

[button-lip]

I was wondering the same. If I were him, I'd be sucking up to that money train like nobody's bidness!

Same. After all, he has been putting up with her moods since forever. :D

[HomerMcvie]

Same. After all, he has been putting up with her moods since forever. :D

I could still put up with a lot of bitching if she'd give me a million bucks a year. I LOVE you, $tevie(you nasty old goat).

[button-lip]

I didn't know this about Matthew. What happened there? I thought they had reconnected after he grew up??

I read somewhere that when she performed at the Caesars she had like 20 rooms, plus the suite that she stayed in. Matt went to see her show but Karen told him he couldn't have one of her comped rooms, so he had to make his own accomodations and pay for it. Very bizarre, considering she once married his father in order to act like his mother. :nod::nod:

[HomerMcvie]

I read somewhere that when she performed at the Caesars she had like 20 rooms, plus the suite that she stayed in. Matt went to see her show but Karen told him he couldn't have one of her comped rooms, so he had to make his own accomodations and pay for it. Very bizarre, considering she once married his father in order to act like his mother. :nod::nod:

$he's such a giving person. I'm sure that sainthood is coming soon(wonder how much that will cost her?).

[MikeInNV]

Did something happen? I thought the last we heard about him was them spending the day together on that 24K tour stop that she dedicated Landslide to him?

Yes, and there were pictures of the two of them together around that time too.

[SteveMacD]

I read somewhere that when she performed at the Caesars she had like 20 rooms, plus the suite that she stayed in. Matt went to see her show but Karen told him he couldn't have one of her comped rooms, so he had to make his own accomodations and pay for it. Very bizarre, considering she once married his father in order to act like his mother. :nod::nod:

Well, I hope that finally puts to rest whether or not she should have ever had children.

[Feather Blade]

Yes, and there were pictures of the two of them together around that time too.

Yes, and that is years after the mini Vegas residency at the Caesars' colesseum, so if it did happen, they must be over it.

[michelej1]

Same. After all, he has been putting up with her moods since forever. :D

Stevie said she used to beat him up until her father finally had enough of it. He gave Chris permission to hit her back even though she was a girl and then she stopped picking on him.