This is a topic that's been on my mind since I saw a Youtube video of an 88 year-old (I think) Chuck Berry playing Johnny B Goode. Badly, of course. lol
On the one hand I think, "Well, if the performer is having fun and enough people still want to see them do their stuff, what's the problem?" On the other hand, it can make for a depressing spectacle, when they just cannot perform to anything like the level that they once did.
And I think there is a strong element of tragedy connected with the idea of the performer that doesn't know when to quit.
I remember seeing Willie Mays, who had once been perhaps the greatest defensive outfielder of all time as well as a great slugger, playing for the Mets in 1973 in his early 40's. It was positively embarrassing to see the level to which his skills had declined. He definitely stayed too long.
It is less easy to quantify for singers and musicians, but the key is not to embarrass yourself. If they don't realize that that is what they are now doing, then it is up to friends or family to intervene privately and tell them.
I remember seeing Willie Mays, who had once been perhaps the greatest defensive outfielder of all time as well as a great slugger, playing for the Mets in 1973 in his early 40's. It was positively embarrassing to see the level to which his skills had declined. He definitely stayed too long.
It is less easy to quantify for singers and musicians, but the key is not to embarrass yourself. If they don't realize that that is what they are now doing, then it is up to friends or family to intervene privately and tell them.
Yep, you see it all the time in sports. Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath and Len Dawson are just three of the NFL greats who hung around too long. Watching their final seasons was almost painful. When you have been in the spotlight so long, knowing when to walk away is difficult I guess.
It may be somewhat due to finances. You hope each performer in any field has made good investment choices. But we all have heard stories of those being robbed by managers/family or making poor financial/lifestyle choices. Evander Holyfield HAD to keep fighting and he made est. $200 million from the ring and endorsements, but his overhead/generosity/divorces/child support/standard of living knocked him out financially. It is a crying shame to think of how little Willie Mays in his era made in comparison to sports salaries today.
You would think, what with competition and physical fitness being such an important part of sport, that this sort of thing would be less of an issue in that world than, say, the performing arts... But maybe not! And as has been mentioned, where there are large sums of money involved there are always going to be athletes who prolong their careers for longer than they possibly should.
As far as singers/musicians are concerned, it surprises me how many people are willing to pay top dollar to see a performer who is way past their best.
As far as singers/musicians are concerned, it surprises me how many people are willing to pay top dollar to see a performer who is way past their best.
Nostalgia maybe? I don't know, just a guess. Sorry to hear Chuck is slipping but he is 90 years old. He's supposed to have an album coming out this year with all new material. Hope it won't tarnish his legacy.
I guess Elvis was THE example, being a bloated,drugged shadow of "The King of R&R" at the end. His idolizing fans (at least some) would have and did come to see him regardless. A man I worked with and his fiance saw Elvis in Macon, Ga. near the end of his career. He said some folks were walking out due to Elvis only being able to do about every third song, relying on James Burton and/or The Jordinaires to do the rest of the show. Shame to think of such a talent wasted on drugs, but we all need to be loved. I think Elvis would have performed to the end and essentially did. I hope his final "left the building" took him to eternal rest.
I think it's a case of when the performer loses the fun. usually performers perform because they feel like there's something there to attain. they either get it, find it, or lose it, find drugs, or forget what they're after and keep going until nobody wants to deal. also factor in all the musicians of the world who say they want to perform yet never want to learn, it becomes an old game quick.
It depends I guess. I feel like Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney may perform until they are 90. I bet they will still be able to rock out even at that age!
My theory about Mr. Richards is that it will take about $0.50 worth of materials to preserve his self-almost-embalmed body. As long as the Stones and their boomer fans can agree on the price of concert tickets, why not?
As far as singers/musicians are concerned, it surprises me how many people are willing to pay top dollar to see a performer who is way past their best.
Well I guess for the younger generations, it would be worth paying top dollar to see some elder statesmen perform, because legends like Macca, the Stones, Roger Waters/David Gilmour, some others I can't think of at the moment, likely won't be around for much longer. And they are one-offs, innovators, artists who've shaped music the way it is today. A tribute band wouldn't have the same effect, much less stage presence.
Even if clowns like Jagger look ridiculous thrusting their wrinkly hips today, whereas McCartney is a musician and still going strong way past 70, if they love doing it, who's stopping them?
PS: though I somewhat agree, Chuck Berry pushing himself close to 90 is really trying too hard. You'd think he'd have become bored by now singing Johnny B Goode for the billionth time.
I truly believe anyone who wants to keep performing should keep performing. But then Vince Neil comes to mind. And Jani Lane.
I saw and met Jani Lane/ Warrant in 98 & 99. This man stood onstage... asked for (demanded) cigarettes and drinks from the audience all night (both times- and at about a zillion other concerts.) and would have the audience singing 75% of the songs on the microphone. Maybe if he had just given up singing the music he ended up hating- maybe he would still be here. Or just produced music/ wrote songs for others artists. To continue doing something that no longer brings them joy... for cash? Is selling themselves and there is a much bigger price to pay.
Vince Neil... Most of the final tour was him drunk and forgetting the lyrics.
Meanwhile I've seen The Rolling Stones, KISS (though Ace and Peter... no comment.) Eric Burdon, The Monkees, The Doors (before Ray Manzarek passed away.) etc etc where these were amazing performances. And they were all in their late 50's, 60's and going on 70's.
I guess its to say those that still have the heart and love for it... should. And those that just need a paycheck... and act like a fool on stage... need to give it up. Or else the fans get jipped from a good time. Thats really unfair. To the fans and to themselves.
I think when it comes to performers whose standards have slipped significantly, nostalgia (as mentioned) obviously does play a big part in maintaining their appeal. But I also wonder how much of it is just good ol' celebrity worship...?
Thinking about the younger people who pay large sums of money to see The Stones, for instance, I can't help but wonder how many of them would be willing to part with similar amounts just to attend the same party (say) as Jagger/Richards. Like they might find gawping at/filming/taking pictures of them from a few feet away just as rewarding as any concert? lol Or maybe I'm being overly cynical on that score, I dunno.
I would have paid more for the chance to meet Paul McCartney and hear some stories from the beatlemania days than I did for the nosebleed section seats at his concert at Wrigley Field in 2010. Though he put on a fantastic show.
Sometimes the heart doesn't want to let them go (for the performer and the audience). Good example on Oct 3, 1980 when Ali fought Holmes. As one announcer put it afterwards, "If you bet with your heart you went Ali, but if you bet with your brain you definitely went with Holmes." Although Ali went to fight a few more fights after this, many consider this fight his last real match. Needless to say, he was beaten silly. I read that Holmes actually cried after the fight for having to do this to one of his all time idols.
This is a topic that's been on my mind since I saw a Youtube video of an 88 year-old (I think) Chuck Berry playing Johnny B Goode. Badly, of course. lol
On the one hand I think, "Well, if the performer is having fun and enough people still want to see them do their stuff, what's the problem?" On the other hand, it can make for a depressing spectacle, when they just cannot perform to anything like the level that they once did.
And I think there is a strong element of tragedy connected with the idea of the performer that doesn't know when to quit.
I agree that it can be a sad spectacle and it's good to know when to make an exit. However:
1.) Chuck Berry NEVER played "Johnny B. Goode" well, or any other song well live. He's always showboating, usually out of tune, and always playing with a pick-up band who meets him literally right before showtime, with no rehearsal or even a setlist. Once onstage, he likes to fuck with the musicians by picking difficult keys to play in, calling out one key and playing another, or suddenly changing keys mid-song. So using Chuck Berry as an example isn't really fair because live Chuck has always only about seeing him and being in the room with him, not musical excellence. Hell, Chuck has always demanded getting paid in cash BEFORE he goes onstage, or else he doesn't go on. Chuck's ALWAYS been about the money. (it's why he's never had his own band, keeps down costs).
2.) There's no royalties anymore. Most of these people (not Macca or the Stones, obviously) are touring because their royalties are all but gone, they are forced to. I have a friend who runs an arts theatre and has a stream of people coming through (Crosby and Nash, Dr. John, The B52s, etc etc). His word is that no one is doing it for the love of it anymore, it's strictly for survival. Actually The Allmans Brothers as well as Butch Trucks with his own band would play there; I'm absolutely sure Butch just killed himself in part because of money pressures.
3.) As long as people are willing to pay money to see them, they're going to perform. Paul McCartney's voice is shot, but people love to see him. And a You Tube clip is not the same as being there. One of my least favorite Paul songs is "Let It Be". I especially don't like to hear it immediately following "Hey Jude". But when I'm actually at the concert, I don't think any of that, I'm just happy to be there, seeing the real deal. Also, a live PA is completely different than when you're hearing a TV broadcast or a cellphone recording. A You Tube clip is just not the same as being there.
After losing so many great artists this past year - so many rock and rollers this past year - I think it's great that Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Fats Domino, three of the original architects of youth-music, are still alive and kicking, performing and having people pay their respects to them, and their work. If you go see an over 80-year old entertainer, who-ever they are, you should know you're not getting them at their prime.
My brother saw Sinatra at one of his last shows; he couldn't remember any of the lyrics, it was almost pathetic, but my brother is really happy he saw Sinatra before he died.
Another thing I've been wondering about, as far as the listener/viewer's attitude is concerned, is the question of whether or not they were around when the performer was in their prime. What I mean is, if you're in your teens/20s when a performer comes along, and they have a big effect on you, the way that they were at that time is gonna be etched on your mind in a way that it wouldn't be for later generations. So it might be more difficult for you to accept that performer when they become aged (depending on your disposition, obviously).
So, for instance, the younger people who are happy with the prospect of the Stones (sorry for picking on the Stones again; I do actually like them, in case anyone was wondering lol) continuing for however many more years - would they feel the same about a performer that they're into now, continuing into their 70s and 80s?
I dunno. I'm just speculating here, you understand. They call me The Speculator! lol
I would have paid more for the chance to meet Paul McCartney and hear some stories from the beatlemania days than I did for the nosebleed section seats at his concert at Wrigley Field in 2010. Though he put on a fantastic show.
Another thing I've been wondering about, as far as the listener/viewer's attitude is concerned, is the question of whether or not they were around when the performer was in their prime. What I mean is, if you're in your teens/20s when a performer comes along, and they have a big effect on you, the way that they were at that time is gonna be etched on your mind in a way that it wouldn't be for later generations. So it might be more difficult for you to accept that performer when they become aged (depending on your disposition, obviously).
So, for instance, the younger people who are happy with the prospect of the Stones (sorry for picking on the Stones again; I do actually like them, in case anyone was wondering lol) continuing for however many more years - would they feel the same about a performer that they're into now, continuing into their 70s and 80s?
I dunno. I'm just speculating here, you understand. They call me The Speculator! lol
That might have a lot to do with it. Since you brought up the Stones, I'm old enough to remember Beggars Banquet and Sticky Fingers when they were released. Saw them live for the first time in 1980, and what a let down that was. ZZ Top opened and blew the Stones out of the Astrodome. Maybe Mick and the boys just had an off night but it wasn't pretty.
