DRUMMER CAFE

10 million dollar homes, too many years sheltered from reality.  You name it.  I saw a trailer for that new Metallica documenatry, based on the tidbit that I saw, that film may offer some insight into that very question.

I'm sure those are good points.
There is also an issue with the lack of editing as I call it. Where an artist often makes a wrong decision (as his or her fans often see it).
For example, I recently heard a disco remix of Lou Reed's 'Satellite of Love'. It's just plain awful (and I LOVE dance music).
I know he didn't really have anything to do with it, but he obviously sanctioned it. If it was a remix of a Flaming Lips or Radiohead song I'm certain it would never have been released.
I just saw a show on TV where James Brown was duetting with Will Young (winner of the UK's Pop Idol). Brown still wiped the floor with Young IMO, but the whole thing just looked embarrassing and only went towards devaluing Brown's aura as the 'godfather of soul'.
Which artist has made a comeback with some recorded material that really matches their best work? As I said, many of them still have the magic in concert, but seem unable to push themselves in the writing/recording process.

Well I hesitated because I still worship the two guys but...........
Todd Rundgren with Prairie Prince on drums.

I can take the fact that I might not be able to relate to the newer material..........
But doing a rap song about 'Facist Christ"? I'm not particularly religious, but Todd's neither Jay-Z or even Eminem!
Another song was titled 'I Hate My Frickin' ISP'. OK, but it just doesn't stack up against 40 or so other better songs gathering dust in Todd's repetoire.
He performed a jazzy/lounge version of 'Born to Synthesize', which was in it's day (late 70's) quite an innovative solo vocal number. Clapton did the same with Layla, but that was 15 years ago!
The point at which I didn't know whether to cry or punch someone was a 10 minute cover of 'Green Onions' (Booker T). Apart from the fact it is a tired choice (how many bar bands or friends jam bands play this tune), none of Rundgren's band are particularly virtuoso solo performers and we were treated to a sampled sax/keyboard solo, a bass solo AND a drum solo. It was no higher art than a cheap wedding band or something from the lobby of a suburban hotel AND I refer you back to the classic Rundgren repetoire that 'Green Onions' replaced.  

Absolutely.  I think Prince is a good pop example.  I also think Rush is playing better than ever.  Vaughn Freeman (chicago jazz sax player) is around 83 and he probably doesn't blow like he used to, but he can be suprisingly great even at that age.

You are only limited by your mind and ambitions... I'm sure that lackluster performance you saw of Rundgren, well- I was never a fan and don't know about his personal life, but maybe he didn't have alot of time to rehearse for the gig.

I wanted to add this thought to the discussion, but I really dont have an answer to the question

I would have to mention that for the older players -- maybe the older they are, the more they have seen it all and the less excited the get to perform for any said gigs/tunes.  Lack of excitement is hard to conceal and usually is apparent.   Could that have been part of it?

Yea, Buddy Rich and Count Basie both kinda sucked once the got over 40.... JUST KIDDING!

Question is: can a listener over 40 cut it? I'll explain.

Todd Rundgren is a genius to me. I've not seen him live in a very long time, so maybe his shows are bad now. Or maybe they're different.

Bands from a certain time reflect a certain lifestyle, attitude, political presence, etc. The world changes and people change their listening habits. We all feel differently now about the world, compared to how we felt in the 80s, 70s, etc.

I'd have to agree with Steve-O of "Jack@$$" fame when he said that "People don't really like music. They just associate it with a memory from their past. The music helps them re-live this memory. This is why the music makes them feel good."

Todd Rundgren cover songs would do nothing for me. His new material reflects his growth as an artist, which is why it's not an easy listen after being a fan of how he was before.

If you want bands (products) that never grown, Iron Maiden might be good listening. They've hardly changed.

Even more "current" artist get hit with this. Marilyn Manson was accused of not "rocking hard enough" at a recent concert. Sure, he's mid-30s, but he's also growing as an artist...changing it up. Some fans won't like this. It's a risk that artists take.

It would get boring doing the same show time and time again, year after year, decade after decade. Artist change, and people in general don't like that. There are exceptions like Bowie and Madonna, where change seems to be the cornerstone of their survival. Bowie has great talent and surrounds himself with hot musicians constantly.

The listener changes as well. Todd Rundgren fans probably have UTOPIA.... Hammer in My Heart... Chapter and Verse.... I'm Looking at You.... Feet Don't Fail Me Now.... I have to say that I do like every single song on that CD. But I would venture to guess that he would perform them differently at this point in his life and career. I'll confess that it's possible... I probably wouldn't like to hear him perform these titles now.

Who knows... there are probably NEW Todd Rundgren fans out there who may be saying, "man, he used to suck, but listen to him now."

FYI: Todd Rundgren has an album out called "With a Twist" that is a collection of some of his songs done in loungy bossa nova style.
Now here's where I show my age a bit. If you like bossa novas - he does it well. I don't remember the liner notes but at one point he stated something like 'if you can't figure out whether this is a joke or serious, you are correct' (my words). Sorta like an Andy Kaufman Elvis impersonation. Great on separate levels.

No question that there is some tired music and musicians out there.

(IMHO time)
I don't think that all artists lose artitistic vitality after 40. I haven't!  
Heck, Classical players and conductors aren't usually taken seriously until they are that old. Even though they may have been famous before then, their seasoned ability to pull every last bit of emotion and depth out of classical pieces makes them more vital.
Although certain styles don't lend themselves to older artists being able to flourish, others do. It may be style as well as artist that need to be considered.


Jim

I think a big part of it might be the muse.    Not every artist can continue making a living at it past 40, and not every song can be a gem.    So the chances of being able to pull off both are slim.  

Say you are 25 years old, and have 20 songs to choose 10 from for an album.   Of those 10, 2 will be "singles".  Essentially out of 20 songs, 2 are the real gems.   Now repeat that for a second album.   And a third.   And a fourth.    Easy?  No.   And youre only 29.   Try reproducing that magic 11 more times after that.    

I would also say that many artists who "score" aim for that same formula to "score" again.   Either of thier own volition or the encouragement of a label.   And a big part of what makes great music great is its uniqueness.   So if after 20+ years you are trying to "score" by doing what you did 20+ years ago, theres a good chance youll miss.

You mention jazz folks being more inclined to succeed with age.   I think its because a large part of jazz involves improvisation.   Not just with what notes your playing when.   But there is more leeway to manipulate the feel of a tune based on your current state of mind.   Making the music inherently more "current".    I also think that ability only improves with age.   Like speaking a language, the longer you surround yourself with a language the easier it becomes to speak it.  

Id like to add Peter Gabriel to the list of aging pop stars who are consistantly creating new and worthwhile music.  

Sting, Eric Clapton and Robert Plant as well.

They are mostly exceptions though.

I think the simple truth is that most just run out of things to say. Lyrically and or musically.

That sums up the way I feel about it for sure. I also agree that Gabriel's last album and tour seemed to hit the spot with many of his fans. Can't agree on Sting, Clapton and Plant. The first two in particular have settled into a kind of MOR, smooth music for the CD generation type mode. I agree, they all released vital recordings after their 40's, but I can't think of anything that rocked this world in the last 10 years.
Scott makes good points about Prince. In fact it goes back to my point about the inability to self edit.
I once worked with a guy who had the same management, we also recorded with one of Prince's recording engineer's. The beginning of the end with both record company and management was Prince's insistence on releasing more than one album a year. The man is reportedly a workaholic and will churn out masses of material every month. The record company wanted to pick and choose the best songs to form a superb album every 18 months or so. When the rejected material started to show up on 'bootleg' releases I think the record company lost patience.