Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Justin Hale]

My two favorite bands - Tool and Type O Negative - are well in their 40s now.

I totally want these bands to carry on recording and touring, but at what point does it become a bit lame? Actually Tool have gotten better with age and TON have declined slightly (their 90s albums far better than their 00s albums in the opinion of most fans and the guys themselves). Nevertheless, both bands are fabulous and new material seems essential.

Pink Floyd played the Live 8 concert but generally they're hostile to new shows and certainly recording (leaving aside the fact that they don't get along) and it's arguably the right decision. Led Zepp reformed and I suppose that's good, but because Rock is so inextricably bound up with youth and rebellion, it looks rather odd and sad to see wrinkly Robert Plant and Mick Jaggar strutting their stuff still, I think.

Phil Anselmo from Pantera will be 40 in June. That's weird because he's such a youthful character. Dimebag would be 42 in August were he not murdered. Kurt Cobain would be 41. I think bands like Slayer, Pearl Jam, Pantera still look the part in their 40s - no problem - but at what point does it become lame as hell? Or is ability and music the sole criteria? Let's say Tool are still making albums of the quality of 10,000 Days (2006) in their 60s. Is the quality, the ability, undermined by age, or not? How willing would you be to rush out and buy a new Rolling Stones album? If Lennon and Harrison were still alive, would it be freaking amazing - or frankly lamer than heck - if they reformed?

Absolutely critical issue, this.

[ChopChaeJoe]

Dylan still kicks ass.

[Mix1]

Good question. Maybe character and integrity are more important than age. A lot of these older musicians come from an age before everything was so trendy, commercialized, and over-hyped. When music was a bit more real, vital, creative, and emotional. Just my opinion.

Now, most music coming out lately seems to be just a re-hashed fashion show with re-hashed sounds and slick marketing. About all they can do now is mix genres a bit, do remixes, and re-hash various retro fashion trends and re-market it with younger faces. I'd love to hear some great new stuff that wasn't a cheap re-hash of days gone by, but I won't hold my breath. So if that's how it's gonna be, why not listen to the original bands who happen to be a bit older, but have loads more character than a self-obsessed young fashion brat with a pretty face?

And I'm not only talking about rock music, the same sort of commercialized stagnation seems to be occurring in hip hop, electronic, pop, RNB, metal, punk, indie, etc. I could be wrong though, maybe there's some great new underground stuff I've not heard yet.


Look at writers. No one judges them negatively when they age, why can't music be similar? Ok, at a certain point, no one wants to see old men in tight leather pants strutting around on stage, but as far as the music, who says age has to matter? But the other factor is the age of the listener. For example, these days, I don't put as much time, energy, or emotion into listening to music like I did as a teenager, so music itself has become less relevant to my life. So even if something came along that was fresh, new, and amazing, I may not even be very impressed as I would have been to hear it at age 16.

[ChopChaeJoe]

[djsmnc]

Once I got a hold of some China White and Meth I thought rock was pretty lame

[uberscheisse]

this man made it okay for rock to be lame.

the world shouldn't forgive that.

[Pete82]

...

[Czarjorge]

Uh... this old.

Though I'd argue it's all about attitude. There is a lifestyle attached to being a "rocker". When you can't do that anymore, you're done. Keith Richards still qualifies, and he's 426.

[Czarjorge]

Oh, and anyone wearing those ridiculous crimped Cowboy hats lose their pass. Automatically. And should probably be beaten about the neck and chest with guitars, preferably metal ones shaped like axes, or maybe swords...