For someone to be in a jobbing band going nowhere and doing nothing?
Playing toliet circuits and the like?
When should people give up?
And don't say 'never', cos that's just rubbish. People should give up when they realise no one cares.
For someone to be in a jobbing band going nowhere and doing nothing?
Playing toliet circuits and the like?
When should people give up?
And don't say 'never', cos that's just rubbish. People should give up when they realise no one cares.
40
but
i think it should be as much about the bands age as the persons age. maybe
40 really?
Do you not think 40 year old people must have realised that should do something else by this point?
I think 25max.
surely they can continue to 27?
it is the rock and roll age of death after all...
Who'd care if they died
if they'd done nothing worthwhile?
you're assuming they're doing it
for the good of music, maybe they just enjoy playing in a band? If they still can then why not? you're not forced to watch them.
nah thats way too early
i mean, the lead singer of Franz Ferdinand was on the toilet circuit til he was 35, and look at them now (well, look at them a year ago for a more valid point)
!!!
people should still be allowed to perform
but maybe not rock music, they should move to jazz or something.
Never
never.
even when they're dead, i demand old people make at least two albums a year.
never
if they're good. look at taylor hicks.
abandon reply.
i think the main point here is "doing nothing"
i mean, its one thing to be in an 20th rate pub rock band to get laid when youre 19.
bluh, even thinking about it depresses me somewhat.
they should give up
when they stop enjoying it. a condition which might well be precipitated by audiences no longer giving a shit, but that's as may be.
25
is definitely the maximum age where you're gonna get successful, if you're doing indie or whatever.
No-one wants to see someone nearly 30 on the cover of the NME, unless they've already made it, like Moz or Oasis.
or Shaka Hislop
Robert Pollard's nearly 50
and reaching a new audience all the time. His consistency's not what it was, though. I honestly don't think age matters. I don't see why it would. The only time it would, would be if you wanted to be famous, and if that's why you make music, you should give up anyway, cos you'll never make good songs.
Robert who?
Robert Pollard
He was in Guided By Voices, who were, from 1989 to 1996, the best band in the world. He released his best album since 96 this year. He's also made some really bad albums in the past ten years.
yup
his new one is TOP.
they ruled forever. guided by voices are somehow the greatest band on earth because they were made up of fat, balding, unattractive school teachers who somehow had the power to make the most amazingly live affirming rock and roll ever.
depends on the style of music
Would you like to go see a bunch of 60 year olds doing punk rock?
Personally I couldn't give a shit how old a band is as long as they have passion and play well.
Would you like to go see a bunch of 60 year olds doing punk rock?
did you think before you wrote this?
I would pay good good money to see that.
Loads of oldsters are touring in their punks bands.
Buzzcocks.
Stranglers.
Cramps.
Stooges.
Sex Pistols.
I meant like
bands going nowhere. I'd love to see a really grimy dirty oldy punk band just being cliched punks.
Spitting and starting fights and stuff.
reply
It's a rhetorical question, dickhead.
Did you not read the sentence underneath?
So did you mean you would?
If you did your phrasing was beyond shit, a bit like you.
(personal attacks are funny)
everything is beyond shit at some point.
If you want an answer than yes i would go and see a decent punk band made of grandfathers.If they were shit than no.
sorry for the insult,i'm stressed and need to release some tension.
I would go and see an old punk band despite complete shitness
Infact I think that would add to the experience.
93
After you're really TOO old...
I big into the live British Blues scene
and people don't retire, they just die.
Never.
People should do what they want, regardless of age. Obviously, it may be more difficult to get acceptance in certain circles as you get older but... who cares.
You're only saying that
because you know you're past it now.
I feel a bit sorry for you, but then think you deserve it because you're such a prick.
^WRIGHTYLEW
exactly the truth.
remember
when I said that you weren't a stupid little prick? Turns out that I was wrong, you stupid little prick.
wrighty
..
LOL
you said "jobbing"
There's no upper age
Over 99% of people in bands don't "go anywhere" and don't expect to - they just enjoy the gigs.
Some of my closest friends are over 40 and in bands - next week is the fiftieth birthday of my former housemate, the legendary Phil Marks. He's still a leading light in improv, but no "success" at all.
Try to break out of you tiny, tiny bubble - there's a fuck of a lot of music out there to enjoy.
Weird question
You should play to express yourself and to connect with others. That's what art is about. You should only stop if you are not doing it for these reasons or if you have nothing to say.
stupid question
the fact that you're judging people by age shows what a precious NME buying cunt that you are, would you have turned to johnny cash and said "sorry mate you're well past it, fuck off"? He would have shot you in the face and quite right so.
well Johnny Cash
wasn't exactly playing at the Underworld
Plus
The Cash was a fucking legende 50 years ago..
not to say he wasn't when he died
but he was a legend for about 50 years so it's not as if he'd done nothing..
This is sad
No one who is connecting with someone and saying something with their art is doing nothing. You're looking at this as if playing music is some career you are trying to get ahead in, trying to become the CEO of Music Inc. or something. Artists need to make a living, sure, but if making a living or playing a giant stadium is your main focus, then you should have been working a 9-5 job to begin with. Even "becoming a legend" is no reason to play music (self-esteem problems can be worked out in other ways, like at the psychiatrist for example). I get the feeling that you have some major misconceptions about what art and artists are. If that is not the case, then you must only be asking about people whose aim is to be pop superstars. Those jackasses should quit right away. Their "music" is nothing more than some inane distraction for people to lazy to look for something truly rewarding to listen to, and I really don't understand how a band like that would be of interest to anyone who would visit this site anyway.
You have a very shallow and arrogant
interpretation of what "art" is or what it apparently should be. To say that a musician is only playing music for music's sake is an age old fallacy and act in self-deceit. Before you jump on my back, my argument has nothing to do with the importance of money or a career, but nothing is ever created for the sake of an objective belief, such as "art" or "science", because these things dont actually exist- the reasons are always much more basic, namely the desire to stamp one's own imprint on the world in a certain form. I'm sorry, its late, and if I was in a better mood I'd actually slightly agree with your sentiment. However the tone of your post was just begging for a hostile reply. I guess what I am saying might not make sense, but it does in my brain, somewhere.
and anyway
I wouldnt say that "wanting to become a legend", or in other words, fulfilling the desires of the ego, isn't a good enough reason to become a musician- I think you'll find thats the case in a great majority of artists whether you want to believe it or not.
great
now i feel bad because you like built to spill and MBV so you're probably cool. lol. Sorry.
for some people
the age limit is infinity years old. but for the likes of post-boring pop fop (snow patrol, etc.) the age limit is the day they're born.
Uh yeah
That's...okay? I have no idea why making art to connect with others or to make an important statement is shallow. But that is the sort of thing I was saying was worth pursuing at any age, and that is how I would define a true artist, the only type of artist that anyone interested in music should really care about. I think many artists are motivated primarily by one or both of these things (I was under the impression that connecting with others in a meaningful way was of great concern to some musicians of note-forgive my shortsightedness). I'm not sure why that would be hard to comprehend but whatever. Regardless, I can tell you that being solely motivated by the idea of becoming a legend (merely gratifying one's own ego) is very obviously shallow. It would be hard for me to trust the "art" of anyone like that.
By the way
If you honestly think that being a "legend" is what makes the majority of the artists you like tick, I don't know why you would like them in the first place. So much for punk rock teaching anyone anything, huh? If I ever told Doug Martsch that I thought he was a legend, he would probably smile uncomfortably and give me a weird look (but politely say "thanks" after some hestitation because that's the kind of guy he is).
Johnny Dowd
didnt make his first album until he was in his mid 40s, after being in the army and selling furnature, and his stuff is brilliant
bigmanwithagun
I know several people who make incredible music without ever making an effort to "market" it.
that really wasn't what my argument was about
i was trying to discuss the
subject of intent. I dont think people pursue projects for the benefit of the "objective" body (e.g arts, science)-they do it for themselves, to test themselves and that doesn't need to have anything to do with money.
;
Too old is when it stops being fun. And not a second before.
Franz dude was over
30 when they made it big.
Never give up.
Never.
Alternatively, you might want to ask if some people are too young to make music.
I think people should keep going
until they die or become incapable of doing their instrument justice. As long as they still enjoy it and have some other job to bring the real money in then it doesn't matter whether it's toilet circuits or not. Music is incredible and to make a truly excellent song can inspire millions. We should all strive to do that no matter what our age is
I think that people should keep playing as long as they enjoy it...
whether they're 25 or 50.
Pulp
had been going for ages before they "made it big". So um... until however old Jarvis was circa Razzmatazz + one year.
he was
about 30 when they got biggish. born in 63.
What a bizarre thread
Seconded
.
12, cos I just can't take it seriously when those wrinkled old 15 year olds try and sound like they care. Just don't connect with them on an emotional or intellectual level once they enter their teens
.
actually, this kinda deserves a slightly more serious reply.
No wonder the music business is in such a shit state if we demand the arbiters of musical excellence to be 20 years old. That may have worked back in the sixties- people generally took on more responsibility at a younger age back then, and had enough experience of the world to write a meaningful song.
I don't think people grow up as soon now...so as far as maturity goes, no wonder there is a lack of decent guitar band songwriting skills now, compared to thirty years ago.
^ true
everyone having a go, above
was that at Martbowski's original post? cos if so then no need. he was just trying to start a debate (albeit one that comes up a fair bit) and succeeded.