Should Rock and Roll Performers Always Be Young?

[Old Master 3.0]

A few days ago I was watching on the local TV program "The Today Show" a tired, geriatric Jerry Lee Lewis performing...of all things...Led Zepplin's "Rock 'N Roll".

Now I realize other performers are getting older, but this is really the first time I ever saw a rocker who was getting up in years, and was truly no longer agile.

What's going to happen in a few years when all the '60s rockers lose their agility on stage such as Mick jagger?
Will we still pay money to see these people if they choose to perform? Or will it start to become a sad spectacle of what that person used to be? Some may even say its a spectacle already. What do you think?

Myself, I feel if ya still got it, keep on rockin'.

Ozzy Osbourne, The Rolling Stones and their ilk are in a class all their own and can probably still kick some azz well into their friggin' 90's.

 

[goldenboy]

Some styles age more gracefully than others. You see the old, octogenarian bluesmen playing guitar, wailing out a song. Blues seems to get even better with older, elderly musicians.

Someone trying to do skate punk or death metal in their 70s, 80s...hmm...

It's still fun to watch Chuck Berry, Little Richard.

 

[Kali]

I say keep on rocking if you can - especially after having watched that young at heart programme on Saturday with the really old and wrinklies singing James Brown, David Bowie and Coldplay - it was fab. They all looked about 20 years younger than their actual age, and they went out and performed at prisons and shows. Certainly seems to have kept them young. Regardless of whether you are Mick Jagger or John Doe you should be out there strutting your stuff. Sod what everyone else thinks of you!

I'll be doing renditions of Joan Jett and Suzi Quattro in about 40 years.....