This is even less well-thought-through than usual

I admit that I'm not quite sure what the claim about rock and jazz made here is—that older players aren't expected to have continued relevance, that they're expected to have diminished quality, or that they're expected to reprise the same sorts of things that they did when young (that is, not supposed to have different stylistic phases), or something else entirely (or some mix). But surely there are legions of counterexamples to each, and especially the first two? (Though I'm not sure how to assess the relevance except, well, relatively; when was the last time, after all, that free improv was generally relevant, much less the improviser of age x?) I actually know plenty of people who like Dylan's recent work just fine (some who think it's better than what he put out as a youth, even), but who wouldn't compare it to his earlier albums simply because they're quite different—he's got a different style now.  Tom Waits similarly. People don't go to Dylan's shows now just hoping to hear the old stuff—somewhat remarkably.  In some cases (though the recent folk-rock rediscoveries such as Vashti Bunyan, whose second album is not markedly dissimilar from her first, proves that it's certainly not all—that whole topic of what people make of the albums made by suddenly-rediscovered or unearthed folks would probably be pretty interesting in this light) there's an expectation that the player will change, lest extreme patheticness set in. (Consider the Rolling Stones. These cases are, I guess, those in which the early material is obviously the product of youth, or tied to being young; I think a lot of Dylan's (and certainly the Stones') early material is like that in a way that that of Bunyan or, say, Robert Wyatt, to take another person who's continued to put out quality after 40, simply isn't.)

Scott Walker's over 60, and it would take a lot of effort to maintain that his current style isn't that far removed from "Make It Easy On Yourself", and Tilt and The Drift have certainly received their fair share of praise.  Joe Maneri's first album as a leader came out in 1991—he was 67; nearly all of Steffen Basho-Junghans and Derek Bailey's albums as leader came after their 40th birthdays (Joseph Holbrooke, though, was formed when Bailey was 33).  Paul Flaherty seems to be everywhere these days, and while I'm not sure how old he is, he's certainly over 40. Both Peter Brötzmann and Sonny Sharrock were over 40 when Last Exit was formed, and Hamid Drake only started attracting serious attention after that point. As far as I can tell Keiji Haino, John Zorn (most or all of the Masada material comes from after his 40th year), and most of the AMM crew are still relevant and producing quality output. Fred Frith's output has only gotten increasingly varied as time's gone on.  Otomo Yoshihide, Tony Buck (I haven't checked this but he looked old when I saw him), Jon Rose, Evan Parker, blah.

Even Blixa Bargeld is over 40, and when I saw him last year it was amazing.

With regard to this bit from this article by Said, all, alas, that I've read:

Yet what of the last or late period of life, the decay of the body, the onset of ill health (which, in a younger person, brings on the possibility of an untimely end)?

Bailey's Carpal Tunnel immediately suggests itself, as do Warren Zevon's last few albums.  (We pass over in silence Mike Watt's album about when he almost died from an infection on his perineum.)

Most of the above-named are improv types, of course.  Partly this is a function of the fact that it's easier to find out how old they are (how old is Rick Bishop?  Beats me.), and partly it's because there are a lot more obvious candidates there (also I don't trust myself to have a good sense about who the candidates are in rockier territory, which is kind of ironic, since I'm most familiar with it… ah well).  But I also think that, even if it were true that rock audiences would reject or be inclined to reject stuff from older bands/persons in the past, that's changing; I don't see any reason, anyway, to believe that Jim O'Rourke or The Melvins, say, are just going to stop producing interesting music in three years. (Though it turns out that Buzz Osborne is already over 40.)

I tried to find some rockier people who I thought would be candidates for already- or soon-to-be- over-40dom, and was repeatedly foiled by the lack of easily available information.Then I made one anyway and it's posted below because it occurred to me that I can't really assess stylistic change in many of them.  But I really think the age-based thing only applies to the rawkier parts of rock and the poppier parts of pop.  K-Space isn't much like Henry Cow.  (But who cares about K-Space?  Beats me, but "relevance" seems like a suspicious criterion.)

Merzbow has got to be over 40.  This claims that Tatsuya Yoshida was born in '77, which is insanity, since Ruins were formed in, what, 85?  1967 is only slightly more plausible. I'd assume that, given how much people have started creaming themselves of the (ancient but still totally awesome) Magma, he'll be able to hold onto attention for a while. Greg Anderson is 35 and I presume will be around for some time, and if Tom Gabriel Fischer were 20 when he formed Hellhammer, he'd be over 40 now, and Celtic Frost still gets praise, eg (provocative! mature!). Carla Bozulich is apparently over 40; so, I think, are Nels and Alex Cline.  I, of course, can't just dismiss Robert Fripp (60!) even though the last thing he recorded that I really unreservedly liked came out I think 12 years ago. Etc etc etc.  Uh, Faust.  Faust is pretty old.  Yo La Tengo?  I dunno.  The Red Krayola itself was over 40 when this came out.

Unfortunately my terrible memory prevents me from coming up with more examples in which there's a real diachronic stylistic change, though in some cases above there is one (even Yoshida's had some).

Comments

[rone]

I am a huge John Paul Jones fan. He's definitely geezerly, but his two solo albums have been good, and he definitely still has the chops.

Does mentioning Peter Gabriel count?

Lastly, all the members of Pearl Jam are between 40 and 44.

[rone]

I am also obliged to point out that Kristin Hersh is 40 and putting out better music than ever.

[kevin r hollo]

very good call on the kristin hersh, tho i've never understood the relevance of pearl jam.

i'm fascinated by this thread involving late style, and not having read said's book (but really wanting to after reading these blogs) i can only venture the following: there's much more at work on the blossoming or withering of talent/skill/ego whatever in a musician whose career has some sort of willful play on the definition of pop music. i guess i'm thinking about self-relevance, the imperious urge to grow, something that nearly every musician that has been mentioned feels and listens to. how do you guage self-relevance's relationship to the greater realm of (pop) culture relevance?

as for this statement: "when was the last time, after all, that free improv was generally relevant, much less the improviser of age x?"
not getting into the semantics of generally relevant, but seriously, the trickle down jazzonomics of free improvisation has left an indelible mark on pop music today, like it or leave it. i would rather leave it alone, having come full circle to the wonders of the three-minute nugget of melody as purveyed by the likes of sean lennon, apples in stereo, etc. but improvisation in music...look at the genre busting that weather report and pat metheny did and how that fed into the vermont waters of PHiSH and spawned countless derivatives of generically-challenged artists. i would venture to say that beck or prince (easily two of the most important artists at work today) would not be possible without that improv-laden stream. the ability to grind through genres or categories and avoid easy pegging has not only pushed music culture towards a genre free-for-all it has created a space for new genres. all while a lot recycling in the name of improv is going on. which hurts. but what's done IS done.

[ben wolfson]

I just skimmed the above comment but part of it reminded me of a claim that was really striking when I first read it (in a review of a biography of Bailey in the Village Voice): that Jerry Garcia had put in more hours of free playing than had Bailey. If you consider that Bailey's own version of nonidiomatic improvisation had a pretty immediately recognizeable style, it's not even that implausible a claim (at least to someone utterly unfamiliar with the Dead).