Who is the oldest rocker/rock artist that is still relevant?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Eminem?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 10 February 2003 05:56 (twenty-three years ago)

how old is the fat hive?

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 10 February 2003 05:57 (twenty-three years ago)

how old is malcolm mooney?

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Monday, 10 February 2003 06:01 (twenty-three years ago)

marriane faithful ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 10 February 2003 06:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Duh. The Rolling Stones.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 10 February 2003 06:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Duh. Johnny Cash.

― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 10 February 2003 06:37 (twenty-three years ago)

duh. Bob Dylan.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 10 February 2003 06:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Nah, Leonard Cohen owns this thread.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2003 06:43 (twenty-three years ago)

willy nelson. his superbowl commercial was tight.

― Brock K. (Brock K.), Monday, 10 February 2003 07:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Well I saw the Stones two weeks ago; they seemed relevant to me. They did "Midnight Rambler" on their little 'side stage' deal, and it was fucking ferocious.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Monday, 10 February 2003 07:40 (twenty-three years ago)

duh, phil spector

― James Blount (James Blount), Monday, 10 February 2003 07:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Duh cher

― Vic (Vic), Monday, 10 February 2003 08:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Jandek.

― jack cole (jackcole), Monday, 10 February 2003 09:02 (twenty-three years ago)

No way .. nice name to drop, but unfortunatly the big J doesn't work in this thread, any way you slice 'im.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Monday, 10 February 2003 09:20 (twenty-three years ago)

you can't trust anyone over 13.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 10 February 2003 10:03 (twenty-three years ago)

so no one.

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 10 February 2003 10:03 (twenty-three years ago)

mmm... sliced Jandek

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Monday, 10 February 2003 11:44 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not sure what relevance has to do with anything.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Duh Link Wray

― Lynskey (Lynskey), Monday, 10 February 2003 13:03 (twenty-three years ago)

lynskey = otm

(unless lady govida's horse = still alive)

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 10 February 2003 13:23 (twenty-three years ago)

By "still relevant" do you mean relevant now? Because that would exclude just about everyone mentioned... Their music that they created 30 years ago is still relevant, and they're still alive ... but they themselves are not relevant.

I'm gonna have to go with Johnny Cash though. Still making great records.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 10 February 2003 13:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't think any of the above is relevant--Stones? Dylan? LEONARD COHEN? Forget about it, Richard Harris was far more relevant than Leonard Cohen. B.B. King? Buddy Guy? Nope. Robert Lockwood Jr.? Nope, saw him once or twice at blues fest, he could barely play? The Fat Possum crew? Never were relevant. Tom Waits? Nope. Beefheart? Don't play no more. Johnny Cash--hipsters love him, therefore he's not relevant, to folks in the know he's just a guy who had a TV show and recorded songs about Jesus and some novelty tunes set in Detroit. Yeah, I know, he covered Nine Inch Nails and so forth, therefore even less relevant. Lou Reed? Did a MUSICAL based on POE. John Cale? Nope. Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Fats Domino? Can't remember their own songs. Nick Cave? Has read two Faulkner novels.

Howlin' Wolf did not make a record until he was 40, he's more relevant dead than anyone on this list alive.

― Edd Hurt (delta ed), Monday, 10 February 2003 13:44 (twenty-three years ago)

.. uh, "relevant to whom?" I guess is the full question...

Richard fucking Harris? .. not relevant to me, ever.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 10 February 2003 13:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Johnny Cash--hipsters love him, therefore he's not relevant, to folks in the know he's just a guy who had a TV show and recorded songs about Jesus and some novelty tunes set in Detroit.

I'm confused. I thought folks in the know were hipsters?

― James Ball (James Ball), Monday, 10 February 2003 13:58 (twenty-three years ago)

the first person i thought of was tom waits

― robin (robin), Monday, 10 February 2003 14:15 (twenty-three years ago)

Dylan's more relevant now than he's ever been since the 60s. Which is saying a lot.
I saw "Don't Look Back" when it was re-released a couple of years ago and there were college kids sitting there absolutely enthralled. When I saw him play last fall there were teenagers dancing in front of the stage.
I love Johnny Cash, but I don't think his latest music (most of which are covers) stands up to any of his truly great music.
The Stones still may sound pretty good on stage (as I discovered to my surprise when I watched the HBO special) but they haven't been RELEVANT since the 70s. Name me some recent songs that have actually meant something.

― Jazzbo (jmcgaw), Monday, 10 February 2003 14:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Sisyphus

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Monday, 10 February 2003 14:55 (twenty-three years ago)

The winner: Horace Mann, Ladies and Gentlemen.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 10 February 2003 15:25 (twenty-three years ago)

I suppose relevant would mean that the person is still releasing new records that command the interest and praise of critics, etc. Wray still puts out albums but is anybody paying much attention to them? Dylan and Cohen are certainly still relevant by this definition. Cash too, but is he a "rock artist"?

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:01 (twenty-three years ago)

I love Johnny Cash, but I don't think his latest music (most of which are covers) stands up to any of his truly great music

Um, even in his prime, most of Johnny Cash's music consisted of "covers" no?

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd say it was 50/50 covers/his own material, not that it matters one way or the other.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:10 (twenty-three years ago)

(That's not to take anything away from his accomplishment as an artist, but the fact is that his reputation has always rested to a large extent on his ability to craft moving and personal renditions of songs he didn't write, whether traditional ballads or covers of other artists. Of course, he wrote many great songs too, but I think if you look at all the records he made through the peak years of his career, there are is a high percentage of "covers" in there - likely greater than 50%.)

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:13 (twenty-three years ago)

So, in that way, Cash is way more in the vein of pop singers than rock singers. Because only the "emotion" or whatever you want call it was his, not the "words" themselves.
So whenever some no-neck says Backstreet sucks because they don't write they own songs, you gotta say that by that logic, J.Cash sucks big time.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Nope, James Ball, folks in the know are not hipsters--hipsters are SELF-CONSCIOUS AND PRETENTIOUS folks in the know. People, for example, who think Johnny Cash is an "outlaw" and therefore "hip."

Try again.

― Edd Hurt (delta ed), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:23 (twenty-three years ago)

Also--judging by the comment above about "Richard fucking Harris"--hipsters are people with zero sense of humor--oh yeah, man, I really, really think Richard Harris is relevant, he's so bad he's good, etc.

― Edd Hurt (delta ed), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:24 (twenty-three years ago)

"Outlaw"? sheesh! The guy's been a born-again Christian since the late 60s.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:38 (twenty-three years ago)

So if some people like him 'for the wrong reasons' he must automatically be irrelevant? I'm still confused.

I'm not a hipster, but I do think he's made some good records recently about growing old. Which are relevant to people growing old, I guess.

― James Ball (James Ball), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:41 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm so unhip, I don't get the joke about Richard Fucking Harris.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 10 February 2003 17:34 (twenty-three years ago)

He's a favorite of Bill Clinton.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2003 17:47 (twenty-three years ago)

And J.K. Rowlings

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Monday, 10 February 2003 17:56 (twenty-three years ago)

oldest most relevant to me today -- robert wyatt.

― JasonD (JasonD), Monday, 10 February 2003 20:34 (twenty-three years ago)

George Clinton? Lot of rock in those funk records.

― gaz (gaz), Monday, 10 February 2003 22:11 (twenty-three years ago)

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/heino.jpg

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 10 February 2003 22:21 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know how they do it, but god damn it, the Rolling Stones are still the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world.

― Mark (MarkR), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, that Madison Sq. Garden concert on HBO was actually pretty great, save for the Sheryl Crow appearance.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2003 23:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't know how they do it

Regular blood replacements and more vitamin shots than is considered healthy?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 00:42 (twenty-three years ago)

David Bowie? (at least he's fighting like hell to stay relevant)

― j.lu (j.lu), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 02:56 (twenty-three years ago)

Satan

― Ludwig, Tuesday, 11 February 2003 03:09 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't understand why people make fun of the Rolling Stones. Shouldn't we applaud them for refusing to submit to the ageist notion that rock must be the exclusive province of the young? Why should they be held up for ridicule simply because they are pushing fifty. Why, many of our wonderful parents are past that!

That was my embarrassingly earnest post of the day.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 04:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Geza X.

― Dave Fischer, Tuesday, 11 February 2003 07:29 (twenty-three years ago)

Haven't seen the Madison Square Garden concert, but I did see them on the 'Bridges to Babylon' tour and they're definitely still an awesome live band. But when was the last time the Stones made a truly great record? That could stand up next to 'Time out of mind', 'Solitary Man' or 'Schleep'?

― James Ball (James Ball), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 10:22 (twenty-three years ago)

How about (depending on what you count as relevant OR old):
Madonna
Kylie
Lee Scratch Perry
Bruce Springsteen (!)
Horace Andy
Brian Wilson

― dog latin, Tuesday, 11 February 2003 11:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Aha, I think Lee Perry is probably the truest winner.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 15:19 (twenty-three years ago)

He hasn't been relevant since 1980!

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 16:53 (twenty-three years ago)

no way, people still appropriate him and appropriate his newer stuff too.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 16:55 (twenty-three years ago)

You mean the Adrian Sherwood collabs?

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 16:56 (twenty-three years ago)

what about that pudgy kid whose image keeps being posted...he totally swipes from Lee Perry.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 11 February 2003 17:03 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.