How many musicians are lying about their ages?

Bob Pollard's gotta be up there.

Nick Saloman: Don't know him.

I suppose what I'm asking about is this general rule that once people get to 30 they won't be signed. I'm in the middle of my twenties and worrying about how long I've got, but I know plenty of 29-33 year olds who are making music (some do lie about their age) and still getting record company interest, and sometimes actually getting signed, and always still very hopeful. What is the 30 year rule based on? Is it looks? This seems strange considering some of the unaesthetic people in even very young indie label bands.

But then I was trying to think of any musicians who'd got anywhere after they turned 30, and there's not many. Jarvis had been releasing records for ages, so his sudden rise after 30 was essentially just a nice continuation of his story. Debbie Harry had been part of the New York scene for a long time, so presumably had plenty of contacts etc. Recently, the only new-but-old band I can think of to emerge is Doves (who look like they're mid 30s at least), but they used to be Sub Sub, so again it's just a kind of continuation of an already established career.

So what's the oldest that anyone's just come from nowhere to do great things?

Wasn't Vi Subversa in her fifties when she started Poison Girls? Or am I just full of it?

come to think of it, I just turned 21.

Chuck Berry was born in 1926. In 1955 (when he was 28/29) he made his first recording, and had his first hit, with 'Maybellene.' Aside from "Roll Over Beethoven," which reached #29 on Billboard's Hot 100 in May 1956, Berry found the initial success of "Maybellene" hard to follow ... until he hit on the 'teen' formula (at the age of 31). In 1957 "School Days" made #5 on the Hot 100. His singles for the next two and a half years included: "Oh Baby Doll" (#57) and "Rock and Roll Music" (#8) in 1957; "Sweet Little Sixteen" (#2), "Johnny B. Goode" (#8), "Carol" (#10), "Sweet Little Rock and Roller" (#47), and "Merry Christmas Baby" (#71) in 1958; and "Anthony Boy" (#60), "Almost Grown"(#32), and "Back in the USA" (#37) in 1959.

Can anyone think of anyone who has genuinely come from nowhere and started releasing music when they were above a decent age?

I can't, and I'm really puzzled as to the reason why. It makes sense in commercial pop, but in other forms of music, where it is essentially the music that counts, it doesn't make sense to me. Lots of music I like is made by 30 or 40 year olds, or older, but am I only allowed to hear it because they also made records when they were in their 20s? Why can't a 40 year old be allowed to release a debut album, if it's good?

I know there are cynical perceived marketing problems with older people. It's hard to get a book published once you're past a certain age even. But it IS possible. It seems to me that there are 'marketing problems' with a lot of indie releases. There are so many brilliant records put out (involving acceptably young people) that are entirely uncommercial, that will only sell a few thousand copies, but someone still is prepared to release them (presumably out of enthusiasm/love). So why, in these cases, is this hard 30 year rule upheld?

Having said all that I think there will be a lot of older people coming through in years to come because of changing demographics and the collapse of the rock and pop myth. Not indie bands obviously but people doing electronica and experimental stuff where the link with old style 'youth culture' is getting more and more tenuous.

It's not as if anyone checks your birth certificate when you sign anything. Practically everyone I know is lying about their age, and it usually starts at 22/23.

yeah, but these two particular brothers were signed back in 1988 to DGC when they were mid-20s. AND they released a cassette on Sub Pop (fanzine era) prior to that.