"Hope I die before I get old."
The Who, "My Generation."
"The children of rock ‘n’ roll never grow old, they just fade away."
The Rutles, "Good Times Roll"
I must confess that it was with more surprise than sadness that I learned of Syd Barrett’s death last week. Surprise, for I could not have said with any certainty that I knew he was still alive to begin with. After all, it had been almost 40 years since he’d quit Pink Floyd, the band he’d formed in 1965, leaving only one album — 1967’s revolutionary Piper at the Gates of Dawn — as his legacy. Since then, following a brief solo career, his seclusion in Cambridgeshire was so complete that it was all too easy to assume that he’d already slipped away.
Born in 1946, Barrett was part of the post-war baby boom generation that has dramatically reshaped western society over the past 60 years. Here in Canada, the annual number of births jumped from 300,000 in 1945 to 370,000 just two years later, and remained at 400,000 or higher until the mid-1960s. The net result was a total of 6.7 million babies born between 1946 and 1961 — a single generation more than twice the size of Canada’s entire population at the time of Confederation.
In Born at the Right Time (1996), historian Doug Owram chronicles Canada’s baby boomers and identifies some of their key characteristics. First, as his title implies, they were a "fortunate generation," born at a time when successive governments, determined to prevent a repeat of the depression of the 1930s, were committed to the goal of full employment and support for a cradle-to-grave welfare state.
Second, it was a generation that came of age in the 1960s — a decade invariably labelled as "tumultuous" or "turbulent" — when long-established political, social and cultural values were shaken to their core, culminating in the revolutionary year of 1968. "Here was a generation," remarks Owram, "that … was about to transform Western society."
Finally, it was a generation aware of its own significance and power, if not always of what that implied for those who would follow. "Here is the spoiled generation who had it all," Owram concludes. "They obtained the best jobs; ran up the government debt; and now sit astride career paths in corporations, education and government. They will perch there for another ten to twenty years…. Even then, they will probably use their massive numbers to ensure that pensions remain healthy and thus an increasing burden on the smaller workforce that follows them."
But by dying at the age of 60, Syd Barrett also belonged to a subset of this generation: those rock ‘n’ roll musicians who died relatively young (average life expectancy in England is 78; in Canada, it’s 79) or at least never lived to receive a pension. In The Death of Rock ‘n’ Roll (1993), Jeff Pike explores this world of premature demise; the included list is just a small sample from that book (Sidebar One).
| |
Year of Death |
Age at Death |
| Jimi Hendrix |
1970 |
27 |
| Janis Joplin |
1970 |
27 |
| Jim Morrison |
1971 |
27 |
| Mama Cass Elliot |
1974 |
32 |
| Nick Drake |
1974 |
26 |
| Tim Buckley |
1975 |
28 |
| Paul Kossoff |
1976 |
25 |
| Marc Bolan |
1977 |
30 |
| Keith Moon |
1978 |
31 |
| Sid Vicious |
1979 |
21 |
| Ian Curtis |
1980 |
23 |
| John Bonham |
1980 |
32 |
| John Lennon |
1980 |
40 |
| Bon Scott |
1980 |
33 |
| Dennis Wilson |
1983 |
39 |
| Stevie Ray Vaughan |
1990 |
35 |
| Steve Marriott |
1991 |
44 |
| Freddie Mercury |
1991 |
45 |
| Johnny Thunders |
1991 |
35 |
Admittedly, not all the names here are technically baby boomers, some being born during World War Two – but the likes of Hendrix, Joplin and Morrison are certainly symbolic of that generation. Anyway, the central point remains. "One wonders what the hell is going on here," asks Pike. "Is there something about the trappings of rock ‘n’ roll — the drugs and alcohol, the obsessions of the fans, the life on the road — that is inherently fatal or dangerous?"
Good question. But just as interesting is the flip side to Pike’s book, namely what becomes of those baby boom rockers who do survive into old age? Dropping out completely, as Barrett did, is obviously one option but not the only one. Another is simply to carry on much as before. But in an industry that’s always placed an emphasis on youth and vitality, just what is it that motivates aging boomers to pursue this grinding career as they enter their seventh decade of life?
One possibility is artistry, the ongoing drive to create new and vibrant music. Such an argument might be made in the case of Bob Dylan (age 65), whose Time Out of Mind and Love and Theft were startling returns to form after a long dry spell. Similarly, Prairie Wind and Living With War are as good as anything that Neil Young (60) has done since turning 40.
But, it’s less clear in the case of Paul McCartney (64), whose recent album Chaos and Creation in the Backyard can be described as nice but not much more, or Van Morrison (60), who’s been rehashing old sounds for at least two decades now. As for the Stones… well, you pick the last even half-decent album the band turned out.
A second possibility is money. With the decline of CD sales, touring is where the real cash is to be made these days, and in this respect aging stars actually have an advantage over their younger rivals. "People want to see artists that they’ve seen before and who they know," Rod Stewart’s manager recently explained, adding that "only the older audience can afford ticket prices at the highest level."
Perhaps it’s not surprising, then, that the top eight earners last year were all artists who’ve been around for 25 years or more (Sidebar Two). That said, there must be some point at which money becomes immaterial. With an estimated wealth of $1.5 billion, for example, McCartney could presumably play concerts gratis for the rest of his life if he so chose.
| |
2005 Revenue |
Date(s) of Birth |
| U2 |
$154.2 million |
1960-61 |
| Rolling Stones |
$92.5 million |
1941-47 |
| Eagles |
$63.2 million |
1947-48 |
| Paul McCartney |
$56 million |
1942 |
| Elton John |
$48.9 million |
1947 |
| Neil Diamond |
$44.7 million |
1941 |
| Jimmy Buffet |
$44 million |
1946 |
| Rod Stewart |
$40.3 million |
1945 |
If not artistry or money, then what? "Getting older is a fascinating thing," Keith Richards once said. "The older you get, the older you want to get." Perhaps it’s as simple as that: the urge to carry on, to still matter in some way.
How else to explain the sight of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young — combined age nearly 250 — back on tour once more, launching an attack on President Bush as if to reclaim some of their own youthful radicalism? This might be fine, if not for Stills (61) falling over during the finale at last week’s show in Toronto, unable to continue as a result.
Is this, then, to be our image of a generation entering old age, gracelessly not gracefully? Will what’s left of The Who – Roger Daltrey (62) and Pete Townshend (61) — have the nerve to sing "My Generation" when they embark on their Canadian tour this fall? Will the Stones be back in 10 years’ time for Fifty Licks, as Mick and Keith close in on 80?
Or did Syd Barrett, who provided one or two moments of pure genius, retreated permanently from the public gaze, then died in obscurity, offer an alternative, perhaps preferable model of how to do it? Shine on, indeed, you crazy diamond. |
Copyright ©2006 FFWD. All rights reserved.