Geriatric Jack Flash.

"I certainly won't be playing 'Satisfation' when I'm 40."--Mick Jagger, 1969.

Well, as I do not believe there was a Rolling Stones tour between July 26, 1983, and the same date in 1984, we must assume that Sir Mick meant that quote literally, and that he was just misunderstood at the time. As has been recently announced, though, he will be singing it this Summer at an age two decades past the fearful four-oh. Henry Fountain at the NYT explains:

But while Mick Jagger, who will be 62 when the tour begins in August, and Keith Richards, who turns 62 in December, may be aging rockers, they are also something else: active seniors.

That's right, the ageless (or merely aged?) wonders from the U.K. will be touring once more, but as this piece asserts, it's just part of the trend of old folks refusing to be put out to pasture. After a bit of thought, I was surprised to find that I don't disagree with this.

People have been yelling for the Stones to hang it up since the late 1970's. Most of them probably did so because they weren't fans to begin with, but we'll give the benefit of the doubt to those who feel that rock n' roll has a shelf life, or, more accurately, its practitioners do. For the latter, though, a simple question: why should they retire? For one, judging by the aging demographic at their shows, those very same people insisting the band call it quits 25 years ago, and probably annually since, are still buying tickets to their concerts. But a better reason still that the Stones continue to lurk, crocodile and tortoise-like, well past their evolutionary expiration date is simply that they are able to.

In 1964, when the Stones jumped into this whole record game, who would have even thought a bunch of sexegenarians would have the stamina or energy to do a U.S. concert tour? (As an aside, the Stones can, in their career, boast five distinct musical mediums under which they have had original work released: vinyl, eight-track, cassette, CD, and MP3. Let's have a look at your resume.) In fact, in 1964, a 62 year-old man in the U.S. or the U.K. had little reason to expect to be healthy, and about seven fewer years left to live than at present. And no one from the Stones has broken a hip in concert, and they aren't forgetting lyrics or dropping their instruments from arthritis. Mick is really the only one expected to move about much, and he does that like a man 25 years his junior. So what is physically too old to rock? I'd say that's up to the musicians themselves to decide.


The Crypt Keeper, and a wrinkly Mick Jagger. 

Of course there is also the exponentially more silly argument, that rocking past 40 is a kind of indignity, really something embarassing and unbecoming of an older person. Hey, you know what? Rock n' roll is embarassing, undignified, and unbecoming for everyone. C'mon, if people want to be taken seriously in this world, there's law school for that. Was there really anything that glamorous about local bands playing for beer in dank local clubs with the plumbing exposed, before eight of their friends and relatives? Did the people getting hosed with Faygo by imbecilic acts like Insane Clown Posse think they were on the cutting edge of high art? Do Creed fans think they are basking in the presence of enlightened and reflective spirituality?

No. It's a silly game in which everybody's trying to make a buck at the end of the day. The Rolling Stones have just been better at it than anybody else, ever. I understand that that fact bothers a lot of people, who are tired of watching their four decades of success, and enthralled with the cheap and easy target they represent. But that doesn't make the same jokes, tour after tour, any fresher or funnier, and it doesn't make the shows any less enjoyable.

But we'll close, appropriately, with a quote from another guy who rocked into his later years: "When 900 years you reach, look this good you will not."--Master Yoda.