Review The Show, Not The Age of the Band...Or the Crowd!

(This is a recent post from my long-running blog at LauraAinsworth.com. This subject annoys me so much, I want to shout it from the top of every possible mountain, so forgive me if you already read it over there. It bears repeating.)

Here's a pet peeve that many undoubtedly share: the "boomer rock" concert review that dwells as much on the aging fans in the audience as it does on the band.

And when it does talk about the band, it not only tells us how young or old the music seems now, but also how well or poorly the band members have aged. The critic apparently expects them to look like their own grandparents, and sometimes they fulfill that expectation. If they do, he smugly points this out to us, and if they don't, he speaks of them as if they're shocking freaks of nature.

Example (and inspiration for today's blog): the review of Patty Smyth's concert in the August 17 edition of The Dallas Morning News, written by staff critic Mario Tarradell. Mr. Tarradell simply cannot believe that Patty Smyth, at 50, can look so youthful! He writes, "She's almost criminal, that Patty Smyth...(after 23 years) the New York native looks and sounds as if not a day has gone by. Surely she's made a devious plot for eternal youth with somebody."

And, "Ms. Smyth sang with such joyful abandon. She may be 50, but she moves like she's 30."

Overall, it was a glowing review of both her and her band, Scandal, and she should feel complimented and proud. At the same time, is it not possible to compliment a 50-year-old woman on her performance without giving the back of one's hand to the idea of being 50? What was he expecting, for her to hobble out on her artificial knees and try to recreate some approximation of her former glory?

How does a 30-year-old move, by the way? I've seen many who couldn't dance a lick and some who could hardly get up from a reclining chair. That goes for some 10-year-olds, too.

And the idea that a performer has to make some sort of pact with Satan to remain attractive and current really chafes me. You see, this is why, as a performer, I don't tell people my age. I don't want people telling me I look great on stage "for my age." I don't want them to have "the number" in their heads constantly and to be filtering everything I say through their idea of what a person "that age" is. People do this. It's a culturally-acceptable bias. I'm sick of it, and I refuse to play the numbers game.

A female performer doesn't have to be very old to get sucked into it. I've heard disparaging age-related comments about the Dixie Chicks (in their 30s, aren't they?) and the Spice Girls (likewise?), among many others. Forget Madonna; these are the new old ladies of pop music. It's the rare review of Sheryl Crow that doesn't make an issue of her age (early 40s, I think). She looks great not because of any pact with Beelzebub but because she takes good care of herself and follows the advice of Dr. Perricone, as do I.

Here's one more example of ageist music criticism, another review from The Dallas Morning News, this one by staff writer Mike Daniel on August 13. Now, we have to stipulate that Rush goes back a long time; indeed, the review tells us that Rush is 39 years old. Not the musicians, the band. So, of course, the audience is going to be all grown up. Some - not me - call them "baby boomers," or just "boomers."

Mr. Daniel writes: "Baby boomers dominating the crowd of 15,000 at Smirnoff Music Centre on Saturday night may not have looked broad-minded, but in spirit and action, they were."

Jeez, another backhanded compliment. You wouldn't have thought people their age would be broad-minded.

Mr. Daniel, please tell me, what does a broad-minded person look like? Do you assume he's the young, edgy-looking guy? I'm thinking he might look more like Drew Carey.

Mr. Daniel goes on: "Guitarist Alex Lifeson looked the most like he's in his mid-50s (all members are, in fact, there), but sonically, he was the most distant from it."

Another backhanded compliment. He doesn't look as well-preserved as the other band members, but his playing, in contrast, sounded like that OF A YOUNGER PERSON. The quality of the performance, once again, is associated with some arbitrary age in the critic's head.

If the guy were of a really advanced age or had come back from some debilitating neuromuscular disease or something, I could see relating the quality of his playing to that. Tony Bennett's singing prowess at 80 does amaze, because it's rare; there are simply not many fabulous 80-year-old tenors around. But critics need to stop talking about musicians over 35 or so as if they're making their last stop before checking in at the nursing home.

I'm sure these critics think of themselves as extremely broad-minded people, but they're just showing some age-old prejudices.

At least they look broad-minded.

(BTW, to see how music critics ought to handle this issue, check out what Patrick Williams had to say about Rush in the Calendar section of the Dallas Observer. Kudos to him!)