- Messages
- 17,190
- Location
- New York City
The thing that gets me is that when I was a kid, I'd turn on the TV and see Benny Goodman or Lionel Hampton or Count Basie or Harry James performing on some PBS or variety show -- and they didn't seem old. I knew they were in their fifties or sixties, but they didn't seem old. But when I flip around and see some of these sixties or seventies-era rock stars grotesquely capering around, they look absolutely ancient. And ridiculous.
I agree (not so much with the "ridiculous" comment) but about a shifting perception of what is "old" in our society. I think it has to do with technology making skills and knowledge gained over a lifetime less important than being current with the newest technology.
When I was a kid, technology changed much more slowly, so the most valuable people where those with the most experience with the existing technology, processes, systems, methods, etc. Experience was greatly respected which went hand in hand with being older.
Back then, an older doctor had seen more - had more experience - and was valued more than a younger doctor who was still "learning." People weren't thinking that the older doctor wasn't up on the new technology (although, that was sometimes true), they were thinking about "experience," and a lifetime of knowledge.
The same went for teachers, policemen, lawyers, carpenters and on and on - life experience meant you were the best, most knowledgable person at your job - the young guys were "green," "wet behind the ears," "still learning on the job," etc. Hence, we valued and respected older people more and saw them as wise and valuable, not "out of touch," "behind the curve," etc.
While less applicable to musicians, the "respect for those with experience" meme of my youth drove the culture and mindset in a way that's been reversed today. I'm not saying this is absolute - the old were venerated then and only the young are today - but the relative societal view of the value of each - old vs. young - has changed.