We all know too well that rock is still thought of in most circles as a young person’s game. But that’s not what I’m thinking of here. Some bands, you have to get into them when you’re relatively young. For instance, Pink Floyd and The Doors—let’s face it, their lyrical concerns are almost perfectly pitched to appeal to teenagers, but, in another light, those same concerns are just so damn goofy, you can’t possibly take them seriously as an adult. I can’t, anyway.
Perhaps a similar band from a different subculture—Fugazi. Could a 30-year-old really get into Fugazi for the first time? It’s nothing to do with their intrinsic quality as a band, but you need to be unformed to some degree to pick up what that band’s offering, I submit.
And let’s be really honest. If you’re 25 and you haven’t gone through a Beatles phase yet, it’s probably not going to happen. Move on.
And this isn’t just about music. It works for authors (Salinger) and directors (David Lynch, Woody Allen?) too.
Pink Floyd’s lyrical concerns are for teenagers? Really? I suppose that would be true if the only Floyd you knew about was “Another Brick In The Wall”. But much of Floyd’s lyrics concern aging, wistfulness, personal loss, insanity, alienation, and dysfunctional society. Not really kid stuff. It was predominately younger adults, not kids, that kept Dark Side of the Moon as a kajillion-seller. I can only conclude that Oats isn’t all that familiar with Pink Floyd. You don’t have to a kid to appreciate Woody Allen, either.
The Doors are totally a band that you had to like at 13 to like at 30.
Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Beatles are the ones that are always on my rock training table.
My nephew kinda got into music (his dad who has very limited musical taste got free tickets to Judas Priest and took him, then he got Rock Band)
I bought him Best of The Who, Springsteen Greatest Hits, Experience Hendrix, Best Of Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith’s Greatest hits (70’s) and Abbey Road as an “instant” music collection.
I was not going to be the uncle who turned him on to The Doors and Pink Floyd (that would be MY uncle who played Tommy, Dark Side and Riders On The Storm for me when I was 5 or 6 years old..and then gave me all of his vinyl records from the late 60’s and early 70’s for my 16th birthday.
I mostly agree with Oats. It should be illegal to read Catcher in the Rye past a certain age, but tonyola makes a good point about Pink Floyd. Side 2 of Animals is as relevant today as it was upon its release.
It’s funny, actually. When I was a teenager, I was a big fan of both Pink Floyd and Woody Allen, so this post does reflect a certain bias on my part. Pink Floyd tackle big themes, sure, but not with much subtlety, which made them a perfect band for a teenager like me, who was very self-assured he was thinking Deep Thoughts.
But this post is more about, could you expect an adult to discover, say, Pink Floyd and become a fan?
Yes. Millions of adults discovered Pink Floyd via Dark Side and Wish You Were Here. It was at least as much the music as the lyrical concerns.
As one who feels similarly about people who begin experimenting with drugs past college age, it’s hard to find fault with your argument. However, I rejected almost all of Roger Waters-led Pink Floyd and the mythology around the Doors when I was a kid. You know I’ve since become a big fan of late-period, fat-Jimbo Doors. I’ve also warmed up to classic Pink Floyd. The “bluesiness” of both bands’ “fatter” works are something I can better appreciate in my more sedentary years. Thanks for interviews/documentaries with “kinder, gentler” Floyd members I’ve also come to appreciate their professionalism, which makes it easier for me to appreciate their music. Maybe the common thread is that maturity has allowed me to better appreciate each band’s musicality. I’m still not a big fan of either band’s lyrics.
Metallica. Could any 30-year-old listening for the first time take the lyrics on, say, the “Master of Puppets” LP seriously? If you’re 14, they sound deep, man.
As for authors, how about Jim Carroll? I can’t imagine “The Basketball Diaries” appealing to someone who didn’t read it before they graduated high school.
I went through a big Doors phase during their 80s revival — the era of the Hot, Sexy, Dead Jim Morrison Rolling Stone cover — but I rarely listen to them now.
The bands that I was really into in my teens that I revisit the most are by far The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Who, and The Clash.
I have pretty much let go of The Doors, ELO, Queen, Boston, Aeorsmith (except for “Rocks”).
Ha! Oats, I totally agree with you on the Fugazi thing! I broke down and bought Dark Side of the moon in college just because I figured I HAD TO. Like, what would an album collection be without it?. Call it music-guilt. I think I listened to it exactly once. Will never do that again.
As far as music relevance in younger bands — I’m of the school (mentioned here by me before) that there is a certain energy of youngin’ rock that I still dig. So even though some bands are singing about love like they were the first ones to every think it existed — with three chords, no less — I still lap that up. And probably why I can honestly say I haven’t bought an album by an aging rock star — Dylan, Costello, McCartney — EVER.
Woody Allen has actually gotten better with age. that last one he did was pretty damn good. Shooting in England had done wonders for him.
So to recap — I like my movies mature, my music totally immature.
I just got into Fugazi within the past year. And I’m several decades north of 30.
I would put Pink Floyd into the deep thoughts for teens category. However, it is never too late to go backwards and check out the Syd Barrett material. The Doors (“Gay” or otherwise”) just get funnier as you get older. From personal experience, I can’t “get into” anything real metal-ish in my advanced years. I appreciate AC/DC and Sabbath more than I used to but I can’t really take any of it into my musical stable.
I had a History of Rock Class in Jr. High, and it meant I didn’t have to take any music classes ever again, and I got to listen to Rock N Roll for an hour a day in the middle of school for a whole year, so I signed up for this awesome 70’s educational experiment! anyway, every Friday was the day we got to bring in records and just listen to whatever we wanted, but we had to discuss each song (which generally meant the teacher, this one girl and me talking because everyone else came there to sleep). Anyway, the teacher had never heard Pink Floyd, and it being 1975 you can bet your ass I had DSoTM, so I brought it in for a Friday.
We had to give him records earlier in the week with the songs we wanted to play so he could listen to them to make sure we didn’t have any swearing on the record. When Friday came, he had nothing but utmost praise for DSoTM and even with some searing, he deemed it an important enough release that we eventually spent a week on it. But this first day, we listened to Time and he explained that we had no idea how poignant the lyrics were and that when we were pushing 40 we’d understand just how powerful it is. I’m pushing 50 now, and if I never hear it again, I won’t mind.
I think Rush falls into this category. I also think that Rush is just fone for a fifteen year old, but all of a sudden, it seems cool to like Rush now. I’m sorry, but it’s not. They’re awful.
The Violent Femmes first album. Loved it as a sexually frustrated teenager. Haven’t listened to it again in at least a couple decades.