Age Limits......

drumdrum

Hi everyone,

Was having a discussion with a fellow muso the other day about music and such (as you do! ) and the topic of age limits in the music industry came up. This is a brief summary of some of the points that were made.

1 - Basically an opinion came up that if you are over 28 or so, the industry is less open to receiving your music unless traditionally has a more mature audience (such as jazz, classical etc). Therefore, if you play a more current genre and you are over this age, you should probably lie about your age.

2 - With bands, if one member of the band was older but the rest were younger then you could get away with it (in a 4 piece), but if half or more of the band were over 28 then the band was too old.

3 - If you are too old then you should stop chasing the dream and concentrate on getting you life/career in order (if you havent already) and conceed that maybe you werent born to be a professional musician. You should still play in bands if it makes you happy, just not look at it as a potential career.


Now I dont necessarily agree with all of this myself, but the reason why Im posting this is Im curious to see what other musos think. Personally, I dont think you are ever too old to play music, but I do admit to a point that the industry does tend to prefer younger bands. I tend to be a bit liberal when the topic of age arises as I see that a good song is a good song regardless of the age of the writer/performer, but unfortunately reality isn't always so kind.

You may think "well, Mary Byrne from Xfactor is 50 and shes a great talent", and I agree she is a great singer, but that is a tv contest AND its a covers show. Also the tunes she has been performing are all old style caberay style songs. Dont get me wrong, she does a great job with them, but maybe they are chosen as her songs because they are seen as more...."age appropriate".
(BTW, its not like I watch the Xfactor by choice.....the missus watches it RELIGIOUSLY!!!):o

Anyways, so what do you all think? Age, does it matter? What are your thoughts?:)

Grolschevik

Short answer is, age shouldn't matter but probably does. I happen to agree with your points personally, but I'm on the wrong side of 28, and most young 'uns don't seem to want to play with me :pac:. Oo, and indeed, er...

Similarly, most guys my age seem to be in the mortgage/wife/kids/career path, and only want to be hobbyist musos or do weddings/covers etc.

I have been told by a fellow (originals) band member that "we're too old" and that we should only be doing it for the craic at this stage. He's probably right. And most of the gigs I've played recently have been with bands over a decade younger than me.

That said, it depends on your genre to an extent. A good song is a good song, and some people will always pay to hear a good song regardless of how young and pretty the act is (and vice versa). So, are we musicians and songwriters, or are we a polished packaged pop product?

Rigsby

Yeah, this whole age thing always puzzles me. I'd bet if people only heard a person's musical output without being able to see the actual writer/performer, things would be different. Just goes to show that within the "music" industry, that the music itself is way down the priority list.

The only conclusion I can come to as to why age does not matter so much in jazz, blues or classical, is that the punters are listeners that put the music first, and could not care less about appearances.

drumdrum

Rigsby wrote: »

Yeah, this whole age thing always puzzles me. I'd bet if people only heard a person's musical output without being able to see the actual writer/performer, things would be different. Just goes to show that within the "music" industry, that the music itself is way down the priority list.

The only conclusion I can come to as to why age does not matter so much in jazz, blues or classical, is that the punters are listeners that put the music first, and could not care less about appearances.

Yeah, but I wonder sometimes why all of the "new" bands are almost always these days <25 years old? I mean 24 isn't considered too old nowadays, is it?

Or does it depend on the "look" of some people? I mean, Ive known some 25 year olds who look about 20, and some 18 year olds who look 25! The whole image thing in music is important, I get that, but your point Rigsby is interesting.... Id agree that if most people couldnt see a band but only hear its music it would influence their liking of the band no doubt.

I read somewhere that for solo girls the age range that labels look for are primarily 17 - 23! So 24 is considered too old?!! Tis shocking!:eek:

Malice

This could be an interesting thread. Personally I'm 31 and have been playing music on and off since I was 16. It's always been a hobby of mine though. I mean I take things seriously enough so that I'm able to play to a reasonable level but I don't sit at home for hours trying to copy Victor Wooten or people like that. Anyway, I enjoy creating music. The trick is fitting it in with the wife, mortgage, kids, career (thankfully I've only got one of those to worry about ) and finding other people on the same wavelength.

1 - Basically an opinion came up that if you are over 28 or so, the industry is less open to receiving your music unless traditionally has a more mature audience (such as jazz, classical etc). Therefore, if you play a more current genre and you are over this age, you should probably lie about your age.

Surely that's only a problem if you want to break into the industry? Personally I write music for me, not because I want to make money out of it.

3 - If you are too old then you should stop chasing the dream and concentrate on getting you life/career in order (if you havent already) and conceed that maybe you werent born to be a professional musician. You should still play in bands if it makes you happy, just not look at it as a potential career.

Again, there's a huge difference between wanting to be a professional musician and doing it because you enjoy playing music or as an alternative to vegging out in front of the television.

I also have no idea who Mary Byrne is

drumdrum

Sorry maybe I should of put it into context better in the original post.

Basically we were talking about trying to make a living from music via selling a product (basically NOT from teaching) and at which point should you realistically say to yourself that it hasnt happened yet and maybe your not meant to be an international superstar.....

I agree Malice, you cant put an age limit on music as a hobby. No question there. The issue I raise is that the industry has seemed to of put an unofficial age limit on music as a business though.....and mainly peoples thoughts on the age restrictions.

Ive seen it at gigs, where young, usually arrogant bands think that they deserve the world on a plate and they sneer at the older bands playing instead of maybe trying to learn something from them. I was playing a gig a couple of weeks back (filling in for a friends band in the pub) and got talking to the drummer from one of the other bands. Nice chap, a little naieve, but when I mentioned that the average age of the band was 28, he got a bit.... dismissive (maybe patronising is a better word)....its as if we didnt matter or something, or as if we were no longer a threat!

Seems like the younger generation of bands seem to have this natural competitiveness in them when it comes to other bands, which IMO is stupid. We should all learn from each others gains and mistakes and support each other better. I'm sick of seeing support bands leg it after their sets and not support the main band at all.
Argh!! (sorry for the rant there! )

guitarzero

I think age has always been irrelevant. Its largely to do with "genre". You could start folk singing and be a hit at 50. You could do jazz or classical and again, age would have no relevance what so ever, there would be an audience there that wouldnt care for your years. But with regards to rock it has always been a symbol of rebellion, drugs, sex, raw expression, anti - this that and the other and these traits are associated with youth. Same with rap and to a much lesser extent pop.
But today it seems there is no real "audience". The youth dont collectively identify with any real "rock cause" or movement, punk as a movement is dead, so called grunge was the last kind of rock act that seemed to resonate hugely among the youth. So it can be argued that rock is now been pushed on the same shelf as jazz and classical.
Rock was a form of liberty in expression, today its about sounding conventional and samey in order to model themselves upon those who were succesfull, no guts (this is just from my experience). Those who do try sound original often sounds...unnatural.
My belief today is if you resonate with a certain part of culture you will do well despite your age. The Police, Tool amongst others were in their late 20's when they started and they became very important. Basically, dont sound your age, sound unique, if your music TRULY inspires you, you will inspire others.

Quatre Mains

ooohh as a 30-something this is a really sore topic with me lol. I agree with a lot of Malice's points.

I can see the POV of needing all young members in a group if there is a real potential for record deals, tv exposure etc when image becomes a big part of the product. However, lets face it, 99.9% of bands here will never be in that situation but despite that, they insist on slapping age limits on their ads. I saw one ad here last week looking for someone, age limit 20-22! i mean wtf? Why was 23 too old lol? All those guys are doing is shooting themselves in the foot - most of them will never play a gig let alone get a deal lol

The only other valid reason I can see for it is that maybe folks think they'll just get on better / have more in common socially with someone their own age, which although its not strictly true IMO, I can understand why someone would feel that way.

Fandango

drumdrum wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Was having a discussion with a fellow muso the other day about music and such (as you do! ) and the topic of age limits in the music industry came up. This is a brief summary of some of the points that were made.

1 - Basically an opinion came up that if you are over 28 or so, the industry is less open to receiving your music unless traditionally has a more mature audience (such as jazz, classical etc). Therefore, if you play a more current genre and you are over this age, you should probably lie about your age.

2 - With bands, if one member of the band was older but the rest were younger then you could get away with it (in a 4 piece), but if half or more of the band were over 28 then the band was too old.

3 - If you are too old then you should stop chasing the dream and concentrate on getting you life/career in order (if you havent already) and conceed that maybe you werent born to be a professional musician. You should still play in bands if it makes you happy, just not look at it as a potential career.


Now I dont necessarily agree with all of this myself, but the reason why Im posting this is Im curious to see what other musos think. Personally, I dont think you are ever too old to play music, but I do admit to a point that the industry does tend to prefer younger bands. I tend to be a bit liberal when the topic of age arises as I see that a good song is a good song regardless of the age of the writer/performer, but unfortunately reality isn't always so kind.

You may think "well, Mary Byrne from Xfactor is 50 and shes a great talent", and I agree she is a great singer, but that is a tv contest AND its a covers show. Also the tunes she has been performing are all old style caberay style songs. Dont get me wrong, she does a great job with them, but maybe they are chosen as her songs because they are seen as more...."age appropriate".
(BTW, its not like I watch the Xfactor by choice.....the missus watches it RELIGIOUSLY!!!):o

Anyways, so what do you all think? Age, does it matter? What are your thoughts?:)

Having only read the OP and no replies, 28 might be a bit low but id say 30+ they are less inclined to get involved. They get their cash back and profit over a few albums usually so older you are, shorter your career will be. Im actually 28 myself but if they see something they can sell, it wont be an issue (altho they wont answer my calls since i was 26 grrr! hehe). If they see something they can sell quick id say your good till your mid-late 30s but after that, id knock a few years off when they ask till the contract is signed

Your point (3) tho, if you have spent many many years playing, you can find a professional career in music thru other routes. As a teacher/ entertainment manager in a venue/session player, DJ, scout, A&R, music writer etc etc. If your a bit older but good at it there are plenty of options but ya have to persist to get into them.....i havent persisted just yet. Im 15 years old at heart hehe.

Anasue

In my experience in comes down to gender and type of music, where as a man can get away with being a frontman of a younger cover band a woman cant. If you you write your own stuff and have your own style its a different story. Sometimes a more mature person can give stability, realiabily and confidence. I am 40 something and been jaming with 20 to 30 year olds and its worked out great. At my age group your past the kids, mortage and commitment stuff and can take more chances with music because you dont really care what people think anymore. I dont think there is a big difference between making a living at it or if it is for pure joy. X factor is probably not a good example I now Mary Byrne well and am delighted for her but its not for everybody you can see week by week people stripped of thier individuality to become something that sells ( maybe thats just me)

Remember the old saying "The older the fiddle the sweeter the tune"

Looks can be decieving everyone deserves a chance

Our industry should be about free spirits dont let the media dictiate how old we should be and which way we should look

There is always an exception to the rule

Sue X

PulsW

drumdrum wrote: »

3 - If you are too old then you should stop chasing the dream and concentrate on getting you life/career in order (if you havent already) and conceed that maybe you werent born to be a professional musician. You should still play in bands if it makes you happy, just not look at it as a potential career.

Big record companies are always looking for something young, new and fresh to sell; and more importantly, an image to sell. And obviously, this begins to go out of reach when you start to enter your thirties.

But remember, you don't have to be on the covers of magazines and have your face all over TV to make a living. There are many people who aren't in the limelight, and have never been in the limelight, who make a decent living out of music...it may not be all mansions and wiping your ass with 100's, but it's still a decent living.

drumdrum wrote:

Basically we were talking about trying to make a living from music via selling a product (basically NOT from teaching) and at which point should you realistically say to yourself that it hasnt happened yet and maybe your not meant to be an international superstar.....

Again, you don't need to be a superstar to get by, and not everyone even wants to be a superstar. Do you think someone like Autechre care whether they're on TV or not, whether or not they hoards of screaming fans chasing after them? No.

It's in these more underground scenes that it really doesn't matter how old you are.

nyarlothothep

artists that "made it" in latter years would be Tool and the Police, as already mentioned, Porcupine Tree, KT Tunstall, Electric Six, The Darkness, they were all over 25. There's probably more. Ideas are what matter, a lot of young bands will probably fall into obscurity even though they're hip now, because they aren't that good to begin with.