Why was being a rock musician over 30 years old considered a bad thing back in the day?

Although I actually preferred the more ornate side of rock (Steely Dan, prog, Metal even Yacht Rock.) Just like it better.

 

Back in the day there weren't any rock musicians over 30.

You did have pop singers over 30 trying to remain relevant or hip (and solvent) by pretending to be rock musicians, and that was a bad thing.

 

It's true Ian Hunter was older at career "start" but he always looked young though. Still does. So he got away with it.

 

I can remember seeing Jagger interviewed at the 1976 Olympics and getting questions about his how he does what he does at his age.

 

Actually Chuck Berry was already 30 when his career really took off in the late 50s. The year Jonny B. Goode was released was the year he turned 32

 

It's amazing the wide extent to which serious careers in rock began with teens or immediately post teens in a way that I'm pretty sure NEVER happens today outside hiphop in any music intended for anyone other than fellow teens.

It is sobering to realize that nearly ever major classic of rock n roll in the 1960s was written and made by someone under 25. (Basically, with maybe a rare exception or two, anything made in 68 or before or in some cases like TOMMY to 69.)

 

I read about that. According to Jack Weinberg that wasn't even a saying in the movement prior. He only said it to a reporter who was asking if communists or some other "sinister group" was really behind the FSM in which Weinberg replied with the statement "we have a saying in the movement and this not to trust anyone over 30". He said it off the top of his head to get the reporter to back off, which he did. The reporter printed Weinberg's statement and it spread from there.

 

To be "over 30" was to be of that group that thought differently. One needed to be under that age to think freely, to be ultra creative/non conformist.

 

You've got to grow old, but you can be immature all your life!

 

Berry's peak period was between the age of 28 (almost 29) and 32. And I'm willing to bet his age was not publicized at the time.

 

Because the cool kids didn't make it past 27...

 

Episode from 1995. It's amazing that this was shown 22 years ago now...and they're still together!

 

30 and over was considered the establishment but there were some that didn't fit that--Ed Cassidy of Spirit was 44 when the band broke through. Ian Hunter was 30 when he got his big break with Mott The Hoople. On the whole though people 30 and over were part of,the previous Generation

 

Question is:
Why was 30 the age someone became 'old' at back then?
For older posters here - why 30? Why not 40? I thought 40 was always more of a milestone age than 30...?

 

There are good songs but a lot of them are about gimmicks now.

 

Old people suck! God damn it. I'm 54! Old people are awesome!!!!

 

Yes and if you look at the personnel on Aja, you'll see a number of older jazz musicians and by then the notion that they might be too old never came up.

 

My only thought is that there simply weren't older artist in rock at that time. Those of an older generation were also of different musical genres. Today the natural progression has led to performers from their 20's to their 70's within rock and it simply seems a natural progression.

 

It's partly that, but I do think you have to give the young generation some credit. To me, Muddy Waters and Pete Seeger were as relevant to 60's Rock as the Stones and Dylan are to today's rock, arguably more so. I think they would have been in their early 50's in 1967.

 

28 is near 30 so theres not much of a difference from 28 to 32. Either way he wasn't under 25 and was a good bit over. And because of that, like you said, his age was probably not publicize at the time. People probably assumed he was about 25 at the latest.

 

Not really. It's only ignorant people who think that now and their the in the minority in their thinking

 

And it was foolish and arbitrary to divide and age that wasn't much older then you. I would've used "over 40" or "over 35" at the latest. But again it's arbitrary and foolish. They had a good outlook but didn't know where to put the "true" line. The saying itself was only tossed out from Jack Weinberg to get rid of a reporter.

 

Speaking of ignorant ...the correct spelling is:
They're the in the minority in their thinking

 

That's not really true though. I mean, look at Bill Wyman. Look at Chuck Berry, who seemed in the 60s/70s to adapt to the times easily. I think if you played in rock, you're naturally a non-comformist. Perhaps the Frank Sinatras and Dean Martins of the time couldn't wrap their head around long hair, and all the ideals of the time period, but...They weren't of that sort of school to begin with. They were always "high class", even when they were younger rascals in the 1940s - a different kind of crowd. If you were a rocker, whether it was in 1958, or 1968, you were always an outsider. Even Elvis, as conservative as he was due to being a good Christian Southern boy, got it to an extent.

Really, it was all a bunch of hypocrisy on both sides anyway. Dean Martin was partying just as hard and doing all sorts of stuff as any younger Hippie kid. He just happened to dress differently.

 

I lived it and that was the mentality...as always...there are exceptions. BTW, your "exceptions" are not strong. Wyman was a member of a band and did not receive the focus of some of his band mates. Chuck was an anomaly, a lot of older blues artists were also popular with the youth of that time.