Rock n Roll

I just heard an ad on the radio for the latest Bon Jovi album, and I'm afraid I despair at what I heard. Now don't don't get me wrong, I'm not a closet Bon Jovi fan, but I can at least acknowledge that they were a 'rock' band in the true sense of the word. In the good old days rock bands were all about massive stadium gigs, drumstick twirling, a bit of leather, and maybe a few drugs thrown in here and there (ok, in the case of Bon Jovi maybe nothing much stronger than a bit of Night Nurse, but you get the picture).

Now I know that rock bands have changed in many ways, but my biggest issue is that the rock bands of old all seem to go one way. Soft.

One of my all time favourite bands is Queen, who started off in the 70s as a pretty far out rock band (on the verge of glam), and pushing the boundaries of taste and decency. Not that you'd know it from listening to their post 1986 releases - all soft pop, and many,many ballads.

The worst offender I know of has to be Cliff Richard. I jest not. I have an album called Rock n Roll Juvenile from the 60s, where he absolutely kicks arse. A bit of Jesus thrown in there, and a couple of slower tracks, but generally a great album nonetheless. Look at him now, and he's no better than Val Doonican on valium.

And then there's the issue of age. The Who singing about My Generation at the age of 60 odd is an irony missed on many people. Particularly those not even born when that track was released. And then the old favourites - the Rolling Stones. All the journos say they are better then ever - well in that case the sixties must have been more drug-fuelled than I originally thought. They are ok, but I can't help thinking we'd be better off if Jagger had been shot along with Lennon, just so the other Stones could get on with their lives with a bit of dignity.

Sad rocker has-beens - take a leaf out of Alex James's book. Retire young, buy a farm and make cheese. Everyone will remember the good old days instead of the tired old men.