The last Stones record was great. Better than anything McCartney had done in ages, and definitely better than The Who's 'Endless Wire.' My only fault with 'A Bigger Bang' was it's length, it would've had a lot more impact being pruned down to 11-12 tracks, but it was the rawest, most rockin' Stones disc in years.

You forgot to mention Elton John...his 'Peachtree Road' album that came out about 3 years ago is one of the strongest of his career, IMO, even though no one heard it.

You can't get old people to listen to new songs; they just want to hear "Satisfaction" and "Hey Jude" until they die. Even if the Stones released another 'Sticky Fingers' or Bruce did another 'Born To Run,' no one would hear it outside of a few diehards. It's sad, really.

Mostly spot on, with the exception of the Stones' albums being worthless - they're not brilliant, mind you, but they do meet a minimum acceptable standard for rock and roll... which may not be saying much nowadays, really.

Eric Clapton a 5? Way to low. You must have missed his latest tour. Or the recent Crossroads Festival. Seriously five is a bit too low for recording and just ridiculously low for live act.

I'll say "somewhat spot-on." The Who's recent album was incredible - the best thing since By Numbers. And as for Robert Plant being a "musical non-entity," you are completely off the mark. His recent Mighty Rearranger was one of his best solo albums, period, and he's had a pretty solid solo career (admittedly with a few missed-marks here and there.)

I'd really rather see these old acts quit touring and just put out new music that they believe in. Seeing them, most of the time, they just can't bring it like they used to. For most people going to these shows, if the band doesn't live up to the legend they had 30 years ago, it's a failure.

Your article is bound to bring out the 'I disagree! how can you say that?' crowd, but I think overall you nailed it. For the most part I've all but lost interest in the musicians you listed, with the exception of Bob Dylan. But where are the wimmenz on your list?

Especially Patti Smith, who's shown herself still fully capable of putting out strong music.

Sorry about the lack of women Che. Bonnie Raitt still turns me on.

Apologies to Plant fans as I was referring more to the absence of Page.

As for Clapton, just not my cup of tea, the most personally biased part of my article.

This was a fun read and I agree for the most part but how could you leave out BRUCE!!! I give him a 10 and a 10.

The Stones' new releases are worthless -- utterly embarrassing that men this old don't have anything at all to sing about other than girls. Mick didn't even want to record "Bigger Bang," -- he knows the jig is up. Was a long time ago, actually. Keith, God bless him, contributed the worst song of his career to the album. Lyrics were simply horrific. As for the tunes, Boring Boring Boring. Let's face it, the last good riff he came up with was "Start Me Up" 26 years ago! And The Who (the Two)? It's a joke, really. Within a week or two of these releases, even the die-hard fans gave up and filed them away. And Elton John? His voice has deepened so much, he doesn't even sound like him anymore. In closing, I admit that,like some of the defenders who have commented here, I try to fool myself on occasion. Convince myself that one of my old Rock'n'roll heroes still has what it takes. McCartney, for example. I knew that his new one wasn't going to be very good, but I tried to make myself like it. Still, with a little distance between its release and now, I have to conclude that "Ever Present Past" is the only memorable song on "Memory Almost Full." Well, maybe the simple mandolin one, "Dance Tonight," that one does have a way of charming itself onto the playlist now and again. Other than that, pretty pedestrian for a man once so great. Dylan's ability to continue to make good records isn't surprising because it's a literate, intelligent man who really knows music in all its forms. The same can't be said of many of these other rock starts. Hence, they don't really have as much to fall back on. Rather than try to write "Like A Rolling Stone" again, which he couldn't if he tried, a smart cookie like Dylan goes back to the old folk and blues records and -- when not stealing directly from them -- reworks them in new ways, keeping his own musical evolution in tact along the way. Sorryt for being so long-winded, but I've spent a lot of years with this stuff and feel, rightfully or no, that I've got something to say. So there.

Good points, there, Kevin, but - worthless? Even to say that it's a buncha old guys playing to form, or even playing crap - there's still some value seeing rock and rollers go where no man/woman has gone before - trying to maintain their status as a pop stars in spite of the age handicap. I know old blues men and women have been doing it for years, but blues & pop are different - youth never was a necessary requiremnt for playing the blues in the same way it was for pop or rock music.

Where's Alice Cooper in the mix?

Cooper? Playing Golf.

I would have scored McCartney a bit lower on recording relevance (I am a swooning diehard female fan that grew up with every space on my walls and ceilings covered with Paul). While I do like "Memory" better than anything since "Venus and Mars", it's still seems to miss the mark (hate to admit it, but the album would seem so much more Paulish if Linda were providing her unique, tinny, nasaly background vocals. I almost miss her). I can't even listen to "Chaos and Creation".

But I really must take exception to your knocking him down a point on his live act, just because of the Fidelity commercial and Starbucks deal. Looking at this list I see many, many commercial endorsements:

Led Zeppelin: Cadillac
Bob Dylan: really creepy Victoria Secret ads
The Rolling Stones: Microsoft
The Who: CSI Miami (or is it New York?)
Ray Davies: that copier commercial. HP?

And I'm sure I missed a few.

But you said nothing of his stage act, other than his "killer catalogue"! C'mon, catalogue notwithstanding, this old fart puts on one hell of a show, playing up to 30 songs (and almost as many instruments - ok, I exaggerate) and nearly three hours. McCartney's shows are an absolute carnival of light and sound, and he has the energy of a man half his age. The last time I saw him, he came out from behind the curtain and was playing a very well-executed and convincing "Foxy Lady" riff. For the visual and aural appeal, his fidelity to the Beatles sound, combined with the singalong factor and gee, just that happy, happy feeling you get for being in the presence of a Beatle and singing with him on all those wonderful songs, you have to give Sir Paulie a 10.

Having had that rant, my second favorite concert experience was Aerosmith just prior to the Armageddon soundtrack power ballad era. It's been a long time - are they still jamming it live?

bah, ya missed the highest scorers still going, who never stopped...from 71 till ..oh wait, they are still touring the new album

Rush , this clip from the last tour in '04

my favorites from the "aging rocker" set

your mileage may vary...

Excelsior?

Where's U2 and Bon Jovi? Those two bands are more relevant than any artist listed in this article. Both continue to put out quality music and fantastic live shows.