As for your last question – while there’s certainly been hoopla for records by Joni Mitchell, Bob Dylan, and Van Morrison in the last 5-7 years, none of those albums sold anything beyond core audiences. So maybe Bonnie is the last one to be successful in a “traditional” way….Are we forgetting somebody…?

I wonder – and here comes the heresy – to what degree this is the fault of electronic technology. These days there’s just SO MUCH competing for our attention, so we have our cultural filters turned ALL the way up. Like an HR manager sifting through a stack of 1000 resumes – he’s not looking for reasons to hire, he’s looking for reasons to eliminate, and after a few years of that it doesn’t take much.

“Too old” becomes a knee-jerk. But when was the last time we had a bust-out hit by an old fucker? Bonnie Raitt?

If they succeed or fail – that should be on the merit of their work – not on whether they fit a marketing plan.

It’s not a matter of whether you or I like a particular song or album – an artist who has proven his talent over decades of work should get the chance to prove it again. That doesn’t seem too much to ask.

If you’re old, you’re at a huge disadvantage, no matter what, and this is the industry critique. (Whatever happened to “hope I die before I get old, anyway”?) However, just because you used to be good and now you’re old and the industry ignores you, that doesn’t mean that your music is still worthy.

I can argue that Parker’s latest is on a par with SQUEEZING OUT SPARKS and HOWLIN’ WIND – if it’s not quite as great, it’s damned close, and we may only think it’s not quite as great because 30 years presents a certain apples/oranges problem for us.

But are you arguing that Macca’s latest is as good as – or on a par with – his best work? I’ve heard one tune off the new record and I don’t think it’s in the same league as his early solo work, let alone his great Beatles moments. So to make the industry beatdown work we have to be able to make the critical case, you know?

1) the “youth centric” issue – yes, I think this is rock’s greatest problem – it’s one you and I have discussed repeatedly, thoughtfully, and probably circularly (?) – what to do with “old” rock stars – as you know, it has something to do with the decision of rock as a popular art form to tie itself to other popular art forms like fashion – art forms that have as specific aims obsolescence. This makes rock, which should have tied itself more closely to “serious” music (i.e., classical, jazz, blues), seem trivial by comparison.

Think about the way we even talk about popular music pre-rock: an artist (even a rock artist like Rod Stewart or Linda Ronstadt just as examples) “does” a “standard” like “Stardust” or “As Time Goes By.” The song supercedes any particular performer – it is a composer’s work, to be sure, but it stands on its own as a work of art. Compare that to how we talk about one rock artist performing another artist’s tune – we call that a “cover” and reference the original almost always – further creating the sense of specific temporality of a rock song. And we’re always impressed by a “cover” that isn’t merely an imitation of the original performance of the song.

2) the relevance question – you can rave about Graham Parker, Don Dixon, or anyone else you’d like to tout – (and you know I love and admire the work of both, so this isn’t an issue of distaste) – but they’re in the same boat as Sir Paul – they’re irrelevant in a music environment that always argues “the latest is the greatest” and where market research into what “target audiences” (read pre-teens and teens) “want.” I refer you to Sam Cutler’s rant as to what motivates that behavior.

Perhaps you don’t find Macca’s current work to your liking – that’s as it may be, I certainly don’t like all (hell, most) of what I hear – but I respectfully disagree and say that I find everything he’s done since Linda died has been a rediscovery of the fact that HE IS BLOODY PAUL MCCARTNEY. The albums “Run, Devil, Run,” “Driving Rain,” and “Chaos and Creation…” all show a mature artist re-exploring his world through his medium – music. It’s very good work, I believe – time will tell if it’s great….

But that doesn’t solve the problem that he, Parker, and other “mature” artists have – how can we have a conversation about them that isn’t hamstrung by their inability to reach broader audiences due to current music industry practices? Maybe that’s the real problem….

But how many artists were once great and somewhere along the line sort of stopped making music that mattered so much? Even if they’re making good music, to what degree is it firing on the same kinds of cylinders that made them great to start with? When was the last time a Stones record mattered?

Maybe this is a youth-centric way of looking at things. I don’t know. I hear relevant music from “mature” artists, but it seems like that’s the exception. Graham Parker’s new one just rages (see the item linked above) and he’s the rare case of an artist who’s maybe about as good as he was when he first made his bones 30 years ago.

I respect that Macca keeps pounding. And I wouldn’t begin to deny his legend. But – I don’t know – does he matter anymore? Can you really place his current music on a par with The Beatles or RAM or BAND ON THE RUN (maybe my all-time favorite McCartney moment, honestly)?