Rock ``gods'' far from almighty

Watching the sad spectacle of Eric Clapton shilling for Lexus in1998, it strikes me that there's an entire generation of rock fansthat knows ol' Slowhand primarily in this capacity, peddling luxuryautomobiles they'll never own and beer they'd never drink.

Their attitude can be summed up by paraphrasing Chuck D. onElvis: Clapton was a god to many but he doesn't mean crap to me. Andit's hard to say that they're wrong.

As a third-generation rock critic who was 4 years old when Creamdisbanded, I've been grappling with Clapton's legacy for years, aswell as the broader issue of aging in rock 'n' roll. How does anartist grow old gracefully in an art form that's about never doinganything gracefully?Nostalgia is the biggest dilemma in rock today. Artists such asClapton, Paul McCartney, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, FleetwoodMac, Page and Plant and others of their ``classic-rock'' ilk are fartoo happy to peddle discreetly sanitized, warm and fuzzy versions ofmusic that was once anything but. And fans are all too happy to buyit - as evidenced by the speed with which Clapton and the Stones soldout the United Center.This is not an issue of ageism. ``Never trust anyone over 30''is second only to ``Tune in, turn on, drop out'' as the stupidestcultural slogan of all time. There's nothing that says a rockercan't continue to be a vital and galvanizing force in his 40s and50s, and a small handful of them are, including Iggy Pop, Neil Young,Marianne Faithfull, Brian Eno and Bob Dylan.Others seem content to rest on their laurels and trade on pastglories. Which would be fine - no one is advocating euthanasia here- providing that the rock press, radio programmers, concert promotersand fans weren't pretending that these geezers' new music is anythingother than a rose-colored trip down memory lane.When the young and impressionable members of the Stones and theBeatles first saw '50s rock heroes such as Carl Perkins, Chuck Berryand Little Richard on package tours in the early '60s, those pioneerswere already considered oldies acts. They had stopped breaking newground, and everyone knew that rock had moved on to the next phase.The approach taken toward these Hall of Famers was similar tothat toward retired sports stars: We all know that nobody can playball forever, so we honor our heroes for their past accomplishments,and the playing field is cleared for new competitors.The idea that being a rock star is a lifelong honor like thedivine right of monarchs was introduced by the musicians who emergedin the '60s, prevailed through the '70s, limped into the '80s and arenow gasping and wheezing their way through the '90s.Even the most devout fans - the ones who are paying $300 for anight with the Stones and $75 for what the tickets bill as ``LexusPresents Eric Clapton'' - will readily admit that ``Bridges toBabylon'' is nowhere near as good as ``Some Girls,'' ``StickyFingers'' or ``Exile on Main Street,'' and that Clapton's latest,``Pilgrim,'' pales in comparison to ``Layla and Other Assorted LoveSongs'' or ``461 Ocean Boulevard.''Yes, artists grow and evolve, and fans have to acknowledge that.Some people contend that it's unfair to judge them by the music theymade in the past. But what better measure is there? It would beunfair to judge McCartney's ``Flaming Pie'' against Nirvana's``Nevermind,'' but why not compare ``Flaming Pie'' to ``Revolver,''holding him up to the standards that he himself set?The reason that nostalgia has no place in criticism is that itdistorts history and obfuscates those things that really are worthcelebrating and remembering.