Should we be pleased at news the Rolling Stones are poised to unleash a new album?
In some ways, yes. It is of course inspiring to see a group of pensioners continuing to live so energetically. And the material from A Bigger Bang – including Neo-Con, which is reported to be an anti-Bush broadside – will no doubt help keep them awake and interested on the forthcoming tour, when they rehearse their still-thrilling collection of stadium-rockers.
But what are the odds it's going to be a good record? Pop music seems to be unique among the arts in that its muse never seems to hang around for very long. Even the titans of the genre – the Bowies, the Beatles, the Stevie Wonders, the James Browns – seem unable to sustain their best work beyond a certain point.
It's not a problem which afflicts painters, or novelists, or poets, or indeed classical composers – but it does seem to be a more-or-less unbending law of the universe that you can't stay good in pop. Whether this is because the form is driven by the lusty energies of youth, or because its combination of relative simplicity and intense idiosyncrasy mean you inevitably wear out your own signature, I don't know.
None of these arguments seem very satisfying, and yet the only possible exception to the rule I can think of is Johnny Cash, whose American Recordings square up to anything earlier in his career. Maybe I'm just being stupid, and maybe the Stones are about to deliver a cracker – but can you think of other examples of pop stars whose music has stayed fresh and interesting over long careers?
