Is rock and roll the music of the young?

An interesting question. Is there certain age where rockers should throw in the towel because they are getting too old and irrelevant? We all can name great musicians who have proven wrong the old "wine" adage (better with age) on a consistent basis (sorry Phil Collins!), often with embarrassing results. Yet I have witnessed musicians like Jimmy Page and Robert Plant who have made great music, both together and seperately, in their fifties. Even the Stones, who I love but recognize their consistent membership in the former category (especially from the 80's onward) just made one of the finest albums of their career, a raw, loud, raucous record. And this in their sixties!! Bob Dylan, Neil Young, and Paul Simon have all made great albums in the twilight of their lives, but have turned out complete crap as well. U2 are in their forties and are still hugely popular, but after a career of not licensing their music to sell product they finally jumped on the wagon when they willingly climbed into bed with Apple. Some took this as a sign of their impending status as rock and roll dinosaurs, yet others believed it a wise move. Did it make them any less musically relevant? No. Did it hurt their credibility with their hardcore fans, such as myself? For many, yes. Is their recent music still as captivating and exciting as their 80s and 90s heyday and, if so, will it continue to be? And if not not, is it time to retire with dignity? I can answer these questions for myself, but will not attempt to set out a majority opinion. The issue of age and rock music is something that is hotly debated by music fans. Is it better to burn out than fade away? Did Pete Townsend have it right when he said he would rather die before growing old? I am not sure, but it will be interesting to see what many of my favourite musicians do as they age.