Study: Rock stars more likely to die younger than ordinary citizens

[snopes]

Living fast and dying young has long been part of rock and roll lore.

And now there are statistics that affirm the image.

http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/art...rs0904-ON.html

I hope Amy Lee doesn't know about this.

[MisterGrey]

It makes enough sense, at least the way I see it. Aside from the cliche of "sex an' drugs," being a "traditional" rock star must take a heavy toll on an individual. Even if you love doing it more than anything on the world, it must be awfully physically stressful to push yourself like that night after night, not to mention the hours spent travelling, the probably very poor sleep patterns that are formed... Any medical snopesters here to vouch for the effects of stress on the lifespan? I'm also curious as to if the noise involved damages more than hearing. Would constant exposure to loud noise and/or bass have any other detrimental effects on a person's health?

[BamaRainbow]

From the article:

The team studied 1,064 stars from the rock, punk, rap, R&B, electronic and new age genres in the "All Time Top 1,000" albums published in 2000. They compared each artist's age at death with that of European and U.S. citizens of similar backgrounds, sex and ethnicity.

Mark Bellis, leader of the study, said his research showed the stereotype of rock stars was true - recreational drugs and alcohol-fueled parties take a toll.

The report found that, between two and 25 years after the onset of fame, the risk of death was two to three times higher for music stars than for members of the general population matched for age, sex, nationality and ethnic background.

In all, 100 of the stars studied had died - 7.3 percent of women and 9.6 percent of men. They included Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix.

The average age of death was 42 for North American stars and 35 for European stars.

Okay, between "two and 25 years after the onset of fame", well, let's see--Elvis rose to national fame in 1956 (he had released a couple of big country hits the previous year but didn't really become famous till 1956) and he died in 1977, 21 years after the "onset of fame". Okay, that fits, but does it really mean anything? What was it about 1977 that led to his death that he escaped in 1967 (when he'd become a nearly insignificant performer; by the end of 1967, the 1966-67 period was one of his least productive times--he'd scored a mere 6 Top 40 hits, with only 1 making the Top 20)? John Lennon rose to fame in 1964 (well, 1963 for the UK) and he died in 1980, a mere 16 years. Okay, again that fits, but then again he was murdered, so I'm thinking we can remove him from the study as a bit of an anomaly. Without access to the "All Time Top 1,000 Albums" volume included as the "research" tome, it's a bit hard to really make a valid comparison of who can and who can't be discussed here. Johnny Cash, by his own accounts, should have died many times during the "two and 25 year" period the "research" uses, yet he managed to survive his self-described hell-raiser period a couple of times.
I'm sorry, but anytime research allows such a vast period of time, it reduces the validity of the research. Now, if the research had proved that the allegedly high percentage of the stars in the research had succumbed within 2 to 5 years of their initial fame, there would be a bit more significance (as well as concern for the "rock stars"). When you have some of these celebrities dying from such mundane things as plane crashes and cancer and AIDS, it's a bit tough to link the "rock-star lifestyle" with their "untimely demises" (especially some 20 years after the initial onset of fame).
(Of course, with Jim Morrison and Elvis Presley, one has to be under the impression that they're both actually dead and not living among us under some assumed identity. )

[BamaRainbow]

Just as an afterthought, how does this research really prove anything? Are we to assume that some "rock star" who dies unexpectedly of a heart attack at age 32 (11 years after the onset of fame but 8 years after anyone had last given a fig about him) is somehow less of a tragedy or somehow brought it upon himself more than an apparently healthy non-rock star who dies unexpectedly of a heart attack at age 32?
I honestly suspect the researchers of this study had something they WANTED to prove so they simply cherry-picked the research so that it would prove their hypothesis. (How else to explain that absurd 2-25 year range? Would anyone take a poll seriously if the margin of error was +/-10% or only relied on a sample of 100 people?)

[snopes]

Last week “scientists” at Liverpool John Moores University stunned the world with the not-very-surprising news that rock stars are more likely to die young than ordinary people. Three times more likely, to be precise, in the first five years after initial chart success.

What the study didn’t touch on was the manner of those deaths. After all, rock history is littered with musicians who’ve met shocking and gruesome ends. Here’s our macabre Top 5.

http://news.q4music.com/2007/09/rand...ock_death.html

[snopes]

The other popular misconception is that Tammi Terrell’s condition was the result of physical abuse by her lover, Temptations singer David Ruffin

Uh-oh, here we go again ...

- snopes

[Ramblin' Dave]

Is that a UL (about Terrell and Ruffin)? I'd never even heard they were romantically involved before. I'd also never heard that she died in Marvin Gaye's arms, only that she collapsed onto him during a performance and that was when the tumor was discovered. Which apparently really is what happened.

[Magdalene]

Originally Posted by BamaRainbow

From the article:

The team studied 1,064 stars from the rock, punk, rap, R&B, electronic and new age genres in the "All Time Top 1,000" albums published in 2000. They compared each artist's age at death with that of European and U.S. citizens of similar backgrounds, sex and ethnicity.

Mark Bellis, leader of the study, said his research showed the stereotype of rock stars was true - recreational drugs and alcohol-fueled parties take a toll.

The report found that, between two and 25 years after the onset of fame, the risk of death was two to three times higher for music stars than for members of the general population matched for age, sex, nationality and ethnic background.

In all, 100 of the stars studied had died - 7.3 percent of women and 9.6 percent of men. They included Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix.

The average age of death was 42 for North American stars and 35 for European stars.

Okay, between "two and 25 years after the onset of fame", well, let's see--Elvis rose to national fame in 1956 (he had released a couple of big country hits the previous year but didn't really become famous till 1956) and he died in 1977, 21 years after the "onset of fame". Okay, that fits, but does it really mean anything? What was it about 1977 that led to his death that he escaped in 1967 (when he'd become a nearly insignificant performer; by the end of 1967, the 1966-67 period was one of his least productive times--he'd scored a mere 6 Top 40 hits, with only 1 making the Top 20)? John Lennon rose to fame in 1964 (well, 1963 for the UK) and he died in 1980, a mere 16 years. Okay, again that fits, but then again he was murdered, so I'm thinking we can remove him from the study as a bit of an anomaly. Without access to the "All Time Top 1,000 Albums" volume included as the "research" tome, it's a bit hard to really make a valid comparison of who can and who can't be discussed here. Johnny Cash, by his own accounts, should have died many times during the "two and 25 year" period the "research" uses, yet he managed to survive his self-described hell-raiser period a couple of times.
I'm sorry, but anytime research allows such a vast period of time, it reduces the validity of the research. Now, if the research had proved that the allegedly high percentage of the stars in the research had succumbed within 2 to 5 years of their initial fame, there would be a bit more significance (as well as concern for the "rock stars"). When you have some of these celebrities dying from such mundane things as plane crashes and cancer and AIDS, it's a bit tough to link the "rock-star lifestyle" with their "untimely demises" (especially some 20 years after the initial onset of fame).
(Of course, with Jim Morrison and Elvis Presley, one has to be under the impression that they're both actually dead and not living among us under some assumed identity. )

I can see some of what you're saying--the odds of cancer aren't going to go up just because you're a rock star--that's more genetic/random chance. But even with the mundane stuff, the odds do increase slightly because of the lifestyle.

AIDS, for example--yes, any of us could get AIDS, but with the more casual sex and drug opportunities that rock stars get than most of us, their odds of being infected probably increase.

Anybody can die in a plane crash, but the odds of a rock star dying in a plane crash probably increases as well, because they have to travel more frequently than most of us do.

The John Lennon example--okay, anybody can be murdered by a loony, but with being famous, John Lennon had more people--mentally healthy and otherwise--watching him, so again, his odds probably go up a bit.

Granted, this doesn't mean every single rock star is going to die young, but there's a better chance of it due to several factors than there probably is for the general population.

Magdalene

[snopes]

Comment: Did you know that James brown died of a heart attack when he was
attempting to hit his wife .... again?

Originally Posted by MisterGrey

It makes enough sense, at least the way I see it. Aside from the cliche of "sex an' drugs," being a "traditional" rock star must take a heavy toll on an individual. Even if you love doing it more than anything on the world, it must be awfully physically stressful to push yourself like that night after night, not to mention the hours spent travelling, the probably very poor sleep patterns that are formed... Any medical snopesters here to vouch for the effects of stress on the lifespan? I'm also curious as to if the noise involved damages more than hearing. Would constant exposure to loud noise and/or bass have any other detrimental effects on a person's health?

As an ex musician (as far as making money at least) I can tell you that it isn't just the drugs. My band would do mini tours (2-4 days a week in the summer, weekends rest of the year). Even after those two days we were beat (mind you, most nights consisted of sitting around for a couple of hours, playing for 30-60 minutes and packing up).

True, we carried our equipment in and out but even two or three days later I felt weak. I can't imaging doing that 5+ nights a week over and over for hours on end.

Good thing we weren't good enough. It might have killed me

[smackmac]

Is that a UL (about Terrell and Ruffin)? I'd never even heard they were romantically involved before. I'd also never heard that she died in Marvin Gaye's arms, only that she collapsed onto him during a performance and that was when the tumor was discovered. Which apparently really is what happened.

I never knew anything about Tammi Terrell, other than she died young.

You can blame the first Austin Powers movie for popularizing the urban myth that Mamas & The Papas singer “Mama” Cass Eliot choked to death on a ham sandwich.

I heard that long before Austin Powers. I was just glad that snopes was able to show me the light.