why do celebrities die young?

[PB666]

2 hours ago, Camacha said:

This sentence is remarkable for more reasons than one.

I was going to add something random, but it looks like most of the replies have beat me to it.

I have to say this on the subject, a child of the 60's and 70's here, the problem is that all the major rock icons of my youth are dropping like flies, people in the late 50's, 60's and 70's. The only two that are bucking the trend are Keith Richards and Mick Jagger. As far as intelligent, I think there are quite a few musical geniuses in the group, though most of the would have been better off reading and taking to heart greek trajedies. For example if you have the flue or flu-like condition, get thee thyself into thy bed.

Except for the stones, I cannot name a single great, innovative rock group from the 60s or 70s that still has a large majority of its members alive.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, RainDreamer said:

As someone with a friend as a talent manager (who manage celebrities) and have experience in communication industry and entertainment production, I have so many things I want to say about the blood, sweat and tears that people in the entertainment industry put forth toward their creations, but I notice that it is slowly getting off topic, so I will just put it like this:

You can call any particular art form "bad" and you are probably right, because that is the nature of art. But never, ever, say that art is easy.

Art is that which expands on the boundary of art, there is no perjorative in that, creativity can be instinctual or part of a trial an error process. It does not have to be hard

But I know for fact my body could not handle life on the road eating slop thrown at me, taking drugs, and irregular sleep hours. And if you are sick, you should be in the comfy of your home in bed, not partying to 1 AM in morning.

Lets not confuse the two topics, creativity can be done without self-destruction. There are a long list of things with a persons body that can ultimately end up in death, but there are also a long list of things you can do to increase those risks also. Smoking - heart disease, high blood pressure, lung cancer, bladder cancer, throat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis. Drinking - Depression, anxiety, suicide, cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, permanent cognative impairment, higher risk of accidents. Cocaine - Extremely addictive, anxiety, suicide, heart failure,. .Irregular sleep patterns - Anxiety, Depression, Heart arrhythmia, High blood pressure,

. If you start loading your body up with really top heavy risks, its going to fall over, we all eventually fall over, but these risks just accelerate the process. 

 

[WinkAllKerb'']

so what ; life is like normal gauss law apllied to lifespan ? @pb  ? , cells reproduce fast and faster then it slow ? basically in neuro it's facing death process and related stuff.

(just simple fact in the intent to help, sorry for the pinch of sarcasm and irony, but well it is how it is or it is is it or is it it is)

Edited April 22, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[Matuchkin]

1 hour ago, Nuke said:

tell that to lemmy

And the 50+ names on that list.

[WinkAllKerb'']

that's a nice tool in your hand matu, do other people you know and you like have the same ?

Have fun with thoose toy ; ) all the best in your schoolyard and remind toy are designed by adult so the kid can play in the schoolyard and attempt to learn something from the toy they use ...

 

ps *hug* and take a breath, it's like a cool breeze in your chest ; ) nothin personnal just sayin'

Edited April 22, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[RainDreamer]

38 minutes ago, PB666 said:

But I know for fact my body could not handle life on the road eating slop thrown at me, taking drugs, and irregular sleep hours. And if you are sick, you should be in the comfy of your home in bed, not partying to 1 AM in morning.

To be honest, I don't know about the lives of rock stars in the 80s and 70s because it is totally a time before mine,and you might be probably right about those things for them. But these days, for celebrities, especially popstar celebrities, their work is like any other full time job, and actually even worse. The kind of stress that put on you as you once again do take #86 of a scene at 1AM because the scene demands it to be a night scene and everything has to be perfect while deadline is in 2 weeks and you are just at 50% done for this one while you also have like 3-4 more productions to make, all your co-worker are as stressed as you and as irritable, you got a production meeting at 9am tomorrow, another contact meeting with producer later on in the day, and then more filming sessions,also you haven't called your family in a month because you constantly have to be on the move from set to set, fly from places to places for shoots and meeting with people that are making your work happen and things just slip from your overworked mind. And these are just for a few minutes of MVs. There is just a humanly impossible demand for them to meet, so I am not surprised that a few of them snap publicly, if not privately, or use anything that can help them cope.

By the way, there is a reason why most celebrities singers don't actually write their own song anymore, because they don't have time to do that between various shows, sponsored appearances, shoots, etc. and the basic necessities for keeping their body working. Most hit pop songs are written or ghost written by hired writers, and it is usually the same group of people, going through rounds of meetings for approval and modifications from the singers.

 

I am not saying that there aren't irresponsible celebrities who abuse their fame and power and do crazy things, but take them as exception rather than the norms, especially for the rising ones who has the most stress to deal with.

[pxi]

39 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

To be honest, I don't know about the lives of rock stars in the 80s and 70s because it is totally a time before mine,and you might be probably right about those things for them. But these days, for celebrities, especially popstar celebrities, their work is like any other full time job, and actually even worse. The kind of stress that put on you as you once again do take #86 of a scene at 1AM because the scene demands it to be a night scene and everything has to be perfect while deadline is in 2 weeks and you are just at 50% done for this one while you also have like 3-4 more productions to make, all your co-worker are as stressed as you and as irritable, you got a production meeting at 9am tomorrow, another contact meeting with producer later on in the day, and then more filming sessions,also you haven't called your family in a month because you constantly have to be on the move from set to set, fly from places to places for shoots and meeting with people that are making your work happen and things just slip from your overworked mind. And these are just for a few minutes of MVs. There is just a humanly impossible demand for them to meet, so I am not surprised that a few of them snap publicly, if not privately, or use anything that can help them cope.

By the way, there is a reason why most celebrities singers don't actually write their own song anymore, because they don't have time to do that between various shows, sponsored appearances, shoots, etc. and the basic necessities for keeping their body working. Most hit pop songs are written or ghost written by hired writers, and it is usually the same group of people, going through rounds of meetings for approval and modifications from the singers.

 

I am not saying that there aren't irresponsible celebrities who abuse their fame and power and do crazy things, but take them as exception rather than the norms, especially for the rising ones who has the most stress to deal with.

You could be describing the life of a celebrity from any time in the last 50 years at least, right down to the ghost writers and everything.  Pop music has been manufactured for as long as there has been pop.  The only thing that has really changed is the internet makes the meltdowns more public.

[Mikki]

"The only cure for life is death."
Depends on perception.
 

[Darnok]

18 hours ago, Camacha said:

Both because a sentence that is about intelligence that is not grammatically correct is remarkable, and that the world view you have seems pretty skewed. There are plenty of celebrities out there that are famous for other things than showing their body parts. It seems you choose to immerse you in pop culture and then complain there only is pop culture.

Pop culture is most popular and most of kids are "watching" it, not other things. If you rise kids by showing them that "elite" of our society is showing body parts on public, taking drugs or doing other things I am not allowed to write in here. Then those kids are going to think that this is so cool and this is purpose of life, to be rich enough to do same things as their idols does.

 

18 hours ago, Camacha said:

People got famous for their art (Hirst, Koons, you name it), view on economics (Sachs), discovery of certain scientific principles (Watson) or discussion about science (Hawking, deGrasse Tyson, Cox), furthering of modern technology (Musk) and for many other reasons that have nothing to do with body parts. Not to mention those people selling their body parts, as you choose to call it, must be somewhat savvy when it comes to business. You cannot make it in a very competitive world if you are not.

You choose to limit your view, then complain the view is limited.

Sachs saved sold many countries, including the one I live in, so if you are not from country he saved (is there any country he saved?) don't mention him.

What is deGrasse Tyson talent?

Musk just wants more money, his electric cars are partially funded from taxes (~7000$ for each car, if I am correct), give me such funding from government and I will show you better direction for technology than he does.

I am not limiting anything, I am talking about what is most popular for kids and young people and it is not science. Go and talk with 18-25 year old people, you will see that non of those names you wrote is known to them.

As for celebrities it is interesting why we gave awards for best selling albums, but not for best content with universal meaning. That should promote content over pictures and meaningless words in songs.

 

 

[Camacha]

48 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Pop culture is most popular and most of kids are "watching" it, not other things. If you rise kids by showing them that "elite" of our society is showing body parts on public, taking drugs or doing other things I am not allowed to write in here. Then those kids are going to think that this is so cool and this is purpose of life, to be rich enough to do same things as their idols does.

 

You are being selective. I cannot repeat this enough. Se-lec-tive. Parents in the 60's thought that long haired musicians were exactly what you say modern day artists are. Nowadays, The Beatles are pretty much worshipped and McCartney is even knighted.

Quote

I am not limiting anything, I am talking about what is most popular for kids and young people and it is not science. Go and talk with 18-25 year old people, you will see that non of those names you wrote is known to them.

That simply is not true. Dare I say selective? You either hang out with the wrong crowd, or have a very skewed idea of what the youth knows and likes. Many will consider some or all of the people mentioned personal hero's, even though those were just a couple of obvious examples. There are many more. You cannot just brush them aside because their existence does not fit your story.

Besides, you do not get to pick and choose. You claimed people were only famous for their body parts and shallow contributions. I gave you a list of people that became famous for anything but body parts (Watson possibly excepted). There are many more names to be added, this is just a tiny sample.

Do not let a vocal minority fool you. Do not fool yourself.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Camacha

[RainDreamer]

25 minutes ago, Darnok said:

Go and talk with 18-25 year old people, you will see that non of those names you wrote is known to them.

23 years old here. I know those names.

Also, try to define "best universal meaning" and have everyone agreeing to your definition and you will see the problem in that. They go with a number they can get easily, which are sales - if a song is sold very well that means it speaks to a lot of people - simple. Now, there is a lot of problems in that as well due to things like piracy nowadays and the industry pushing sales of profitable artists instead of allowing smaller artists having enough air time and so on (less of a problem now with things like youtube/soundcloud), but it is a whole another can of worm I won't touch.

[Camacha]

46 minutes ago, Darnok said:

As for celebrities it is interesting why we gave awards for best selling albums, but not for best content with universal meaning.

They are called Nobel Prizes. Or pick one of the many thousand of other awards, grants and you name it. Whatever tickles your fancy. All awarded for excellence and major developments in fields that further knowledge and mankind as a whole. What more could you want?

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Camacha

[Darnok]

9 minutes ago, Camacha said:

You are being selective. I cannot repeat this enough. Se-lec-tive. Parents in the 60's thought that long haired musicians were exactly what you say modern day artists are. Nowadays, The Beatles are pretty much worshipped and McCartney is even knighted.

Any of them was sharing almost naked photos or sex tapes? Back then songs had words, but now they doesn't need words at all to sell "music" They even somehow modify tracks from old hits, like part of Tom Jones - Sex Bomb is in Lady Gaga - Poker Face and many others do same thing.

 

9 minutes ago, Camacha said:

That simply is not true. Dare I say selective? You either hang out with the wrong crowd, or have a very skewed idea of what the youth knows and likes. Many will consider some or all of the people mentioned personal hero's, even though those were just a couple of obvious examples. There are many more. You cannot just brush them aside because their existence does not fit your story.

Do not let a vocal minority fool you. Do not fool yourself.

You are selective if you can't see that majority is not interested in any broader views. Yes 1 out of 100 people know those names, but that is so little it doesn't matter, since majority decides (votes) where world is going.

 

4 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

23 years old here. I know those names.

Also, try to define "best universal meaning" and have everyone agreeing to your definition and you will see the problem in that. They go with a number they can get easily, which are sales - if a song is sold very well that means it speaks to a lot of people - simple. Now, there is a lot of problems in that as well due to things like piracy nowadays and the industry pushing sales of profitable artists instead of allowing smaller artists having enough air time and so on (less of a problem now with things like youtube/soundcloud), but it is a whole another can of worm I won't touch.

And how many people in your age doesn't know those names?

That is my point, they don't have to agree with me, but making only criteria as "best selling thing" is where you promote fake body parts and punish creative work.

It speaks to many simple people not that it have any meaning.

 

5 minutes ago, Camacha said:

They are called Nobel Prizes. Or pick one of the many thousand of other awards, grants and you name it. Whatever tickles your fancy. All awarded for excellence and major developments in fields that further knowledge and mankind as a whole. What more could you want?

 

And this is where science turned into wrong direction, it shouldn't be about prizes and grants, but about real answers Because if you do things for reward or money you won't write truth, you will write what will allow you to get money and reputation.

Promoting power of authority in science is wrong, we should promote power of arguments, but since scientists get rewards and grants their arguments have more value than those who didn't get those.

 

[WinkAllKerb'']

let's speak about life:

so i switched work many time, many various sectors of activities, one of them was land surveyor for like 6 years or so before doing something else ...

worked from the sewer, to 10thstar hotel roof, military base, slum, museum, historical place,school, home, railway, industries etc. etc. crossed some people road, had some talk, entered some room here and there, seen some stuff ...keep smile @ life because if you want my own nowdays survey report:

it's close and not far to "what a mess"

EDIT:

also worked a whole week somewhere aiming with the theodolite laser on the walls to measure distances, one week later a young dad got kill (gun shot) at the same place early at night because he took a picture of the new street light.

the local littl' drug dealer under stress ... prolly ... or alike ... anyway ...

... ... ... want more ? i have plenty ...

Edited April 23, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[pxi]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

Any of them was sharing almost naked photos or sex tapes? Back then songs had words, but now they doesn't need words at all to sell "music" They even somehow modify tracks from old hits, like part of Tom Jones - Sex Bomb is in Lady Gaga - Poker Face and many others do same thing.

Yep there were naked photos and sex tapes even back then, they just didn't get the same level of exposure.

As for making music from the work of others, that's been going on for decades.  You had hip-hop artists doing it in the 70's, industrial acts doing it in the 80's and it exploded with the techno scene in the 90's.  The Utah Saints whose 1992 tracks Something Good used samples of Kate Bush - Cloudbusting,and What Can You Do For Me which used samples of Kiss, The Eurythmics and Gwen Guthrie were the first to get mainstream recognition for the practice (at least, it was the first time I saw it being discussed on the news), but it had been going on for years nonetheless.  The practice arguably has its roots in the cut-up technique practiced by the Dadists, and later popularized by William S Burroughs.

Notwithstanding all that, there has been a long-standing tradition of modifying old hits - it's called the cover version.

Edited April 23, 2016 by pxi

[wumpus]

If you really want to determine sample bias, try taking other samples and comparing them.  For "Celebrities", I would suggest "whoever is on the cover of People" for as many years as it takes to get the data, then for your non-celebs I would suggest your school-class, or "nearest relatives on your family tree" (a couple of tragic deaths 30 years ago here makes me think celebs have it easy).

On the other hand, you don't become a "celebrity" (or at least go out of the public eye after your 15 minutes are up) without both talent and a far greater drive for attention than anyone you likely have met.  Simply put, lots of people want the public eye on them and will pay a huge price for such (and we still see a small sliver of those folks who "made it").  While I *don't* believe that celebrities die younger than the rest of the population, I'd suspect that is more to do from people being more willing to phone in 911 calls for the celebrity, and possibly *far* lower resistance in telling the doctor everything about themselves (which the doctor could probably find in last months People, had she looked).

One last thing: if "celebrities" (and this includes athletes and other sportsmen) aren't dying young, why aren't steroids more widely prescribed?  Not just athletes, but any action actor can be expected to need a bit of pharmacudical assistance for the level of "fitness" they need to exhibit.  Probably the biggest "hey!  If it does that, I want some" moments I've heard of with "drugged athletes" involved football (American style) players suddenly recovering from months-long injuries in a week or so.  If steroids or other drugs are responsible, it seems tragic to criminalize them just to make sports betting seem less rigged. 

[PB666]

12 hours ago, wumpus said:

If you really want to determine sample bias, try taking other samples and comparing them.  For "Celebrities", I would suggest "whoever is on the cover of People" for as many years as it takes to get the data, then for your non-celebs I would suggest your school-class, or "nearest relatives on your family tree" (a couple of tragic deaths 30 years ago here makes me think celebs have it easy).

On the other hand, you don't become a "celebrity" (or at least go out of the public eye after your 15 minutes are up) without both talent and a far greater drive for attention than anyone you likely have met.  Simply put, lots of people want the public eye on them and will pay a huge price for such (and we still see a small sliver of those folks who "made it").  While I *don't* believe that celebrities die younger than the rest of the population, I'd suspect that is more to do from people being more willing to phone in 911 calls for the celebrity, and possibly *far* lower resistance in telling the doctor everything about themselves (which the doctor could probably find in last months People, had she looked).

One last thing: if "celebrities" (and this includes athletes and other sportsmen) aren't dying young, why aren't steroids more widely prescribed?  Not just athletes, but any action actor can be expected to need a bit of pharmacudical assistance for the level of "fitness" they need to exhibit.  Probably the biggest "hey!  If it does that, I want some" moments I've heard of with "drugged athletes" involved football (American style) players suddenly recovering from months-long injuries in a week or so.  If steroids or other drugs are responsible, it seems tragic to criminalize them just to make sports betting seem less rigged. 

 

shot - lennon, tu-pac, biggie smalls, crane, gaye. 

overdose - too numerous to count so mention notables . . . jackson, hendrix, morrison, belusi, cobain, vicious,  hoffman, moon, presley, farley, houston, monroe, garland

alcohol poisoning - bonham, winehouse

AIDS - mercury, chapman, hudson, liberace, perkins, reed, ashe

suicide - williams, prinze, hemingway(2)

Cancer - dio, bowie, swayze, fawcett, jennings, marley, hepburn, hopper, 

heart attack - ian stewart, mama cass, robin gibbs

drowning - brian jones, natalie woods, dennis wilson, 

skiing accidents - bono, richardson

car accidents - kelly, mansfield, dean, walker, (motorcycle) - allman, oakley

Although being a celebrity seems to be hard work, i don't think we can blame the work load on the fact that celebrites should avoid booze, drugs, sleeping pills, skiis, fast cars, sun, cigarettes, hand guns, people who carry hand guns, risky sexual encounters or  repeatedly used hyperdermic needles,  possibly ham sandwiches.

 

Edited April 24, 2016 by PB666

[WinkAllKerb'']

cross different celebreties path within grand hostel corridor:

1 case:

winkalltralala "hello, have a nice day"
celebritie " hello, thks you too"

2 case:

winkallpoet: working with a colleague at measuring the stairs
celebretie: can't even walk, 300% shivering, boby like a mashmallow, 2 bodyguard helping celebritie walkin

3 case:

someone: "may i have an autograph"
celebritie: *ignore*
(winkallschtroumpf and a colleague observing the scene from far)

that's pretty simple ...

and finnaly, measuring Mohamed Al Fayed bedroom, opening various formork and case  to get the wall distance and bein' able to draw the plan later on autocad.
Until you're named Elisabeth II, Harry potter or Willy the Whale. ask someone else

simple as well. celebri wut ? don't even make me laugh ...

 

Edited April 24, 2016 by WinkAllKerb''

[RainDreamer]

14 hours ago, PB666 said:

 

Although being a celebrity seems to be hard work, i don't think we can blame the work load on the fact that celebrites should avoid booze, drugs, sleeping pills, skiis, fast cars, sun, cigarettes, hand guns, people who carry hand guns, risky sexual encounters or  repeatedly used hyperdermic needles,  possibly ham sandwiches.

 

I don't think being overworked gives celebs free pass on doing things that get themselves dead either. It is just that, people tend to think celebrities has it easy and thus whenever one of them breaks and doing stupid things, they thought that is how they really is. While more often than not it was the only thing left they knew to cope with their lives. It's not a good idea, and they should not do it, but I can at least sympathize with them.

I am sure a lot of them would benefit from a visit with mental health professionals, and some are likely doing it in private. But not all can afford that due to tight schedule and the stigma, which get worse for them due to how public they are and how the gossip mill would chew them up for the audacity of getting help for their problems.

[Raven Industries]

@Darnok

Just a quick response to a few things:

deGrasse Tyson is a science communicator, so he gets people interested in science/explains science to non-experts.

Of course Musk wants more money. Thats what a company runs on, isn't it? And he owns a certain company that I think we would all hate to see fail.

As for prizes and awards in science, it's certainly possible that they cause corruption and falsified results, but they can also motivate scientists to explore previously ignored topics.

[Darnok]

17 minutes ago, KerbalSaver said:

@Darnok

 

Of course Musk wants more money. Thats what a company runs on, isn't it? And he owns a certain company that I think we would all hate to see fail.

As for prizes and awards in science, it's certainly possible that they cause corruption and falsified results, but they can also motivate scientists to explore previously ignored topics.

I don't blame Musk for having company, I am blaming him for getting money from taxes of people that doesn't have and probably even doesn't want his products.

It is opposite, scientists ignore topics that doesn't get any rewards, are unpopular or leads to lower reputation. Which leads us to system where science is controled by people who fund and give rewards.

[PB666]

2 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

I don't think being overworked gives celebs free pass on doing things that get themselves dead either. It is just that, people tend to think celebrities has it easy and thus whenever one of them breaks and doing stupid things, they thought that is how they really is. While more often than not it was the only thing left they knew to cope with their lives. It's not a good idea, and they should not do it, but I can at least sympathize with them.

I am sure a lot of them would benefit from a visit with mental health professionals, and some are likely doing it in private. But not all can afford that due to tight schedule and the stigma, which get worse for them due to how public they are and how the gossip mill would chew them up for the audacity of getting help for their problems.

Well for it might be unlikely that a poor construction worker who works in the sun 60 hours a week could afford to buy a ferrari or have many ski vacations, known a fair amount of contractors that had substance abuse problems, but that is generally limited to the amount of money they can make. Another self-limiting thing is that if you drink yourself into a stupor on sunday night, your monday work day is going to be a living hell. (although friday and saturday night, different story) and of course if you are caught having a DWI or a drug offense you've got an agent whose got a lawyer who can get you off with a wink, and autograph, and a few hours of community service. If you are poor, chances are you are going to have to do the time. So  . . . . . . . . .

@Darnok honestly, you have no idea what you are talking about. We work alot of unfunded projects, we haven't been on the gov'ts dime in decades and we are still pouring out unfunded research that support public sector science. Whats worst is that (an unmentionable entity that you pay taxes to) makes it much more difficult and expensive for us to do our work, scientist don't lobby at near the level of other industry and as a result we have been victimized by the (nameless entity). Do you know that if an institute has one federal grant, all labs have to comply with mandates even if individuals labs do not recieve funding. The gov does not provide compliance funding to all those other labs, and some of the funding requirement are _______ and trivial in nature. Our overhead went from 20% to 60% since I have been in science. Its very difficult to squeeze blood out of turnip when the government takes a third of your turnip. Even if you don't receive additional funding, the government does not give a dime for complying with DEA mandates on things like barbital (a commonly used buffer) or piperidine (a commonly used synthesis reagent). All they do is bring more mandates to comply with. I have a 17 pages of forms I have to go through every year to find out what things I have or might have that has been snuck onto some DEA list. They don't give a nickle to dispose of certain RA sources (even if those sources are harmless) but have the laws so it costs 5000$ to dispose of them, or a refrigerator that now cost $200 to dispose of. We are also forced to separate everything now to avoid the appearance of dumping stuff in land fills we get no additional funding for doing it. Our city abandoned separation and recycling of glass, for us separation of glass in the waste stream is mandatory. All kinds of things you would not think of we have to waste time and money doing because the mandates and for the most part the government does not drop a dime for it. When you hear about unfunded mandates, the hardest hit is for non-profit science.

What your going to see someday soon, in about 10-20 years is a whole field of research involving rodents is going to move to places like china (along with those scientist) because it will simply become to complicated and difficult to deal with the regulations. Things like sending lab mice to ISS, not going to happen. These things are costing researchers far too much money in the west, some countries have already shut if down, Norway has shut it down, England wills to shut it down, and the US is strong-arming animal research quietly and behind the scene. When the US stops being a leader in science, its leadership in everything else will begin to wane. Some of those 30,000$ per dose humanized monoclonals being marketed by Amgen, Genetek, etc started out as federally funded mouse monoclonal antibodies at non-profit; some of these back in the 1980s. You have to have the antibody to sequence the gene, to copy the variable region and insert it into a human antibody. Even if you don't use that sequence, it probably is used as a guide. These miracle drugs of the future are going to be (actually already are) popping out of Chinas pharmaceutical industry and that big pharm revenue is likewise going to go overseas, and you want to talk about the hidden costs then, you can't imagine.

Edited April 24, 2016 by PB666

[Raven Industries]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

It is opposite, scientists ignore topics that doesn't get any rewards, are unpopular or leads to lower reputation

Except I doubt there are very many (if any) fields which don't have some sort of recognition system in place.

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

I am blaming him for getting money from taxes of people that doesn't have and probably even doesn't want his products

Take it up with the government, it's them who decide where your taxes go to, not Musk.

Edited April 24, 2016 by KerbalSaver

[Laie]

In order to bring this back on topic...
Life Expectancy and Cause of Death in Popular Musicians: Is the Popular Musician Lifestyle the Road to Ruin?

The upshot is that it depends: Jazz musicians tend to have a higher life expectancy than the public at large and die from old age, while about half of the hip-hoppers are murdered in their twenties.

A few non-paywalled charts can be found here:
http://theconversation.com/music-to-die-for-how-genre-affects-popular-musicians-life-expectancy-36660

 

[Robotengineer]

On April 22, 2016 at 7:12 AM, PB666 said:

I was going to add something random, but it looks like most of the replies have beat me to it.

I have to say this on the subject, a child of the 60's and 70's here, the problem is that all the major rock icons of my youth are dropping like flies, people in the late 50's, 60's and 70's. The only two that are bucking the trend are Keith Richards and Mick Jagger. As far as intelligent, I think there are quite a few musical geniuses in the group, though most of the would have been better off reading and taking to heart greek trajedies. For example if you have the flue or flu-like condition, get thee thyself into thy bed.

Except for the stones, I cannot name a single great, innovative rock group from the 60s or 70s that still has a large majority of its members alive.

Err, The Beatles? Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are still around, and McCartney is still touring AFAIK.