I think we've all seen that being a rock star just over bus pass age has been a dangerous place to be in Jan2016.This really got me thinking. When I mentioned it to various one responsethat came back was "they all did lots of drugs back in the 60s/70s"Another less dramatic was the one (given round here?? I can't remember) wasthat rock/pop is a genre that has been around since the mid 1950s so thatconditioning of the data is what we are seeing.So is it possible to reject the hypothesis that "rock/pop people are sick druggiesthat die early" given the data is preselected by the career only existing since 1950ish.So grab some data I did pulled the Guardian's music obituaries for Jan 16and came up with count 11avg 70.45454545stdev 7.878624707min 53max 81 Source: http://www.theguardian.com/music/popand ... obituaries
Data: Paul Kantner 74Colin Vearncombe 53Giorgio Gomelsky 81Glenn Frey 67Dale Griffin 67David Bowie 69Ed Stewart 74Robert Stigwood 81Natalie Cole 65Maurice White 74Ian Kilmister 70As a comparison, I got the data from Sight and Sound (a UK film magazine)for obituaries from 2015 for the film industry (actors/directors/techies etc)thinking this is a somewhat related social group but without the 1950scareer selection.The stats came out as:count 170avg 83.28823529stdev 10.92400178min 42max 106So if films have been around since 1900ish and rock since 1950ishcan we say anything about the average life spans of artists in the filmvs. music business?I am intrigued.