Many of us harbor dreams, often secret ones, of becoming a famous rockstar. Well, if you want to live well passed middle age, think again. Being a rockstar and living a long life are not statistically compatible, especially if you’re American. You choose.

[div class=attrib]From ars technica:[end-div]

Hedonism. Substance abuse. Risky behavior. Rock stars from Elvis Presley to Amy Winehouse have ended up famous not only for their music but for the decadent lifestyle it enabled, one that eventually contributed to their deaths. But how much does the rock lifestyle really hurt?

Quite a bit. That’s the conclusion of a new study that tracked nearly 1,500 chart-topping musicians and found that their life expectancy after fame really was lower than that of the general population. North American solo musicians seem to have it especially bad.

This wasn’t necessarily what you’d expect. A huge number of studies have shown that wealth is generally associated with greater longevity, possibly as a result of better health care, better diet, and lower stress. Not only are rock musicians dying faster than the general populace, but they’re completely negating the impact of any wealth that their fame brought to them.

To get a collection of rock stars for their study, the authors combed the charts and took advantage of a large poll that listed the top 1,000 albums of all time. Altogether, their subjects reached fame between the years of 1956 and 2006 and included everyone from Elvis Presley to Regina Spektor to the Arctic Monkeys. From there, the authors searched the news and Wikipedia, looking for reports of death. With that information in hand, they compared the artists’ life expectancies to those of the general population.

Only about two-thirds of North American stars were still alive 40 years after their first brush with fame, compared with about 80 percent of a matched population—and there was never a point at which they outlived their non-famous peers. Typically, Europeans have greater life expectancies, but European stars did not, tracking the longevity of average North Americans for the first few decades.

Oddly, however, once they survived 20 years after hitting the big time, European rock stars started to do better, outliving the typical North American. And, by 35 years, they caught up with the average European’s life expectancy. (No word from the authors on whether this trend would stay the same if the analysis excluded the members of the Rolling Stones.) On both continents, solo performers did worse than members of a band.

So what’s killing the famous? The authors identified cause of death wherever possible and classified it as either “other” or “substance use or risk-related deaths.” The latter category included “drug or alcohol-related chronic disorder, overdose or accident, and other risk-related causes that may or may not have been related to substance use, i.e., suicide and violence.” They also tried to determine (using biographical data) whether any of the deceased stars had suffered adverse childhood experiences, such as a substance abusing or a mentally ill parent.

Of those without any obvious childhood issues, under a third died of substance abuse or other risky behavior. Adding a single adverse childhood influence raised that rate to 42 percent. Two or more adverse events, and the rate shot up to about 80 percent.

These same sorts of childhood problems tend to lead to substance abuse and other troubles in the general population as well, and the authors conclude that the hedonism we associate with rock stars is less a lifestyle choice and more an outcome of early life issues.

[div class=attrib]Read the entire article after the jump.[end-div]

[div class=attrib]Image: Spinal Tap backstage at CBGB’s in New York City. Photograph: Ebet Roberts/Redferns / Guardian.[end-div]