it's a simplification, but it's true. your post could have, in spirit, written 50 years ago by someone of your age...just change some of the names and dates. the EXACT same arguments are made by all generations once someone has stopped staying current with music trends and just determines nothing's as good as it used to be.

i have grown kids who appreciate music from all generations - and they definitely understand that there was some timeless/great music made in earlier times - but they also correctly know there is music being made today that's every bit as vital and exciting as it ever has been. fuddy duds just prefer to deny that reality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-05-07 23:19 by StonesTod.

Quote
loog droog

Quote
StonesTod
but it's true....peeps who say the new music ain't as good as the old music are just as full of it as the older generations who said the same thing when music was passing them by, too.

That is such an oversimplification.

My biggest complaint about new music is that there is nothing "new" about it. It is a rare event when you hear something that sounds really different.

If you compare music from the 40's to the 50's to the 60's to the 70's, each decade has it's own shape and sounds. In the last couple of decades, things haven't progressed. Music isn't passing me by, it's stuck in a holding pattern.

The ratio of good-to-bad has changed, unless you honestly believe that people will listen to as many albums made this year 40 years from now as they do records released in 1971.

I see a lot of new groups that take inspiration from bands of the past, but I don't hear them bring anything more to the table. No new sounds. And very alarmingly, they look like nerds.

It's a very boring time for rock and roll, and to deny that is like claiming jazz is as exciting today as it was in the '50's. Nonsense.

If you hear a new song that you think is as good as something by Chuck Berry, or the Yardbirds, or the Ramones, consider this. The groups today are just moving into a house that was already built for them. They didn't create the form, and if they don't expand or enhance it in an interesting way then I won't give them a second listen. Not because I'm "old" and only like music from my youth. It's because they are just not worthy of my attention.


In the meantime, thanks to CD reissues I've spent a lot of the last 25 years getting to know the music that preceded me or I just missed the first time around. It's not nostalgia for me to listen to Lefty Frizzell, or Don Bryant, or Tim Buckley, or Ella Fitzgerald, or Onie Wheeler.


If anything, going backwards and closer to the source has made groups that are the equivalent of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy--or even worse, an exact digital copy--unlistenable to my ears.

this crowd today is just not here...the short attention problem all these telephones....even when they walk they dont look back....mind you they dont look at all...fingerprint file 011 so sad

and as a jazz fan and rock'n'roll fan - i absolutely believe these two forms are every bit as vibrant and exciting as they've ever been. get out there and explore and open your ears and mind....it's all out there to be discovered and enjoyed.

dont forget about the ones that did want to hear those abb new songs

Quote
rooster
dont forget about the ones that did want to hear those abb new songs

the allmans haven't done a new album in years

Quote
colonial
Some Rolling Stones fans here are starting to sound more and more like the older generation, their parents and grandparents before them.With there continuous and in some cases quite brutal criticism of new and not so new bands, nearly everytime one gets mentioned here..ya' got to move with the times man, its 2011 not 1971..

Sorry, mate, but I am just to old and set in my ways to entertain anything new. Got my hands full with Sinatra, The Beatles, The Stones, The Sonics, The Grateful Dead, The Doors, Johnny Cash, Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix, Elvis, Dylan, Herb Alpert, Sergio Mendez, etc., etc.

if its not new it will never be old

Quote
rooster
if its not new it will never be old

and if it's not old it could never have been new...

Quote
Juniorjackflash
Not sure what the point of your thread was colonial, it makes you come across pretty dim, not sure if that is a true reflection or not...

As for new stuff, this is the best song I have heard in months, dirty, grimey, loud, raw, awesome. PLAY IT LOUD. then play it again...

nice

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Juniorjackflash
Not sure what the point of your thread was colonial, it makes you come across pretty dim, not sure if that is a true reflection or not...

As for new stuff, this is the best song I have heard in months, dirty, grimey, loud, raw, awesome. PLAY IT LOUD. then play it again...

nice

That's funny, I heard this song last week on the radio but they didn't mentioned the band name so I was wonder who they where....first thing that I came up with was "Alice In Chains".......................and that's one of my problems if your from the older generation......................always comparing.

Song is great though...............

__________________________

For goodness sake, the Stones haven't been cutting edge since 1975

What did they do in 1975 that was cutting edge? The inflatable cock?

Since the fall out of The Strokes I've pretty much fallen off the new music band wagon. Yes there is good stuff out there but it's harder to find and then enjoy. I slowly stopped listening to Radio one and now mainly listen to Radio 2. 48 years old. Most of my purchases are reissues (and with the delux reissue market apparently flourishing this will continue).

I always hated dance (aka disco), rap, so called (modern) R&B music. It seems the UK charts are clogged with identikit singers, or usually 3 artists on one record to boost pitiful sales. I find X Factor winners and N-Dubz particularly distasteful.

But I appreciate that this is the music of the new generation and (just like my parents) it's down to me to rubbish it so they can feel an identity and focus from loving it.

Quote
The GR
But I appreciate that this is the music of the new generation and (just like my parents) it's down to me to rubbish it so they can feel an identity and focus from loving it.

thought-provoking comment. do younger generations really revel in thinking their parents dislike their music? maybe if they aren't truly music lovers that would make sense. i know my adult daughter and i both enjoy turning each other on to music, regardless of generation. that's sorta the whole point of it, i think.

May be if I had children I'd have turned them on to what I listen to. Or would I be banging on the ceiling and shouting for them to 'turn that rubbish down' as they listen to Ga Ga or whatever.

Quote
The GR
May be if I had children I'd have turned them on to what I listen to. Or would I be banging on the ceiling and shouting for them to 'turn that rubbish down' as they listen to Ga Ga or whatever.

how do you know they wouldn't be listening to something that would interest you? there are kids that recognize good music today just as there were when we were kids. i've been very impressed by many of the younger generation who know much of both my generation's best music as well as the best of the current generation.

it's just plain ignorant to think that true music lovers of any generation can't disintinguish between the two.

I'm aware of letting them listen to what I listen to or perhaps trying to fill them up with what I listen to with out thinking may be they want to find it themselves. Or rejecting what they like and causing resentment.

Is it Begining Of A Great Adventure by Lou Reed? I think all these comments come from this.

As I don't have kids it a moot point really but thanks for your interest StonesTod.

music lovers discover music on their own, is my experience. you can't force anything on them. of course, they'll absorb what they hear and synthesize it as part of their own tastes.

music is ubiquitous and a pop/culture kind of thing for teenagers...the ones who are the true lovers hang with it after the teenage years are over....only one of my kids falls into that category and she's very much like her dad - fascinated with all forms of music and continuosly on a journey to learn and discover more...

All I know is, when I left home, I wasn't clutching an armful of my parents' Benny Goodman records.

If rock wasn't presently bankrupt or near-bankrupt, you'd never see younger people having any involvement with music of the past. Why would younger people be moved by music made by people who are still alive, but long past their prime; looking old, fat, bald, and unappealing, if there was an abundance of compelling current music?

Right now I am in France. On the pop stations, as well as current Euro pop, we are fed a steady diet of English and US oldies; much of it from the 80s and 90s. It's the same in Italy, and probably all over western Europe.

Quote
Bliss
All I know is, when I left home, I wasn't clutching an armful of my parents' Benny Goodman records.

If rock wasn't presently bankrupt or near-bankrupt, you'd never see younger people having any involvement with music of the past. Why would younger people be moved by music made by people who are still alive, but long past their prime; looking old, fat, bald, and unappealing, if there was an abundance of compelling current music?

i've always been interested in music from all generations and eras - dating back not just to earlier decades but to earlier centuries. and i'm hardly alone.

music fans don't explore earlier generations of music because they can't find anything they like in the existing generation; they do it because good music is timeless.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Bliss
All I know is, when I left home, I wasn't clutching an armful of my parents' Benny Goodman records.

If rock wasn't presently bankrupt or near-bankrupt, you'd never see younger people having any involvement with music of the past. Why would younger people be moved by music made by people who are still alive, but long past their prime; looking old, fat, bald, and unappealing, if there was an abundance of compelling current music?

i've always been interested in music from all generations and eras - dating back not just to earlier decades but to earlier centuries. and i'm hardly alone.


music fans don't explore earlier generations of music because they can't find anything they like in the existing generation; they do it because good music is timeless.

Well, not 16 year old me. I was too busy enjoying the Stones, the Dead, Zeppelin, Dylan, Cream, Neil Young, etc to have time to listen to Bix Beiderbecke or Mozart, however great they might be. But it seems the yoof of today have nothing but time to enjoy the music of yore.

Quote
The GR
Since the fall out of The Strokes I've pretty much fallen off the new music band wagon. Yes there is good stuff out there but it's harder to find and then enjoy. I slowly stopped listening to Radio one and now mainly listen to Radio 2. 48 years old. Most of my purchases are reissues (and with the delux reissue market apparently flourishing this will continue).

I always hated dance (aka disco), rap, so called (modern) R&B music. It seems the UK charts are clogged with identikit singers, or usually 3 artists on one record to boost pitiful sales. I find X Factor winners and N-Dubz particularly distasteful.

But I appreciate that this is the music of the new generation and (just like my parents) it's down to me to rubbish it so they can feel an identity and focus from loving it.

Really worth giving radio 6 (new music) a whirl). Some classics on there as where, no playlist, expect nick cave and the bad seeds followed by a 3 piece unsigned band from manchester. Mark Radcliffe and Stuart Maconie 1-4, then Steve Lemac.

It keeps you up to date without effort, and its a really good mix. got to hand it to the BEEB for this one.

I try to keep a look out for new talent, and I say TALENT, not just contemporary MUZAK. I also watch Leno and Jimmy Fallon to check out the musicians that they showcase. I must say that I love Adele, even bought her new cd 21. I also like some of MUSE. I am very selective in my taste and even said how wrong I was about Amy Winehouse; I didn't like her at first but got her cd and ended up loving her!! I never liked bands like the White Stripes or black Eyed Peas...just not anything I'd listen too. I still favor my classic rock collection, can't help it, I find comfort in my Stones, Beatles, KInks, Zeppelin, Cream, All of Clapton, Who, most British classic rock....I'm not telling my exact age but I will say that I'm over 50.

Quote
mickschix
I find comfort in my Stones, Beatles, KInks, Zeppelin, Cream, All of Clapton, Who, most British classic rock....I'm not telling my exact age but I will say that I'm over 50.

coulda knocked me over with a feather...

Your so vicious...

Quote
whitem8
Your so vicious...

You hit me with a flower
You do it every hour
oh baybee you're so vicious

CROSSTALK
Why do pop-culture fans stop caring about new music as they get older?


Dimitri Virvitsiotis

By Steven Hyden And Noel Murray May 10, 2011

Steven: Hey Noel, I love writing about music for a living. But I’ve come to hate talking about music in casual conversation, particularly with people—many of them friends—around my age. That’s because these conversations rarely have anything to do with actual music; instead, it’s all about how such-and-such band is overhyped or a total rip-off of something that was popular years ago—back when we were teenagers, essentially—and how this indicates that music ain’t no good no more.

“How much music sucks today and why” is my least favorite conversation topic not involving politics, religion, or gross (not in a hilarious way) bodily functions. Whenever it comes up, I’m forced to confront an uncomfortable fact of life: I am surrounded by old people, and if I’m not careful, I could become one of them.
More than any other branch of the pop-culture tree, music is associated with childhood. It’s something many of us discovered as we were discovering ourselves, providing a set of attitudes, poses, and even clothes for us to try on during our formative years. It was like acquiring an instant personality kit. Music made us feel like individuals, and yet also part of a group with people we could instantly relate to, or wanted to relate to. Just as important, music drew a line in the sand against everything we didn’t want to be, which was usually easier to figure out than who we really were.

Eventually, everyone grows up, and hopefully sheds whatever costume they wore to make it through puberty. But the power of those early music experiences remains. It’s telling that most of the entries in our My Favorite Music Year series—including some that are coming down the pike—are about years that took place at a turning point in the writer’s youth. Even for a lifelong music fan, it’s hard to top that initial impact of an artist, song, or album hitting you in just the right spot for the first time. (I certainly can’t argue against that after writing a sprawling 10-part series on the music of my teen years.)

I’m 33, which means many of my peers are married with kids, mortgages, and lots of other important real-life stuff that takes precedence over finding new bands to like. Even for a professional, following new music takes a lot of time and effort. Not only is there a lot to wade through—usually dozens of albums in an average week—but music trends are rapidly changing. Following new music requires the ability to appreciate many different flavors, and the willingness to go wherever the prevailing winds might carry you. Genres go through creatively fertile periods, buoyed by top-flight artists committed to exploring the possibilities of particular sets of sounds. You have to be willing to wade into unfamiliar waters to find the most exciting artists, and that can be tough for older listeners who are accustomed to music with firmly established parameters. Sometimes, it’s just easier to stick with what you know.

I get that. What I don’t get is the hostility that new music sometimes engenders among aging fans. I’ve chided friends who grew up on punk and indie music for turning into what they always hated—nostalgia-happy, past-worshipping hippies—because they can’t consider the latest buzz band without going into the same tired rant about how artists today don’t have “edge,” “relevance,” or “originality” by comparison with some overly idealized group from their past. I find that this opinion tends to say more about the listener than the state of contemporary music, which is too vast to be summed up by such sweepingly reductive statements.
I think this whenever I read yet another broadside about how today’s indie rock “doesn’t really rock” or whatever. Based on what? Based on your inability to locate bands that make you feel exactly the way you did when you were 15? Let me save you some time: You aren’t going to find those bands, okay? Because you changed. I guarantee you that somebody somewhere is making a record just as transformative as anything you grew up with; it’s just that you have lost the ability to hear (figuratively and perhaps literally) those records for what they are.

Noel, you’re a little older and much, much wiser than I. You still regularly review records for The A.V. Club, but based on your Popless series, I know you’ve had some misgivings about staying as engaged with newer music as you once were. Do you think our ability to appreciate new sounds begins to atrophy as we age, even if we stay up to date with other aspects of pop culture? If so, why does it happen, and what can be done to stop it?
Noel: First off, let me say that I sympathize with what you’re going through. I remember when I was in my 20s, getting irritated at newspaper columnists—not music critics, but sportswriters and editorialists—who complained that rock ’n’ roll hadn’t been any good since about 1984, and that no one was making music like The Beatles or The Rolling Stones anymore. Meanwhile, I’d look at my stack of CDs and find dozens of young bands that could’ve aptly been described as “Beatlesque” or “Stones-y,” plus dozens more bands specializing in the kind of bright, traditional, melodic sounds that I know these writers would’ve liked. I realized that what these writers were really saying is that they weren’t finding music they liked on the radio, or on MTV, so they’d stopped looking altogether.

I vowed never to become one of those proudly out-of-touch writers, and by and large, I’ve kept that promise. I still listen to every CD or audio file that gets sent to me, and I pursue leads whenever I hear about music that might be up my alley. Just last week, in fact, you posted a link on your Twitter feed to a Nitsuh Abebe Pitchfork essay, and after reading it, I bought everything I could find by Ponytail and tUnE-yArDs, two acts with which I was largely unfamiliar.

But I’d be lying if I said I were as actively engaged with keeping up as I was a decade ago. Honestly, I find that when the end of the year rolls around and I look at my colleagues’ best-of lists, I’m often shocked by how many names I don’t recognize. (Though I’m less shocked with each passing year.)


Like I said, some of those unknown names, I do follow up on. (I must give another hat-tip to you for turning me onto Call Me Lightning last year, for example.) And, like I said, I try not to be proudly ignorant. But at the same time, as a nearly 41-year-old with a wide range of pop-culture interests, I often fall more in line with your peers’ way of thinking about new music: that it’s not worth the time to slog through it all anymore.
Let me offer a couple of reasons for why we may feel the way we do:

1. It’s a defensive reaction. As annoyed as you are by middle-aged folk dismissing everything new, I’d say we middle-aged folk are even more annoyed by younger rock critics pissing on the canon. Every time a hip music publication publishes an “overrated” list, or a young critic mentions on Twitter that he’s never listened to Patti Smith, or a reviewer uses “sounds like Steely Dan” as a pejorative, or terms like “dad-rock” get tossed around, we oldsters can’t help but take umbrage. If a writer takes the time to connect a piece of new music to its lineage—rather than dismissing that lineage out of hand—I’m more inclined to give the album an open-minded, respectful listen. But if I’m told that it’s amazing because it’s not some boring, old-fashioned rock, pop, soul, or rap record, my first impulse is to listen to it and take it down a peg. As someone who’s been an obnoxious young rock critic before, I understand the “kill yr idols” impulse, and the need to champion the new at the expense of the old and/or established. But it’s also because I’ve been through that phase that I take bridge-burning less seriously. There comes a time when stumping for music just because it sounds edgy, noisy, or challenging starts to seem silly, while the desire to stick with the familiar becomes more appealing. And being mocked or lectured because your tastes have settled a bit tends to make the aging music fan want to lash out “these kids today.”

2. Maybe music really isn’t as good as it used to be. No, wait, hear me out on this one. I’m not saying that there aren’t plenty of good young musicians out there, and I’m not saying that the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s weren’t chockfull of schlock. But it’s the natural process of popular culture to weed out the worst from earlier eras, and elevate the best. And just beyond the established “best” (the Beatles and Stones-level acts, in other words), there are so many fine bands and albums that never got their full due. Music buffs could spend the rest of their lives just discovering what they missed from their own lifetimes. By contrast, I’m frequently disappointed when I try out one of the “best of the year”-type records that my younger colleagues are touting. I find I’m hearing a lot of unfocused dissonance and sloppy performances these days, and while I’m not opposed to raw-sounding music when it’s inspired, passionate, or tuneful, I don’t know that some of the most-hyped young bands are doing anything new enough to compensate for their limited skills as songwriters and musicians. And even with the ones who can play, I often get tripped up by how much they sound like older, better bands.
Look, I’ve gone on record in the past as saying that originality is overrated, so I’m not going to hammer away too much at new songs that sound like old songs. If there’s any kind of personal spark to it, I’ll back it. I’m just saying that I understand where your peers are coming from if they’d rather listen to the Pixies, or Pavement, or R.E.M., or Captain Beefheart, or Stephen Stills, as opposed to some band of twentysomethings that resembles one of those older acts, only with songs that aren’t as immediately arresting. I also think that writing about music, and being engaged with a local scene the way I know you are, may make a difference in your attitude, for reasons I’ll get back to later.

First though, I want to throw this back to you, Steve. Why do you think it’s so important to stay current? I ask this of you in particular because I know you’ve been vocally skeptical about a lot of well-liked musicians of the past decade—Arcade Fire, for example—and because I know you’re as drawn to older music as I frequently am. (I believe I have you to thank for encouraging me to give Poco a try a couple of years ago, for example.) What do you think your friends would miss if they just shut down and didn’t actively seek out anything released after, say, 2010?

Steven: I don’t know if it’s a matter of staying “current” as much as staying vital, which to me means continuing to grow and explore. I see so many people my age sticking with the music they liked in high school and college, and not only not pushing beyond it, but actively throwing rocks at artists they haven’t really given the time of day. Which, again, I find weird because it’s not like these people are also content to just re-watch Pulp Fiction and Happy Gilmore, or re-read The Catcher In The Rye. This arrested development is specific to music.

I’m with you on exploring music of the past. On balance, I probably listen to more “old” music than new, just because there’s so much more music that fits under the “old” banner. But I don’t really think of that music as “old.” To me, anything I’ve just discovered is “new,” like Eddie Harris’ 1968 album High Voltage, which I just picked up last week after researching the jazz saxophonist for our Beastie Boys Inventory. But I firmly reject the notion that “maybe music really isn’t as good as it used to be.” To me, that’s like saying “food isn’t as good as it used to be.” Maybe it’s just your diet that needs work.

People like us split music into genres and eras, but in reality, music is a continuum, formed by a long chain of artists and songs that—if you choose to follow it—will take you deep into the past or carry you into the future. Listening to “old” and “new” music side by side, in the present tense, re-affirms this view. For me, when an artist echoes another artist from 20 years ago, I’m hearing traditions being revived and re-shaped, sometimes dramatically, other times more subtly. But it’s all part of a journey through music that’s incredibly rewarding if you don’t allow tastes you established in the 10th grade to hem you in.

Okay, now I’m really starting to sound like a full-of-it music critic. You’re right, writing about music obviously influences my opinion. It’s my job to listen to new records, so unlike most people, I get lots of free music, and I’m paid to hear it. I’m actively engaged in writing about the evolution of music—how it’s changing, how it’s innovating, how it’s staying in one place—which clearly makes my experience different than that of the average person who just wants something to entertain him on the drive home from work.
Still, I keep coming back to the same question: If it’s worth caring about new films, new TV shows, and new books—I assume A.V. Club readers care about these things—why does new music so often fall by the wayside for pop-culture omnivores as they grow older? Why is “slogging” through new music no longer worth it, but plopping down 20 bucks for this week’s big (probably shitty) release at the Cineplex is considered a worthwhile investment? I feel like the continuum perspective is common among fans of other kinds of pop culture, and yet with music, we’re still tied to our own childhoods. Why?

Noel: Maybe it’s that we just process music differently from movies or television. I’ve watched my favorite movies up to 10 times, which is maybe a tenth as much as I’ve listened to The River or Double Nickels On The Dime. I go through phases where I get burned out on, say, Joy Division, but then a few months later, all I want to do is listen to Joy Division, for like a solid week. I don’t need to hear anything new, so long as I keep having that reaction to music I’ve loved in the past. On the flipside, as much as I adore the films of Robert Altman and Brian De Palma, I can go years without watching Nashville or Blow Out and barely feel a twinge.
Also, current movies and current television are frequently more a part of the cultural conversation than current music—or at least good current music. The musical acts who have a significant cross-media presence tend to be folks like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry, who are easy to grasp without my having to spend hours poring over their albums. But if I want to keep up with what people are saying about The Social Network or Justified, I can’t just watch a trailer or see a clip and expect to come across as well-informed. It feels more essential in some ways to keep up with movies, TV, and books.

That said, I see what you mean about staying vital, and it’s something I worry about. I go back to what I said earlier about not wanting to wear ignorance as a badge of honor. I see that in the other areas of popular culture I cover as well: Movie critics who boast about never watching TV are sometimes suckered in by films that are no better than the average episode of a network procedural; TV critics who aren’t big movie buffs sometimes undervalue the subtler visual and tonal pleasures of the medium; comics critics rave over the kind of overly earnest slice-of-life stories that clutter up independent film festivals every year. I still write about music on a near-weekly basis, and I’m terrified of becoming that guy who hails as a groundbreaking innovation some sound or style that other musicians have been peddling for years, off my radar screen.

But again, that’s a critic’s fear. For casual music-lovers, I don’t see anything wrong with listening to the same set of favorites year after year. Granted, maybe those fans shouldn’t be so insistent that they’re only stuck in the past because the present sucks, but otherwise, I more or less understand their mindset.
I also think critics should be mindful of why and how most people listen to music. A critic’s job is to be analytical, engaging, and provocative, which is how it should be. But as someone who’s been doing this for a long time, I know that it’s sometimes easier to write about a record that’s unusual and challenging than it is to write about a set of catchy, well-crafted songs—which means that sometimes critics hype up albums that casual listeners find off-putting. And if that happens often enough, those listeners are bound to say, “Hey, I’ve tried to keep up with what’s supposed to be good these days, and it all sucks. What’s Tom Petty up to?” (I’m not saying that critics need to change their approach, mind you; I’m just explaining one big reason for the divide.)

You raise an interesting point, though, when you compare the lack of hunger for new music to the seemingly insatiable hunger for new movies, because when I look at the contemporary music I respond to most strongly, I find certain cinematic elements: vivid lyrics, for example, or a sweeping sound. More than anything, I’m drawn to good songwriting and passionate performances these days, far more than I am to attitude or production. I do this exercise when I think I like an album: What song would I pick from it if I wanted to convince one of my non-critic fans that it’s worthwhile? And I’m often shocked by how many albums I thought I liked end up failing that test. Take Grizzly Bear, for example. That’s a decent band, with a generally likeable sound, and when I’m in the right mood, I can listen to Veckatimest and think, “Gosh, that’s sweet.” Then a day later, a song of theirs will come up on shuffle between The Chi-Lites and Joni Mitchell, and it’ll sound like a big nothing.
I bring this up because I think both devoted followers of contemporary music and dogged nostalgists operate under a fallacy. Champions of the new want to argue that a dozen or so instant classics are released each year by musicians who are pushing their respective genres forward, while those who prefer to stay stuck in the past would argue that in essence, everything’s already been done. I’ve grappled with this dichotomy for a while now, and keep coming back to the idea that even if it’s just one guy with a guitar and the same four chords that every pop musician uses, the music he writes can still have value if it’s performed well, and imbued with something personal. Music itself may hardly ever change much—at least in essence—but the people who play it do. If they have a memorable story to tell, or a voice that makes me want to stop what I’m doing and pay attention, then what they’re doing deserves a spotlight. And I do still have that experience, several times a year.
It might happen more often if I went out to shows more, but alas, being an old man with kids and a busy schedule of TV-watching keeps me at home. I wonder, Steve, if maybe you feel as passionately about this subject as you do because you’re still out there in the scene, seeing bands pour their hearts out onstage to tiny audiences.

Steven: Maybe, though I’ve never been a big proponent of having to see bands live in order to “get” them. (Although sometimes it helps; I became an instant Grizzly Bear fanatic after seeing them in concert a few years ago. Speaking of which, I can think of several GB tracks that would pass your song test—“Cheerleader” would slay between Joni and Chi-Lites—but to each his own.)

To address another of your points, I don’t have a problem with people listening to the same favorites year in and year out, either. Do what makes you happy, everybody! (It’s not like I know any of you personally, so who cares?) But as Linda Holmes of NPR recently wrote, accept that you’re “surrendering” and missing out on something that’s pretty wonderful because you simply don’t have the time or energy to keep up. Too many people are guilty of “culling,” which is kidding yourself into thinking that you’re avoiding something based on informed choice. Noel, you might think that “good” music isn’t part of the cultural conversation—or that the music that is isn't worth your time—but I’d argue that Lady Gaga has released some excellent singles, and even Katy Perry has put out some intriguingly batshit music. (Seriously, give a quick listen to her recent “I’m totally @#$%& an alien” smash hit “E.T.”) These artists, and many others, are at least as interesting and relevant as the latest major-network TV show or Hollywood blockbuster.

Besides, there’s more to contemporary music than Gaga and Perry. Plenty of bands I know you like—Arcade Fire, The Decemberists, My Morning Jacket—have released Top 10 records and sell out large venues in major cities all over the world. Sure, scoring big on the sales charts doesn’t mean what it once did—that’s one of the central topics of my new column, We’re No. 1—but everything in pop culture has been diminished to a degree, just because the landscape is so crowded. As critics, no matter what medium we cover, we end up herding readers toward whatever obscure corner we’re interested in.

So yes, you’re right about the divide between music critics and music fans, but that divide exists in every other corner of pop culture. I doubt the average moviegoer loved Dogtooth like the average film critic (or even saw it), and critically adored TV shows like Breaking Bad and Mad Men don’t command nearly the audience that American Idol does. (Hey, another example of music being relevant in the mainstream cultural conversation!) I’d argue that Veckatimest—which, at its core, is just a collection of breathtakingly pretty songs by a four-piece folk-rock band—is at least as user-friendly as Community, another favorite among TV writers that I often find really funny, if also a little smug. If anything in pop culture can be accused of being designed to suit the needs of critics looking for something fun and juicy to analyze, it’s Community, which rewards TV writers smart enough to laugh along as the show skewers pop-culture trivialities, sometimes—for my taste, anyway—with too much winking self-satisfaction. (Because Community remains a low-rated cult favorite, I’m probably not alone in feeling that way, even if I count myself as a somewhat ambivalent fan.)

Again, I’m not out to harangue anyone for their listening habits. But let’s be honest with ourselves: Part of what’s so appealing about The River or Double Nickels On The Dime for the fan who grew up with those records is the personal history you have tied up in that music. Returning to them is a way of reliving your past, over and over, in a powerfully vivid way. I love that aspect of music, but I want more. I also want discovery. I want new experiences. I treasure my musical past, but I don’t want to live there, at least not exclusively. In my view, that’s cutting yourself off from a whole world of great stuff. As a music critic, I’m going to try my best to convince you to pay that world an occasional visit. I might fail, but it’s your loss.

[www.avclub.com]

the gist of that article, edith, seems to be that it ain't the music, it's the listener. which is exactly the point that some of us have been making.

for some reason, i'm reminded of the quote from shawshank..."get busy living or get busy dying...." the analog to this might be, "get busy staying current with music or get nostalgic about old music"....or something....

Quote
Juniorjackflash

Quote
The GR
Since the fall out of The Strokes I've pretty much fallen off the new music band wagon. Yes there is good stuff out there but it's harder to find and then enjoy. I slowly stopped listening to Radio one and now mainly listen to Radio 2. 48 years old. Most of my purchases are reissues (and with the delux reissue market apparently flourishing this will continue).

I always hated dance (aka disco), rap, so called (modern) R&B music. It seems the UK charts are clogged with identikit singers, or usually 3 artists on one record to boost pitiful sales. I find X Factor winners and N-Dubz particularly distasteful.

But I appreciate that this is the music of the new generation and (just like my parents) it's down to me to rubbish it so they can feel an identity and focus from loving it.

Really worth giving radio 6 (new music) a whirl). Some classics on there as where, no playlist, expect nick cave and the bad seeds followed by a 3 piece unsigned band from manchester. Mark Radcliffe and Stuart Maconie 1-4, then Steve Lemac.

It keeps you up to date without effort, and its a really good mix. got to hand it to the BEEB for this one.

For a really wide-ranging BBC6 playlist, take a look at Jarvis Cocker's Sunday Service last week - Little Walter, then Donald Swann singing in Elvish?, then Robert Johnson... Plus all the rest, and a fascinating talk by David Attenborough all about the reason why humans have good singing voices (it's all about sex of course). Jarvis Cocker was nominated for the award that Ronnie won - pity there could only be one winner.

[www.bbc.co.uk]