I have albums that have remained constant since my teenage years. Others that I haven’t played in maybe twenty years that I have the pleasure of discovering all over again; perhaps hearing something new, or relating emotionally in a different manner than when in my twenties. Then again I am a big radio listener and discover most new music by that medium. I do find it quite sad that some get stuck and never move on. I saw a post on FB the other week decrying Peter Gabriel for not caring about his Genesis fans as he no longer tours with the band. I’ll take Gabriel’s post Genesis career anytime over Mike & The Mechanics or Steve Hackett’s endless rehash of Firth of Fifth (Phil Collins serves as an emetic as far as I’m concerned).
My feelings are similar - though PG Genesis had a special something that makes some of their music timeless, and to me more enjoyable than any of their subsequent output. That of course is often the case with bands: a particular combination of artists, maybe at a particular time, gels and the creativity excels - but all too often for a limited time.
I can’t accept that at all. I’m closer to 60 than 40 and still consistently discovering brand new stuff that I really like.
2 Likes
Hmm - I am listening to a great deal of new (to me) music, bands that I didn’t previously know about. Have done for many years. Pushing 70 now, and still love music, and still explore new stuff.
It’s not my research guys, struggling to find the one I saw recently but this says something similar
I like the idea of a ‘New Music Discovery’ thread. No reason it can’t coexist with the what are you listening today thread.
Best bit about the Bristol show was wandering between the rooms with Shazam running and then trying the tracks at home from artists or indeed even versions of songs I’d never heard before.
It would be great if such a thread required people to post what they like about this new music discovery or what’s remarkable about the band, album or track.
Thanks for looking. The article is so superficial that it’s largely pointless. The point that new music is written for young people is true of course, if by that they mean standard ‘chart’ fare.
But that’s different from what I’m getting at. Over the years my tastes have changed, and these days I listen to mainly classical and jazz. I’m listening to John Holloway right now, playing Veracini sonatas. Veracini died in 1768 so he’s not likely to be appearing at the Brit awards. But I discovered his music about 10 years ago and love it. So it’s new music - to me. If I’d stuck with only listening to what I did when I was 16 I’d be constantly listening to the Damned, Buzzcocks and so on - my Dire Straits equivalent if you like. I still like both groups, but hardly listen to them. New jazz records are coming out all the time, as anyone with an ECM addiction knows to their cost. New recordings of baroque music appear constantly. Folk musicians are reinterpreting the songbook and writing their own stuff. There is so much new and just because I’m now 59 I’m not going to say that music stopped in 1977. That would be very sad.
A group I really like, and have since they stated out, is Everything But The Girl. I was playing them earlier. They changed hugely from the jazz lite of their first album to the house sounds of their last. There is even an album of alternative versions called Adapt or Die.
I think it’s a shame if people get stuck in a rut. It’s great to have old favourites that really take you back. I saw Joy Division in 79 and listening to them now takes me back to that time, which is lovely. But the world is so much bigger, there is always more to discover. It stimulates the mind. Adapt or Die.
3 Likes
I agree Nigel, the first article I saw was more medical and more in depth. I have an open mind on the subject; whilst I still find new music I like I’m not sure I would count much recent work amongst my all time faves even from bands I’ve known a long time. Certainly my taste has changed and certainly I know a lot of people who only listen to the same old musicbuy how much of that is a result of brain development with age and how much is habit I couldn’t say. I’ll keep ,y eye open for the original article and post it if I find it
It’s much simpler guys, there’s what I like and then there’s total crap - simples 
7 Likes
That argument “written for” young people apples primarily to ‘pop’ music. And one factor of significance is a need always to be different to stand out as music of the youth, so forcing styles to change (and sometimes perhaps responsible for the negative sound of some pop music) simply because they struggle to not repeat what has gone before, which is a task that gets harder from generation to generation. My take is a different way round but much the same, simply that the music of our youth was what we grew up with and so are more likely to like than otherwise - though in my case I was both selective, and fortunate with the explosion in creativity that coincided with my teenage years.
My own musical taste is unlikely ever to change to include the genres I simply don’t like - e.g jazz, soul, pop - though that of course doesn’t mean there aren’t or won’t be odd exception, especially as genres are often pretty indistinct at the edges. But then when it cones to classical, there is a seemingly never-ending supply of music that I could probably fibd something new every day if I wanted.
I agree. And I believe that to be the reason Sgt. Pepper is so frequently nominated as the greatest album ever made. Personally I don’t agree that it is (but I’d rather avoid that jaded debate). Rather, many of those who heard Sgt Pepper on its release will associate it with that whole summer of love thing, their first joint, losing their cherry etc… i.e. a great and formative period of their lives.
Nevertheless I can’t help feeling that those of us who came of age in the 60’s/ 70’s really did live through pop’s golden age. I’m sure those under thirty would disagree but I really can’t think of any pop band of the last decade or so that could be favourably compared with The Kinks, Jimi Hendrix, Byrds, Slade, Elton John, T. Rex, Blondie, The Jam etc…
1 Like
Isn’t that the point of this thread though - which you have exemplified. Some of the bands you cite aren’t great music, inventive or technically especially accomplished…
This article is quite interesting, although I’ve only scanned it quickly.
Best
David
Entirely subjective, although I’d maintain that those bands I cited were certainly some of the greatest exponents of pop music. Furthermore, I would revise my comment about people under thirty disagreeing. Ever since the whole Britpop thing of the 90’s it seems like loads of young bands are in thrall to the 60’s/ 70’s thing. Twenty year olds now are mad for Led Zeppelin, Kinks etc. That would be the equivalent of me, as a teenager, grooving to Al Bowlly and Bing Crosby.
To be honest I cannot understand the deifying of new music discovery.
Whatever gets you through the night, it’s alright, it’s alright.
.sjb
5 Likes
Yes, my two 20-something sons like the Beatles (latter years) and a lot of other music from there through 1970s, not only music I have.
As for the equivalent, I can’t stand crooners - but it is interesting to note there seems to have been a rise in popularity with some modern well-known performers.
I am glad to have discovered Bandcamp with the help of this forum. It’s such a lot fresh air, new sounds, inventiveness, …
I am discovering much more albums on Bandcamp than on Qobuz, Tidal…etc
There’s new music (in the guise of old, familiar music) and there’s new music (in the guise of new genres and styles). In my late 60s, my appetite for the former in undiminished, and the latter restricted.
I never stop trying, but my appetite for the multi-splintered off-shots of the like of Grime and the noise-related stuff that the likes of Bleep and Boomkat promote leave me somewhat baffled.
I think it is an age-related thing (as above) but also a consequence of the explosion of sound experienced over the 60-s and 90-s, where technology opened up so many possibilities. Also age-related, I guess, is that 20 years ago we were all so much younger and the prevailing influences were house-related and this place buzzed with new, genuinely new, music. Not just some acceptable album by an MOR jazz singer who showed a bit of skin.
As to the OP, the thread in question is so prolix as to be useless (a few days absence and 100s of pictures are posted) to me personally. Bruce has twice started new music threads, with few contributions.
Finally, as per the OP, that’s right - there’s nothing wrong with playing a Dire Straits album (I do too, occasionally) but there’s more to musical discovery than this, surely?
3 Likes
I think if people wish to post to let us know they’re playing a Dire Straits or Pink Floyd album or whatever, then so be it. You can easily scroll on by.
Sometimes such posts remind me of older albums in my collection which I haven’t played for ages and which I used to enjoy. That reminds me to take it out for a spin, which is fine as far as I’m concerned.
I’d prefer to leave things as they are today, but as I was once reminded by @Innocent_Bystander, we should at least write the name of the artist and album for those who suffer with poor eyesight and rely on text to audio services which cannot identify pictures.
1 Like
They might not have been technically especially accomplished (though the writing of some, including the beatles, was rather good at times) they were, at the time, incredibly inventive. Their music now might not seem so inventive, but that’s because it’s been invented, and they did it. Pink Floyd. Moody Blues. Yes. Many others - they made music of a sort (and of many different sorts) that had not been done before. Just as much classical music is now no longer inventive - but at the time it was.
1 Like