Why do old people hate new music?

[Farm Boy]

The Fallout games have been great at introducing me to "new" older music.
Didn't like most of it but theres always

I wander facefirst into that sort of stuff fairly frequently.

That's the one! I found one with better audio quality, though.

I was thinking somebody must have done a really eccentric pop remix for a minute.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I wander facefirst into that sort of stuff fairly frequently.

Thats a talent or knack I'd like to develop.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

My jam is stuff like this for what it's worth:

Spoiler :

I haven't heard of Novembers Doom, but that might as well be a sample of what I listen to.

 

[Farm Boy]

Thats a talent or knack I'd like to develop.

YouTube algorithm and cookies are the enemy. They want to give you things they know you like.

 

[EvaDK]

Some of that list is a bit too recent for me. You should try PJ Harvey though. I think you might like her (but I do think everyone should like her).

I actually saw some of Polly Jean's set at my very first Roskilde festival. She was mesmerizing - and wearing a golden spandex outfit. I think I was 11-12 years old.

I only have To Bring You My Love; I also only have two Björk albums, which found me at around the same time.

Interesting mix @EvaDK
I can always listen to Iron Maiden, every day if needed

I 'borrowed' my brothers Life After Death live album and was hooked. My introduction to metal many Summers ago. I still have it hehe.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I haven't heard of Novembers Doom, but that might as well be a sample of what I listen to.

I would only listen to that as a form of punishment. OK, there were some good bits, but the amount of awful stuff you had to suffer through for the good bits why not just listen to something good in the first place.

 

[Fippy]

If a band made music for 30 years, does that count as listening to old and new?
Took the example from one of my favorites, Bolt Thrower.
1986-2017

 

[AmazonQueen]

I actually saw some of Polly Jean's set at my very first Roskilde festival. She was mesmerizing - and wearing a golden spandex outfit. I think I was 11-12 years old.

I only have To Bring You My Love; I also only have two Björk albums, which found me at around the same time.


I 'borrowed' my brothers Life After Death live album and was hooked. My introduction to metal many Summers ago. I still have it hehe.

I should probably check out Bjork more. You can only gain from checking out PJ more.

 

[IglooDame]

I was thinking somebody must have done a really eccentric pop remix for a minute.

Close but not quite. The "old movie stars do Uptown Funk" is a pretty good music video though.

 

[EvaDK]

I should probably check out Bjork more. You can only gain from checking out PJ more.

Yeah. I haven't listened to any of her newer stuff.

Oh, I just checked and I still have it. It's in a rough... - I mean vintage condition though.

Spoiler :

 

[drewisfat]

I would only listen to that as a form of punishment. OK, there were some good bits, but the amount of awful stuff you had to suffer through for the good bits why not just listen to something good in the first place.

Why eat dinner before dessert? Why not eat just dessert?
You'd get sick of it. The contrast is the point. Growls are mostly a consequence of all other singing being even more awkward over heavy parts, but they are the obvious thing that weeds people away from the genre. It takes a few weeks of listening to 'extreme' metal before they stop being off-putting, and obviously most people aren't going to put up with them for that long. It's the TLDR of why old people hate modern music. None of us are all that open-minded, and most people become even more close-minded with age. The Drapery Falls for instance, isn't one of my favorite Opeth songs anymore, but it was the introductory song for me that led me to eventually working up to heavier stuff that I now enjoy more. If I had clicked the heavier stuff first instead, I would have given up on them in < 5 minutes and missed out on my fav band. With our limited patience and YT algorithms working the way they do, I think people's favorite genres/bands are selected by RNG far more often than they'd like to admit.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Why eat dinner before dessert? Why not eat just dessert?
You'd get sick of it. The contrast is the point. Growls are mostly a consequence of all other singing being even more awkward over heavy parts, but they are the obvious thing that weeds people away from the genre. It takes a few weeks of listening to 'extreme' metal before they stop being off-putting, and obviously most people aren't going to put up with them for that long. It's the TLDR of why old people hate modern music. None of us are all that open-minded, and most people become even more close-minded with age. The Drapery Falls for instance, isn't one of my favorite Opeth songs anymore, but it was the introductory song for me that led me to eventually working up to heavier stuff that I now enjoy more. If I had clicked the heavier stuff first instead, I would have given up on them in < 5 minutes and missed out on my fav band. With our limited patience and YT algorithms working the way they do, I think people's favorite genres/bands are selected by RNG far more often than they'd like to admit.

Didn't work for me.
I can get it takes a while to get into a particular style. Took me ages to get into Release the Bats. I don't think its RNG as much as you think.

 

[drewisfat]

If it took you ages to get into Release the Bats, what motivated you to keep trying to get into it? That's where I see the RNG. It's all extrapolating from my personal exp which may or may not be wise. I know I sort bands into 99% being "boring trash" and 1% into "gods who can do no wrong". That's patently absurd, but it's inescapably what I do. The fine line between boring/great is often set for me by what I first listen to and my mood at that moment.

 

[Angst]

I find a much stronger reason for song lengths being the way they are is so people who don't like the song only have to wait a few mins for it to change. When I say "radio" I mean public venues in general like a bar or a hair salon, that may or may not be straight playing the radio.

Well, the standardization is literally there due to older tape lengths.

I don't deny that dancing/outfits/videos are a big part of how most people enjoy music. I am just viciously opposed to it. I'm in it to 'listen' not to 'watch' and not to idolize. Not saying I've never watched attached music/lyric videos, but those that I do see aren't just a bunch of hot, suggestive dancers. KPOP can put out some bangers, but I find that whole act repulsive. I've never dressed in the goth/emo fashion that is common with metalheads. I find that aspect of music to be increasingly distracting.
Many of the sins I've listed are old sins it's true (Elvis dancing), but the degrees to which these dominant have increased. Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Elton John, Mamas & Papas, Kansas, etc., would struggle to be radio hit popular today. I can think of maybe Regina Spektor being an example that got a couple songs on there. That is my basic point. Dance music isn't new, but it's never been as dominant.

Dance is definitely part of the majority of musical experience, and has been so for all of human history. Contemplative listening has a long history too, of course, but dance very foundational to music experience, and infact is in the majority of it in basically every society. Adam Neely cited someone who brought up a good point; that if modern music theory had developed and become pushed in West Africa rather than Germany and Austria, there's a good chance it was required to be able to dance when practicing music theory. And West Africa isn't unique here.

Also, I dance like once a year (and only when very drunk), so I share your approach to listening. There's just not much of an objectivity to the claim that dancing is more prominent today.

I'll also note that metalhead fashion and expression goes way beyond the stereotypical make-upped look, leather/rough black stuff and long hair.

Similarly, I don't expect every song to be some intellectual journey, but virtually none are. Artists might release like *one* song in this vein to show that they can, but it's not what dominates (Lil Baby's 'The Bigger Pictire', Taylor Swift's 'You Need To Calm Down') exist, but they're big outliers for those artists and might even be critiqued as hollow virtue signaling. There's also trends in just simpler vocabulary as well (though that's throughout culture). I've heard a lot of cliche metal lyrics, or just pure nonsense that gives the illusion of some deeper meaning. It's still so much more tolerable to me than stuff like "Party in the USA" where the only non-1st-grade words are "cardigan" and "stilettos" because fashion ofc.

Well, they don't have to release philosophical music. They have to release music that causes some sort of emotional response in the listener. Again, I share your foundational aesthetics, but I'm noting why it's wrong to call my tastes objective, specifically because of what we know of how humans have generally always engaged with music.

As far as some artists still producing music, I'm not saying they up and stopped. I'm really ignorant on Lady Gaga. The only songs I remember of hers though were like the 4 smash hits from her first album. For years it was hard to NOT hear those songs everywhere. She's not retired. I assume she's still making bangers. But her popularity certainly spiked early, and that type of trajectory is what I associate with being fad-like (whether the artist deserves to be a fad or not). Do you think Olivia Rodrigo or Billie Eilish will have multiple radio hits in 10 years? It's not meant as a slight to them, but I sincerely doubt it.

Lady Gaga afaik started working on her other projects (again) which was always less popular. Britney Spears, Madonna, Eminem, Kanye West are still active. Newer acts (after my active pop listening period) have also lasted 10-20 years since they first came onto the scene. Whether Olivia Rodrigo or Billie Eilish will produce in 10 years, again, I have no clue.

When I say "bands" vs "artists" I'm not saying that bands make better music. It's completely subjective whether Billy Joel is better or worse than Pink Floyd. One-man gigs can be complete, generally when they're playing the piano or the guitar.

Piano and guitar... Well, they're indeed good soloist instrument, but you honestly don't need anymore than your voice for legitimate participation. Again, this is kind of weird as to the whole point of my response, which was in regard to objectively noting a decline, but appealing to those two instruments is particularly ahistorical as to what makes music work, and very specific as to concurrent institutions moreso than what music can actually be described as. As a value statements in regards to objective loss, it was a strange one. ^^

Record companies have been a parasitic middleman forever. Opportunists have always seen popular acts and wanted to get in on the action. What's different today is that the music industry isn't just trying to profit from artists, it's trying to *create* artists. It can create entire bands too of course, but the path of least resistance is just finding a candidate you like, and then you supply EVERYTHING. They provide the music, the lyrics, supply the necessary band/production, clothes, make-up artists, promoters, choreographer, etc. This confuses the cause and effect of popularity. Are new artists played a lot because they're popular, or are they popular because they're played a lot? Like these singers aren't completely musically ignorant, they often can play an instrument or went through some kind of classic music training. They're not like pulled off the street after all. But still, I think most people would agree that stars aren't born, they're created. You can find that depressing without being a prog head who only listens to songs with at least 4 different time signatures.

The industry mostly works in that the big music companies hire & publish a lot of people, the vast majority perfectly capable musicians, and then people that get picked up by public interest are pushed.

My jam is stuff like this for what it's worth:

Spoiler :

Opeth and Porcupine Tree are massive venues definitely entrenched in the cultural industry. Dunno about the two others.

EDIT By the way, I definitely suggest you check out Adorno (if you haven't). His observations about the culture industry are very useful as to the commercialization of art under capitalism, and he's widely used in regards to criticism of mass culture. Note, of course, that his target was jazz, which would seem weird to you; but the point is that everything from that environment onward has the same problems of corporatism. EDITEDIT: He's also very obtuse, btw. Very hard to read. If you find it difficult, understand that everyone does (including professors)

 

[AmazonQueen]

If it took you ages to get into Release the Bats, what motivated you to keep trying to get into it? That's where I see the RNG. It's all extrapolating from my personal exp which may or may not be wise. I know I sort bands into 99% being "boring trash" and 1% into "gods who can do no wrong". That's patently absurd, but it's inescapably what I do. The fine line between boring/great is often set for me by what I first listen to and my mood at that moment.

Good point. John Peel kept playing it so I kept listening to it after enough plays it stopped being trash and started being great. I'm not convinced by your RNG argument yet.

 

[Hygro]

I think there are 100% objective reasons to hate Reggaeton and similar. Other kind of new music there are good and bad songs as always has been.

“I can’t dance and I’m jealous”
“I don’t like to be happy”
“My ears don’t work”
“Girls are gross”
“I’m racist”


Or was it none of those and subjective

 

[Thorgalaeg]

“I can’t dance and I’m jealous”
“I don’t like to be happy”
“My ears don’t work”
“Girls are gross”
“I’m racist”


Or was it none of those and subjective

Well, talking about subjective reasons, obviously reageatton is important for you since apparently you need it for dancing, find girls and be happy in general and even because some racial identity issue, but for me is only very bad music.
So, speaking about the music itself, i would say that listening 10 seconds of any reageatton song is enough to predict the whole song, or even any song in the whole genre, and the lyrics are gross and always about the same topic: sex and/or violence or plainly sexual violence, lacking any variety, creativity, and any kind of artistic value. I bet my car no reageatton song will be remembered.

 

[The_J]

The oldest one I remember (and many people do) is from 2004, so I'd not have confidence in your prediction .

 

[H4run]

Well, the Beatles do suck, at any rate.

Seriously

From a musicality perspective, from both tunes and lyrics, this song does not suck.

Beatles might be overplayed, way too popular, but it does not suck.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm going to spend zero time telling you you should not love a music. But I just use that word on boy bands for the most part. It's really not even meant as that much of an insult tbh.

They suck.