Old music is outselling new music for the first time in history (1 Viewer)

I never understood anyhow, why so many people are always only considering the latest music (or books) worth buying, listening to, reading.

The so-called "back-list" is so full of gems that beat most of the new stuff at any given day.
Even when I was in my teens (in the 80s) I prefered any 70s Springsteen or 60s Rolling Stones or Muddy Waters over the then-new Top-Ten-material (Michael Jackson, Madonna, Samantha Fox), which I hated to death.
As far as music goes, that feeling that the old stuff isn't relevant probably comes from my generation, or the one right before it. Back when "oldies" were really a different kind of music. Imagine being a kid when rock and roll started in the 50s. What would you have to look back to? Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy? How Much is that Doggie in the Window?

Rock and roll made everything that came before it sound irrelevant to kids. And the Beatles, in my generation - and the music of the 60s and 70s in general - made all the previous rock and roll sound irrelevant. Something used to come around and do that every generation or so. Used to.

Pretty sure that's where all the, "Eww! Why are you listening to your dad's records?!" thing came from. Obviously a lot of the kids don't feel that way anymore.
Seems extremely difficult to find good new music nowadays. Early 2000's with The Strokes and the White Stripes for me, I think is the last time I actually liked new bands and of course they weren't doing anything new, they just happened to be new bands. Chris Cornell of Soundgarden recently said kids nowadays don't listen to Nirvana, they don't want to sound like Nirvana, they want to sound like Skrillex. I found that amusing, not sure why, but it seems accurate.

Users who are viewing this thread