I get the feeling that most people my age (50-something)aren't actively seeking out so-called alternative music. They are either endlessly replaying their favorite golden oldies, or they're checking out the easy listening section of their local record store.

I have never wanted to give up the pure pleasure of discovering music that is new and creative. I loved Hendrix, early Clapton, Pink Floyd, The Stones, etc., and still do. But I need new music too because I want the excitement of discovering a great new record that pleases the pleasure center of my brain.

Last year I discovered Arcade Fire. I like the fact that they have an original sound. This year I've enjoyed another original sound provided by TV on the Radio on Return to Cookie Mountain. It's very good music, very creative. I've also really enjoyed the latest records by The Hold Steady and Built to Spill, which both keep the rock-and-roll flame burning brightly.

So my question is, am I the only geezer still into the music that metacritic.com features? Don't lie about your age to make me feel better.

No, I'm your age, and believe it or not, others are even older.

I'm young though! I'm only 18! stil a baby really

I'm 22. I think most people on the forum are of college age, though there are some a bit younger, and some that are a bit older. I think Rev. Rikard is a pretty old guy as well as a few of our most frequent posters, like Mark and LinnTate. I think the greater variety of ages we can get, the better.

Well I certainly feel young. "Geezers"- in my book- listen only to the music and musicians of their generation or a specific era. Which isn't criticism of them, but to be young musically, you gotta move on and absorb new sounds as well as discover past sounds.

I'm 47 and am buying more "new" music now than I ever did in my younger years.

My teenaged daughter comes to me for CD recommendations.

.

Hey, the 'sticking to old stuff' thing isn't limited to just older people. My friend's my age and she will not listen to anything that's under 30 years old. She thinks that time filters out the bad stuff and thus whatever's left over is golden.

I'm 20 but I hope I will continue to discover great music until I die. I don't want to see myself listening to Celine Dion-like music at 50.

quote:

Originally posted by Chamberk:
Hey, the 'sticking to old stuff' thing isn't limited to just older people. My friend's my age and she will not listen to anything that's under 30 years old. She thinks that time filters out the bad stuff and thus whatever's left over is golden.

I think there's some truth in your friend's theory. While I'm not ready to give up on new music, I think time does have a way of revealing what the true classics are. Chances are, if something can stand the test of time and still sound relevant, it's pretty great.

I think there's a tendancy to overrate the importance of some new music. Half the stuff I was listening to last year is now off my radar, but I can pick up a Beatles, Stones, Clash, or R.E.M. album and it never seems to get old.

I'm 31, by the way.

22.

Do you "old people," quote unquote, read Paste magazine? Aren't you required to?

Please advise.

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:

Do you "old people," quote unquote, read Paste magazine? Aren't you required to?

Please advise.

I plan on checking it out when my subscription to Cat Fancy expires.

I'm 19 and I tend to disagree that new music is overvalued, if anything I continue to hear people say that new music is poor compared to The Beatles, The Who, Zep, etc. but I think the music has stayed good (if you are willing to look for it) just the median age of musical listeners has shifted towards a younger age group and the depth of popular music reflects that childishness.

A lot of new music is overvalued. In 10 years we'll look back and say, "Hey, what was the name of that guy who sang 'Casimir Pulaski Day'? Stuffed Jam something?"

Possibly true, but just because music is forgotten doesn't mean it's not good. Nick Drake was an obscure figure for a long time and could have very well stayed that way.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Possibly true, but just because music is forgotten doesn't mean it's not good. Nick Drake was an obscure figure for a long time and could have very well stayed that way.

And just because music has stayed in the national consciousness doesn't mean it's good. People still remember the Starland Vocal Band, after all.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Possibly true, but just because music is forgotten doesn't mean it's not good. Nick Drake was an obscure figure for a long time and could have very well stayed that way.

Gaining fans posthumously is nothing new to the art world. I don't think your example has any legs under it.

Just go ahead and love what you love. The only thing I want to say is that just because it's old doesn't make it good; just because it's new doesn't make it good; just because it's different or original doesn't make it good; just because it's sad doesn't make it good; just because it's happy doesn't make it good; and just because it's comfortably catchy doesn't make it good. It shouldn't make any of those "music types" bad either. Art is something else, and very personal, obviously.

I think you just responded to about six or seven ongoing threads.

I have one teenage niece who pretty much listens to only Beatles and pre-'80s Dylan (and vinyl over cd). Another teenage niece prefers only current Top 40 music. Maybe they're both geezers, for now. Then again, neither have the love for music that most members of this forum do. Music isn't everything or anything to a lot of people.

I still cringe when I hear anyone say one era's/decade's/year's music is better than another. Music is a timeless thing. So-called "dated" music is relevant if someone likes it or is exploring it for the first time.

I'm 14 and a half years old.