Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Who here listens only to music from the past?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who here listens only to music from the past?

post #1 of 71
11/22/05 at 2:29pm
Thread Starter 
Meaning, rock bands or jazz combos or string ensembles that are now a thing of the past, and will never release a new recording (unless it's a remaster of an old recording).

Of course I listen to the Dave Brubeck Quartet, some great Operas sung by Callas, and, well, you know, The Culture Club. But I still am interested in new stuff by new bands, and pick up new recordings by old bands that are still marching on, like Depeche Mode.

But who here is actually "done" with new music? I mean, just plain old saying "that's it - the entire history of my listening library is already out there, and I'm just going to buy better recordings of the same old same old, and maybe a few fresh covers or interpretations of the old stuff."
Reply
post #2 of 71
11/22/05 at 2:48pm
Not quite, but these days I only really listen to music that was originally written in the distant past, like baroque/classical pieces or some rock from the 1960's-1980's. I'm not averse to new recordings/interpretations of old stuff though. Of course that could change if and when I need a new musical challenge, but for the moment I'm stocking up my CD collection with recordings of the old masters...
Reply
post #3 of 71
11/22/05 at 2:53pm
i'm very very picky about the new music i listen to. that said, i have a reliable stable of artists who are still making music and whom i still listen to.

every now and then... when i'm REALLY impressed... i'll add an act to that list, the most recent addition being Godspeed You! Black Emperor.
Reply
post #4 of 71
11/22/05 at 3:00pm
That would be sooo boring! I may go on a little hiatus from a genre minus a few exceptions but I'm always looking for new stuff.
Reply
post #5 of 71
11/22/05 at 3:10pm
New music all the way sorry - support the living and not the dead.

The level of musicianship on earlier recordings can be extraordinary, but why would we only listen to things from the distant past, when there are so many valid things going on today worthy of our support. And quite often the vocabulary of todays music and the interactions between different modern styles or the past, speaks of new things quite different in mood and content to what went before.

In other words there is a point where what was exciting and new becomes a safe cliche, and when we prefer this to the stimulation of new ideas (no matter how imperfectly realised) then we have lost a vital feature of music - its relationship to our lives and its ability to reflect our contemporary culture.
Reply
post #6 of 71
11/22/05 at 3:11pm
Over the last 18 months this is basically what I've become. Most new releases just weren't doing it for me. I started picking up albums from the 60s through 90s that had interested me that I had missed and other stuff that had critical recommendations.

After buying stuff by My Bloody Valentine, Sigur Ros, Neil Young, David Bowie, Love, The Band, Patti Smith,The Beach Boys, The Ramones, The Smiths etc...I was out of ideas.

I bought some Blind Willie McTell and Robert Johnson on a whim after listening to the White Stripes and that led to a love of the Delta Blues, through the blues I became interested in Jazz, which has become my passion. I'd easily say that at least 80% of my listening is Jazz from 1965 or earlier or Blues from the 20s and 30s. The majority of the rest of it is country music from the 50s and classical.

I don't think I'll be one to run out and buy new remasters of things I already have, but one of the great things about coming into Jazz right now are the abundance of box sets and things like the Prestige 20 bit remasters and the Blue Note RVGs and Connoisseur Series. There are so many wonderfull things to try. I also discovered Mosaic Records. Sweet!!

I am basically done with new music and intend to stay that way for the foreseeable future. The only modern artist that I would run out and buy is The White Stripes. If I ever run out of Jazz and Blues there is always classical.
Reply
post #7 of 71
11/22/05 at 3:11pm
Old music is cheaper.

I'm always looking for new stuff, and old stuff I've never heard is just as 'new' to me as current music.
Reply
post #8 of 71
11/22/05 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumaro
New music all the way sorry - support the living and not the dead.

The level of musicianship on earlier recordings can be extraordinary, but why would we only listen to things from the distant past, when there are so many valid things going on today worthy of our support. And quite often the vocabulary of todays music and the interactions between different modern styles or the past, speaks of new things quite different in mood and content to what went before.

In other words there is a point where what was exciting and new becomes a safe cliche, and when we prefer this to the stimulation of new ideas (no matter how imperfectly realised) then we have lost a vital feature of music - its relationship to our lives and its ability to reflect our contemporary culture.
The only things new in music to me are some of the sounds, but not many, and whatever the current political climate is to protest against. Or be made aware of current issues.

The human condition I've always found is consistent. Although I can't always relate to the living conditions of a man in the deep south in the 20s, if he is able to convey his emotions I am able to relate to that. I find it funny that pop, jazz and country tunes from the 20s - 60s are singing about many of the same topics as today. Love, addiction, death, poverty, racism etc. There are common bonds across time. They were the human condition at that time, and in many cases it is the human condition at this time. All modern music has added in these genres is the breaking down of taboos, so instead of being coy when singing about something, you can just come right out and say it. Not that total freedom of expression is a bad thing, but does this mean that modern phrasing is less creative? You no longer have to be as creative to get a lyric past a sensor, or to sing about a sensitive subject.

I find that modern music has very little new to say or add to music from the past. It is modern music that is the cliché That's why I got tired of it and went looking for some of the building blocks that our music was based on, which to me are the early Hillbilly and Race records of Paramount, Okeh, Victor.

In summary, music conveys emotion and that is universal.

Maybe I should have just written that
Reply
post #9 of 71
11/22/05 at 4:09pm
Any music that has not yet been discovered by you is new music. There's lots of "new" music that has been around for ages, you just haven't run across it yet.

I will always be looking at different things, new explorations, reccomendations from this board and others, etc. Why would you trap yourself into a corner and put limits on what you will hear?
Reply
post #10 of 71
11/22/05 at 5:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyC
I find that modern music has very little new to say or add to music from the past.
you're not listening to the right new music, then.

Quote:
In summary, music conveys emotion and that is universal.
that may be what's most important to you... but it's not the beginning and end of music.
Reply
post #11 of 71
11/22/05 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahn
Meaning, rock bands or jazz combos or string ensembles that are now a thing of the past, and will never release a new recording (unless it's a remaster of an old recording).

Of course I listen to the Dave Brubeck Quartet, some great Operas sung by Callas, and, well, you know, The Culture Club. But I still am interested in new stuff by new bands, and pick up new recordings by old bands that are still marching on, like Depeche Mode.

But who here is actually "done" with new music? I mean, just plain old saying "that's it - the entire history of my listening library is already out there, and I'm just going to buy better recordings of the same old same old, and maybe a few fresh covers or interpretations of the old stuff."
I see music as a two-way street, with repsect to the past and the present. When I get into a new band, I often look to their influences, which may be some obscure band from the 60's-80's. That leads me to mine that resource. But the opposite also happens, as when I hear of a new band that is heavily influenced by one of my favorite rock/punk/post-punk/post-rock/post-whatever bands, I will search out that "new" material.

All that being said, for rock, I probably listen to 30-40% active bands, and 60-70% now-defunct bands.

For jazz, almost all of what I listen to is from bands/performers that are no longer active, but that is the subject of a whole other thread, I suppose....
Reply
post #12 of 71
11/22/05 at 6:16pm
Unless you are at a live concert or listening to a live broadcast, all of the music you are listening to is from the past.

The only thing you can discuss is how far in the past your music is.
Reply
post #13 of 71
11/22/05 at 6:45pm
There's an ocean of great music from the past available to us, but very few young people are familiar with anything earlier than the Beatles or Miles Davis. I listen to new music of all types, but the batting average of good to bad is much lower for new music. Older music has had time to fall by the wayside if it's outright bad. It's more concentrated. There is MUCH more variety in older music than current music too. I'd say I'm about 80% old 20% new at this point. With classical music, I've pretty much given up on current recordings. Conductors are so conservative nowadays.

See ya
Steve
Reply
post #14 of 71
11/22/05 at 7:59pm
Not only, but mostly. No musicians are better than those during the 50s-80s.
Reply
post #15 of 71
11/22/05 at 8:13pm
I used to listen to music from the future, but my Time Machine broke, so now I'm forcefully stuck with music from the past

No seriously, I listen to music from both past and present. Whatever catches my attention I start listening to it. It's hard to explain how or when some sounds, music, or voices are able to catch your "ear-taste" and then stay a favorite, or at least something you like to go back and listen to and enjoy somewhat regularly. Some very new music have done it for me, some old one as well.

In any case, there is a point in time when you didn't know or had not paid attention to some music, then you heard it or become aware of it, "discovered" it, and at that point it's obviously something new to your ear and consciousness, regardless of how long ago that music was created/ composed/performed.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Who here listens only to music from the past?