New Music?

An article published by Uncut magazine suggests that people cease to take an active interest in new music once they hit their mid-thirties.  I certainly know people whose musical taste has frozen: they only listen to music from the sixties, or the seventies, or the eighties or perhaps the nineties.  Typically the era in question coincides with the years when they were in their teens or twenties.

The Uncut article is a summary of research into the listening habits of US Spotify users published in an article titled ‘“Music was better back then”: When do westop keeping up with popular music?’. Putting to one side the source and coverage of the data used, for me the premise is a flawed one.  My approach to music is more aligned to that of John Peel who said:

“People do find it curious that a chap of my age likes the things that I like but I do feel that it's one of those situations where everyone's out of step except our John, because in every other area of human activity - literature, theatre or something like that, you're not supposed to live eternally in the past, you're supposed to take an interest in what's going to happen next and this is what I do, it seems to be a perfectly normal and natural thing to do.”  (Desert Island Discs BBC Radio 4 January 1990, available here or as a transcript)

The best song, instrumental or other piece of music may not have been made yet: only by continually investigating the new can you appreciate what’s been already made and what’s still to come. Simply put: "I just want to hear something I haven't heard before." (John Peel again)  

That’s also not to say that new music has to have been made today – new music means music I’ve not heard before.  It might have been recorded in 2015 or it may have been recorded and released years ago or like the album ‘BFI’ by ‘The Dragons’ it could have been recorded years ago (1969/1970) but not released until now (2007 in the case of ‘BFI’). All are potentially of equal interest to me. 

Equally I don’t hold entirely with the Radio 1 ‘In new music we trust’ slogan either.  Just because it’s “new” doesn't mean it’s good. You cannot dismiss or condemn music just because it was written and recorded years ago. 

What exactly does ‘new’ mean when set against the backdrop of the continuum of music over time?  Take the new-ish band ‘Temples’. They are a young group of musicians and their music is newly written and recorded, however it is deeply rooted in the past. Does this qualify as ‘new’ music in the Radio 1 definition?  Ultimately for me the question is pointless: whilst perhaps Temples music harkens back to the psychedelic music of the late 1960’s, the band are trying to take those sounds and make them their own. Does it work? Does it have emotional impact? For me it does, so it justifies its existence.

Finally, out of interest, I did a quick analysis of the music I've acquired so far in 2015.  Of the 28 albums (CD, digital or vinyl) 16 are new – that is were first released in 2015 and 12 were either re-issues (for example the 2015 re-master of Gong’s album ‘Camembert Electrique’), bands I’d previously not heard (Kestrel) or great albums by bands I already love but didn't have (Broadcast, Saint Etienne and Stereolab). 

Analysis of my Spotify listening would show a preponderance of new stuff.  I try and listen to all new albums before I buy.  Most new things I hear are disappointing but that’s the fun of always looking for something new!