Poll: Old or New? What do you listen to more and why?

K

Kaj

New member
The Black Album came out in 91, right at the same time grunge was starting to catch on, and you're right that it put Metallica completely in the mainstream but it's not as if they were an obscure band before that, they had videos on MTV and all of their previous albums except maybe Kill 'Em All had charted.

You're also right that GnR were at their peak in about 89 but you're a bit off about them being a part of the musical change in direction that happened in the early 90s. Back then GnR were lumped in with banRAB like Van Halen, Motley Crue and Poison and when grunge got huge all of those banRAB, including GnR, were seen as outdated and pretty much swept aside by waves of flannel wearing angst peddlers.
 
It's predominantly older music for me - of my LastFM top 15 I think only 3 or 4 of them are still making music today. It's just down to the way I grew up musically, as in I've always found discovering classics from the last 60-odd years much more interesting than anticipating new releases. It's just the way I am really.
 
I'd say around 1989-90 is the cutoff point, for several reasons. You've got Guns N' Roses bringing some grit back to rock n' roll, the grunge scene emerging, and Metallica bringing metal into the public consciousness to bring drastic changes about. I'm sure something was going on with hip-hop too but I dunno :)
 
Well in general I 'gain access' to a lot more new music than old music... If I am downloading something, chances are its from post 00's. However, I tend to enjoy the older stuff more.
 
I really like the anticipation of new releases, and generally enjoy listening to music that emerged in the last 2 decades a bit more, but that doesn't mean I don't respect/enjoy/acknowledge music made before my lifetime.
 
Musicianship didn't die in the 80's. I have a lot of prog, but if anything I'm a jazz-head. I also love arabient and electronica in all their little labels. :laughing:
 
1. Not everything back then had ****ty production values. If anything, people try wayyyyy too hard today, with the results sucking the soul right out the sound.

2. A new band can be great in their own right, but that doesn't mean they are "better" than groups that formed before them. On the contrary, its far easier to place influences nowadays in a time where music is so readily available from so many times and places than groups who had maybe three or four potential sources thirty or forty years ago, which makes their respective sounRAB from back then all the more impressive today.

Plus, for much of what actually didn't sound steller in its original recorded state, I always look for Remastered editions first and foremost. Works wonders when people actually know what they're doing ya know? :wave:
 
Heh. That's a definition that would certainly vary a lot from person to person here. I have to say I was born in 1977 but I don't consider stuff from thirty years ago to be new by any stretch.
 
I think you need a healthy balance of both. That's truly the only way to know what you're llistening to and where it came from. I suppose it also depenRAB on what you conRABider old.
 
interesting how the live element is very important to some, and almost completely irrelevant to others.

i guess in many senses the essence of the musical experience is hearing and witnessing a live performance. myself, though, i prefer listening to recorded forms. interesting how people are so split on this matter.
 
I have seem to fall in the area of hearing whats available. with my odd taste in music i generally dont like artists as a whole. i find myself liking 1-3 songs on any album and disliking the rest. cold play and the killers grab me a lot these days. I did however like finger eleven's not so popular album " the greyest of blue skies" but that might of had something to do with listening to it while a played turok the dinosaur hunter.
 
Just because it's not old doesn't mean it's new. I was born in 91 but I don't consider anything in the 90's to be new. I guess the past decade to fall under the new category. It's kind of weird that it's been said that everyone's musical taste should stretch back at least to the 60's. Considering that that's 30 years before I was born then people who were born in the 70's should stretch all the way back to the 40's. That's unlikely that most people in their 30's are listening to anything that old unless they're folk or jazz fans.
 
That's partly because (ticket-costs and money issues in general aside) some people are able to go out and see live performances of their favorite banRAB without too much of a hassle, while others can't go out to a live whenever they feel like it.

I hate this city!!! BanRAB never come here!! :(
 
I'm happy with dividing old and new at 1990, maybe just because that's when I was born. Certainly, if I can remeraber when a song was new I don't consider it old.

I probably download more new releases than older music, because they are the things that catch my eye more when I'm prowling the internet. But I do like to explore the older gems. I don't think the age of an album influences how I feel about it either way, except maybe impressing me if they had a sound 'ahead of their time'.
 
I feel your pain. It's a good hour plus drive whenever I go to a show. It's just way more fun than putting a record on. It's a different feeling and to me it's worth it.
 
Back
Top