The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / There is no such thing as new music, just old music that you haven’t heard before

There is no such thing as new music, just old music that you haven’t heard before

by 70 Comments

That’s the title of an interesting post on David Hepworth’s blog (link below):

http://whatsheonaboutnow.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/theres-no-such-thing-as-new-music.html

One of the points that he makes is that when living in an era where everything is available, then it doesn’t make sense to give priority to music that is new. I think this makes sense, after all, we don’t do that with books do we? If you read, say, 20 books a year, and only 3 or 4 were from that year, would you be bothered?

So what do you think? Does showing a lack of interest in new releases indicate a lack of curiosity? Or should we accept that, with everything available we should just go where our nose takes us, whether it be LCS Soundsystem, Charles Mingus, Paco De Lucia or Maurice Ravel?

0

Comments

  1. Ooh! Backwards7 – there’s a blast from the past.
    What gripped me initially about music was the Top 40 rather than records that might have been lying about the house, so I don’t think I’ll ever lose my need to hear “new”.
    When I was a nipper we would have regarded the likes of The Beatles as old hat; it was only when I became a student of yer pop that I became curious about the music from before my time. In contrast, today’s youngsters seem to be diving right into the archives from the off. When I was in my nearest record shop last week I took a moment to appreciate the pleasing display of vinyl albums – not only were there no recent releases, all those I saw were from the last century.

  2. I was reading this earlier, and he’s certainly right in my case. I scroll through the new releases on Spotify occasionally, but the ‘new releases’ are just as likely include the Doors or Louis Jordan as some new hotshot.

    Another factor is that the ‘old’ artists who are still alive just won’t stop making records. I treasure Dion’s last (2016) album, released 58 years after his first, and my son currently has the new Sparks waxing on heavy rotation, a mere 47 years on. The days when artists disappeared because they could no longer get a record deal are long gone.

    • I wish I was more like this. It’s just easier to play old favourites, rather than discover new ones. And I say this as someone with a job that allows me listen to music all day long. I go for radio and pods instead.

  6. I mean, apart from anything else it’s just factually wrong, isn’t it? I’m pretty sure that Young Thug and Rostam have in fact released records very recently and that I listen to them and love them. So that’s kind of weird. It’s the thing I never get about DH: he assumes his own ossified habits are, like, the objective and only way to experience music. He’s got a theory, you know.

  7. Until recently, interest in the “new” (at least for music) was always a function of the manufacturing, retail & media environment.

    Bricks & mortar shops had limited space, and needed guidance on what to stock, so charts were invented as a way of controlling inventory. Radio & TV would (mostly) play recent/current music as promotion for those records, and many records only had one or a small number of pressings before they were deleted, as back-catalogue sales were limited to the biggest sellers, and with only a few mail-order outlets (and record fairs) as an alternative, it was pretty much a “when it’s gone it’s gone” scenario, so to an extent, being into new music was a default setting…

    … as opposed to now, when “everything” (to all intents and purposes) is available to watch, stream, download or buy online, so why limit yourself to stuff released recently, except as a talking point…?

    • Um. Because music changes and grows and evolves and that’s fascinating? To my knowledge nothing that sounded like Rostam, or Godspeed…!, or Frank Ocean or Mary Epworth or any of the other new records I currently love has existed before.

      I understand the idea that new and old music are EQUALLY worth listening to, but I won’t ever understand the idea that old is always going to be preferable given a choice.

        • Hmm, I reckon it is quite possibly their worst album yet. (‘Worst’ being a relative term of course – they are still an amazing band). (I am also taking a perverse pleasure in inadvertently supporting Hepworth’s point (which is clearly bollocks) by using the example of a bunch of anarchist Canadian post rockers who are ethically, politically and musically so far away from his beloved 1971 Laurel Canyon soft soap dreck that they might as well be living on North Sentinel Island). (Also, brackets).

      • To be fair to myself (!), I did say “limit yourself to stuff released recently”, rather than “just listen to old stuff”…

        I have to admit I think I’d be totally bemused if I was a youngster just getting into music now, where would you start?

  8. Hmm, it sort of holds credence when the comparator is books, but films seem to be something where show me some new seems to equate to play me some new.
    Me? I like old records and old films.

    • Old films? Nah. For examples, ‘Distant Voices, Still Lives’ is (as I’m sure we all agree) the best film ever made and I could watch it forever. But given a choice between watching it again right now or watching the latest piece of Hollywood blockbuster childish crap, I’d choose the latter. Cos a) I don’t know what’s coming and b) it’s likely to give me summat to moan about.
      As for books, I generally prefer modern. Old is all bodices (whatever they are) and manners. New is more like my life.
      As for records, well it’s obvs, innit. If you want a wide selection of excellence to choose from then the past is your man on account of there being more of it than the present. If you fancy hearing summat different to what you’ve already heard then I’d suggest listening to summat new.

      Glad to be of help.

  9. Does this come from listening to ‘popular’ music for all our lives? When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s you HAD to keep up with the new releases – that was the game, to hear that new record for the first time, and preferably before anyone else. When a little older, that translated into seeking out those artists or records that no one else knew or, preferably, hadn’t even heard of. Has this just become ingrained into our brains as a habit?

    As mentioned above, there was an industry driving all this as there was lots of money to be made. The ‘new old’ and archive releases are exactly the same really – flogging us as much stuff as possible.

  10. The idea of someone asking David Hepworth “What are you listening to at the moment”, and getting, in reply the statement “There’s no such thing as new music, only old music you haven’t heard yet” is absolutely delighting me.

    • I’d like to employ him as a reviewer.

      “David, have you finished that Objekt review?”

      “Yep, it’s a belter. Starts with “the thing that’s so agelessly perfect about Jackson Browne is…” and continues in that vein for 500 words.”

      “Did you mention the record you’re supposed to be reviewing, at all?

      “No, no I didn’t.”

      “Perfect. Good job. The cheque’s in the post.”

      • In the magazine I usually had a laugh when he managed to mention Richard Thompson in a review. Basically everything with a guitar sounded like Richard Thompson. He could be right though.

  11. I salute your musical curiosity, Hawkfall. I am definitely a bird of the same feather. However I don’t think the comparison with choosing which books to read completely holds water.

    Pop music at least, is very much a thing of the present moment. Your age and how much music you have listened to previously are significant factors.

    If you are a teen or a young adult, as well as listening to older music, you want to hear new releases or listen to artists that you can go and see live with your pals. And indeed follow them as they go from their first single through to selling out larger venues.

    I may try and interest my son in Ella Fitzgerald, Jackie Leven, Johnny Cash or Jimi Hendrix and could well be successful. But none of them will be playing gigs around here in the near future. Elvis Presley though, that’s another matter. A secret gig could still be on the cards.

  12. Of course there is an argument to suggest that there hasn’t been anything really new for about a hundred years. Various lines in history could be drawn over the centuries where things developed, rules and traditions set which were broken by revolutionaries, mavericks or geniuses.
    In western music the introduction of equal temperament (standard 12 note scale) was the biggest game changer bar none. It feels right to suggest that the likes of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, stretched the boundaries but the next significant milestone was the merging of African and American influences that brought out the Louis Armstrong’s of this world. Since then it’s been a fairly steady flow with a few experimental diversions that has led us to wherever we think we are today. There has always been great music and there has always been fluff (not Alan Freeman). For every Monteverdi, Beethoven, Armstrong, Sinatra, Elvis, Dylan, Hendrix, Strummer or (insert own more up to date preference here) there would have been 1000’s of contemporaries just riding the waves and having a jolly good time in the process. Some of it you’ll like, some of it you’ll hate. It was ever thus.

      • Or indeed that the western musical alphabet of seven white and five black notes is the only game in town!
        (Nice to exchange words with you Bob, it’s been a long time.)

        So open question, what was the single biggest development that allowed the transmission of thoughts, ideas, creativity, storytelling to develop and propagate?
        (Pictures on a cave wall? Quill Pen? Printing press? Typewriter? Internet?)

    • “There’s nothing new around the sun
      Everything you think of has been done.
      All been done before your time,
      Some time or another by someone and his brother.”

      Not at all true, of course.
      Except in that it’s been said repeatedly over the years.

  14. He’s been saying this for years, and whilst I can’t be bothered to read it I entirely agree with the point that if it’s new to you, it’s new, end of. Disregarding something because it was released years ago is as daft as disregarding something because it is new.

  16. I know David Hepworth is a symbol of fogyness for a number of people on here, but he seems to be talking about the tastes of any twenty something I know who is interested in music. It’s easy to forget that for them, streaming or downloads have been available for as long as they can remember. CDs are about as remote as 78s. They have never been limited to what’s on the radio, or what they can afford to buy from the selection in the local records shop. They pick up on artists with established reputations – Loretta Lynn, Van Morrison, Eric Dolphy, according to their tastes – and listen to them, and follow up on links from that. Occasional dabbling in the new, but it’s not the rule.

    We all know different people, but I don’t know anyone of any age who thinks that following the new releases is a particular guarantee of quality or interest in any genre. Even on here, how often are the recommended new albums by established bands like Mogwai, who must all be pushing fifty, not new acts? Technology has been changing music listening habits for over a century. Isn’t this just the latest one?

    • Point of order: pretty sure Mogwai are all a year or two older than me, so 40-41 or so.

      I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing with the idea that the kids listen to as much old as new, but Hepworth specifically says “it seems absurd to give any special respect to whatever happens to be new” without seemingly realising that it’s equally absurd to give special respect to what happens to be old. He’s suggesting that given the choice, old is the obvious way to go. It’s not.

      And the sentence “there is no new music, just old music you haven’t heard yet” is just plain bollocks. By which I mean it’s objectively untrue, and I don’t even know what he thinks he means by it.

      So yeah. He *is* often a tedious fogey, and deliberately and provocatively so, but that’s not the problem with the piece. The problem with the piece is that it’s full of shit.

    • I don’t think any sane person would dispute that da yoot of today listen to both old and new music. They have the means, and it’s not like if a mate recommends you a great song on Spotify you’re going to stop and ask – wait, when was it recorded though? Unless you are Heppo, in which case you probably question the existence of Spotify and launch into a lengthy diatribe on why streaming services are actually no different to juke boxes, or similar.

      Hepworth is doing what he always does: starting off with a fairly uncontroversial observation (“people listen quite broadly now”) and then extending it to the point of absurdity to try and generate a debate (“therefore new music doesn’t exist”).

      No one thinks that following new releases is a guarantee of quality, but equally I doubt anyone sane thinks that listening to old music is a guarantee of quality either. Most people are just listening to music, and new music is one constituent part of that.

      Not really sure I get the point re: Mogwai. They’re all recently 40, but there’s plenty of music made by yer actual young people that gets a shout on the blog (albeit it’s a minority interest in this particular community).

      Here you go: https://theafterword.co.uk/?p=18203

      And here, for good measure, is Bobby Shmurda. He’s 23, you know – I looked it up. It wouldn’t matter if he was 80 though – it would still be a tune (although the video would be even better).

  17. I don’t have any opinions on what people should listen to, but more on what they are listening to. When I was growing up in the seventies, contemporary pop music was the most easily available, and anything from even a few years before could have disappeared unless you wanted to take the risk of ordering a record on the basis of a review. Now it’s as easy to hear The Original Dixieland Jazz Band from 1917 as it is to hear Katy Perry. I think this must have some impact on listeining habits.

    And as I’m being annoying, I’ll say that the track by Bobby Shmurda shows how young people are as interested in past music as contemporary music. Hip Hop in 2017, forty years after it started. It’s like Swing being as mainstream in 1977 as it was in 1937.

  18. A rather pointless discussion about a poorly written blog piece.

    As mentioned in countless replies above, “it’s all subjective innit”.

    One thing that has struck me is that there have been no really new sounds in music in “the recent”.
    Since sampling, scratching, the drum machine etc. in the ’80s, nothing particularly revolutionary in the sound of our music has hit our lugholes IMO.
    Synths are ’60s and ’70s technology, constantly refined since but nothing really new since those weird sounds we heard then.
    The technology used in music production and the ease of deploying it has improved in leaps and bounds. The ways the existing sounds are combined have also changed to a certain extent, but the actual sounds used have remained pretty much the same. Nothing really, really radical has occurred since the ’80s, IMO.

Leave a Reply