| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: May 03 2015 at 12:41 |
 Tom Ozric wrote:
Dean wrote:
Tom Ozric wrote:
Dean wrote:
Of course it is generally true and it is something that we've known for a very long time now. Just because "it doesn't apply to me" doesn't mean it isn't true for the majority of people. The exception that proves the rule means what it says - if something does not agree with the general idea then it is an exception. As Simon has said (more than once) - we are not representative of the whole population, we are (in the main) exceptional in our tastes in music compared to other people of our own generation - the vast majority of my friends and acquaintances who are of my age are "stuck in the 70s" and do not seek out new music, but there are exceptions. |
Even if we are of a minority, this statement is just a brash, generalisation that holds little weight in the bigger picture. Generalisations generally suck. Generalisations are superficial and shallow in their analysis. There is no use-by-date for discovering new things, whatever they are...... |
What do you mean "even if we are a minority"? ... we are a minority. <span style="line-height: 1.4;">It is a statistical average. That does not make it a brash generalisation, or even a generalisation when read in context with the linked article - it is the bigger picture, of which "we" form a small part - there are also minorities who never got into music at all (strange but true - such people exist). Statistical surveys cannot be superficial and shallow in themselves, it is how they are poorly interpreted and used that makes them suck. I could go on, but I have to go out into the real world now.</span>
|
Yes, Master Dean. We ARE a minority.
What I'm trying to convey here (from the vacuum of my coccoon of existential fantasy.......  ) is that it IS a generalisation. How can such a statement NOT be ?? It's like watching those dumb-ass cooking shows on the idiot-box - the chefs say " Everybody loves Pavlova " or " Everybody loves eggs "...... I hate both of those. I'm currently 42, and the amount of 'new' things I've taken on board in the last 9 years is immense. I'm just defiantly against this 'stop listening at 33' assumption. I bet you're older than me, and have discovered lots of 'new' things since you were 33. So, why would some superficial statistic offer a 'solid confirmation that 'people stop listening to new music at 33'. Only applies to bunch of joe-publics where music doesn't have much, if any, bearing on their lives. |
Ah right. So you just read the head-line and had a knee-jerk asplosion. Fair enough. You have nothing more to add here.
|
|
What?
|
 |
JD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 07 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18371
|
Posted: May 03 2015 at 16:12 |
|
Not sure about the accuracy of they're data points given the, what seems like a, narrow sampling. That doesn't mean I don't see some truth in what they say.
Part of it is probably peer pressure at the younger ages (what are your friends listening to), part of it may be relationships (what does your new love interest listen to), and some people just become complacent and listen to what's forced on them by BIG radio.
I'm 57 and still try to check out, not just new bands, but new music as well. As many genres as I can to a certain point. Some I can appreciate without really liking, some I really just don't like, some I find dull and uninspiring. But that doesn't dissuade me from keeping up the search.
|
|
Thank you for supporting independently produced music
|
|
Tom Ozric
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2005
Location: Olympus Mons
Status: Offline
Points: 15916
|
Posted: May 04 2015 at 01:27 |
Dean wrote:
Tom Ozric wrote:
Dean wrote:
Tom Ozric wrote:
Dean wrote:
Of course it is generally true and it is something that we've known for a very long time now. Just because "it doesn't apply to me" doesn't mean it isn't true for the majority of people. The exception that proves the rule means what it says - if something does not agree with the general idea then it is an exception. As Simon has said (more than once) - we are not representative of the whole population, we are (in the main) exceptional in our tastes in music compared to other people of our own generation - the vast majority of my friends and acquaintances who are of my age are "stuck in the 70s" and do not seek out new music, but there are exceptions. |
Even if we are of a minority, this statement is just a brash, generalisation that holds little weight in the bigger picture. Generalisations generally suck. Generalisations are superficial and shallow in their analysis. There is no use-by-date for discovering new things, whatever they are...... |
What do you mean "even if we are a minority"? ... we are a minority. <span style="line-height: 1.4;">It is a statistical average. That does not make it a brash generalisation, or even a generalisation when read in context with the linked article - it is the bigger picture, of which "we" form a small part - there are also minorities who never got into music at all (strange but true - such people exist). Statistical surveys cannot be superficial and shallow in themselves, it is how they are poorly interpreted and used that makes them suck. I could go on, but I have to go out into the real world now.</span>
|
Yes, Master Dean. We ARE a minority.
What I'm trying to convey here (from the vacuum of my coccoon of existential fantasy....... ) is that it IS a generalisation. How can such a statement NOT be ?? It's like watching those dumb-ass cooking shows on the idiot-box - the chefs say " Everybody loves Pavlova " or " Everybody loves eggs "...... I hate both of those. I'm currently 42, and the amount of 'new' things I've taken on board in the last 9 years is immense. I'm just defiantly against this 'stop listening at 33' assumption. I bet you're older than me, and have discovered lots of 'new' things since you were 33. So, why would some superficial statistic offer a 'solid confirmation that 'people stop listening to new music at 33'. Only applies to bunch of joe-publics where music doesn't have much, if any, bearing on their lives. |
Ah right. So you just read the head-line and had a knee-jerk asplosion. Fair enough. You have nothing more to add here. |
Only that I have a jerky knee asplosion (what ever that is..... ). Cheers, man 
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: May 05 2015 at 04:55 |
|
Would be interesting to see a research going beyond something like Spotify and other streaming services, since I get the impression a lot of older people don't use it as they prefer analog over digital. There's also a bunch of methodological issues with surveys like this like those I mentioned, for instance not distinguishing between different sense of "new music". The article neither makes it clear whether it's referring to new genres or new artists (possibly in familiar styles).
In my case, I've also had to do a lot of playing catch up with 1990s/2000s/2010s music since for a long time I've stuck with music that's a generation or two older than me. The thing about the classics is that though some of them haven't aged well to my ears, with the past it's disproportionately best that's remembered today... so now it's time for me to find the equivalent great records and innovative artists from my own generation. (This has become easier after having expanded my own horizons genre-wise, and starting to network with several local musicians - I might actually become a "reporter on underground music" for a local newspaper if the job interview I'm invited to this week goes as planned!)
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: May 05 2015 at 09:02 |
Toaster Mantis wrote:
Would be interesting to see a research going beyond something like Spotify and other streaming services, since I get the impression a lot of older people don't use it as they prefer analog over digital. There's also a bunch of methodological issues with surveys like this like those I mentioned, for instance not distinguishing between different sense of "new music". The article neither makes it clear whether it's referring to new genres or new artists (possibly in familiar styles).
In my case, I've also had to do a lot of playing catch up with 1990s/2000s/2010s music since for a long time I've stuck with music that's a generation or two older than me. The thing about the classics is that though some of them haven't aged well to my ears, with the past it's disproportionately best that's remembered today... so now it's time for me to find the equivalent great records and innovative artists from my own generation. (This has become easier after having expanded my own horizons genre-wise, and starting to network with several local musicians - I might actually become a "reporter on underground music" for a local newspaper if the job interview I'm invited to this week goes as planned!)
|
As I mentioned earlier, this merely confirms what we already know.
Discovering new music is not just what you listen to. People of all ages continuously get passively exposed to new music via various forms of media and some may even pick-up on one or two newer artists as a result of that - I doubt that Susan Boyle's or Adelle's listener-base is restricted to those "under 33". What we are talking about here is the almost compulsive desire to be actively exposed to new music - the same drive that differentiates someone who buys an album just because they like it from a "fan".
There is no denying that initially this is teenage/young adult thing in that this is when it all starts - music has a much higher priority than other pursuits at that age and we can probably list lots of sociological and psychological reasons for that and relate it to social status and character-formation and a whole raft of other things. Prior to becoming a teenager most kids will listen to anything and everything, their taste in music does not become polarised until they start to find their own identity. Once that personal identity has been established it will then probably remain unchanged for the rest of their lives - their tastes may shift from rock to jazz or classical music but the general flavour of the kind of music they like in subsequent years is formed during that young-adult period.
As people leave their teen/youth/young adult years other priorities take precedent, (marriage, home/mortgage, job/career, car, holidays, food, furniture, etc.), and therefore music becomes less important in their lives. I suspect that most of us over the age of 30 have experienced this at some point, however briefly. For some of us maybe that never happened, perhaps some of us balanced those priorities differently but I would be surprised if music held the same (#1) priority as it had done in earlier years for the entire duration of their lives unless they were actively involved in the music business in some form. Music is a leisure activity after all is said and done no matter how seriously some of us take it.
Then later in life as those pressing non-music priorities are dealt with the "what do we do now?" bug kicks in and some return to the pastimes that interested them in their youth (hifi, music, motorcycles, whatever) ... either as a nostalgia trip (I think that is actually pretty rare) or because they can now afford (cost and time) to do what they couldn't back then. I don't believe that the so-called mid-life crisis is about recapturing youth so much as being able to return to the things that interested them back then.
|
|
What?
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: May 06 2015 at 05:17 |
|
Yeah, like I said in the opening post the "big picture" strikes me as very familiar but not all of the details fit the lived experience I recognize exactly.
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Study: People stop listening to new music at 33