It's hard not to think about one's age and how it relates to rock music. I just turned 47, and with each passing year it becomes harder not to wonder whether I should be listening to something that is still thought of as more age appropriate — jazz, folk, classical, opera, funeral marches, the usual suspects. You've heard the arguments a million times: most rock music is made by the young, for the young, about being young, and if you're not young and you still listen to it, then you should be ashamed of yourself. And finally I've worked out my response to all that: I mostly agree with the description, even though it's crude, and makes no effort to address the recent, mainly excellent work of Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Robert Plant, Mr. Springsteen et al. The conclusion, however, makes no sense to me any more.I'm only a couple years younger than Nick's 47 and while I've never really thought I should be listening to music "more age appropriate," I've often been asked or seen the look that asks the question, "you really listen to that stuff?" But Hornby's piece is more about finding the joy and the noise that ought to be in rock n' roll and is often missing in modern, commercial rock or the niche genres.
I've found my music taste goes in cycles. I loved the straight-ahead rock of the 70s, especially that music from my highschool years. During the 80s when music was just awful, I stayed with the 70s stuff. In the late 80s and early 90s when grunge and metal came on the scene, I was right there. Now, in the early 00s - or whatever we're calling this decade - I'm disenchanted again with most rock. So my computer and CD player are loaded with bits and pieces of new albums, when I find a track or two I like, but mostly I still listen to Alice in Chains and Nine Inch Nails and Bush and Nirvana.
But the cycle will continue. In fact, I'm starting to hear a few new things out there that I really like...
No comments:
Post a Comment