that no decent pop music has been recorded since 1976.

(I don't mean it *literally*, after all I'm currently listening to a 1979 Yes bootleg, but it's a good shorthand for my opinion)

...than getting a new album by an artist I had just discovered and loving it.

There is wheat-chaff effort involved of course, but very rewarding.

Latest example of this - The Low Anthem. Here's what got me into buying it.

but those new things can also be 'old'. ie have only recentkly really got into Big Star. Its totally my fault that I have avoided them til now but to me they are 'new' as can be.

For 'new' I've steered away from pale white boys with guitars cos don't think they have anything to say to me anymore and haven't for a while. So i try and search out the quirky n independent of spirit rather than indie labelled.

I adore his Bobness n the Fabs and still find new things about them to excite and interest me.

Try and strike a balance in all things, expect chocolate and cheese and onion crisps

Yes I agree Mr Drayton. It des seem to me that this site is a tad conservative when it comes to new music. Im bored silly of the Beatles and Dylan. The hammering Lady GaGA got, not to mention all the slagging young bands got on the Glastonbury thread seems to confirm this. But The Word is aimed at the older music lover so the blog is going to reflect that. I like it anyway as there are some funny bastards on it and you can learn a lot a interesting stuff here too. I wonder can we a go a week without mentoning the sixties?

That the usual suspects are debated a bit too much too often. The exact benefits of mono reissues on CD really do pass me by, but BD's Xmas album does seem an interesting thing - as interesting as the current wave of electro songstresses and whether they are a 5 minute wonder or something genuinely good. I'm in the latter camp and while I don't expect all the massive to like Little Boots' new album we could be talking about that just as much as Bob's version of Merry Xmas Everybody.

So to answer Stimpy in my view lots of good music has been recorded since 1976 but it's breadth and difference that make the site what it is. Some of the best threads have been about encouraging us all to discover reggae or jazz stuff we hadn't come across.

My god you only have to mention punk on here to get some people foaming at the mouth. I think "new" music to a lot on here is anything recorded after 1975.
I've always believed if you don't try to seek out new stuff then you just stagnate. The gloosy mag's obsession with the old guard does get rather obsessive after a while. Probably best not to have a subscription with any of them thesedays and just pick the most interesting issue on the newsstands.
If The Beatles or Stones are on the cover it will actively put me off buying the issue as we know it's all been said before.

path - hence why uncut rarely gets bought these days. Beatles/stones/dylan/young/who/hendrix covers put me completely off purchasing. Shows a complete lack of imagination on the magazine's part and is a cheap shot at sales. Often wonder how long if these bands still do push sales up, if so for how much longer.

We've had several discussions on here about "Does Pop Music have anything more to say to me?" and while I do still pick up some new things, I am happy with "new to me" being as valid as "brand new to the entire world".

So in the last week or so I've listened to Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives, The Ramones, The Hold Steady, John Coltrane, Midlake, Prince Alla, Earl Hooker, Doris Troy, Mulatu Astatke, Camera Obscura, Steely Dan, The Fleshtones, and Dave Godin's Deep Soul Treasures. Some of the new bands in The Word will be of interest but I am at least as likely to be swayed by someone on here recommending a band (with a youtube or spotify link).

Every so often, a band will appear on my radar and if I like them a lot I am not too het up about whether they are new / recent / deceased : I happened to hear both The Hellacopters and Hello Saferide! when they were on their first albums, missed the Supersuckers until about their 6th, but I am pretty keen on all of them.

I think one of the reasons that there are more discussions on the dinosaurs is that they have produced more records, and people have had more time to reach an opinion on them. There are more bones to chew in Richard Thompson's oeuvre than in Little Boots', at this point in time. (I'm not saying either of them is better.)

I don't like Dylan (and don't own any of his records) I can take or leave the Beatles (I don't own any of their records) and we have a Rolling Stones compilation album that tracks sometimes get played from. Apart from that I'm always itching to find new stuff. This week I've been delighted by the new Ingrid Michaelson and the Arctic Monkeys albums and this afternoon (being a POETS day) I'm now on my 3rd album from the "Best album from 2009" thread that I've not heard before courtesy of Spotify. (I thought The Phantom Band were absolutely awful but I'm currently rather enjoying The Mummers). So far this year I've bought, and listened to, 29 albums by artists that I've never heard a full album from before. Last year I set myself the task of one per week and managed it. This is apart from the Spotified albums. As I've mentioned in the past, I like seeing live performances and I hate big venues so seeking out new music is a very good way of being able to find good music in small venues.

But I just find that there's always something from the vaults that passed me by that's more interesting and enjoyable than recent releases. Why is this so? There are quite a few reasons, but ultra-compressed, ear-fatigue-inducing modern production going hand in hand with plummeting musicianship are probably the main culprits.

For example, yesterday - spurred by a post here - I explored the Raconteurs for a while. Then I opened my letterbox and out popped Maceo Parker's Us album (the one with "Soul Power 74" and "Soul of A Black Man" on it).

Guess what I've been listening to today.

I haven't endlessly been replaying old stuff since it was released. There's so much music out there that almost everything I play is new to me - it's just that most of it happens to have been recorded 35-40 years ago.

(Great Genesis track by the way - sorry). And for those who think Eric Clapton is as good as it gets. Well frankly he was, anyway, never as good as the original blues guitarists who inspired him.

I am as guilty as the next Wordist when it comes to the old favourites but I do genuinely seek out modern stuff which moves me.

Boards of Canada, Sigur Ros, Radiohead? I mean how far back is too far back? I think of the Eels as pretty modern but they've been around for 15 years or more.

I enjoy the fact that it's easier for me to discover music old and new and have more disposable income to indulge myself. But I don't hold to the contention that music of merit stopped being made in 1976 or any other date then, now and in the future. My taste is obviously informed by the music of my youth which probably amounts to a greater penchant for melody above all else coupled with an urge to hear something distinctive in the sound: the voice, the arrangement, the attitude.

I think the first music that you embrace is the music you always go back to but that is more a reflection of the individual than the idea that new music is less worthy or is not as good. In the same way we talk about indie landfill today I'd contend - having heard it - that there's plenty of pop landfill from the 60s and rock landfill from the 70s.

We're more cynical these days about culture and what constitutes culture and I honestly believe that people who have decided that no music being made today is worthy of comparison to music of yesteryear are really not listening to music but are just hearing it.

I have long realised that, for me, music is a drug and I'm constantly looking for that next high. Sometimes it comes from a new tune (the excellent Balance 014 mix is a current favourite), sometimes it's an undiscovered gem (I've just discovered Half Man Half Biscuit) and sometimes it's a rediscovered classic (I'm enjoying Ziggy Stardust again). And I don't close my mind to any musical genre. There's good music everywhere.

Both.
It's lovely to hear old favourites, but the idea that there is nothing new worth listening to is utterly preposterous.
And the idea of going back to the originals is flawed as an argument, but to consider it fact is ludicrous. Where does one stop? Some new band sound a bit like the Stones, so you listen to the Stones instead. But the link doesn't end there, so why stop there? Taken to it's logical conclusion, the very first time a caveman banged two things together was the starting point for all percussion based/influenced music and everything since then is just a derivative of that first sound. Absurd.
Yes of course there are echoes of other artists in all forms of art. How could there not be at this point in time? If you can't get past that then you can't, but I hope I never feel that way.
The only criterion worth adhering to as far as I'm concerned is 'Is it any good?' If I like it then it is, if I don't then it's not and I move on to something else. Simples.

That's pretty much my credo. I've discovered more "new" music every year for the past 10 years or so, as the number of information channels available via the internet have proliferated. I don't scorn the old stuff I got into in my teens - indeed each year I seem to rediscover more and more of it (lots of Jethro Tull and PFM this year, for instance). What with dubstep, folktronica, and tons of weird glitchy electronic stuff recommended by my colleague Andy, the endless vistas of unexplored jazz, and the non-landfill, interesting 10 percent of the current indie bands, it's hard work to even fit in the occasional nostalgic wallow in Old Stuff. Note I'm not naming any current favourites, since everyone's list would differ, but I feel deeply saddened by people whose appetite for the new appears to have been switched off at the mains, usually (though not necessarily) sometime around the time they got married and settled down. It really is their loss - a great shame.

'I think the first music that you embrace is the music you always go back to'
I'd add that the music you first 'hear' becomes a part of you, almost by osmosis. How many times have you heard someone say they always hated a particular type of music that their parents used to play all the time, only to find that years later they realise how wonderful it was all along? It gets into your DNA, plus there is the collective experience element to it all too. Where a song has been around for so long and been heard and adopted as something good by so many people that it permeates in a way that new music simply can't. Combine those two forces and you get a mighty powerful and comforting sensation and it's this that I believe has a massive influence on how we relate to music. The point made further up about classical music mostly having stopped embracing any 'new' is interesting and could be a bellwether of change to Pop and Rock music. Could we imagine a time when the vast majority of live pop and rock consists of bands playing old favourites and 'new' rock and pop is considered a niche product, enjoyed by a tiny minority of listeners?

as long as they sound original and fresh *to me* (that doesn't necessarily mean they are objectively original and fresh). But nowerdays I refuse to be involved in the hype of the week/month stuff the NME used to tout through the 70s- 90s, do they still do that sort of stuff?

So, while I will happily shell out on the next releases by BoC, Elbow, Joanna Newsom or Goldfrapp without listening to them for example, I am not going to worry about having an opinion about this months latest sound.

Pop/rock as we here tend to think of it developed most through sixties and early seventies when the virgin territory was there to be explored and many of the templates bands follow today were established. Thereafter the scope for experimentation reduced and has been reducing ever since. It's not that no one makes decent music any more, it's just harder to come up with something new. You might say you don't care about innovation but in any art form the greatest work coincides with the greatest innovation, by and large, in my view. Clearly nostalgia can distort perceptions but I firmly believe that to be the case.

If you are doing what has already been done you will not be as good (you might still be worth hearing and entertaining of course) as the original, when it was produced fresh and naturally through the process of discovery and invention. Hence why folk go on so much about Dylan, Beatles, Stones and other old. Personally I do want to still follow new music otherwise it can seem like you're just going through an old museum.

Mind you there's nothing wrong with a bit of good old nostalgia either.

I liked the Beatles 40 years ago - I dont want to read what John and Paul had for dinner before they recorded Sgt. Peppers and it seems that is the level of article we will get now without rehashing or even reprinting something that has already been said about them. There are loads of artists from the 60's, 70's and 80's that I would like to read more about so it is somewhat baffling that there is still this apparent thirst for Beatles articles. I say apparent because many of the posters on here actually say the opposite. Last months Word and this months Mojo have more Beatles stuff and to be frank I dont even read it. Pretty sure I am not alone in that. I still buy old stuff to update my collection but the majority is new and there is plenty of it to satiate my appetite.

there are a few decent UK bands going about today...Oasis did do some stonking albums in their early days, and Franz F, Coldplay, Keane, etc etc have done some decent stuff over the years, BUT where is the new Who/Stones/Floyd/Yes/Family/Zepp etc with the light and shade and power that they brought to music? The *magic* that they brought is missing at present.
For me, look over the pond at seek out wot we call "Americana".. lots of good stuff coming out of there.. Seek and ye shall find.
Also, there is a new beat combo called Booker T and the MGs doing the rounds.... young guns I believe!

is tired of life

sure, i love the who

but i also just bought 'los angeles' by flying lotus, 'insides' by jon hopkins and telefon tel aviv's 'immolate yourself', as well as the field's 'from here we go sublime' - all released in the last coupla years, all absolutley fantastic, full of new kinds of sounds, stuff that plays with your mind and develops your sense of what music can do, what it can be.

c'mon - get out of that comfort zone....

longest, so we tend to discuss them more? I couldn't bring much to the party about Lady Gaga, to be honest, though from what I've googled, there are interesting stories to be told.

My personal cutoff date appeared with the first mortgage, kids and a lack of disposable income at the time (I'm making up for it now!). I find that I'm now filling in a lot of gaps from bands I used to listen to but stopped buying, and I get to hear new stuff from the children (they have very eclectic tastes - it must be in the genes!).

The old stuff is usually better because it sounds less produced than most of the modern stuff but I love the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Lily Allen and the White Stripes to name but a few that stand alongside the "classics".

On balance I listen more to the old stuff I grew up with. Thats natural. And because I can't quite get into modern pop/rock genres which seem to base their commercial appeal on anything other than musical ability, lyrics or catchy hooks or melodies.

As I've got older I've also become more discerning and critical about what I spend my money on. Thats natural too. (the same applies to movies and books). I still hear interesting sounds and concepts on new-ish records but it seems to me that most mainstream rock product is now derivative rather than what could be described as truly original or innovative.

For example, I hear the Stone Roses and Primal Scream in Kasabian. I also hear Led Zeppelin, Sabbath, Rush and AC/DC in most heavy metal/prog bands. I heard a Coldplay song the other day and I was sure the main riff had a U2 inspired melody line in there somewhere. And I'm afraid I hear overproduced ephemeral, monotonous, soulless pap in most pop music these days.

now where's my slippers?

It's only in the last 18 months that I've got round to properly listening to Tom Waits, Nick Cave, The Allman Brothers and Albert King and adding them to my favourites. I only heard the Bluesbreakers 'Beano' album for the first time last month. It's brilliant!

I'm 45 years old, been a big music fan all my life, but there's still so much great old stuff out there and I'll never hear it all - and that makes me sad. But on the plus side, I'm still discovering great music that's new to me. I've got the Nuggets CD winking at me from the shelf...

I'm going further into the past these days. New worlds of deep delta, jazz, classical,class pop that was previoulsy missed, and obscure folk and prog. These new bands who always seemed to be named after utility services
are so very derivative, even when they're ok. How many times do I want to hear a mediocre Wire/Clash/Joy Division/Beatles/Byrds tribute act ? Answers on a postcard to Teddington Lock please.

but seem to be stuck in a universe that includes The Beatles ELO and XTC at the moment.

I agree with many comments on here about discovering old stuff that we had never heard before. I have heard for example some Yardbirds stuff this year that blew my head off. The old I refer to in a dismissive way is the old stuff that we are all over familiar with. As examples Eleanor Rigby, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane are all great songs but I dont need to listen to them now. I have heard them that many times I can sing them in my head. That is not what appeals to me about music and it certainly isn't what compels me to spend £60 to £70 per month on cd's.

just the way it is.

i'm in love with several singles and albums released over the last 12 months. And if pushed to pick records from only one decade to liten to, I'd choose this one.

was recorded since I began to take an active interest in music - the glam years. I have some earlier than that that I like - some motown for example. I have little interest in the Beatles and tend to skip them if they come up on shuffle. I'm more likely to listen to the Stones that I have which is just a hits collection. Dylan I can take or leave - I love one or two tracks, hate one or two the rest...meh.
Nowadays - yes, most stuff I listen to rings bells - doesn't always stop me from liking it though. Just been listening to Primary Colours by the Horrors which reminded me in places of Suede and Editors who remind me of Bowie and Joy Division, yet I liked the swirl and noise they made.
Rock music does seem to be moving in ever decreasing circles, eating itself, vanishing up its own arsehole - to those of us of a certain age, but to the kids of today, it's never been better.

The sad news of Ellie Greenwich's death this week has led to me listening again to the magnificent songs she wrote with Jeff Barry but has not stopped me lending an ear to the Arctic Monkeys new one. They're maturing nicely, I think. And his vocals have greatly improved over the last few years.
I love the mix and while i can see the same-old getting tired for those who don't appreciate it, really wish I could afford the Beatles Mono mixes (but won't go without new music to make it so...)

In a very scientific way, sat in bed on a bank holiday Monday, I have collated the replies to the original question and I have to say I'm gladdened by the results:

OLD - 6
NEW/BOTH - 21

Stimpy - Get Out More, there's a big wide world out there for a aged devils advocate.
Try Low Anthem, Grizzly Bear and Dead Weather and tell us that it's all old hat.

just listening to them on Spotify™, if they were around now and young thrusting men again, they'd trash all comers.