Lesser Of Two Evils? Out with the Past. or Denying The New?

I have a friend who apparently hates everything pre-1999. He loves The White Stripes, but HATES The Who. He likes Bright Eyes, but doesn't 'get' Bob Dylan. When I try to share with him the obvious comparisons and influences, as well as throwing out the whole "there wouldn't be one without the other" line, it simply doesn't seem to register. That frustrates me a bit, but it also makes me kind of sad. To claim to love music but be completely neglectful of the past, just seems a tad unfair to me. In many ways, pop has eaten itself, and a truly 100% original idea simply does not exist anymore, which is not a negative thing. Music is a constant progression, and it's by borrowing from those great records in the past, that music has room to expand and continue moving in such an exciting direction.

On the 'B' side of the music related pet peeve 45, I was standing at HMV, anxiously awaiting the in-store performance of the legendary Ray Davies, when I overheard a couple of late 40's - early 50's die hard Kinks fans discussing the fact that there hasn't been any good music since 1979. Yes, the blanket statement was made that there has been NOTHING worth listening to since then. This makes me equally sad. Thanks to the internet, the playing field is slowly but surely finally beginning to level out, and music is more exciting now that it has been in years, possibly ever! However, proving how clueless one is concerning today's musical climate, the name Britney Spears is dropped when striving to prove the point that there is no good music left. Let alone the fact that Brit's questionable relevance hasn't been relevant for a few years now, her music is not, and has NEVER BEEN the marker to identify exactly what should be considered current in today's music scene. When another person joined the conversation comparing Sloan's last album to The Beatles' White Album, the puzzled look on people's faces just goes to show what I'm talking about. If I ever get that clueless about music, tie me to a chair and force me to watch Celine Dion DVD's over and over again, because obviously I deserve it.

Both of those moments got me to thinking: which is worse? Is it worse to be completely oblivious to the past, or to be entirely closed minded about what's currently going on? It's difficult to say. I suppose option B is the lesser of two evils if you can still get excited about the same music you've been listening to your whole life. My musical ADD prevents me personally from being that way, but others can listen to 'Hey Jude' for the 75 billlionth time and still find it equally exciting. I personally find that there is nothing more exciting than discovering something you've never heard before, whether it be that lost gem from the past, or that contagious future classic. To be stuck in only one musical time warp is a drag, because there is so much out there to be discovered. I was raised in the 80's, so I would be a worst case scenario if I adopted any of those attitudes. Imagine living in the decade of Flock Of Seagulls and refusing to acknowledge the likes of Ray Davies and Bob Dylan? And imagine walking past a Broken Social Scene concert, and shaking my head wishing that ABC were still releasing quality material like 'When Smokey Sings?" *shutter. (Although using Flock of Seagulls and ABC as the marker for what was musically relevant in the 80's makes me as bad as the 54 year old Britney name dropper today, doesn't it?)