Commenter ‘Amy’ posed an interesting question in the Peter Gabriel thread: Should we constantly seek new music or be content with the music we already love? After all, there aren’t enough hours in the day, week or year to listen to all the music we’ve accumulated over our lifetimes, so why make it even harder by adding more to the pile?
It’s an interesting question… should we be faithful to our first loves? I say hell no!
Would you consider watching only the movies you’ve seen and loved in the past, and never trying something new in the theater or on DVD? Would you never pick up another book because you have so many fine novels already on your shelf? Why should it be any different with music?
Make a mental list of your favorite songs. Now time travel back to the day before you heard the song sitting on top of the list. Would it have been a smart choice then to not pick up any new music? So why not accept that your future #1 song might still be out there?
I don’t think there’s an age at which you can stop trying new things. Some 90 year-old woman might have thought, in early 1962, that she’d heard all the great music she’d ever need to hear in her life. And then the musical gods dropped a little something called The Beatles on her ass. Think she was glad she kept listening? (Assume she was a very hip 90-year-old)
I say we should gobble up all the new music, movies, books and TV that we can in the hopes that something out there will light that fire in us, that cultural equivalent of falling in love.
Screw monogamy! Bring on the harem!
Meet Me In Montauk 
😛 I don’t honestly think it’s an either/or. Of course, I wouldn’t want the hip 90 year old woman to be deprived of the Beatles, but I think she would have lived a perfectly content, musically fulfilled life if that “travesty” had happened. And I don’t find music the same as film or literature, for I need and want to listen to songs over and over again (read the Indigo Girls thread for more on that), while I can be content to love a film or book I’ve only seen/read once. I’m going to cut this short now, as I’m heading to dinner with old friends (who I have not traded in for newer ones). I plan to enjoy Peter Gabriel on the drive 🙂
I agree with Amy that movies and literature are distinguishable from music, though I know it is perhaps less so with Clay, particularly with movies, where he is the only person I know who not only owns Schindler’s List, but has watched it from beginning to end multiple times I mean, the film was wonderful, but I will live a complete life if I don’t see it again.
Music, on the other hand, is meant to be heard repeatedly, particularly modern music. The whole conceit of the music industry is to play songs over and over, with the repetitive popularity then being measured on Billboard charts. So, the more simple pop songs with the greatly sought after all important “hook” are intended to get under your skin, get you humming it (whether you want to or not) and get you wanting to hear them again. And I would argue that the more complex, less approachable songs are also intended for and benefited by repeat listening (if there was at least enough to grab some interest on first listening), so that you can work through the layers of the song, the meaning of the lyrics, etc.
Now, as to the question at hand: I agree with Clay that there should be no music monogamy. It is a wonderful thing to discover new music that bowls you over. And I think that, through the natural process of musical evolution over time, there will only be a select few songs, artists or albums that will penetrate into the staples of one’s collection. So, for me, for example, I have let the likes of Ben Folds, Dave Matthews Band, Counting Crows, etc., join the staples of my youth (the Billy Joels, Elton Johns, Elvis Costello, Joe Jacksons, Jackson Browns, Paul Simons, etc.)–they are the “must haves” that require repeat listening. Other artists I have enjoyed, but not to the same extent, such as Rufus Wainwright, David Grey, Ron Sexsmith, etc, have not entered the staples of my collection (and likely never will).
To put it another way, the truly adored artists (and songs by them) are contained in a vortex, with lots of other artists swirling around in different levels of consentric circles, trying to get in, but only a few will make it. And I’m fine with that–because, as Amy said, there is only so much time in life to listen to music anyway (and so there is only so much room in the vortex:)) Or, to return to Clay’s metaphore– I may have a number of musical mistresses, but, much like a mob husband or perhaps a Mormon, I will always come back to my true love(s).
I certainly agree that music has much more repeat potential than other forms of art and entertainment. I think the reason boils down to two things: a) it’s easier to find the time to listen to a 4-minute song, or a 35-minute album, than to watch a 2-hour movie or read a 400-page book; and b) you can listen to music anywhere, while doing anything… especially while driving, which is where I imagine we do most of our listening. And iPods make listening to music practically effortless anywhere you go.
I also agree with Dana’s statement about finding new “must haves” to join the stable of your favorite artists. Obviously we all have different stables, with some overlap — Rufus Wainwright falls a little short for Dana, but he occupies a prominent stall in my stable (this is a weird metaphor), while I’m not as high on Jackson Browne or Dave Matthews.
I might have a larger stable than most because I spend more time seeking out new stuff. I also have a larger pile of disregards.
I tried to leave a comment, but it was just a link to my blog. Maybe wordpress disapproved? So here goes again. Check out http://whosvaguely.blogspot.com/ to find out for whom I’d be willing to declare musical monogamy.