In the last five days I've read three separate articles about how music is for the young.
The first one was claiming that pop music is obsolete for anyone over the age of twenty seven, another that punk's for rebellious teenagers, – quite specific that one with the punk window only being open for those between thirteen and nineteen – and the last was stating that in general anything original only appeals to those who are under thirty.
These articles come along every once in a while in a manner akin to buses.
You don't see one for ages, and then three arrive at the same time, but what is the purpose of them?
Apart from the obvious, and that's that they're old arguments being dusted down and used as filler for some column inches, do they actually have any credence?
Is the appreciation of music to be treated on some level like Logan's Run.
Should we have a crystal implanted into our palms that counts down the time that we have left to listen to new music, and then when it shines a certain colour are we to be relegated to the rut of only every listening to the evergreen hits of our own youth?
Should fresh new music never darken our doorway again?
Frankly it's a ludicrous assertion.
Why should there be age barriers to the enjoyment of listening to music, any music?
Can you imagine if we were to transfer that argument across to other forms of entertainment.
We would have men in their thirties talking about the first three Die Hard films, but carrying a sense of emptiness around with them as the fourth came out just after the cut off point for action films.
The upside of this is of course that they may have just managed to miss the Star Wars prequels and the last Indiana Jones film, but I digress.
How about books?
How frustrating would it have been if Rowling released the final Harry Potter novel a month after the birthday that signalled the end of reading fantasy books?
WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO HARRY?
Who is going to sit the twenty-something down and tell them that the future only holds Patricia Cornwell and the occasional Nick Hornby novel for them?
Lets turn this around as well.
If we reach a certain age and are to be excluded from listening to new songs by younger artists then why should we let younger ears listen to the stuff that we grew up on?
The Beatles were still together when I was a kid so I can listen to them, but the Clash split up before the birth of my son so he will have to leave the room if I want to blast out some 'Know your rights'.
It's only fair.
If they want to keep the new stuff for themselves, then maybe we should wrap the older artist in a tight embrace and exclude the young from listening to them.
We can see who will break first and want to share.
I'll have The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Clash, The Sex Pistols and more.
They will have JLS, Justin Beiber and Coldplay.
Seems a tad unfair doesn't it?
Okay I'm weighting that in favour of us oldies, but you get the point.
Anyway these articles promoting this ageist crap are really empty of logic.
Of course certain styles of music are rebellious calls to arms, and ultimately designed to piss off the older generation, but isn't there a kid inside us all that still wants to stick two fingers up to the generation that came before us, and why shouldn't we indulge that inner kid with some punk, some dubstep, or even LMFAO with their hit about vitamin D deficiencies leading to softening of the bones and how that lends itself to a shufflin' gait.
No one is even saying that when we all get to a certain age we must keep our minds open to everything that is being churned out, but hell, I want the right to keep listening, and I can't see anyone coming along with a piss poor nonsensical argument that is going to stop me.
Apart from that I reckon the young artists are quite happy to get the revenue that we slip in their pockets every time we buy one of their CDs, attend a gig, or the worst cardinal sin of all for the ageist journalists who churn this bollocks out.......buy a groups t-shirt and wear it in public.