I have a theory. It’s a stupid one and likely wrong, but I want to explore it. I’m sure my massive audience of dozens will bear with me.
Some genres seem to stick with the same instruments, chord progressions, melodies, etc, over the decades. Radically changing these elements means leaving the genre. Blues comes to mind. So does rock – look at The Warning and it’s a classic power trio.
Some genres seem to morph over time. Country music is like that – there’s a lot of hip hop influence in modern country, which I would not have predicted, along with pop influences, which was easy to predict.
But you have all of these sub-genres that pop up, explode, disappear, come back, etc. Disco, Ska, Techno…
Actually, Electronic Dance Music is a universe unto itself, and those big fans of EDM would cringe at my lack of understanding on the hundred or so sub-sub-sub-genres of EDM.
Nonetheless, it seems there are genres that change radically over time (country) and genres that don’t (blues.) Society seems to always want to hear something NEW. People who like to hear the genre never evolve are called the “over 40” crowd because the vast majority of people over 40 don’t want to hear new things.
So it feels like there’s an effort to always be trying to find the next cool hip new sound, which will then be big for a while, and then the people who are 18 when the new thing comes out will keep that sub-genre alive when they’re older.
Which makes me think of music in terms of two categories – those who want to try to find a new sound, and those who don’t.
But how much SHOULD we value new sounds? On one hand, it keeps music interesting. On the other, these new sounds almost always come and then go.
Me, personally? I just want to hear a song that has a good or great melody and some little surprises. I don’t care if it’s part of a “new scene” or whatever.
The interesting thing about “new sounds” is that more often than not, they’re just an old sound with a fresh coat of paint.