Music

It’s a metaphysical truism that without the past, there would be no future. Instances of pure, artistic invention born in a vacuum and unsullied by precedent simply don’t exist and music is no exception. Sonically, there’s nothing new under the sun: without ’50s rock ’n’ roll, no Motörhead, Prince or Pistols; without ’70s funk, no Daisy-Age hip hop; if no ’70s Krautrock, then no Detroit techno; without ’80s electro, no LCD Soundsystem or Daft Punk and yes, without the ’60s, very little indeed of what we currently understand as contemporary rock and pop.

Respect for the past we so relentlessly plunder is clearly in order, but not craven worship of that past, the belief – perpetuated with delusional doggedness by 50-Quid Man and the media that serves him – that music was somehow ‘better’ in the ’60s. Statistically, said Man is aged 38-45, which means all these blokes (and it is always blokes) banging on about how much better 1967 was than 2007 is, were either not yet then born, or were heavily into music before they’d turned five. What does it mean to nurture nostalgia for an era you never knew, but simply use as a target on which to project some rose-tinted fantasy?
Feature continues

It means, tragically, that in your progress-retardant mind, nothing can possibly measure up to the sealed-in-amber ‘glory’ of the decade that produced ‘Pet Sounds’ and ‘Sgt Pepper…’ (released 40 years ago this month) et al. It means that the life-affirming thrills provided with fantastic, ever-increasing frequency by artists as rampantly diverse as Arcade Fire, Battles, Clipse and Digitalism (for alphabetical starters) are ruled out for you. It means that you sneer at what London’s vibrant – and youthful – live scene has to offer, week in, week out. Your loss. The past may well be a foreign country but hankering after permanent residency there is plain weird. Wake the hell up, check the date and try looking forward. The view’s never been better.

What do you think? ’67 or ’07? Join the debate