Some folks' tastes change, and change, and change, etc. which is normal and sensible for those folks. Seems like those tastes are based on "what they like" at a given time, and so the evolvement is natural as well. Along the way they have kids, and acquaintances, and friends who are influenced by the same manner of "liking" and "changing". Music that may have been truly basic and classic in some genre may mean little or nothing to them as time passes and new styles emerge.
The tastes of some folks seem to be based more on the knowledge and understanding of the genre, what it is, why it is that way and, as a result, what makes certain writers/performers/aspects really worthwhile in that realm. Seems like those tastes are based on factors beyond "liking" and get into the form and substance of the music, and those tastes are much less likely to change, and change, and change.
There is no right or wrong there, no way to rank the "tastes". It's just the way different folks seem to be.
Somewhere in all of that are the reasons why some folks today still seek and listen to the classics - the Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner, Shostakovich, Stravinsky and dozens of other classic writers - the Armstrong, Basie, Ellington, Bird and Diz, Gerry Mulligan, Miles Davis and dozens of other jazz writers and players - the Williams, Jones, Cline, Nelson, Haggard, Jenings and dozens of other C&W folks, etc..
Maybe some are simply focused more on the next big new thing in an area - whether or not it seems true to the basics of the genre.
Such is life.
Last edited by CCCC; 06/11/16.
