Saturday, October 11, 2008

Old Ain't Really Gold

I'm really sick of this silly idea, "old is gold." I don't understand why people keep on saying that they like old stuff, that the old songs/movies were far better than present ones, the food was good in old times, and the nonsense continues.

If old things are really better than new ones, then is there any reason to invent new stuffs and moreover the whole human race would seem to be going through retrograde progression, from good to bad, constantly and endlessly. And if old is gold, why do people sell their old gold for new ones and why do most old stuff depreciate in price.

One reason I can find: Out of hundreds of items (say songs), what remains in people's psyche are a handful of best ones and then people compare those THE BEST ONES with all sort of average, good, worse contemporary ones. Obviously, the best old one will be better than the average current items and then people interpret it as the old stuff are better than present ones which actually should mean the best old items are better than average current items.

The problem seems to be in the limited memory of our brain, there isn't just enough disk space to save all the crap of yesteryears.

If you still have problem visualizing the situation, consider experiencing life as it was just 25 years back if not 100 or 200 years. Give up your high-paying IT job that makes you sit in an air conditioned cabin and take up a job in some manufacturing factory, railway, or some government office; drop your mobile phone and rely solely on neighborhood STD booth for calls; get a used scooter to replace your car and intend to use it forever; no computer or cable TV; do not avail any medical techniques that were developed within the last 25 years; and take other similar measures to transport yourself in good old time. I hope just by imagining these, you would like to reconsider your idea of "old is gold."
Save on Delicious


  1. Your theory is very Good but not always accurate, every thing made today should surpass all things made in the past but unfortunately, In this modern world we live only for today and every thing is only for today.and how cheap it can be made and how much profit is in it. We have wonderful digital TV unfortunately I live in a country where it rains a lot digital TV and rain don't play very well so its one step forward three steps back. blue ray another step forward or back? would be forward if the disks played! hang on Blue ray was out of date before it was invented.The new camera in your previous blog was a least two years old before it went on the market digital of cause another step backwards low quality pictures for ease of use that's not progress just good marketing. CD, MP3 all fall into the same just good marketing skill to sell second rate products to the unsuspecting consumer. Ask Mr Bill Gates he's a man that knows about these things.

  2. you hav misunderstood the porpose behind the sayings that 'old is gold'.when people talk of old they normally mean about the simplicity attached to for example songs,i certainly think they were better in olden days! why? they were as simple as it should be.they had really good lyrics and good rhythm abt them. i m not comparing the singers,mind u.rafi and sonu nigam r best in their own terms. the lack of heavy backgrnd music made them all the more soothing.a good song shud be more abt the singer's voice rather than the hi-fi stereo music that we hear today.

  3. I'm just glad to see 2 comments. So, at least someone read my rumblings.

    Here, what I'm referring to is generalized feeling of old stuff being good better WITHOUT ANY RATIONALITY.

    Digital TV is certainly a step forward, but if there some trouble in some circumstances, like rain, I think it will be further refined to work well. Obviously, not all new inventions are better than previous and in that case, market just rejects them. That may be the case with blueray, but mp3 are certainly many steps forward than audio cassettes. "BETTER" JUST DO NOT REFER TO QUALITY, BUT IT IS MORE KIND OF BUNDLE OF QUALITY, USABILITY, AVAILABILITY, COST, ETC. If you get music in big, bulky, ultra costly gramophone disks, how many people will be able to afford and listen music? Not many.

    Regarding "simplicity of music," all I have to say is that if people really liked that simplicity, then we would have more that kind of music in market. I know marketing is also a factor, but why would producers bother to make complex costly music if then can market simple music effectively. So, there is a demand for today's complex music rather than yesteryear's simple one.

    Once again, thanks a lot for commenting your valuable thoughts.


Creative constructive criticism is accepted and expected.