why’s someone who’s 20 not considered old but a song from 20 years ago is considered old?
In: 0
People and songs are not the same thing, so a comparison between the two makes no sense whatsoever.
Because they have different life spans
A human at 20 years old is only 20-30% the way through their life (averages vary depending where you are in the world).
Many songs aren’t really popular anymore after their first year, so a song staying popular for 20 years is a pretty long time in the lifespan of a song
Because it’s relative.
As a famous wise man once responded when asked if he was old:
“For an apricot, yes. For a head of lettuce, even more so. For a mountain, I have not even begun in years. For a man, I am just right.”
Would you consider a 15 year old dog old? How about bread that has been around 4 weeks?
Is there some reason you think people and songs should “age” the same way when pretty much objects in different categories seldom do?
Pick any two objects from different categories and try to assign “ages” to them (subjectively or objectively)
A song from 20 years ago is not considered old. A song from the 1950s would be considered old. Perhaps you think so because you are so very young.
It’s not; it just seems that way because people have an attention span shorter than a stack of eggs.
[removed]
You’re using different references in time. 20 years is a significant amount of time to elapse, but see this in the scope of a human age. 0 to 20 is young. 20 to 40 is approaching middle-aged. You’re not paying to the music when you are born. Let’s say you build that cultural awareness when you are in your teens, 20 years means you will be in your 30s – and that’s a lot different from being a teenager.
Latest Answers