Originally Posted by MikeSmoke

Harvey, I've asked myself the same question a million times (the "kinda old for juvenile stuff and can't get it" question) --- and while I think there may be some truth to it, I really do think it's more a matter of the quality of the music "then vs. now."

It's obviously not scientific, but I draw a lot of my conclusions from my wife's tastes. She's 25 years younger than me, and grew up musically in the 90s - in love with NIN/Alice in Chains/etc. But she's also always loved the Beatles and Zepplin and the Dead and lots of other "before she was born" groups -- and she was unbelievably excited when Simon and Garfunkel did a reunion tour a few years ago, and she actually got to see them. Another time, we were in Vegas and I thought it would be kind of fun/funny to go see Tom Jones in concert; she had a terrific time.
(Of course, there's a lot of stuff we don't have in common; she *hates* my love of Philly soul and 70s one-hit-wonders --- and I'm already dreading being dragged to yet ANOTHER Tori Amos concert later this summer. )
But overall, she's only 30 and can't find much of anything "new" that she really likes anymore, she's basically just into what her favorite bands from the past are releasing now. Sounds quite a bit like your daughter in terms of listening to older, "better" music.
OTOH, when *I* was 30, it was the early 80s - and there was something new and exciting being released by another great new band every week, it seemed.
So I really *do* think it's a matter of the quality of music and musicians now --- it just isn't the same as it was for so many years.