It would seem that anyone who is into popular music inherently “knows” that old music is better than new music. The Beatles just made better records than Radiohead. To them, it’s a fact. And probably true. But there’s never been an actual argument as to why that is or even might be – why Nick Drake is better than Damien Rice, and so on. Until now. It seems that [overthinkingit.com](http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/09/23/the-hubbert-peak-theory-of-rock-or-why-were-all-out-of-good-songs/) has a rather logical argument as to why the old-over-new aesthetic exists. As a basis, the site uses Rolling Stone’s recent 500 Greatest Songs of All Time in order to pursue its point. The author, “Lee,” notes that the “bulk of the list was comprised of songs from the 60’s and 70’s, just like the music snobs always say.” Lee then goes on to contend popular music’s rise and fall of quality tunes (as per the RS list) can be relatively equated to the increasing-then-decreasing rate at which the US discovered and produced its own oil. The ratonale for the decline in US oil discovery and production is known as the “Hubbert peak theory.” Suffice to say, the theory argues that because there’s no infinite reserve, the rate at which oil is discovered must at some point reach its maximum and then decline. He then attempts to apply this theory to the question of why so many rock songs that are considered the greatest ever occur near its genesis in the ’50s. Thus, Lee argues that, “By the end of the 70’s, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, the Motown greats, and other genre innovators quickly extracted the best their respective genres had to offer, leaving little supply for future musicians.” There’s even a graph.