In my "regular" music listening, I tend toward older stuff, the music on which I cut my rock-n-roll teeth. You can look back in my archives and find what has been most influential for me - it's not new stuff. In fact, I decided that I was "old" when I was listening to Christian rock radio and I caught myself thinking "I can't even understand what they're saying!"
But I love a bunch of the new praise and worship music.
One of the critiques of p&w (or so-called "contemporary") music is that the lyrics are trite and over repeated, or that they portray "Jesus is my boyfriend" lyrical content. I agree that I don't like the songs with trite lyrics, but I don't think they're much worse than the songs with archaic language that nobody understands (or, better yet, makes fun of - nothing makes me laugh quite like singing "Let angels prostate fall" and don't even get me started on the "sacred thong" in that song, a song which I happen to actully like).
Here is a critique I found of "contemporary music."
"There are several reasons for opposing it: It’s too new. It’s too worldly, evenThis wasn't written recently: it was a 1723 critique of Isaac Watts (look him up if you don't know who he was). But the problem is that the same critique gets rehashed for every generation (at my mom's Bible College, I believe the offending song was "How Great Thou Art"). It's not any more valid than me saying, "I don't like any of today's rock music. Why can't they make more music like Led Zeppelin?"
blasphemous. The new Christian music is not as pleasant as the more established
style and because there are so many new songs you can’t learn them all. It puts
too much emphasis on instrumental music rather than on godly lyrics. This new
music creates disturbances, making people act disorderly. The preceding
generation got along without it."
That said, it does seem like a shame to use one style to the detriment of all others. Or are we more interested in personal taste than helping others worship God?