Lots of interesting comments here. I agree with many of them. Here are my two cents.
Nabokov said that you don’t really know a book, understand the artistic achievement or quality, until you’ve read it five times. We can quibble about the number of readings required, but, as a general proposition, I agree with him. Now, I don’t read very many books five times, but I usually read books I especially value a second time. And, I think Nabokov’s observation even more true of music. I discovered long ago (way before I became a septuagenarian) that I get substantially more aesthetic satisfaction and pleasure listening to the same recording 10 or 12 times than from listening to 10 or 12 new recordings one time each. For me, multiple listenings is the only way new music has any chance at all to seep into me, alter my aesthetic and expand my musical preferences.
So, although I spend time most weeks listening to music new to me, especially genres I don’t know well, I’m more likely to “re-spin” a recent discovery several times in the next week or so than to search for more “new” music. Do these “re-spins” qualify as listening to new music? My answer is yes.
There is a second dynamic at work in my listening habits, and this one is definitely related to aging. I already know and own plenty of books, records and CDs to keep me blissful to the end, even if I didn’t enjoy a rich social life. So, there is no imperative to dig for more. I sign into my Tidal account less frequently each year, not because I don’t like the new stuff (I know there are lots of gems yet to be discovered), but because I don’t need it so much anymore. I enjoy the hunt less now, because I have less time left and am no longer as willing to spend my time on the throw away music one must wade through in search of the gems. I’m happy to commune with the familiar, as long as it continues to enrich my days. And, for now, it does. Hail, hail, rock ‘n’ roll! Or, whatever rings your bell.