I read an interesting article in the paper this weekend about re-reading books. It said that re-reading a favourite is worth it, because you’re a different person now than when you first read it (due to being older and having more experience), and so you’re likely to see new things in it. I heartily agree with this position and I’ve re-read many of my books. Each time I’m surprised at how differently I react to the material. Sometimes it’s for the worse — I re-read Catcher In The Rye a couple of years ago, and while I thought it was pure genius in high school, this time around I found it pompous and annoying. A result of no longer being a teenager, I think.
Anyway, my point here is that I don’t have the same reaction to music. When I listen to music I’ve heard many times before, it takes me back to that era. I remember when I first heard it, what I was doing, what age I was. Rather than re-interpreting the songs, I find I re-live the same reaction again. That’s good too, but I find it interesting that my reactions to music are totally different than to books.
With movies, it’s about 50-50. Some films (like Star Wars) I like to watch for the nostalgia factor — they remind me of a specific time and place. Other films, like Casablanca, I’ve seen many times and each time I think something different or new about it.
What do you get out of re-watching/re-reading/re-listening?
TurtleHead 
Music definitely seems to always take me back to my initial reaction and that reaction seems to hold. Zeppelin or U2 or Public Enemy are completely as enjoyable now as they were years ago when I first heard them.
With books my re-reading has usually been a bad experience. But I think that’s just because I read crappier books when I was younger. I re-read the Dragonlance Chronicles a few years ago. I remember being totally crazy about them in grade 7 but the second time through they seemed shallow and juvenile. I actually regret doing it. I also used to read a lot of Dean Koontz. I tried one of his books last year but had to toss the book to the ground and stop reading cold turkey when I literally saw the words “he pressed his steely manhood against her”. Um… right… save it, Dean.
Movies I find are highly case-by-case. If the movie just generally kicks ass and is beyond all measurements of time and space (Bloodsport, the Conan movies, Nate and Hayes, Star Wars) then it just gets better with age. Other movies like Time Bandits and Goonies have led to great second-viewing disappointments.
For me, I tend to have the same reaction to books, movies and music. That is, if the work is something that’s timeless*, then I’ll get enjoyment and possibly learn more about it the second time through. However, if the work is not timeless, I will most likely enjoy it less the second time through.
Music is the only one of the 3 that does trigger memories associated with the song.
* so what do I mean by timeless?
For books, it means that the content isn’t too juvenile, the characters aren’t age-specific, the quality of writing is high.
For music, it doesn’t use the latest music trend, like synthesizers in the 80s, or the “Cher voice” from the late 90s.
For movies, I think could probably make an argument for how humour in movies has changed over the decades, but for me, a movie just has to be quality to feel timeless.
My most vivid experiences with re-listening or re-watching are occasions when I’ve tried to introduce someone to something I really like. Maybe I’m more than a little self-conscious, but I frequently find myself imagining how the other person is perceiving whatever it is, and that often has the side effect of modifying my own perception. Case in point: I think “This is Spinal Tap” is one of the funniest movies ever made, but when a couple of friends who had never seen it before came over, watched it, and didn’t really “get it”, I found myself wondering if it really was all that funny.
Maybe this really is just the phenomenon you described – I’m a different person now than when I first saw it, and so my experience is bound to be different.
Another anecdote: When I was (much) younger, I had a friend who shared a lot of my musical tastes, but also had a number of standup comedy LPs. We both noted that music seems to give again and again, but with comedy, once you know the punchline, the impact seems to be lessened. So maybe that’s why Spinal Tap isn’t so funny now.
On the other hand, I went to see Rush in concert recently, and found that while I once held their music in quite high regard, I could now see why their audience has always consisted mostly of males under 25. Kinda cool, but kinda brutish too. So I guess for me, re-listening to music can elicit responses similar to re-reading a book.
I think it’s important to point out, though, that music, movies and books can all have quite different re-experiencing “profiles”, if you will. Books take a while to read, movies less time to watch, and a song is very short. I can probably count on one hand the number of books I’ve read more than once; I’ve certainly seen many movies (or parts of them at least) more than once, but most of the music I listen to I’ve listened to countless times. Maybe they’re all so different (or at least music is so different from the others) that you just can’t really compare them.
</ramble>