I feel sorry for Jay Bennett here, being persuaded to participate in a project with a seriously flawed premise.
The concept of "aesthetic atrophy" as defined by Martin Cizmar is very tunnel-visioned. Avoiding this kind of "atrophy" has everything to do with how life, art, music, literature is approached...and pretty much nothing to do with only listening to new music. Is it "good" simply because it's new. Naah.
I think "aesthetic atrophy" is avoided by an open-minded approach to all things experienced and not-yet-experienced. "New" can also mean, say, music I've never heard before. That's new to me. Listening only to music that's new can be just just as atrophying as someone who's addicted to the classic rock of various decades. It's about limiting your vision.
I listened to plenty of crap in my 20s and 30s, much of it I'll never listen to again, and no loss. Real art keeps up a continuing dialogue with the listener over time, and so do musicians who are artists. What's pathetic is someone -- no matter the age -- who's focused mainly on what's hip/hot etc etc. That's what I call pathetic. I know quite a few people slip-sliding into middle-age (or firmly in it), who are way more open to a variety of music than they ever were as 20-somethings...but thumbs up to open-minded listeners of all ages.
So...I think the task that Martin Cizmar has put Jay Bennett to is a very limiting one, as likely to induce atrophy as any Classic Rock Hot 100 list. Jay -- throw off those chains, free yourself and listen to and review anything you damn well please...