I never understood why Just Good Friends received the bad wrap that it did (no pun intended).

That song right now sounds better than what's being offered on the airwaves in 2017

Maybe, it's that songs sound "dated" because that sound can't be mimicked or interpolated, thus it's placed in the "dated" column

Just Good Friends featured two Motown legends, both staring out as child prodigys, the only record MJ and Stevie collaborated on together as adult artists, and that song should have been released as an official single

It would have been an excellent single to release before or after Another Part of Me....

ThePanther said:

It's not true at all that everything sounds 'dated' to its era.

Generally speaking, when a recording (after, say, 1969 or so when production-sounds are up to modern standards) is done professionally and competently, with real instruments rather than the then-current technology, and -- most importantly -- isn't trying to copy current industry trends, then the music will generally sound very timeless.

Michael Jackson provides a good example. Off the Wall and (for the most-part) Thriller both sound very contemporary, to me. Of course, the former has some disco-friendly arrangements, but the actual production sounds are no different from an album in that style recorded today. Likewise, Thriller doesn't sound anything like most white-pop or even soul-pop issued in 1982/83. The reason? The outstanding arrangments and production (and to some extent, musicians) controlled by Quincy Jones. By contrast, on Bad, Quincy is partly sidelined to allow Michael's production indulgences of 80s' drum-sounds and pseudo-'urban' beats with then-trendy synthesized keyboards, and the result is a horribly dated sound. It was released in 1987, and by about 1989 it sounded old.

Someone mentioned the very same artists I was thinking of -- Big Star. Some of their recordings from 1972 or 1973, like 'Thirteen' or 'Ballad of El Good-o' actually sound better and fresher than today's recordings! Similarly, once The Beatles got (just) to modern recording techniques before they broke up, on Abbey Road, the sound is very contemporary. By the way, there are early synthesizers all over that last Beatles' album but you'd never know it. Same with Stevie Wonder's classic albums -- the synthesizers he put all over them still sound contemporary now. If done creatively, current technology can still be timeless in result. But if done trying to ape contemporary trends, it will soon sound horribly dated.

This is why the music of Prince's that has dated the most is probably his early-90s stuff, when he was (late to the party) trying to jump on hip-hop aesthetics. Immediately dates it to its era. By contract, his early-80s stuff, despite its Linn-drum machine sounds, comes off as less dated. (To the extent that Prince's best music sounds dated at all, I think it's entirely down to the Linn drum machine.)

I think it's good when music sounds of its era -- in fact, music probably should sound of its era. The problem is when artists try to copy contemporary styles to make their new records sound more hip. This desperation always results in quickly-dated records.

[Edited 4/8/17 0:43am]

excellent post

Scorp said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Scorp said:

I never understood why Just Good Friends received the bad wrap that it did (no pun intended).

That song right now sounds better than what's being offered on the airwaves in 2017

Maybe, it's that songs sound "dated" because that sound can't be mimicked or interpolated, thus it's placed in the "dated" column

Just Good Friends featured two Motown legends, both staring out as child prodigys, the only record MJ and Stevie collaborated on together as adult artists, and that song should have been released as an official single

It would have been an excellent single to release before or after Another Part of Me....

Not true. https://youtu.be/YKdQPDZ63DA [Edited 4/8/17 6:56am]

I used to have this Stevie album

I hear ya though

[Edited 4/8/17 9:44am]

Bad is a polished turd, and the only reason why y'all like it is because Michael Jackson's name
is on it. Michael Jackson didn't have the artistic vision that Prince had in crafting albums so he
always chose producers who were trending at the time. So even though albums like Off the Wall
are artistic achievements, they are mostly beholden to the times in which they were written
and produced: in other words, OtW sounds like the late 1970s as disco lay dying, and Dangerous
sounds like the early 90s adherence to New Jack Swing, and Invincible sounds like the early
aughts' devotion to Rodney Jerkin's style of herky-jerky heavily syncopated R&B beats.

Yet, when a recording artist is pushing the boundaries of her genre outward, the results are that
her album doesn't age. This is why Prince's work in the 80s sounds fresh and exciting to me. But,
when an artist is pandering to trends and norms and fads, then the results are that her album
ages poorly. This is why Prince's work in the late 90s is boring, in my opinion, as he was no longer
as daring.

I think there is something racial in here as well: Prince's most daring work is when he did not care
about appealing to any certain ethnic/culture. But as soon as he started to feel that he was losing
his "Black audience" and starting relying upon hip-hop and New Jack Swing conventions, his work
began to suffer.

Dasein said:

Bad is a polished turd, and the only reason why y'all like it is because Michael Jackson's name
is on it. Michael Jackson didn't have the artistic vision that Prince had in crafting albums so he
always chose producers who were trending at the time. So even though albums like Off the Wall
are artistic achievements, they are mostly beholden to the times in which they were written
and produced: in other words, OtW sounds like the late 1970s as disco lay dying, and Dangerous
sounds like the early 90s adherence to New Jack Swing, and Invincible sounds like the early
aughts' devotion to Rodney Jerkin's style of herky-jerky heavily syncopated R&B beats.

Yet, when a recording artist is pushing the boundaries of her genre outward, the results are that
her album doesn't age. This is why Prince's work in the 80s sounds fresh and exciting to me. But,
when an artist is pandering to trends and norms and fads, then the results are that her album
ages poorly. This is why Prince's work in the late 90s is boring, in my opinion, as he was no longer
as daring.

I think there is something racial in here as well: Prince's most daring work is when he did not care
about appealing to any certain ethnic/culture. But as soon as he started to feel that he was losing
his "Black audience" and starting relying upon hip-hop and New Jack Swing conventions, his work
began to suffer.

I would say most definitely as whole, Prince's best work and most memorable work was in the 80s....he was literally carving out new albums every calendar year just about...81,82,84,85,86,87,88..........Around the World in a Day is one of Prince's greatest musical achievements.

Prince as well as many other black artists were affected by what the pop movement caused, but not because of the fault of any audience, but once Pop was in a position to dictate what a particular culture of sound should be, or what should be recognized as such, or after it exploited what it wanted and discarded what it didnt want, at that point, you had an entire realm of expression that was syphoned off and black artists who participated in the music industry by the 90s was then pigeonholed into presenting a single form of music......this did not happen before until then

Jon Secada,

Dasein said:

Bad is a polished turd, and the only reason why y'all like it is because Michael Jackson's name
is on it.

That's bs. Every song on it, except 1, is great. The reason you hate it, is because it's Michael Jackson. Also all of his albums sound as great as they ever did. And unlike Prince, he's released way less filler per album.

[Edited 4/8/17 11:49am]

I agree..

nothing screams 60's 70's 80's and beyond-----

like the DRUMS!

even hip hop producers are very specific about the 'era' that they like to sample sounds from..

to me -

late 60's - early/mid 70's Drum recordings sound better than any other era!

KEYBOARDS.

Obviously certain synths are going to sound like the era when they were selling in stores..

DX7, D-50, M1, Triton.. Motif.. Reason.. Logic.. ect..

Dated

To me its Quality & the Originality that makes me like something or not..

if it's some cheesy 80's power Ballad by some wannabe White Snake Band with a guitar solo, an acoustic guitar or piano intro and BIG ASS DRUMS WITH TONS OF GATED REVERB - kicking in for the chorus..

NO THANK YOU!

Same goes for the wannabe Prince/MPLS band with some watered down cheap (UN-ORIGINAL) Prince-esque Music..

if it sucks and isn't worth my time ----- it's Dated - or soon to be!

Everything on (the radio) These days is Dated to me!

nextedition said:

Cinny said:

Man, it is a LOT more than drum sounds to make something sound dated!
Keyboard sounds (like synth bass) are a major culprit.

Yes keyboards have a big influence, but i still think drumsounds define it. Just listen to the drumsound znd you know from what timd it is. And some drumsounds were really trendy at one period.

Someone mentioned Taylor Dayne earlier. I was listening to one of her Greatest Hits packages the other day and while the dance numbers do sound dated, the ballads don't. When I listen to "I'll Always Love You" or "Love Will Lead You Back", I don't right away think about the fact those songs were recorded in the late 80s. So I started thinking of a lot of albums that I think sound dated and realized it seems most dance songs from any particular era are more likely to sound dated but most ballads don't seem to age nearly as fast.

Dasein said:

Off the Wall and (for the most-part) Thriller both sound very contemporary, to me. Of course, the former has some disco-friendly arrangements, but the actual production sounds are no different from an album in that style recorded today. Likewise, Thriller doesn't sound anything like most white-pop or even soul-pop issued in 1982/83. The reason? The outstanding arrangments and production (and to some extent, musicians) controlled by Quincy Jones. By contrast, on Bad, Quincy is partly sidelined to allow Michael's production indulgences of 80s' drum-sounds and pseudo-'urban' beats with then-trendy synthesized keyboards, and the result is a horribly dated sound. It was released in 1987, and by about 1989 it sounded old.

Bad gets a bad wrap.

It's noteable to me how you praise Quincy for the great production work on OTW and Thriller and act as if MJ had nothing to do with those albums, but give Q a free pass for the "horribly dated" production on Bad and lump all the blame for that on Michael's doorstep. Michael's involvement on Thriller as a co-producer is well-documented. You only have to take one listen to his home demo of Billie Jean to hear who was the brains behind the masterful production job on that song. Take a listen to MJ's home demo of Don't Stop Til You Get Enough which was recorded in the Jackson family Encino home studio long before Quincy heard it. It sounds just as fresh, vibrant and relevant as the finished product.

Is "Bad" the MJ album that sounds most "of-its-time"? Probably. But why should that be held against it? Does Nirvana's landmark album "Nevermind" not sound unmistakably like an early nineties grunge record? Does Prince's much-lauded "1999" album not sound like an early 80s synth-pop inspired record? Or how about The Beatles "Rubbel Soul"? Does that not sound just like the kind of folk-rock that was popular in the mid-sixties?

Why is Bad singled out for being "dated", when these other classic records are every bit as strongly defined by the trends and fashions of the time they were made?

And if we're discussing albums that haven't aged well, lets compare Bad to those other albums. Walk down the street and ask the average Joe how many songs from "1999" they recognise. Two maybe? Little Red Corvette and the title track. What about Nevermind? Everyone knows Smells Like Teen Spirit and most people would know of Come As You Are, but I don't think many non-Nirvana fans would be able to hum you anything else from Nevermind. Now ask them if they remember Smooth Criminal, Man In The Mirror, Bad, The Way You Make Me Feel and Dirty Diana. If Bad has aged so horribly, why are so many of the albums tracks so fondly remembered? More so than any MJ album, Bad has the largest amount of classic MJ tracks. Pick up any MJ greatest hits package, and I wager you will find more Bad tracks on it than Thriller or OTW.

With a truly great song, it matters not if the production is dated. With songs as legendary as Smooth Criminal and Man In The Mirror, the melody, the words, the vocal performance and the atmosphere of the song still translates and resonates with people to this day, hence their massive popularity. Who cares if "Bad" sounds like an album from 1987? Guess what? It WAS an album from 1987. And a bloody great one that is still beloved by many to this day.

MattyJam said:

Dasein said:

Off the Wall and (for the most-part) Thriller both sound very contemporary, to me. Of course, the former has some disco-friendly arrangements, but the actual production sounds are no different from an album in that style recorded today. Likewise, Thriller doesn't sound anything like most white-pop or even soul-pop issued in 1982/83. The reason? The outstanding arrangments and production (and to some extent, musicians) controlled by Quincy Jones. By contrast, on Bad, Quincy is partly sidelined to allow Michael's production indulgences of 80s' drum-sounds and pseudo-'urban' beats with then-trendy synthesized keyboards, and the result is a horribly dated sound. It was released in 1987, and by about 1989 it sounded old.

Bad gets a bad wrap.

It's noteable to me how you praise Quincy for the great production work on OTW and Thriller and act as if MJ had nothing to do with those albums, but give Q a free pass for the "horribly dated" production on Bad and lump all the blame for that on Michael's doorstep. Michael's involvement on Thriller as a co-producer is well-documented. You only have to take one listen to his home demo of Billie Jean to hear who was the brains behind the masterful production job on that song. Take a listen to MJ's home demo of Don't Stop Til You Get Enough which was recorded in the Jackson family Encino home studio long before Quincy heard it. It sounds just as fresh, vibrant and relevant as the finished product.

Is "Bad" the MJ album that sounds most "of-its-time"? Probably. But why should that be held against it? Does Nirvana's landmark album "Nevermind" not sound unmistakably like an early nineties grunge record? Does Prince's much-lauded "1999" album not sound like an early 80s synth-pop inspired record? Or how about The Beatles "Rubbel Soul"? Does that not sound just like the kind of folk-rock that was popular in the mid-sixties?

Why is Bad singled out for being "dated", when these other classic records are every bit as strongly defined by the trends and fashions of the time they were made?

And if we're discussing albums that haven't aged well, lets compare Bad to those other albums. Walk down the street and ask the average Joe how many songs from "1999" they recognise. Two maybe? Little Red Corvette and the title track. What about Nevermind? Everyone knows Smells Like Teen Spirit and most people would know of Come As You Are, but I don't think many non-Nirvana fans would be able to hum you anything else from Nevermind. Now ask them if they remember Smooth Criminal, Man In The Mirror, Bad, The Way You Make Me Feel and Dirty Diana. If Bad has aged so horribly, why are so many of the albums tracks so fondly remembered? More so than any MJ album, Bad has the largest amount of classic MJ tracks. Pick up any MJ greatest hits package, and I wager you will find more Bad tracks on it than Thriller or OTW.

With a truly great song, it matters not if the production is dated. With songs as legendary as Smooth Criminal and Man In The Mirror, the melody, the words, the vocal performance and the atmosphere of the song still translates and resonates with people to this day, hence their massive popularity. Who cares if "Bad" sounds like an album from 1987? Guess what? It WAS an album from 1987. And a bloody great one that is still beloved by many to this day.

I don't really get into whether something sounds dated or not......I listen to the Bad album all the time to this day

Bad's crux was that ultimately, it did not outsell Thriller which is what Michael Jackson was anticipating for it to do.....

And he was really the defacto lead product for that album even though he and Quincy collaborated on their 3rd straight album together.....

as far as what songs on his albums are more classics, it all depends on who you ask...the fans of the initial 16 years of his career are gonna gravitate to songs he did during the years of OTW and Thriller, and to an extent BAD......the fans of the past quarter century, they are going ot gravitate to song from Bad, Dangerous, History, and Invincible......it's really about the point of reference in regards to that part

even when MJ would go on to make his HISTORY album which was initially supposed to be an album of all new music.......for his classic songs, he selected a pretty balance selection from all this previous albums with him choosing five songs from Thriller in the end.....

and with Don't Stop Til You Get Enough, in that demo.....it was Michael working with his brother Randy Jackson who developed the melody and rhythm arrangement for that song. and even on OTW, when it mentions the rhythm arrangement and Randy's name is listed

MattyJam said:

Dasein said:

Off the Wall and (for the most-part) Thriller both sound very contemporary, to me. Of course, the former has some disco-friendly arrangements, but the actual production sounds are no different from an album in that style recorded today. Likewise, Thriller doesn't sound anything like most white-pop or even soul-pop issued in 1982/83. The reason? The outstanding arrangments and production (and to some extent, musicians) controlled by Quincy Jones. By contrast, on Bad, Quincy is partly sidelined to allow Michael's production indulgences of 80s' drum-sounds and pseudo-'urban' beats with then-trendy synthesized keyboards, and the result is a horribly dated sound. It was released in 1987, and by about 1989 it sounded old.

Bad gets a bad wrap.

It's noteable to me how you praise Quincy for the great production work on OTW and Thriller and act as if MJ had nothing to do with those albums, but give Q a free pass for the "horribly dated" production on Bad and lump all the blame for that on Michael's doorstep. Michael's involvement on Thriller as a co-producer is well-documented. You only have to take one listen to his home demo of Billie Jean to hear who was the brains behind the masterful production job on that song. Take a listen to MJ's home demo of Don't Stop Til You Get Enough which was recorded in the Jackson family Encino home studio long before Quincy heard it. It sounds just as fresh, vibrant and relevant as the finished product.

Is "Bad" the MJ album that sounds most "of-its-time"? Probably. But why should that be held against it? Does Nirvana's landmark album "Nevermind" not sound unmistakably like an early nineties grunge record? Does Prince's much-lauded "1999" album not sound like an early 80s synth-pop inspired record? Or how about The Beatles "Rubbel Soul"? Does that not sound just like the kind of folk-rock that was popular in the mid-sixties?

Why is Bad singled out for being "dated", when these other classic records are every bit as strongly defined by the trends and fashions of the time they were made?

And if we're discussing albums that haven't aged well, lets compare Bad to those other albums. Walk down the street and ask the average Joe how many songs from "1999" they recognise. Two maybe? Little Red Corvette and the title track. What about Nevermind? Everyone knows Smells Like Teen Spirit and most people would know of Come As You Are, but I don't think many non-Nirvana fans would be able to hum you anything else from Nevermind. Now ask them if they remember Smooth Criminal, Man In The Mirror, Bad, The Way You Make Me Feel and Dirty Diana. If Bad has aged so horribly, why are so many of the albums tracks so fondly remembered? More so than any MJ album, Bad has the largest amount of classic MJ tracks. Pick up any MJ greatest hits package, and I wager you will find more Bad tracks on it than Thriller or OTW.

With a truly great song, it matters not if the production is dated. With songs as legendary as Smooth Criminal and Man In The Mirror, the melody, the words, the vocal performance and the atmosphere of the song still translates and resonates with people to this day, hence their massive popularity. Who cares if "Bad" sounds like an album from 1987? Guess what? It WAS an album from 1987. And a bloody great one that is still beloved by many to this day.

Well said. But Bad has an advantage on to why people remember most songs. Except 2 songs, every one has been released as a single.

MattyJam said:

ThePanther said:

It's not true at all that everything sounds 'dated' to its era.

Generally speaking, when a recording (after, say, 1969 or so when production-sounds are up to modern standards) is done professionally and competently, with real instruments rather than the then-current technology, and -- most importantly -- isn't trying to copy current industry trends, then the music will generally sound very timeless.

Michael Jackson provides a good example. Off the Wall and (for the most-part) Thriller both sound very contemporary, to me. Of course, the former has some disco-friendly arrangements, but the actual production sounds are no different from an album in that style recorded today. Likewise, Thriller doesn't sound anything like most white-pop or even soul-pop issued in 1982/83. The reason? The outstanding arrangments and production (and to some extent, musicians) controlled by Quincy Jones. By contrast, on Bad, Quincy is partly sidelined to allow Michael's production indulgences of 80s' drum-sounds and pseudo-'urban' beats with then-trendy synthesized keyboards, and the result is a horribly dated sound. It was released in 1987, and by about 1989 it sounded old.

Someone mentioned the very same artists I was thinking of -- Big Star. Some of their recordings from 1972 or 1973, like 'Thirteen' or 'Ballad of El Good-o' actually sound better and fresher than today's recordings! Similarly, once The Beatles got (just) to modern recording techniques before they broke up, on Abbey Road, the sound is very contemporary. By the way, there are early synthesizers all over that last Beatles' album but you'd never know it. Same with Stevie Wonder's classic albums -- the synthesizers he put all over them still sound contemporary now. If done creatively, current technology can still be timeless in result. But if done trying to ape contemporary trends, it will soon sound horribly dated.

This is why the music of Prince's that has dated the most is probably his early-90s stuff, when he was (late to the party) trying to jump on hip-hop aesthetics. Immediately dates it to its era. By contract, his early-80s stuff, despite its Linn-drum machine sounds, comes off as less dated. (To the extent that Prince's best music sounds dated at all, I think it's entirely down to the Linn drum machine.)

I think it's good when music sounds of its era -- in fact, music probably should sound of its era. The problem is when artists try to copy contemporary styles to make their new records sound more hip. This desperation always results in quickly-dated records.

[Edited 4/8/17 0:43am]

That was me, and you're right the key most likely is and always be real instruments. Trendy sounds can only go so far.

Scorp said:

I never understood why Just Good Friends received the bad wrap that it did (no pun intended).

That song right now sounds better than what's being offered on the airwaves in 2017

Maybe, it's that songs sound "dated" because that sound can't be mimicked or interpolated, thus it's placed in the "dated" column

Just Good Friends featured two Motown legends, both staring out as child prodigys, the only record MJ and Stevie collaborated on together as adult artists, and that song should have been released as an official single

It would have been an excellent single to release before or after Another Part of Me....

That song is awful considering the status of both artists. They could have done something much more better.

Scorp said:

ThePanther said:

It's not true at all that everything sounds 'dated' to its era.

Generally speaking, when a recording (after, say, 1969 or so when production-sounds are up to modern standards) is done professionally and competently, with real instruments rather than the then-current technology, and -- most importantly -- isn't trying to copy current industry trends, then the music will generally sound very timeless.

Michael Jackson provides a good example. Off the Wall and (for the most-part) Thriller both sound very contemporary, to me. Of course, the former has some disco-friendly arrangements, but the actual production sounds are no different from an album in that style recorded today. Likewise, Thriller doesn't sound anything like most white-pop or even soul-pop issued in 1982/83. The reason? The outstanding arrangments and production (and to some extent, musicians) controlled by Quincy Jones. By contrast, on Bad, Quincy is partly sidelined to allow Michael's production indulgences of 80s' drum-sounds and pseudo-'urban' beats with then-trendy synthesized keyboards, and the result is a horribly dated sound. It was released in 1987, and by about 1989 it sounded old.

Someone mentioned the very same artists I was thinking of -- Big Star. Some of their recordings from 1972 or 1973, like 'Thirteen' or 'Ballad of El Good-o' actually sound better and fresher than today's recordings! Similarly, once The Beatles got (just) to modern recording techniques before they broke up, on Abbey Road, the sound is very contemporary. By the way, there are early synthesizers all over that last Beatles' album but you'd never know it. Same with Stevie Wonder's classic albums -- the synthesizers he put all over them still sound contemporary now. If done creatively, current technology can still be timeless in result. But if done trying to ape contemporary trends, it will soon sound horribly dated.

This is why the music of Prince's that has dated the most is probably his early-90s stuff, when he was (late to the party) trying to jump on hip-hop aesthetics. Immediately dates it to its era. By contract, his early-80s stuff, despite its Linn-drum machine sounds, comes off as less dated. (To the extent that Prince's best music sounds dated at all, I think it's entirely down to the Linn drum machine.)

I think it's good when music sounds of its era -- in fact, music probably should sound of its era. The problem is when artists try to copy contemporary styles to make their new records sound more hip. This desperation always results in quickly-dated records.

[Edited 4/8/17 0:43am]

excellent post

I second that.

214 said:

Scorp said:

I never understood why Just Good Friends received the bad wrap that it did (no pun intended).

That song right now sounds better than what's being offered on the airwaves in 2017

Maybe, it's that songs sound "dated" because that sound can't be mimicked or interpolated, thus it's placed in the "dated" column

Just Good Friends featured two Motown legends, both staring out as child prodigys, the only record MJ and Stevie collaborated on together as adult artists, and that song should have been released as an official single

It would have been an excellent single to release before or after Another Part of Me....

That song is awful considering the status of both artists. They could have done something much more better.

why is it awful?

Dasein said:

Bad is a polished turd, and the only reason why y'all like it is because Michael Jackson's name
is on it. Michael Jackson didn't have the artistic vision that Prince had in crafting albums so he
always chose producers who were trending at the time. So even though albums like Off the Wall
are artistic achievements, they are mostly beholden to the times in which they were written
and produced: in other words, OtW sounds like the late 1970s as disco lay dying, and Dangerous
sounds like the early 90s adherence to New Jack Swing, and Invincible sounds like the early
aughts' devotion to Rodney Jerkin's style of herky-jerky heavily syncopated R&B beats.

Yet, when a recording artist is pushing the boundaries of her genre outward, the results are that
her album doesn't age. This is why Prince's work in the 80s sounds fresh and exciting to me. But,
when an artist is pandering to trends and norms and fads, then the results are that her album
ages poorly. This is why Prince's work in the late 90s is boring, in my opinion, as he was no longer
as daring.

I think there is something racial in here as well: Prince's most daring work is when he did not care
about appealing to any certain ethnic/culture. But as soon as he started to feel that he was losing
his "Black audience" and starting relying upon hip-hop and New Jack Swing conventions, his work
began to suffer.

Sorry but Purple Rain, Controversy,1999 and SOTT sounds completely 80's. In that regard i don't find him so different from Michael.

heathilly said:

Mjs been dead for nearly 1/10th of a century. I really don't see the point of the blind hatred for him. He's dead and decomposed by now what is the point?

He is not, he lives in my heart and the hearts of millions of people.

Of course they will sound dated, every album is a product of the era it comes from. Bad sounds like it is from 1987, because it was released in 1987, but it is still great. I mean who sets out to make music now or in the past and thinks "I want to make it, so it sounds fresh in 2047"

.

Diamonds and Pearls sounds 1991 ish (Or even 1989 ish in someways) because Prince taped it back in 1989/1990. Albums can be dated at release, as before the whole autotune, home studio computer era, most good albums took several months to write, record and market. It was common for an artist to be made to wait several months before an album would drop (Prince had to wait for WB all the time, as they were worried about Prince product saturating the market, the satellites were at least a bit more helpful, as their albums were essentially Prince music by other performers) and often Prince had lost interest in a project and moved on, by the time it finally dropped.

.

Music that dates the worst to me, are trend songs, that really date super quickly. Think about it, would you listen to novelties like the Thong Song and Mambo #5 now, or even the Dougie song and Silento's watch me (Who is silento you ask, but 18 months ago, he was the hottest rapper out), or PSY anyone, that aspic preserved 2012 oldie.

.

I also thik trends in music date badly in many cases, Bubblegum music of all stamps dates quickly, from Twist dance rip offs, to the Monkees, The Bay City Rollers, Bros and NKOTB and Back door boys, no one would listen to that shit now. Also all grunge and hair metal except GNR is laughable. Even some of the swear heavy acts of the 1990s like RATM, Marilyn Manson and RHCP are dated now.

.

To me the only music that does not date is classic music like The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Eagles, Led Zeppelin, Sly Stone, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Prince etc.

.

99% of the current pop hot on the charts does, who will be listening to Beyonce, Lil Wayne, Rhianna, Jayz or Katy perry in 25 years - no one. Just like no one listens to Ugly Kid Joe, Icy Blu, Blu Cantrell, Warrant, Wilson Philips or any other forgettable crap from 26 years ago now.

.

And finally a big FUCK YOU to the clown who thinks Bad has aged and dated, that album is as fresh and funky now as it was 29½ years ago, play it loud and the infectious dance and synth pop, along with Michael's powerhouse vocals will get you.

[Edited 4/9/17 15:34pm]

Adorecream said:

Of course they will sound dated, every album is a product of the era it comes from. Bad sounds like it is from 1987, because it was released in 1987, but it is still great. I mean who sets out to make music now or in the past and thinks "I want to make it, so it sounds fresh in 2047"

.

Diamonds and Pearls sounds 1991 ish (Or even 1989 ish in someways) because Prince taped it back in 1989/1990. Albums can be dated at release, as before the whole autotune, home studio computer era, most good albums took several months to write, record and market. It was common for an artist to be made to wait several months before an album would drop (Prince had to wait for WB all the time, as they were worried about Prince product saturating the market, the satellites were at least a bit more helpful, as their albums were essentially Prince music by other performers) and often Prince had lost interest in a project and moved on, by the time it finally dropped.

.

Music that dates the worst to me, are trend songs, that really date super quickly. Think about it, would you listen to novelties like the Thong Song and Mambo #5 now, or even the Dougie song and Silento's watch me (Who is silento you ask, but 18 months ago, he was the hottest rapper out), or PSY anyone, that aspic preserved 2012 oldie.

.

I also thik trends in music date badly in many cases, Bubblegum music of all stamps dates quickly, from Twist dance rip offs, to the Monkees, The Bay City Rollers, Bros and NKOTB and Back door boys, no one would listen to that shit now. Also all grunge and hair metal except GNR is laughable. Even some of the swear heavy acts of the 1990s like RATM, Marilyn Manson and RHCP are dated now.

.

To me the only music that does not date is classic music like The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Eagles, Led Zeppelin, Sly Stone, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Prince etc.

.

99% of the current pop hot on the charts does, who will be listening to Beyonce, Lil Wayne, Rhianna, Jayz or Katy perry in 25 years - no one. Just like no one listens to Ugly Kid Joe, Icy Blu, Blu Cantrell, Warrant, Wilson Philips or any other forgettable crap from 26 years ago now.

excellent points......

214 said:

That song is awful considering the status of both artists. They could have done something much more better.

Yeah. And for the life of me I can't understand why they didn't write the song together. Every Song, except Man in the Mirror was written by Michael. Then you have the one song sung by 2 legends and they let a third party write the song. Mindboggling.

214 said:

Dasein said:

Bad is a polished turd, and the only reason why y'all like it is because Michael Jackson's name
is on it. Michael Jackson didn't have the artistic vision that Prince had in crafting albums so he
always chose producers who were trending at the time. So even though albums like Off the Wall
are artistic achievements, they are mostly beholden to the times in which they were written
and produced: in other words, OtW sounds like the late 1970s as disco lay dying, and Dangerous
sounds like the early 90s adherence to New Jack Swing, and Invincible sounds like the early
aughts' devotion to Rodney Jerkin's style of herky-jerky heavily syncopated R&B beats.

Yet, when a recording artist is pushing the boundaries of her genre outward, the results are that
her album doesn't age. This is why Prince's work in the 80s sounds fresh and exciting to me. But,
when an artist is pandering to trends and norms and fads, then the results are that her album
ages poorly. This is why Prince's work in the late 90s is boring, in my opinion, as he was no longer
as daring.

I think there is something racial in here as well: Prince's most daring work is when he did not care
about appealing to any certain ethnic/culture. But as soon as he started to feel that he was losing
his "Black audience" and starting relying upon hip-hop and New Jack Swing conventions, his work
began to suffer.

Sorry but Purple Rain, Controversy,1999 and SOTT sounds completely 80's. In that regard i don't find him so different from Michael.

Purple Rain and SOTT do not sound like anything else that was released in the 80s or has ever
been released.

PatrickS77 said:

Dasein said:

Bad is a polished turd, and the only reason why y'all like it is because Michael Jackson's name
is on it.

That's bs. Every song on it, except 1, is great. The reason you hate it, is because it's Michael Jackson. Also all of his albums sound as great as they ever did. And unlike Prince, he's released way less filler per album.

[Edited 4/8/17 11:49am]

I don't hate Bad.

It's overrated. I don't think there is any "great" song on that album, as far as composition goes.
I don't like the studio musicianship and I don't like the production sheen and I don't like the Thriller
blue-print referenced often.

Michael Jackson's albums, as a whole, are mostly beholden utterly to the times in which they were
written; Thriller being something that is not tethered so entirely to any current trend in songwriting
and production value.

Prince is going to have more albums that contain filler than Jackson does because Prince was much
more prolific as a recording artist.

Dasein said:

214 said:

Sorry but Purple Rain, Controversy,1999 and SOTT sounds completely 80's. In that regard i don't find him so different from Michael.

Purple Rain and SOTT do not sound like anything else that was released in the 80s or has ever
been released.

SOTT a little less, but Purple Rain... please. sounds exactly like the 80's music.

If nobody had every heard of Purple Rain and was released for the first time in 2017....

that album would rule longer than it actually did in 1984....

214 said:

Dasein said:

Purple Rain and SOTT do not sound like anything else that was released in the 80s or has ever
been released.

SOTT a little less, but Purple Rain... please. sounds exactly like the 80's music.

Put your money where your mouth is:

name an 1980s album that sounds like Purple Rain.

Scorp said:

If nobody had every heard of Purple Rain and was released for the first time in 2017....

that album would rule longer than it actually did in 1984....

I'm not sure about whether Purple Rain would be more popular today if released in 2017 as opposed
to the 1980s, but that album still sounds fresh and innnovative because Prince was pushing the boun-
daries of R&B and rock and pop via the Minneapolis sound into new frontiers.

As a producer, Prince was more daring and innovative than Quincy Jones, who didn't like to stray too
far off of the OtW and Thriller templates, which is why Bad is so boring, in my opinion. After Purple
Rain, Prince comes out with this Middle-Eastern tinged Sergeant Pepper's psychedelic album that
alienates some of his fans . . . this is something Michael Jackson would have NEVER done but why I
love Prince so fucking much.

Dude had balls.