A word that I see a lot on the org is the word "dated". I know it means the song sounds like everything else in that era but all songs sound like the era they are from. I can hear an old song that I've never heard before and can usually tell what decade the song came out just by the way the song sounds.

All decades move on to new sounds and styles so what would a song that is not "dated" sound like? I've also heard people say that particular songs still sound good and can fit in with today's music. Knowing that music has changed so much over the years, if this is true, then what does it say about today's music? Wouldn't it mean that today's music simply is copying another era's music?

Please tell me what makes a song not be "dated" and give examples.

I think it has a lot to do with production style and what kind of instrumentation has been used. Using a lot of electronic sounds and beats will date music more easily than organic music (with "real" instruments). But still then, most of the times you can easily hear if a song is from the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's.

I think when an old song doesn't sound "dated", usually the production style is sober/neutral and the song itself (melody/ groove/ beat) is very strong. Or the production style of a song was so futuristic that it still sounds good today.

But then again, what sounds dated to one can still sound fresh to another pair of ears. It's all about personal preferences...

funkaholic1972 said:

Very true.To me,a song that utilizes "real" instruments (horns,piano,violins,real drums,etc) rarely sounds dated.That's because real instrumentation has been around forever,and it always will be.But,in the 80s,people started using excessive drum machines,synthesizers and other production "gimmicks" that makes the music sound dated.

It's true that most songs have a certain something -whether it's lyrical style, arrangements, instruments used, production etc. -that identifies the era they're from.

A good song IMO sounds fresh years from now, with no or little slip in quality.

One thing that dates a song is obvious trend-bandwagoning, or having too much in common with what was "hot" at the time. Cheesy rapping in the early 90's is an example. (and P.'s guilty of this musical Velveeta) Another, more recent, example is having guest spots by rappers on albums. How often do you see a new video with "ft. Nelly/P. Diddy/50 Cent/insert name of overrated rapper here? It's not something that's going to hold up over the years.

But extremely futuristic songs like Donna Summer's "I Feel Love", Prince's "1999" (the album), and Soul Sonic Force's "Planet Rock" are the main ones that are accused of sounding dated.
[Edited 5/19/05 1:43am]

But in the 1980s, instruments progressed, music started sounding further apart from any of the other previous decades and things seemed to be moving forward. The big thing in the 1990s, was people stripping off the instruments and doing the "accoustical" thing. This is more of a return to the days before we progressed and copying off other decades instead of creating new sounds and styles for the future.

Music these days (the songs that aren't hip hop) seem to be copying a lot of the early 1970s slower songs. If today's artists ever started copying the more uptempo 1980s music, wouldn't a lot of the old songs that are now not considered "dated" become "dated"? This is where I get confused because we have never gone as long without a drastic musical style change as we have these days (it's been 15 years). It makes me wonder if people think today's music sets the standards for what determines if an old song is "dated" or not because they are judging it by today's music that has been around longer than any other form of music. It's kind of like they have given up and never expect a new style to emerge.

vainandy said:

Musical revolutions since the 1950's have so far followed approximately a 13 year cycle. Hopefully, this one's just late in coming.

To me,a song like "Walk On By" by Dionne Warwick doesn't sound the least bit dated.Great songs seem to have a timeless quality to them.People can play those songs today,and it still sounds fresh and vital.

vainandy said:

Exactly. And that's actually a shame as that's the sound that I most love in the world. I guess the trick is not to be "futuristic", but instead use the current technology to the max in a way that results in something that doesn't differ that much from the original standards of pop music (set by the big names of 60s and the 70s).

But I'm saying that the whole concept of being "dated" is so complex it would demand an own aesthetic category of its own for academic study. Not to mention I've noticed at the .org that people's usage of the word differs a great deal. To some "Musicology" sounds "dated", because it reminds of the music of the past decades. To me "dated" refers to production values. The amount of reverberation, compression and the nature of the sounds (as in synth patches etc.) used and so on.

A good, simple example of something sounding dated these days is a low-pitched snare hit with a lot of reverberation. It sounds dated to us these days because the current standard for using snare sounds is quite different. Dry and sharp. There are types of electric piano sounds that sound awfully dated to us these days as well, because we associate them with the mawkish powerballads of the early 90s.

A horn riff recorded pristinely without any FX gimmicks will hardly ever sound dated to me, as its a sound that people associate with the "real instrument" status of wind instruments. Classical music will never sound dated either, so a lot of it has to do with the recording medium and the amount of electronics employed in the performance.

On the other hand, it can also refer to an out-of-fashion musical style, like 80s "hair metal". But in case of that type of styles as "hair metal" the common idea that we have of the overall quality of the music is dominated by the production values that seem dated in today's context. We just simply associate the musical figures performed in today's climate with the earlier ones, draw parallels between them and make our judgements! If this is done well it is going to be called "retro", but if the production vales of yesterday somehow seep back in it's going to end up being called "dated".
[Edited 5/19/05 2:14am]

Well said!

the kind of music that's just vocal and a few real instruments
usually doesn't sound dated. A lot of Joni's stuff sounds good
and fresh today as it did when it first came out.

the use of "new" and "hip" technology usually makes songs sound
dated in the end.

having said that, I don't mind songs sounding like the era which
they came from. As long as the songs are good, who cares if they
end up sounding "dated"

Great responses. I swaer I didn't read this thread until after I posted on mine. Damn it I wouldn't of bothered


http://www.prince.org/msg/8/146164

the syclavier, midi, moog etc only sounds dated because analogue came back after the house explotion of the late 80's. But don't be fooled into hated becasue it sounds dated.

Think if digitally made music like the 80's stuff would of kept going? Remember, most of u old enough would of loved say Michael Jacksons "bad" at the time and would call it stat of the art. U would say that because it was. Now when u get stuff that is just sampling retro 70's soul like neo soul, how is this exciting and new?

U know my views on analogue and how I generally dont like it. I admit Iam stuck in the past. But many are stuck on analogue sound only aswell. But as that is accepted as it is popular and uses "real" instruments, it don't get ragged on. Infact, alot of people on here ares stuck in analogue only. Iam the opposite. But yet I get labelled as corny and loving shit that is fake and not even soulful or whatever?

It is time for digital to come back. After all, analogue went to boot for more then a whole decade. Digitals time will (hopefully) come and we'll get some fresh new uptempo shit again

vainandy said:

Who ever told you that? And BTW, those are electronic music classics to me!

And don't forget about The Human League (Dare!), Heaven 17, Egyptian Lover, & Depache Mode.
[Edited 5/19/05 13:41pm]

vainandy said:

It's very easy for me to find new music & new sounds.

Just surf the internet and you will find it outside of the USA!

To my ear, when it comes to electronic music, most of the EU (especially France, Germany, and Italy) & Japan are at least 10 years ahead of America. They use synths to create sounds that don't even exist yet (read: think like Kraftwerk & YMO).

America's bigger problem with synths is that they just use it to REPLACE real acoustic instruments sounds, but not try to create a new original sound in general.

BTW, bands like Kraftwerk, The Human League, & Duran Duran had call the American Music Industry out about this issue that I just stated. And they were right to an extent.

I know one thing, whether music sounds "dated" or not (and this is usually individual opinion)- that is no argument for whether a song is good or not.

Peter Gabriel's album "So" - released nearly 20 years ago - sounds so fresh it could have been released yesterday, IMHO.

From what I've noticed, when people usually say a song still sounds fresh today, it is usually a slow or midtempo song. I guess my point is, today's (mainstream) music has been either midtempo or ballads exclusively for 15 years so an uptempo jam would definately be out of place if placed in the middle of today's music.

People seem to have just accepted today's style of music as how it's going to be from now on like it's never going to change and that really pisses me off. Everything eventually changes but it's like people refuse to let today's music change by insulting older songs that don't "fit in" with today's songs by calling them "dated".

Also, artists that came out in the 1990s like D'Angelo or Maxwell, always list Prince as one of their influences. The only Prince influence I hear in their music is maybe some of his slow jams like "Adore". If Prince influenced them so much, why aren't they doing uptempo jams? Prince was not strictly a balladeer. Ballads have always been around and will always be around so why are people playing it safe by doing ballads only? A lot of today's music could be "dated" themselves to the early 1970s smooth soul/R&B sound before the funk and disco eras. A lot of that comes from artists, even hip hop artists, talking about listening to their parent's music back in the day (which would have been the 1980s and their parent's music was out of style then). A lot of my generation never listened to our parent's music, in fact, we rebelled against it. People these days seem to be followers rather than leaders, that's why we don't have any new sounds coming out (at least in the mainstream).
[Edited 5/19/05 22:26pm]

Kraftwerk was very much ahead of their time. You are right about us in the United States. We are too money hungry and we also copy off each other and all jump on bandwagons and drag a sound out and milk it for every penny we can get out of it for years and years and years and years.

I'm sick of looking to the underground. It's time for mainstream to get back in the swing of things. As long as everything good is underground, that's only limited fun and there is no night after night partying with a large crowd. With underground music, you can mainly only enjoy that by yourself. It's like masturbation.

[quote]

Novabreaker said:

That's what is such a shame because we never move on and progress. We just keep on sticking with the same "safe" formula.