Here's my few:

Michael Jackson

Whitney Houston

Prince

Janet Jackson

An album/song can be noticeably dated yet still age fine. I think Bad and Whitney are examples of that.

As for albums that haven't aged well, S.O.S. Band's Too comes to mind.

Ugly album cover too

[Edited 4/6/17 16:29pm]

I'd have to disagree with some of those. BAD is still a technically perfect album. And frankly the versions on the first pressing make it highly superior. Over time, about half the album had 7" edits replacing the original album versions.

The problem with Whitney's album is that it sounds dated. The songs are great, but like an early Taylor Dayne album, it's stuck in the late 80s.

D&P always suffered from two things: Prince following trends, and Tony M.

20 Y.O. was never that great to begin with. Dupri fucked that album harder than he was fucking Janet.

To that list, I'd add:

• anything by The Presidents of the United States of America
• any Jon Secada album
• most Michael Bolton albums
• Madonna True Blue never had that many great songs on it, and the 1986/7 production keeps it locked in the past.
• Graffiti Bridge suffers from a production sound, not a Prince sound

To MotownSub - click the image icon in the editing area (it's the photo of the tree to the left of the omega symbol), and just drop that URL in the box, then click Insert. Your pic might not show up at first, but if you just hit enter in the dialog box here, it'll show up.

JohnDoe321 said:

Here's my few:

Janet Jackson

I was just listening to that last week and was noticing how bad the JD productions are in trendy sounds of the time compared to Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis latter half that sounds like they could have blended in with any janet era really except Daybreak. Take Care, Enjoy and Love 2 Love are great still to this day

I wouldn't say Bad, but I would point to Dangerous as horribly out of date. The Teddy Riley sound has not aged nearly as well as the Quincy Jones sound.

I just listed to Diamonds & Pearls today . . . I wouldn't say it's dated, but on the same token it doesn't sound "fresh" either.

Se7en said:

I wouldn't say Bad, but I would point to Dangerous as horribly out of date. The Teddy Riley sound has not aged nearly as well as the Quincy Jones sound.

I just listed to Diamonds & Pearls today . . . I wouldn't say it's dated, but on the same token it doesn't sound "fresh" either.

I find D&P to have a tinny yet heavy sound. There's something ear-piercing about songs like "Thunder" or "Live 4 Love", yet something way overproduced and heavy about things like "Daddy Pop" or "Push". There's not a lot of good meaty middle to many of the songs. It's more prevalent on with the overproduction on the bottom end, but I do think it's more listenable than D&P today.

I'd sadly have to agree about Dangerous. However, there are still great moments on that record. The whole second side is just fucking spectacular. The first side has a bit of filler with "She Drives Me Wild" and "Can't Let Her Get Away", and even "Heal The World" (a lackluster follow up to "Man in the Mirror").

TrivialPursuit said:

I'd have to disagree with some of those. BAD is still a technically perfect album. And frankly the versions on the first pressing make it highly superior. Over time, about half the album had 7" edits replacing the original album versions.

The problem with Whitney's album is that it sounds dated. The songs are great, but like an early Taylor Dayne album, it's stuck in the late 80s.

D&P always suffered from two things: Prince following trends, and Tony M.

20 Y.O. was never that great to begin with. Dupri fucked that album harder than he was fucking Janet.

To that list, I'd add:

• anything by The Presidents of the United States of America
• any Jon Secada album
• most Michael Bolton albums
• Madonna True Blue never had that many great songs on it, and the 1986/7 production keeps it locked in the past.
• Graffiti Bridge suffers from a production sound, not a Prince sound

To MotownSub - click the image icon in the editing area (it's the photo of the tree to the left of the omega symbol), and just drop that URL in the box, then click Insert. Your pic might not show up at first, but if you just hit enter in the dialog box here, it'll show up.

Thanks man!

EmmaMcG said:

I don't believe that music can age well or unwell. As far as I'm concerned, if it's good, it's good. Regardless of genre or era. I mean, what does it actually mean when people say that a certain song hasn't aged well? That it doesn't sound like whatever is in the current pop charts? In that case nothing has "aged well".

Right, furthermore, what do you expect every album and song sounds accordingly to the decade and year it was realeased, we can't expect Hey Jude to sound like the 90's because it was done inthe 60's by the standards of that time.

heathilly said:

To honest I've never understood this question. Because a good song will always be a good song and it's just enjoyable to listen to. And all music sounds of it's time. The Beatles music sounds very 60ish. Chuck berrys music sounds very 50ish. Prince 80s music sounds very 80ish. None of that stuff sounds like it could've come out today. It all sounds old. [Edited 4/6/17 16:40pm]

Exactly my point.

214 said:

Isn't this supposed to be about artist that haven't aged well, and their albums?

Q: Back on the Block

I still like it, but horribly dated, while almost everything else from his discography (even the later stuff) still sounds pretty fresh

What makes an album actually sound dated?

I would say the drum sounds have the biggest impact.

There are typical drumsounds from the drumcomputer that reminds me of an certain periode.

Thats why an more "live" sound date much better.

Diamonds and pearls, the song, for example sounds still fresh to me today.

And Thrillers sounds has aged better than Bad, although I like Bad more.

What do you guys think what makes an album sound dated?

nextedition said:

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

nextedition said:

What makes an album actually sound dated?

I would say the drum sounds have the biggest impact.

There are typical drumsounds from the drumcomputer that reminds me of an certain periode.

Thats why an more "live" sound date much better.

Diamonds and pearls, the song, for example sounds still fresh to me today.

And Thrillers sounds has aged better than Bad, although I like Bad more.

What do you guys think what makes an album sound dated?

For me, an album sounds dated when it so specifically harbors a production or sound that defines a time period. Now, from about 1982-1987, there wasn't necessarily an 80s sound. It was just different. Things had lots of synths, drum machines, or even heavy guitars (heavy metal became a thing). Something like "Let's Go Crazy" is rock, it's pop, it's everything 80s, yet if it's on radio today it still feels allowed and purposeful. It has a place at the table.

But things like Taylor Dayne's first two records, with that Ric Wake big echoy reverby production - dated. Christian artist Kathy Triccoli did the same thing with Wake's production - got stuck. And she sounded like Taylor Dayne in the early 90s. Even Prince's late 80s stuff had that going on. When you listen to stuff on Graffiti Bridge, the remixes to "Jerk Out" or "Chocolate" or "Round and Round" or something like "God Is Alive", it sounds so dated and stuck in that time period. That's when he was following trends, and sounded like every other fad on radio.

That's what doesn't age well, when you know "Oh, that's 1988", opposed to "Wasn't this in the 70s sometime?" Like you have an idea, but you can't quite nail it. Bobby Z's solo record is so dismally stuck in its time period. It was good the year it came out probably, but within 12-months it sounded old.

Ultimately, it's one's own perception, I suppose. But albums sound dated when they latch onto a trend, rather than create them. BAD did things (as did Thriller) that were so new and fresh, and Q nailed that. It was Teddy Riley's New Jack that made Dangerous sound stuck. It was specific. Timeless stuff sounds valid anytime.

I never understood the premise of whether a particular song or album has aged well or not. It's 2017. Anything that was recorded in the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's will not sound fresh, like it was recorded recently. Each decade had it's own musical trends or sounds that are considered "dated" in 2017. Just for the sake of arguement, in 2017, some people may feel the entire Beatles catalog sounds dated and, therefore, has not aged well. But it's still considered one of the greatest catalogs ever by their fans and some Rock critics. Same goes for all of the old Motown catalog. We can agree it all sounds very dated but it's kind of difficult to make a statement on whether they have aged well. It's just all extremely subjective.

Good tunes live forever.

Se7en said:

I wouldn't say Bad, but I would point to Dangerous as horribly out of date. The Teddy Riley sound has not aged nearly as well as the Quincy Jones sound.

I just listed to Diamonds & Pearls today . . . I wouldn't say it's dated, but on the same token it doesn't sound "fresh" either.

"Remember The Time" was the only song I recall from Dangerous that could be considered an MJ classic.

Gone Too Soon is poignant.

TrivialPursuit said:

I'd have to disagree with some of those. BAD is still a technically perfect album. And frankly the versions on the first pressing make it highly superior. Over time, about half the album had 7" edits replacing the original album versions.

The problem with Whitney's album is that it sounds dated. The songs are great, but like an early Taylor Dayne album, it's stuck in the late 80s.

D&P always suffered from two things: Prince following trends, and Tony M.

20 Y.O. was never that great to begin with. Dupri fucked that album harder than he was fucking Janet.

To that list, I'd add:

• anything by The Presidents of the United States of America
• any Jon Secada album
• most Michael Bolton albums
• Madonna True Blue never had that many great songs on it, and the 1986/7 production keeps it locked in the past.
• Graffiti Bridge suffers from a production sound, not a Prince sound

To MotownSub - click the image icon in the editing area (it's the photo of the tree to the left of the omega symbol), and just drop that URL in the box, then click Insert. Your pic might not show up at first, but if you just hit enter in the dialog box here, it'll show up.

How the hell do any albums age well? They are a product of their except for Bad it sucked them and it sucks now.

As far as Prince he needed to sell some fucking records so he want out and found a rapper who could work with his music. Tony M is actually pretty good on Gold N**g.

heathilly said:

214 said:

Exactly my point.

An oldie but a goodie.

I don't like that phrase, better "a goodie" and that's it.

kitbradley said:

I never understood the premise of whether a particular song or album has aged well or not. It's 2017. Anything that was recorded in the 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's will not sound fresh, like it was recorded recently. Each decade had it's own musical trends or sounds that are considered "dated" in 2017. Just for the sake of arguement, in 2017, some people may feel the entire Beatles catalog sounds dated and, therefore, has not aged well. But it's still considered one of the greatest catalogs ever by their fans and some Rock critics. Same goes for all of the old Motown catalog. We can agree it all sounds very dated but it's kind of difficult to make a statement on whether they have aged well. It's just all extremely subjective.

Right, but there are some songs and albums that do not sound like this, an example is a 70's ballad that does not sound like 70's and that is "Thirtten" by Big Star or the whole "Doolittle" Pixies album, to me it doesn't sound 80's at all.

214 said:

Cinny said:

MattyJam said:

heathilly said:

Me niether it's cringe but I heard it some where and just fit what I wanted to say.

I had considered adding something to my previous post, but then you said it. I think it's the Cringe-Factor vs "DIS MUH JAM!" Really great songs are always someone's jam. But if you're wincing or thinking "Should I just stick it out until it's over, or change the channel?" - then the cringe is too much. It's a bad song.

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]