If a 60's song, never heard before, would it sound dated ?
Discussion
Not allowed a long enough title, but what I want to ask is if a song from the 60s had never been heard before, but never-the-less a really good one, were to be performed in the modern style and released, would people think it sounded dated? Can tunes themselves be dated, assuming there were no clues in the lyrics?
A big part of a song sounding dated or 'of its time' is down to production though isn't it. Think of all those 80's rock bands with hideously dated albums mainly due to horrid 1980's drum sounds. (yes Mutt Lange we're looking at you)
There are a myriad of tunes from the sixties that wouldn't sound out of place if they were released last week and recorded this year. But surely the fact that the music made in the sixties so heavily influences what we hear today and have done since that time, renders it a bit of a self answering question ? I know what your getting at though.
There are a myriad of tunes from the sixties that wouldn't sound out of place if they were released last week and recorded this year. But surely the fact that the music made in the sixties so heavily influences what we hear today and have done since that time, renders it a bit of a self answering question ? I know what your getting at though.
Dam0ZR said:
One that comes to mind is Come together by the beatles, timeless.
I'v listened to a bit of the beatles before, but until now I hadn't heard come together in full, I think if it was recorded on modern equipment then it wouldn't sound out of place at all, a hint of the white stripes about it (I know its the other way around but I heard the white stripes 1st) Edited by corradoG60 on Friday 15th October 20:12
Good question.
My initial thought is, if it's something like "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" then yes; it'll always sound dated, and no modern production methods (I think) would alter it's 60's character. Then again "Blister On The Moon" could really benefit from modern guitar and drum tech along with some judicious modern production.
By the same token, the drum sound on "When The Levee Breaks" cannot be bettered, unless someone else sets the kit up on a stairway landing at Headley Grange. And even then, it'll sound either the same or worse, as John Bonham won't be bashing the skins.
My initial thought is, if it's something like "Careful With That Axe, Eugene" then yes; it'll always sound dated, and no modern production methods (I think) would alter it's 60's character. Then again "Blister On The Moon" could really benefit from modern guitar and drum tech along with some judicious modern production.
By the same token, the drum sound on "When The Levee Breaks" cannot be bettered, unless someone else sets the kit up on a stairway landing at Headley Grange. And even then, it'll sound either the same or worse, as John Bonham won't be bashing the skins.
Well, although I agree with the sentiment, Led Zep 4 is a 1971 album.
I don't think Come Together would sound any different. It is just conventional instruments with a highly competent producer.
At this very moment I'm listening on LP to the House of Love's German album. It is very, very raw, despite having been recorded in 1988.
Jimmy Page is constantly remastering Led Zeppelin material, but he cannot improve on the original recordings; he can only clean them up and rebalance to try to get as close as possible to the original intention.
I don't think Come Together would sound any different. It is just conventional instruments with a highly competent producer.
At this very moment I'm listening on LP to the House of Love's German album. It is very, very raw, despite having been recorded in 1988.
Jimmy Page is constantly remastering Led Zeppelin material, but he cannot improve on the original recordings; he can only clean them up and rebalance to try to get as close as possible to the original intention.
james_gt3rs said:
Zod said:
Jimmy Page is constantly remastering Led Zeppelin material, but he cannot improve on the original recordings; he can only clean them up and rebalance to try to get as close as possible to the original intention.
The guitar sound is better on their live albums anyway IMO.I'm with neilr, it is a self-answering question, given that,
A - the basic form/structure of a good pop song (and I mean a good one rather than the run-of-the-mill dross) hasn't really changed since the 60's,
and
B - certain sounds, be they drum sounds, vocal sounds, guitar sounds will always sound good regardless of when they were recorded,
and
C - the above can also apply to production, effects etc.
In my opinion the worse periods for pop music were the late 70's (when you could almost tell what year an album was made by what guitar effects were on it) and the mid 80's (when everything was overproduced to within an inch of its life; producers couldn't hear a vocal without wanting to double or triple track it, or a guitar solo without adding simultaneous flanger, phaser and chorus, or a snare drum without a delayed grand canyon-sized reverb).
As I said, a self-answering question.
A - the basic form/structure of a good pop song (and I mean a good one rather than the run-of-the-mill dross) hasn't really changed since the 60's,
and
B - certain sounds, be they drum sounds, vocal sounds, guitar sounds will always sound good regardless of when they were recorded,
and
C - the above can also apply to production, effects etc.
In my opinion the worse periods for pop music were the late 70's (when you could almost tell what year an album was made by what guitar effects were on it) and the mid 80's (when everything was overproduced to within an inch of its life; producers couldn't hear a vocal without wanting to double or triple track it, or a guitar solo without adding simultaneous flanger, phaser and chorus, or a snare drum without a delayed grand canyon-sized reverb).
As I said, a self-answering question.
I think the style of the song is very important. If Hermans Hermits recorded "Mrs Brown, you've got a lovely daughter" today it would sound like a '60s song, I think. In fact, I think that's pretty much what Queen did with Crazy Little Thing Called Love, which has a very Elvis vibe to it.
On the other hand, if The Doors recorded their stuff today instead of in the late '60s, I don't think it would sound nostalgic at all.
I suppose the closer it gets to basic rock, the less dated it would sound, but rock has survived since the '60s. With the blues you could go back even earlier and it would be impossible to date it. However, with shorter lived genres, perhaps something punk, goth, Californian heavy metal etc, it would be more likely to sound of bygone era.
Then again, perhaps it can also be just about production. Iron Maiden don't seem to be doing anything much different now to what they were in the '80s, but their '80s stuff to me now sounds dated while their modern stuff doesn't. On the other hand, AC/DC have hardly changed either, but none of their stuff, even the old stuff, sounds dated to me.
Maybe it's just that beauty's in the ears of the beerholder?
On the other hand, if The Doors recorded their stuff today instead of in the late '60s, I don't think it would sound nostalgic at all.
I suppose the closer it gets to basic rock, the less dated it would sound, but rock has survived since the '60s. With the blues you could go back even earlier and it would be impossible to date it. However, with shorter lived genres, perhaps something punk, goth, Californian heavy metal etc, it would be more likely to sound of bygone era.
Then again, perhaps it can also be just about production. Iron Maiden don't seem to be doing anything much different now to what they were in the '80s, but their '80s stuff to me now sounds dated while their modern stuff doesn't. On the other hand, AC/DC have hardly changed either, but none of their stuff, even the old stuff, sounds dated to me.
Maybe it's just that beauty's in the ears of the beerholder?
Edited by Alfanatic on Saturday 16th October 18:48
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff