Im confused to how that is a critque of an album that was touted by the public/heads and then gets swept under the rug 10/15/25 years later?
Can someone clarify? 'Cause sometimes it sounds like you werent really listening in the first place.
And give me some examples in any genre.
Here's my example: the Replacements' Pleased To Meet Me. At the time, I knew good and well this was supposed to be their mild stab at making a commercial (quote-unquote) album. But I still liked it in spite of itself.
Fast forward to the late nineties...I hadn't heard the album in a while when a friend/coworker played it in the office we shared...the songs themselves sounded good, but the production was so eighties it could hurt your feelings! I mainly remember big booming drums, although I'm sure there were other signifiers too...and I don't wanna rag on Jim Dickinson (who produced), since he's a favorite of mine, but this record is so of its' time that now it almost sounds prehistoric. Whereas their earlier album, Let It Be, sounds timeless. THAT'S what I myself usually mean when I say something hasn't aged well.
I was noticing this too. Going back through my late 80s/ early 90s "alternative/college radio" records recently. Seems like a lot of the band's stuff on the small labels stands up better. I was listening to Document--which I always like--and it was kinda eh-- and then threw on Murmur and it definitely took me there.
i was never that keen on the record in the first place. the poor pressing didn't help the listening experience either. i think that is one of the most overrated golden era hip hop lps.....
I don't think people were hyped on it because of how GOOD it was as much as how groundbreaking it was in terms of sampling and the way a hip hop album is made. It has its place in the history of things but few people that I know ever go back and bump this shit like it's new.
id say poor aging has to do with the circumstance under which the record was released (current events, other music released during that time, etc) or the tastes of the listener progressing/regressing or expanding.
Can you say that one's expectations for music have risen substantially over the course of the last decade? I think that has a lot to do with it, and less to do with the actual quality of the music.
It's more than the listener that changes, there is also the context in which a record is heard to consider. Using the example of that Replacements record, the problem isn't that listeners changed, but that record production has changed, and collectively people have decided that those booming late 80's drums sound un-natural. Or in the case of "Nothing's Shocking", in 1988 at the height of Reagan/Bush conservatism, it was possible to sound cool or rebellious saying the dumb shit that Perry Farrell said on there. But in 2007, it really just sounds ridiculous. That's not us as listeners changing, that's the world changing.
Timeless art isn't dependent on the time it was made to be relevant.
Im confused to how that is a critque of an album that was touted by the public/heads and then gets swept under the rug 10/15/25 years later?
Can someone clarify? 'Cause sometimes it sounds like you werent really listening in the first place.
And give me some examples in any genre.
Here's my example: the Replacements' Pleased To Meet Me. At the time, I knew good and well this was supposed to be their mild stab at making a commercial (quote-unquote) album. But I still liked it in spite of itself.
Fast forward to the late nineties...I hadn't heard the album in a while when a friend/coworker played it in the office we shared...the songs themselves sounded good, but the production was so eighties it could hurt your feelings! I mainly remember big booming drums, although I'm sure there were other signifiers too...and I don't wanna rag on Jim Dickinson (who produced), since he's a favorite of mine, but this record is so of its' time that now it almost sounds prehistoric. Whereas their earlier album, Let It Be, sounds timeless. THAT'S what I myself usually mean when I say something hasn't aged well.
I was noticing this too. Going back through my late 80s/ early 90s "alternative/college radio" records recently. Seems like a lot of the band's stuff on the small labels stands up better.
Seems like usually when '80s-era alt-rock bands made the transition from the indie to the major, the music sounded the same but the record was engineered to sound like Huey Lewis & the News.
i was never that keen on the record in the first place. the poor pressing didn't help the listening experience either. i think that is one of the most overrated golden era hip hop lps.....
I don't think people were hyped on it because of how GOOD it was as much as how groundbreaking it was in terms of sampling and the way a hip hop album is made. It has its place in the history of things but few people that I know ever go back and bump this shit like it's new.
word. i hear what your saying. I'm fan of their next two lps I'm a bit hit and miss with the rest of their stuff. prince Paul is one of my favourite producers.
a lot of people use this phrase to describe music that embraces certain values that are not trendy ... for years disco 'didn't age well,' but the beat has 'come back' at least in trendy music nerd circles and suddenly we realize 'oh this shit aged really well'. Tricky is a good example because people seem to disdain the coffee-table beat style these days -
but unlike disco that seems like a stylistic dead end whereas disco's death was based more on a certain marketable image/style ... musically disco continued via house/techno/hip-hop/pretty much all beat/dance influenced music and does to this day, now that we can trace these lines back it makes disco seem TIMELESS
it should be consumed and enjoyed within a period after its production in order to get the most out of it. And a wine that has a short "enjoy by" life isnt necessarily a lessser wine than one that is meant to be aged. In fact, it can often be the opposite. Not sure if this could apply to albums, but its just a thought.
i've heard people say that the MIZELL[/b] sound has not aged well. while i don't necessarily agree, i guess i can understand how some might say it's a sound that marks a specific time and struggles to eschew this contextual timeframe and really stand up on its own as music or art.
You know, for this one, it's probably how completely and totally this sound was and continues to be bitten by producers, churning out poor imitations and diluting the brand.
I dunno there are some really bad looks in this thread. I think the Aging thing is a bit of a cop out but if you want to be ERIOUS about it, lets look at what has not really aged well.. ie. Vanilla Ice, Sir-Mixalot - baby got Back, Kris Kross, Domino, Mista Grimm.
Just sayin alot shti doesn't age well, but i would say alot of the stuff listed here while its not in contant rotation still stands up for the time period when it was released. blackstar may not be in rotation but as far as it aging well as a solid album? I think its still really dope for when it was released (at least production wise).
Tricky? Again production is crazy on that album and for the time period it still stands out right next to Portishead, even though I b arely listen to either of those albums anymore.
All about time an place and I don't think lack of rotation makes any of these albums poorly aged.
I dunno there are some really bad looks in this thread. I think the Aging thing is a bit of a cop out but if you want to be ERIOUS about it, lets look at what has not really aged well.. ie. Vanilla Ice, Sir-Mixalot - baby got Back, Kris Kross, Domino, Mista Grimm.
Just sayin alot shti doesn't age well, but i would say alot of the stuff listed here while its not in contant rotation still stands up for the time period when it was released. blackstar may not be in rotation but as far as it aging well as a solid album? I think its still really dope for when it was released (at least production wise).
Tricky? Again production is crazy on that album and for the time period it still stands out right next to Portishead, even though I b arely listen to either of those albums anymore.
All about time an place and I don't think lack of rotation makes any of these albums poorly aged.
just my opinion though.
Good point. Are we talking about artists, albums, songs or genres here.
I can think of a few cases where the following happens:
Artist- Didnt age well Album by same Artist - Didnt age well SONG by artist - DID age well Genre in which the artist worked - Didnt age well
I dunno there are some really bad looks in this thread. I think the Aging thing is a bit of a cop out but if you want to be ERIOUS about it, lets look at what has not really aged well.. ie. Vanilla Ice, Sir-Mixalot - baby got Back, Kris Kross, Domino, Mista Grimm.
yeah, but even in 1992 we all knew that kris kross wasnt gonna get a box set, knowwhatimean? you EXPECT that to grow old ungracefully.
but when you listen to something that is supposedly "for the ages," like the indie-rock or rap CD's you were groovin' to while your younger sister was listening to joey lawrence, THAT'S when a record aging well (or not well) starts to matter.
I dunno there are some really bad looks in this thread. I think the Aging thing is a bit of a cop out but if you want to be ERIOUS about it, lets look at what has not really aged well.. ie. Vanilla Ice, Sir-Mixalot - baby got Back, Kris Kross, Domino, Mista Grimm.
yeah, but even in 1992 we all knew that kris kross wasnt gonna get a box set, knowwhatimean? you EXPECT that to grow old ungracefully.
but when you listen to something that is supposedly "for the ages," like the indie-rock or rap CD's you were groovin' to while your younger sister was listening to joey lawrence, THAT'S when a record aging well (or not well) starts to matter.
I dunno alot fo the albums that i thought were incredible when i first heard them I still think are incredible. Yes they may not fit in the current landscape or may only speak to me in terms of the time period when I was listening to that record nonstop it doesn't mean I don't like it any less or think its any worse. But maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of "Aging well". and all fo those records I still play but now its only at certain times.
Ha ha. I do weddings and obviously have to play baby got back A LOT. I fucking hate that song, but get a kick out of the variety of crowds that will go nuts over it. As for Kriss Kross, I have the Supercat remix of Jump and kinda like it.
I dunno alot fo the albums that i thought were incredible when i first heard them I still think are incredible.
So why would you conclude that the concept of "not aging well" is invalid, rather than that those are albums that just don't belong in the discussion?
Can you think of no album that you were once really into that just doesn't sound good anymore?
b/w
My nomination:
I agree not aging well is not invalid and its definately a case of alot of these albums don't fit the bill that are being nominated IMO.
As far as my own personal music I would have to think about it, but I always listened to that real schitt (haha) which IMO didn't turn into not aging well but more that they fell out of rotation. But thats why the first stuff that came to mind was more along the lines of the pop rap/music style. It was made for the masses and the time period it dropped and carried no weight hence doesn't hold up.
I would agree that J5 didn't hold up, but I have never bought their albums only a few singles here and there.
I dunno alot fo the albums that i thought were incredible when i first heard them I still think are incredible.
So why would you conclude that the concept of "not aging well" is invalid, rather than that those are albums that just don't belong in the discussion?
Can you think of no album that you were once really into that just doesn't sound good anymore?
b/w
My nomination:
That album along with Quality Control were enlightening for me. Stylistically it was something new, and I think that's why I really really liked both albums. And I hardly ever listen to those albums just cuz I don't get as excited over them. Now I like more grimy and gangsta rap stuff. AP said it best in the Waxpo article that you "you still like them. but you outgrow your relationships with them". I think that summarizes the "hasn't aged well" question. Like 10 years from now, I'm pretty sure I won't be listening to gangsta rap with the amount of fervor I do now. Gangsta rap empowers people that don't have nothing to do with the ghetto and gangsta life. And when that sense of empowerment/high/delusion wears off, you're left with only the stylistic element. Which is fun in the let's get drunk and party context, but maybe is far different from your lifestyle in the future. Listening to classical and going to operas may be part of your listening experience as well. Who knows. Okay, I'm ranting but you get the idea. I think people's taste in music is in great part determined by what they've listened up until that point, what their lifestyle is, and consequently what they seek in music at the time.
I dunno alot fo the albums that i thought were incredible when i first heard them I still think are incredible.
So why would you conclude that the concept of "not aging well" is invalid, rather than that those are albums that just don't belong in the discussion?
Can you think of no album that you were once really into that just doesn't sound good anymore?
b/w
My nomination:
That album along with Quality Control were enlightening for me. Stylistically it was something new, and I think that's why I really really liked both albums. And I hardly ever listen to those albums just cuz I don't get as excited over them. Now I like more grimy and gangsta rap stuff. AP said it best in the Waxpo article that you "you still like them. but you outgrow your relationships with them". I think that summarizes the "hasn't aged well" question. Like 10 years from now, I'm pretty sure I won't be listening to gangsta rap with the amount of fervor I do now. Gangsta rap empowers people that don't have nothing to do with the ghetto and gangsta life. And when that sense of empowerment/high/delusion wears off, you're left with only the stylistic element. Which is fun in the let's get drunk and party context, but maybe is far different from your lifestyle in the future. Listening to classical and going to operas may be part of your listening experience as well. Who knows. Okay, I'm ranting but you get the idea.
Dude, that record is embarassingly awful--it only sounds "new" if you haven't heard any quality old school rap.
Comments
I was noticing this too. Going back through my late 80s/ early 90s "alternative/college radio" records recently. Seems like a lot of the band's stuff on the small labels stands up better. I was listening to Document--which I always like--and it was kinda eh-- and then threw on Murmur and it definitely took me there.
just remembered Document was still on IRS.
I don't think people were hyped on it because of how GOOD it was as much as how groundbreaking it was in terms of sampling and the way a hip hop album is made. It has its place in the history of things but few people that I know ever go back and bump this shit like it's new.
id say poor aging has to do with the circumstance under which the record was released (current events, other music released during that time, etc) or the tastes of the listener progressing/regressing or expanding.
Timeless art isn't dependent on the time it was made to be relevant.
Seems like usually when '80s-era alt-rock bands made the transition from the indie to the major, the music sounded the same but the record was engineered to sound like Huey Lewis & the News.
word. i hear what your saying. I'm fan of their next two lps I'm a bit hit and miss with the rest of their stuff. prince Paul is one of my favourite producers.
but unlike disco that seems like a stylistic dead end whereas disco's death was based more on a certain marketable image/style ... musically disco continued via house/techno/hip-hop/pretty much all beat/dance influenced music and does to this day, now that we can trace these lines back it makes disco seem TIMELESS
That's one of the most important albums in any genre.
I still bump the whole thing st8 thru............once a year
I still think the phrase itself is a ambiguous term. Its kind reminds me of wine tasting and mofos make up shit like "tastes skeletal".
Perfect example.
I was deep into this when it came out but now I can only stand to listen to Brown Skin Lady (instrumental).
lol. or this one: TRIP HOP.
one of my fave bands in high school, can't even imagine throwing them on AT ALL these days.
i prefer to call it Downtempo. I got an early 90s Ninja Tune comp featuring
Dj Food, Up Bustle and Out, and others. It's quite good.
I still like some of the Ninja and Mowax stuff. What hasn't aged well IMHO is stuff like Galliano, Solsonics, Incognito, Mother Earth, etc.
good point!
You know, for this one, it's probably how completely and totally this sound was and continues to be bitten by producers, churning out poor imitations and diluting the brand.
may be after SST, but Bug and especially this one are great records:
This must be a generational thing, because this was
All three different "genres".
I think Portishead was one of the first Trip Hop joints. Correct me if im wrong.
Just sayin alot shti doesn't age well, but i would say alot of the stuff listed here while its not in contant rotation still stands up for the time period when it was released. blackstar may not be in rotation but as far as it aging well as a solid album? I think its still really dope for when it was released (at least production wise).
Tricky? Again production is crazy on that album and for the time period it still stands out right next to Portishead, even though I b arely listen to either of those albums anymore.
All about time an place and I don't think lack of rotation makes any of these albums poorly aged.
just my opinion though.
Good point. Are we talking about artists, albums, songs or genres here.
I can think of a few cases where the following happens:
Artist- Didnt age well
Album by same Artist - Didnt age well
SONG by artist - DID age well
Genre in which the artist worked - Didnt age well
Its all very relative.
Albums.
yeah, but even in 1992 we all knew that kris kross wasnt gonna get a box set, knowwhatimean? you EXPECT that to grow old ungracefully.
but when you listen to something that is supposedly "for the ages," like the indie-rock or rap CD's you were groovin' to while your younger sister was listening to joey lawrence, THAT'S when a record aging well (or not well) starts to matter.
I dunno alot fo the albums that i thought were incredible when i first heard them I still think are incredible. Yes they may not fit in the current landscape or may only speak to me in terms of the time period when I was listening to that record nonstop it doesn't mean I don't like it any less or think its any worse. But maybe I am misunderstanding the definition of "Aging well". and all fo those records I still play but now its only at certain times.
Ha ha. I do weddings and obviously have to play baby got back A LOT. I fucking hate that song, but get a kick out of the variety of crowds that will go nuts over it. As for Kriss Kross, I have the Supercat remix of Jump and kinda like it.
So why would you conclude that the concept of "not aging well" is invalid, rather than that those are albums that just don't belong in the discussion?
Can you think of no album that you were once really into that just doesn't sound good anymore?
b/w
My nomination:
I agree not aging well is not invalid and its definately a case of alot of these albums don't fit the bill that are being nominated IMO.
As far as my own personal music I would have to think about it, but I always listened to that real schitt (haha) which IMO didn't turn into not aging well but more that they fell out of rotation. But thats why the first stuff that came to mind was more along the lines of the pop rap/music style. It was made for the masses and the time period it dropped and carried no weight hence doesn't hold up.
I would agree that J5 didn't hold up, but I have never bought their albums only a few singles here and there.
Some other nominations:
Hair Metal ie. Poison, Skid Row
That album along with Quality Control were enlightening for me. Stylistically it was something new, and I think that's why I really really liked both albums. And I hardly ever listen to those albums just cuz I don't get as excited over them. Now I like more grimy and gangsta rap stuff. AP said it best in the Waxpo article that you "you still like them. but you outgrow your relationships with them". I think that summarizes the "hasn't aged well" question. Like 10 years from now, I'm pretty sure I won't be listening to gangsta rap with the amount of fervor I do now. Gangsta rap empowers people that don't have nothing to do with the ghetto and gangsta life. And when that sense of empowerment/high/delusion wears off, you're left with only the stylistic element. Which is fun in the let's get drunk and party context, but maybe is far different from your lifestyle in the future. Listening to classical and going to operas may be part of your listening experience as well. Who knows. Okay, I'm ranting but you get the idea. I think people's taste in music is in great part determined by what they've listened up until that point, what their lifestyle is, and consequently what they seek in music at the time.
Dude, that record is embarassingly awful--it only sounds "new" if you haven't heard any quality old school rap.