Question for the younger crowd here (25 and below) What is your opinion of older recordings/sound?

Simon

/

funjunkie27

I think @Simon brings up an interesting point and makes me think that you can condense most of this to the technology and the moment. They can both advance, but if the technology advances while that moment hasn't, then you don't necessarily get a better outcome. And what I mean by the moment, if that didn't make sense, is the groove...the feel. That, to me, is much more difficult to advance than the technology, especially if it's the same artist. I've heard other artists make a cover of someone else's material and shape it in some very creative ways, but for the same artist to do so, with their own material, is pretty uncommon.

More important to me is to keep an open mind to new music as you get older. My parents wouldn't dream of listening to what interested me while growing up, but for as much as I love them, I'd have to say they lost out by being closed minded. I've tried to not fall into that mindset, although some of it stretches my abilities. Still, I recall what it was like when I grew up as a teen in the 70's....there was a lot of great music out there, but the vast majority of people were listening to disco, which I wasn't very fond of, and I think the same holds true at any point in time....popular music is generally fleeting, yet there are great artists in any generation.

My apologies to anyone who leans to the pop side of the spectrum. This is all subjective, and I can imagine you might feel as strongly about that as I do with the music I favor, and I do try to listen to that too, to pick up whatever I find interesting enough to steal from. ;-)

FrankieJay

This discussion reminds me of one song, The Living Years by Mike And The Mechanics. Also, probably untrue, I think the "young cats" are not as versatile in their listening habits as the "older dudes".

Having grown up in the 70s and listening to EW&F, Hendrix, The Commodores, Eric Clapton, Dr Nico and then the Neo Clssical guitar virtuosos (shredders) of the 80s, Satriani, Bob Marley and then the sounds of the aggressive 90s and to the underground sounds (distorted kicks and bleeps) of the 00s, if I could make one statement it is that the musical content of songs is not of primary significance for new music and most of the selling point has moved on to visuals. MTV et al.

Scantily clad divas now top all the charts. Twerking I love videos but image has taken over and musical content is seemingly of secondary importance. There are still some outstanding recordings being made though.

BTW, I am thinking of selling my collection of vinyl albums, well over 500. Maybe another thread for vinyls.

Mike and The Mechanics:

mmp

@Rhism LOL, I listened to the Stones and the Beatles when they were new...and I tended to turn up the treble and loudness (later on, my first stereo didn't have that of course) on my little stereo too!

Still, I think it's the performance and genius of the artists and composers-and yes, sometimes the producer and studio techs too-that is most important.

Recording technology and equipment comes a distant second IMHO. It's the people that make it come alive, whether it's an old 4-track or the latest in digital hi-tech gadgetry, an old beat-up acoustic or the most advanced synth.
But having said that, it (technology/equipment) is interesting and fun!

Rhism

@Simon agreed - I too have heard some "older" songs that the artist redid in a later decade which sounded decidedly worse to my ears. Although many times that was due to the artist trying to re-arrange the track with different instrumentation / volume balancing, rather than just trying to get the full spectrum of frequencies that would have been in the room during the original recording but was just never captured to tape due to the limitations of the technology, if you know what I mean? It's true of course that each decade has a sound, and Gimme Shelter would just not sound like Gimme Shelter if it was re-recorded all modern and bright-sounding... but... it probably sounded pretty bright in the studio when they recorded it.

@funjunkie27 "I've tried to not fall into that mindset, although some of it stretches my abilities" ... lol no kidding! Agreed with the angle on pop music. I've recently been trying to discover 'current' songs (i.e. released this year) that sound good to my ears, and switching a lot of XM radio stations in the process (I have XM for a few weeks, might as well make use of it). It was a bit eye-opening for me to go into the XM stations for 60s / 70s / 80s / 90s / 00s and realizing that since they're all under XM's "Pop" category, most of the time they play songs that I never cared for in the first place despite being from "my time". So yes - pop music has always been around and I do feel that it mostly has way less longevity than others...

As a semi-tangential question to this thread's topic, anyone willing to suggest me any rock or pop/rock songs from 2013 that are relatively well-known (i.e. an average person on the street might have heard them) yet sound relatively good and respectable to our oldies' ears?

Will

Did @rhism just turn this into a modern guilty pleasures thread? I'll play: Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake and Lady Gaga.

My 5 year old loves the booty bump pop station. Most of it is terrible but looking just beyond the veneer there occasionally some great songs and more often than not some great sounds. I actually hear a lot of innovation on pop radio.

Profile for reference: 42, generally prefer pop songs masquerading as noisy rock (My Bloody Valentine/Sonic Youth and their sonic torch carriers). But in the 80s I was all synth pop and DC hardcore. Indeed, Yazoo and Erasure sort of set the prototype for today's pop - dude with synths + dynamic vocalist. Band need not apply.

For modern pop but not on the pop stations you might check out Washed Out. He actually goes way over the top with compression but I think to great sonic effect. To my ears it sounds like a mix of 80s synth pop and 90s shoegaze so it's no wonder I like it.

Qmishery

@gjcyrus

So, what would you say?

gjcyrus

@qmishery - about what specifically? Just enjoying hearing other ppl's opinions on different era's sounds.

As mentioned in my first post, I appreciate different genres of music from different times. I enjoy learning how Phil Spector got his Wall of Sound from multiple guitarists stuck in the same room as well as how Dr Dre gets his kick to bump by monitoring at extremely loud volumes, how Kevin Shields got his guitar sound by using the tremolo bar (MBV fan here as well syrupcore), how Led Zeppelin recorded in an actual castle, or how Skrillex just draws in MIDI on Ableton.

I'd also be curious to learn how classical guitarists or Bossa Nova artists such as Joao Gilberto have their guitars miked or what type of drugs were Pink Floyd or Knife Party on when they recorded. All these little details interest me but was curious what a teenager thinks of these tiny details as I remember being blown away by the Ramones when I first heard them but can't stand Green Day (although I'd be lying if I said I haven't had 21 guns stuck in my head)

As others have mentioned, I too have heard songs that were re-recorded and the second recording just sucked despite it being "sonically" better as it just sounded sterile where maybe the first song, despite being recorded on cassette, captured the energy, or as funjunkie mentioned "the moment"