Didn't age well...

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Hammond organs = 70's
Synths = 80's
Scratching/sampling in rock = 90's

Whenever something new comes along, it gets overused to the point of dating the music. It's not always a bad thing, it just is. Not sure what element has defined the '00s yet, but something will pop-up.

And Hammond's are making a comeback now (or at least really good synth versions of a Hammonds in some cases), people always return to the source of a sound, the Hammond Organ was a staple in jazz since the early 50's, rock bands picked up on it in the 60's and 70's...fell out of a favor in the 80's, but now you can hear it all over the place again.

Mellotron has also made a comeback, but those are almost always digital recreations of what a Mellotron sounded like. They haven't made the actual devices in ages, but that "sound" has been rediscovered as something cool again.

The sound of a mellotron or Hammond doesn't sound nearly dated to me as synths do.

For me, it's the ska/punk stuff I was wild about nearly 10 years ago or more. Stuff like Reel Big Fish, Goldfinger, Mustard Plug, etc.

Most of that has not aged well at all IMO.

The one exception for me would be Less Than Jake. Somehow, most of their releases still sound more like punk with horns as opposed to trying to be ska/punk.

Limp Bizkit,Linkin Park, St. Anger and God Hates Us All for the nu-metal detuned guitar sounds and lack of guitar solos.

detuned wrote:

The sound of a mellotron or Hammond doesn't sound nearly dated to me as synths do.

ditto.

to me that whole angry chick-Alannis Morrisette-Lillithfair-indigogirls-Sarah McGlocklin-out of tune/out of key female vocalist alternative thing from the 90's. I didnt like it then and I hate it with a passion now. I wish it would go away but it seems to be here to stay.

Two albums right off the bat that have aged terribly over the last 2 or so decades are Whitesnake's 1987 and Slip of the Tongue.

Gah!! Most of 1987 is cringe-worthy with all those soft synth ballads that make David Coverdale sound more like Michael Bolton (another artist whose music has not aged very well).

While Slip of the Tongue did offer listeners a platter of heavier more guitar based songs, much of the material on there sounds like a 2nd rate glam band. The trend of re-recording songs that started with 1987 did not help either. Nevertheless, Slip of the Tongue produced possibly the best and only good Whitesnake song from this era: Sailing Ships.

Wow...some of the albums ya'll think have aged badly I think still rule...haha!!

It depends what you mean by an album that sounds dated. By today's production standards, most of everything released in the 70s, 80s and 90s will sound dated. However, I think the term dated is more about whether the music still holds up many years after it was originally written and recorded, and that imo is a tough one because it generally depends on what you like and how you (still) connect with that same piece of music.

Crazy as this sounds, I can totally understand someone who feels most of Iron Maiden's 80s album sound dated. If you were in the younger demographic back when Maiden were at their creative peak and you had a personal connection with those albums based on your age, surroundings, friends etc. revisiting them is likely to invoke very different feelings now compared to 2 - 3 decades ago.

It also has to do with current trends. For a while, especially back in the 1990s, anything that had come out in the 1980s (especially metal) was seen by many as uncool. A decade later came a new generation of music fans that discovered and fell in love with 1980s music. Evidence of that abound - from bands playing retro-style 80s glam to retro-style 80s thrash.

Honestly, production from the mid 80's is much worse than albums recorded in the 60's and 70's. Early digital recordings, prior to nailing the technology down, sounded terrible. Then one they finally got the recording tech down...then they started messing up the mastering by destroying all dynamic range by limiting the albums to death.

There's a reason many bands are going back to recording all analog, it SOUNDS WAY BETTER.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I think allot of bands that were big in the 70's kinda lost their direction (and balls) when they moved into the 80's. New technology and the desire to remain current really neutered their sound. The same way big 80's acts tried to remain relevent in the grunge-era 90's. In both cases, sometimes it worked, most times it didn't.

I think that a lot of the glory 70s bands did some of their best albums during the 80s. Exemple:APRIL WINE, UFO, NAZARETH, DEEP PURPLE, BLACK SABBATH, TED NUGENT, JUDAS PRIEST, KISS, URIAH HEEP etc...but a lof of young fans prefered younger bands like IRON MAIDEN, MOTLEY CRUE, METALLICA or WASP for exemple during the 80s.

metalhead777 wrote:

Everything by metallica

.....What?

Mercy Rule-Overruled. I spent ages tracking down a CD copy of this a few years ago, only to be really disappointed with the sound. They were good in their time, but it's not held up well.

Most of Nocturnal Rites back catalgue.

Mglaffas81 wrote:

metalhead777 wrote:

Everything by metallica

.....What?

I hate the new stuff and everything old feels dated. Not much to say, I'v never really liked metallica anyway. In my opinion they'v never had more than 2-5 good songs on every album before load. since then nothing they make has been good

Quote :

Wow...some of the albums ya'll think have aged badly I think still rule...haha!!

+1

I agree with the Body Count record. Despite it seeming like a can't miss project for me (one of my favorite rappers forming a metal band in 1991) I never could really get into it. I so wanted to love it, and probably even fooled myself for awhile that it was something great. Every time I decide to break it out it ends up back on the shelf just a few songs in. The title track I still love due to it being the song that my buddies and I would fire up to before a night out way back when.

I think one of my biggest problems with it is that the thing that made Ice T work as a rapper (cool, laid back delivery) ran completely counter to being the lead singer of a metal band. But man did he ever try.

Rage of Angels...... s/t .....

Angelica ..... s/t

Sacred Warrior - Masters Command

Shout - In Your Face

X-Sinner - Get It



I still like them... but very much of an era....

mr.electric39 wrote:

X-Sinner - Get It

I think this one has aged better than their PEACE TREATY album at any rate...

and how bout X-Sinner dude Rex Scott's former band, Zion? That THUNDER FROM THE MOUNTAIN record... good grief. When you listen to that one nowadays, make sure you have a bottle of wine handy to go with all the cheese.

thunder from the mountain was easily a step up from rock for eternity, too, haha! i oughta listen to tftm sometime soon. i must live in the past. i find this thread fun partly because.....if a new band comes along and puts out a metal record that sounds like its from the mid 80s (and its a good record with plenty to offer, as opposed to boring, recycled or watered down riffs, etc) im like "sh*t yeah!" thrash your anachronistic hearts out.

krokus wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

I think allot of bands that were big in the 70's kinda lost their direction (and balls) when they moved into the 80's. New technology and the desire to remain current really neutered their sound. The same way big 80's acts tried to remain relevent in the grunge-era 90's. In both cases, sometimes it worked, most times it didn't.

I think that a lot of the glory 70s bands did some of their best albums during the 80s. Exemple:APRIL WINE, UFO, NAZARETH, DEEP PURPLE, BLACK SABBATH, TED NUGENT, JUDAS PRIEST, KISS, URIAH HEEP etc...but a lof of young fans prefered younger bands like IRON MAIDEN, MOTLEY CRUE, METALLICA or WASP for exemple during the 80s.

I think some folks would argue a few of those picks. Ted Nugent, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath specifically, but hey, it's all personal preference. April Wine were never good.

Leviticus

Quote :

Hammond organs = 70's
Synths = 80's
Scratching/sampling in rock = 90's

Whenever something new comes along, it gets overused to the point of dating the music. It's not always a bad thing, it just is. Not sure what element has defined the '00s yet, but something will pop-up.

LeMorte d'Arthur wrote:

Pro Tools = '00s

Or Auto-tune. Not sure how much that gets used in rock music (probably more than we think), but there will definately be a time when we look back to a brief era where every Top 40 radio hit features auto-tuned vocals.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Or Auto-tune. Not sure how much that gets used in rock music (probably more than we think)

MUCH more than anyone thinks...anything you hear on the radio (vocally) was more than likely, at the very least, dialed in just a touch. Let's face it, aside from the new Foo Fighters, EVERYONE records on a computer these days...but that's not to say that everyone is using the full on Cher/Kid Rock "robot vocals" thing.

Everything is lined up to a click, drums are sound-replaced (and in many cases programmed...programmed drums are MUCH MUCH harder to pick out now than they used to be), and even the best vocalists have to be "touched up" a bit here and there...many times for the sake of the performance. If 95% of a take is really good in terms of delivery and vibe, but one little note is a little off, the engineer will dial it in when possible rather than have the singer re-sing the entire part.

Pro Tools was already common in studios by 1995. In 1996 I toured Bad Animals studio in Seattle, they were doing all mixing and mastering in Pro Tools.

detuned wrote:

Pro Tools was already common in studios by 1995. In 1996 I toured Bad Animals studio in Seattle, they were doing all mixing and mastering in Pro Tools.

Pro-Tools yes...but I don't think computerized pitch correction was being used regularly until a little later.

Plus, Pro-Tools isn't the only game in town in terms of digital recording...there's Motu, Cubase, Cakewalk, etc...not all digital studios use Pro-Tools exclusively anymore...like anything else, when one thing gets big, competition starts.

Quantizing drum parts was already common (I learned it in school), as was adding trigger effects to kick drum hits (which started in the 80's), etc.

Cakewalk and the others were just starting, but in the early days Pro Tools kind of had the market cornered. These days of course technology has moved on and there are countless programs to choose from.

However, this is the reason why I listen to alot of retro bands. Albums recorded in a few days, played about 90% live, minimal overdubs, all vintage gear, analog effects, etc.

detuned wrote:

Pro Tools was already common in studios by 1995. In 1996 I toured Bad Animals studio in Seattle, they were doing all mixing and mastering in Pro Tools.

I remember having a copy of Pro Tools in our audio room at work back in the late 90's. We never had much use for it though. Not even sure why we had it honestly. Only one guy knew how to use it and he just edited out swear words in songs so we cold play them out to the arena.