Prog albums that didn't age well

boo boo wrote: Well I still don't get it how something being distinctly of their time is a criticism. In fact, it's that 70s sound that got me into prog in the first place. I'm 23 years old, so I never lived in the 70s. I grew up on Korn and Limp Bizkit and Eminem, I was a 90s kid. So prog, no matter how "dated" it was, was something entirely new to me.   Who wants their music to be modern anyway? I mean, considering just how fantastic modern rock music is and all. Give me the old dated stuff, it takes me to another time and place, I like that.

Yeah but the whole point is that it's not necessarily a criticism. If the album is distinctly of its time in a way that the listener finds aesthetically objectionable, then it's a criticism. For example, drum machines. I have never heard any musician say, "Man, drum machines were one of the highlights of 80s music! I wish rock bands today still used that low quality, artificial sound!" Instead, many will find that a rock album heavy on 80s drum machines sounds dated. It is, to many people, a negative reflection of the time period, and will likely be an obstacle in their attempts to appreciate the music on the album.

That being said, it is still quite possible for an album to reflect the sound of it's time period in a good way; as you said with 70s music, and in other instances as well. The topic is not "Prog albums that didn't age," it's "Prog albums that didn't age well." The fact that something has aged is not always a bad thing.

EDIT: Also, I think Nuke is bang-on about auto-tune. Interesting, I never thought of it that way.


Edited by KingCrimson250 - May 26 2009 at 07:40

Let me throw my agreement in with KingCrimson250. Dated to me means that it exemplifies the bad parts of a time period. Lots of stuff sounds old, but that doesn't mean it's dated. DIsco music is more dated to me than 70's prog, despite it being newer. Every song with autotune in 10 years will also sound very dated. 

Yeah, but I would say that it is a mostly subjective evaluation. I think it would be extremely difficult to say "This album is dated. End of discussion." but then I don't think that's what he's asking. I guess in one sense it is a useless discussion then, because different things will sound dated to different people, but as always, there is plenty of room for persuading opposite opinions, if one happens to be of that mindset

boo boo wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Raff wrote: Perhaps I'm odd, but this 'dated' thing has never been a big issue with me. Obviously, many Seventies albums sound way different from those recorded now, but that's part and parcel of the experience. In my very limited view of the world, there's music I like, and music I don't like, and that's all... And I'm afraid this is another of those threads that offers people a ready excuse to bash music they don't like with the excuse that it hasn't 'aged well' (makes me think of wine ). I agree entirely. I wouldn't say anything sounds 'dated'.   Yeah.   What does that even mean anyway? Dated. Just about everything is distinctly of it's time. I can listen to Beethoven and it sounds very 19th century to me. I can listen to old Rock N' Roll records and of course it sounds like the 50s. Psychedelic rock sounds like the 60s, New Wave sounds like the 80s. And Prog sounds like the 70s. But so does everything that came from that decade. How is prog any more dated than glam rock or southern rock or funk or whatever?   Really I don't understand the meaning of the term. I don't care if mellotrons and moogs are "dated". They're still cool to me. I listen to music because I like it, I don't waste time comparing the production techniques of bands from different eras, griping about how musicians in the 1930s didn't have the advanced production values that we do now.

To me an album that is dated isn't necessarily an album that shows its age, but rather an album that shows its age poorly. There are certain aspects of every time period that get stamped onto the music, and some are more enjoyable than others. If the less desirable elements of the time period are present enough on the album that it presents an additional challenge in appreciating the music, than this is an album that has aged poorly. That does not make it a bad album, but it does mean that it has come out from under the weight of the years seeming a bit worse for wear. An album that has aged well, on the other hand, is something that might still sound very much like its time period, but in a good way.

There's a difference between the two. I'm sure you've heard the same person say, on seperate occasions, "Ugh, this sounds like it's from the 70s" and "Hey! This has a cool, retro, 70s sound." Some songs might carry the positive sounds from the 70s, others might be stamped more heavily with its dark side.

For example, I find Dream Theater's Images and Words aged very, very poorly. It's an excellent album, but everything that was bad about the late 80s and early 90s popped up on that album - the production, synth sounds, guitar tones, etc. Learning to Live is one of my favourite songs by the band, but it is pure cheese, especially the clean guitar and synthesizer. It sounds very, very dated. That being said, I still find it an excellent song, but it took me a few listens to get around the surface-level horrendousness of it.

So determining how well an album has aged is asking just that. All albums have aged since their release, obviously, but is it noticeable? If so, is it a positive or a negative? If negative, is it so bad that it makes it difficult to listen to?

verslibre wrote: That Yesterdays CD is great. A left-fielder. Young band, too.

MovingPictures07 wrote: Raff wrote: Perhaps I'm odd, but this 'dated' thing has never been a big issue with me. Obviously, many Seventies albums sound way different from those recorded now, but that's part and parcel of the experience. In my very limited view of the world, there's music I like, and music I don't like, and that's all... And I'm afraid this is another of those threads that offers people a ready excuse to bash music they don't like with the excuse that it hasn't 'aged well' (makes me think of wine ). I agree entirely. I wouldn't say anything sounds 'dated'.

Edited by boo boo - May 21 2009 at 23:30

el böthy wrote: But maybe the one prog act that has aged worst is the Moody Blues, at least in my ears.

Just about everything I've heard from  the Alan Parsons Project sounds incredibly dated to me, even though I like them. I'm only 19 and have only been getting into prog that past couple years, and really VERY few bands I encounter sound dated to me, though certain eighties metal (Queensryche, Crimson Glory, Savatage) are only too obviously eighties metal.

I usually consider something dated when I know a modern progger wouldn't like a band from an earlier time period because it sounds so much like a ton of the other music made at the time, but the whole point of prog is to avoid that I think, so you find very few dated sounding prog bands.

Manuel wrote: Swan Song wrote: I can put it in two ways, in somewhat of a contradiction. 1. From the major prog sub-genres, Symphonic Prog is the style that's bringing the least interesting and fresh ideas to the bands which are using it in the "by-the-book" style. 2. However, all the major Symphonic Prog albums keep offering me wonderful, refreshing experiences, almost 40 years after being written. Therefore, I think it's not a problem inherent to the style, but to the approach of those bands I mentioned at No.1. Anyone got a better solution to my riddle?   Not that I think I have a better solution, but an explanation. What I will call "Classic Prog" was composed with the intention of creating the best music possible. What I call "Generic Prog", which by the way includes most of the prog music of today, is composed to create "prog". Given that the music lacks the "Originality" that the "Clasic Prog" had, is instead trying to recreat that sound/style from those original bands, and that's why the music seems to have very few original ideas and sounds less interesting than the old/original prog music. I remember listening to Genesis, Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, Yes Camel, etc. and not necessarily prog. Later on, the label prog was added, and a genre was created, and now, you must sound prog to be considered prog, which is different from the original bnads, who created the best music they could, without being interested in being prog, classic rock, fusion, or whatever.