Does music become dated quicker because of digital?

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:01 am

I recently bought the 10th anniversay remastered Sasha & Digweed Renaissance mix CD's (originally from 1993 or so). Looking through the tracklistings, even on those CD's Sasha and Digweed were playing tracks from 1989 (4 years old in relation to the original compilations).

With the rapid growth of quality music being made available around the world thanks to things like digital downloads, and also the larger number of people making music with the latest sounds or updated production techniques, do you guys find that music is becoming 'dated' at a more rapid rate than before?

I guess another way to think of it would be.. are things such as iPods and whatnot making music more disposable?

Instead of finding original quality tracks, the closest thing I've found is are new remixes of them. Does a remix count as the original track or should it be perceieved as new music?

If I make a track now, will someone refuse to listen to it in 10 years time because the production isnt upto scratch?

These may sound like questions and rants on a cold day, but its what I think about quite often. I love hearing new music often because of the bigger, fuller sound.. How long can we keep this up?

jerry123 · Post by **jerry123** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:04 am

The song itself is much more likely to become dated. Sometimes I listen to 80's rock and wonder what it would sound like without that 80's snare. The reason I'm listening at all is the song itself.

DISUYE · Post by **DISUYE** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:46 am

> I guess another way to think of it would be.. are things such as
> iPods and whatnot making music more disposable?

Yes. Music is not something to be collected long-term anymore. It's wallpaper.

> Does a remix count as the original track or should it be perceieved as new music?

No. The reason for a remix to exist was down to the inspiration of the original track. If the original track wasn't created, then chances are the 'remix' would never have been created either. Therefore unseperable.

nuperspective · Post by **nuperspective** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:01 am

i dont agree in whole. back then sasha and digweed would have copies of track for months if not years before release. i would go to hear him play because i knew no one else would be playing the stuff he was playing. i remember having to wait maybe 14 months for some track to be made avaliable on vinyl. tracks such as: tilt - i dream, blue amazon - star of david, t'era - el tren. you just could not get your hands on them.

now the internet has changed all that. if sasha tries to break a track, the warm up dj at his next gig will probably have it in his box / hard drive. its not the same. the shelf life of a track is much, much shorter. the whole promo release cycle has changed. but... ...classic tracks will always be classic tracks. granted the timeline of exposure is much shorter. due to most clubbers having the tracks at home within months.

because of the rapid pace. things are changing really quickly. everyone is looking for the new big sound. and quality control is going out the window. but... ...classic tracks will always be classic tracks. yes you do have to look that bit closer but theres good stuff out there.

trouble is i just dont like this electro tinged sound that running through everything today. some of these tracks could be classic tracks [mylo - in my arms] and will probably become a classic of the time. dont get me wrong i like electro i'm a major depeche mode fan. but i'm in no doubt that theres some major league good stuff being overlooked that could easliy be future classics.

tracks become classics because they become a part of your subconsious and that takes time. unfortunatley, in the current climate this usually doesnt happen.

nuperspective · Post by **nuperspective** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:05 am

just to take up the production point. its incredible how 'thin' tracks sound from only 6 or 7 years ago. listen to some of bt's early stuff, its paper thin beside hes later tracks. as to what the techniques are and how they have changed i'm not sure. it might be one or two plugins have made the difference.

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:19 am

nuperspective wrote:just to take up the production point. its incredible how 'thin' tracks sound from only 6 or 7 years ago. listen to some of bt's early stuff, its paper thin beside hes later tracks. as to what the techniques are and how they have changed i'm not sure. it might be one or two plugins have made the difference.

I concur. Some of it will definately be 'bigshot' matering engineers and really high end equipment becoming available to electronic musicians.

However one group who's music has always sounded fat or should i say Phat is Daft Punk. Their kicks and basses just cain over any other productions. Especially their stuff from 7 to 9 years ago.

I can feel a Daft Punk track coming on through my body not my ears.

amo · Post by **amo** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:57 am

sweetjesus wrote:
nuperspective wrote:just to take up the production point. its incredible how 'thin' tracks sound from only 6 or 7 years ago. listen to some of bt's early stuff, its paper thin beside hes later tracks. as to what the techniques are and how they have changed i'm not sure. it might be one or two plugins have made the difference.
I concur. Some of it will definately be 'bigshot' matering engineers and really high end equipment becoming available to electronic musicians.

However one group who's music has always sounded fat or should i say Phat is Daft Punk. Their kicks and basses just cain over any other productions. Especially their stuff from 7 to 9 years ago.

I can feel a Daft Punk track coming on through my body not my ears.

Yeah I guess it depends, different bands/tracks, different stories. There are a lot of tracks or songs that for their inneer songwriting quality or production quality that for me are not outdated. Take Protection album from Massive Attack. First song is still a good standart of noce mix, full range and beauty of voice treatment for me. One reason is that I listened to it as a standart many times in many studios and all, but still, that kick is there and would not be better nowadays, and so on - 1991 if I'm right ?

Then I have a bunch of electronic ambient vinyls from 1993 to 1998, most still sound good and I would play them today if I get a chance.

Depends on styles too... Some music styles took long to achieve their production level standarts, or evolved a great bunch. If you take Hallucinogen goa trance from 1995 and then modern goa trance, nothing to do, it absolutely doesn't compare. But I feel the 1995 stuff is not really outdate, in the sense that it is still good music and the thin kind of sounds is what allows it to be pleasant music, though very powerfull. I hate modern goa trance, mainly (only personnal taste), though it is productionwise very full on, but musically, I find it so poor.... But I'm drifting from original subject I think.

Kind regards to all,
amo

donnydonny · Post by **donnydonny** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:07 am

i think it's the qualities of the music that become dated. 80's rock for example, the big room snare was very definitive in every ballad. however rock is still around and sounds completely different then it did 20, 10, 5 years ago. i think the purest forms of music that are very straight forward with no other influential genres are the ones that become dated and constantly re-evolve their sound.

i can listen to old prodigy and bt albums and have absolutely no idea what era those songs existed in aside from knowing when i first heard/bought them. i think the more multi-genre influences you have in your music (not necessarily having noticable parts noticable in the song... i.e., manipulating a house groove or breaks into a trance tune), the less dated your music will sound in the long run.

djsynchro · Post by **djsynchro** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:29 am

Why?

If the answer is yes, are you going to go back to only using analogue?

You know that before they invented the Linn drumcomputer, they sometimes would record a drummer playing a disco beat and then make a tapeloop of 1 bar and record that? I think Giorgio Moroder did that for a Donna Summer album.

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:39 am

djsynchro wrote:Why?

If the answer is yes, are going to go back to only using analogue?

You know that before they invented the Linn drumcomputer, they sometimes would record a drummer playing a disco beat and then make a tapeloop of 1 bar and record that? I think Giogio Moroder did that for a Donna Summer album.

If only Live would run on an abacus...

djsynchro · Post by **djsynchro** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:42 am

sweetjesus wrote: If only Live would run on an abacus...

... you'd never use complex mode again!

nuperspective · Post by **nuperspective** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:48 am

sweetjesus wrote:

If I make a track now, will someone refuse to listen to it in 10 years time because the production isnt upto scratch?

i dont know if that would be the case. 'pet sounds' has a sound of its own done with the technology of the time. the same with any led zep album. the production methods fit the time. while the music still stands out. it will be the same this era.

nolus · Post by **nolus** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:50 pm

"Nothing grows old faster than a new sound" (to quote someone who's name I can't remember).

But a good song will stand the test of time.

Question is, why do you make music? to create art? to get rich? to appear cool? you can only judge your success against your own motivations.

Most people write music for now not for posterity. But if they accidentally write a good song while trying to appear trendy, it will be listened to by future generations.

djsynchro · Post by **djsynchro** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:55 pm

nuperspective wrote:
If I make a track now, will someone refuse to listen to it in 10 years time because the production isnt upto scratch?

I love the sound of old Peggy Lee records! So warm sounding, no multitracking everything recorded in one take - orchestra with conductor in the studio. Reverb from tiled echo chamber in the basement.

Same for the Beatles, hardly hifi but so great, they didn't have panpots but switches, everything is panned hard left/right. (Great for sampling!)

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:31 pm

djsynchro wrote:
nuperspective wrote:
If I make a track now, will someone refuse to listen to it in 10 years time because the production isnt upto scratch?
I love the sound of old Peggy Lee records! So warm sounding, no multitracking everything recorded in one take - orchestra with conductor in the studio. Reverb from tiled echo chamber in the basement.

of course that sound became 'old fashioned' . In the late 60's their equivalent of the 'phat' (?) sound was to use eastern instruments or at least twelvestrings and production-wise to layer your record with 'modern' sounds like flanging. come 1975 anyone layering their tracks with sitars and flanging was an old hippy.

it's all fashion, both in the writing and the production - we may laugh and wonder at hair-rock era 1980's scream vocalisation, or perhaps super thin early 90's digital production ... but they'll be baaa-aaack!

Essentially it's all cyclical. Or more acurately a spiral - with each incarnation and re-discovery of old styles feeding off the previous version and mutating it.

right now in england : guitar bands try to sound like they come from early 70's california (!)

Does music become dated quicker because of digital?

Does music become dated quicker because of digital?

Re: Does music become dated quicker because of digital?