I frequently read in reviews that albums, like wine, have aged very well. I guess what they mean is that the album, over the years, has been increasingly appreciated and the music has continued to sound good, or even better. Conversely, albums that have not aged well contain music that you love when it was released, but cringe when you listen now. I'd like to get some thoughts on which albums have aged well, and which have not.
Personally, among many, a few I especially like are: Aged well Parachutes, Coldplay Surfacing, Sarah McLachlan Hopes & Fears, Keane Come Away With Me, Norah Jones The entire Cranberries catalogue
Aged badly Millenium, The Backstreet Boys Falling Into You, Celine Dion Oops I Did It Again, Britney Spears Dangerously In Love, Beyonce
I am open to disagreement with my list, I understand I may have selected some albums that are still well-loved, or not.
It is worth noting that one particular artist's albums, to me, never age. That artist is ENYA. For example, I can listen to her new release and then listen to The Memory of Trees, which is 14-years old, and not hear the difference (except maybe improvements in the technology of recording). It gives me the same sense of enchantment, almost like ancient magic. In contrast, most R&B/Rap and pop/dance don't seem to age well. For example, I don't think I can bear listening to current material by Lady Gaga, or some Beyonce, 10 years from now.
Thoughts? I'd also appreciate a better definition of "aged" if you could afford one.
Posts: 346 | Location: Australia | Registered: December 09, 2006
Firstly, I agree with you; Parachutes and Come Away With Me have aged very well.
Secondly, rap, R&B, pop and dance albums DO NOT age well. The albums you cited above are proof of that. I remember liking Mary J. Blige's Love and Life album when it first came out. Same with Janet Jackson's Damita Jo and Jamie Foxx's Unpredictable. Now all three of those albums are "unlistenable" for me. In fact, I traded all of those albums in years ago.
This whole issue is why I have a problem with doing best of the decade type lists. While I enjoy it, this ageing of albums/singles play a big factor. Albums that I loved/sounded great in the early 00's don't sound so good anymore. I think that's why my lists tend to dominate with albums from the last few years.
Originally posted by musicluva123: Pretty much any album released during the bubble gum pop era.
I completely agree. Those early Britney albums, Backstreet Boys, N Sync, Christina Aguilera's debut...all of those albums are horribly dated now. But I argue they never were that good to begin with.
Originally posted by Gucci: How does one exactly determine rather an album ages well or badly?
Easy. Pull out an album you haven't listened to in forever. Like pull out an album that was released in the early '00s. If the album still sounds hot and fresh, then it has aged well. If the songs sound stilted and dated, then the album probably hasn't aged well.
A lot of artists release "of the moment" albums. Nelly and Ashanti, for instance, are prime examples of this. Their most successful albums were very much "of the moment." Millions of people bought Nellyville and Ashanti and liked 'em. Both albums were guilty pleasures for me. But pull those bad boys out today. They're damn near unlistenable mainly because the production is dated (and not in the good, classic way.)
Originally posted by Gucci: How does one exactly determine rather an album ages well or badly?
I don't think you can, as I don't think there's any set criteria that determines what ages well/badly.
The whole thing seems perceptive.
Great question, Gucci. And I agree that it is subjective. However, one thing that could set apart music that has aged well and not aged well is the usage of instruments on the tracks. For example, I tend to think that strings and pianos age well, but beats change with time. It's the whole 'organic' versus 'digitized' sound. 'Organic', to me, is more likely to be evergreen.
I remember reading somewhere on this forum that Mariah Carey's "I Want To Know What Love Is", albeit a new song, is produced in an old sounding way. I agree - this song seems 'old' and I don't think will age well. As another example, Madonna's "Take A Bow" feels really old (1994/5) while The Cranberries' "Zombie" (1994) doesn't (in my view, of course).
I also think that 50s and 60s music has aged well while 80s and 90s music (especially pop & R&B) have not. Funny considering 50s and 60s music has been around for much longer.
Posts: 346 | Location: Australia | Registered: December 09, 2006
One album, I think that has aged perfectly is Janis Ian's classic album "Between the lines", this is the album that featured the hit song "At Seventeen", but the whole album is worth while and I really can listen to this album non stop 24/7 and never get tired of it.
Originally posted by musicluva123: A lot of the popular stuff today won't age well. The sound is changing too often.
Is that why we see the less popular stuff winning the big Grammys? We always complain how the winners for GF categories (ESPECIALLY Record of the Year) seems lacklustre. Could the fact that it would age well be a deciding factor for voters? It certainly helps explain why the urban tracks (arguably the most popular stuff right now) don't do so well in terms of winning, if this theory is true.
Posts: 346 | Location: Australia | Registered: December 09, 2006
when i hear "aged well" i think, if this album was released in today amidst what is popular now, with the same singles, against the newer artists and acts that are out, would the album have the similar or equal success like the initial release or would it get lost in the shuffle of the "new sound".
Tlc's CrazySexycool album for example is one i think could be released now and be straight number 1
This thread is definitely about personal taste and perception. That album you mention and I'm quoting here, in my very personal opinion, already sounded dated in 2000 (ducks for cover).
我爱音乐
Posts: 728 | Location: China | Registered: April 19, 2008
