Boards

Some things can be good purely in terms of musicianship etc. but a lot of (if not most) records are tied to their context - especially in terms of experimentation with new equipment/forging a new sound (then it's relatively easy for another band to come along and make an accomplished-sounding record that took none of the risks). Musicians also react according to the cultural climate of the time, so without the absurd Stepford Wives type do-gooder vibe given off by pop acts in the '60s the Rolling Stones no longer seem as subversive for example.
There's a lot to be said for not overstating cultural & musical context to hype shitty records but it can't and shouldn't be ignored because it's important!

PS I (think I) get that the whole now new sounds since 1989 thing was a joke/trolling but come on, really?

so obviously this is mostly a joke post, but mostly this subject is moot because there's no such as good to reference through time. It's all subjective opinion, wherein the individual's appreciation is dependent upon context and where music fits in relation to other musics, and as such it entirely makes sense that for an individual (or group of individuals) the meaning, `worth` and `quality` will depend on not only what they hear, but when they hear it, what else they've heard, how it's described by cultural critics, whether their friends like it, etc, etc, etc. In short, no.

For example: "What is this 2007? Not having any of that"

Morons

that you don't get when something is a re-tread. In a lot of cases then if music sounds like what's gone before it betrays a lack of creative invention that effects the whole thing.

You're right that music is either good or it isn't, but first impressions count for a lot, and hearing something that is good and original is always more enjoyable than hearing something that's just good.

I think Jamie Lidell's new record would have been really good in '95, but being that it came out this week, it's an absolutely boring record that I'm probably never going to listen to again.

Time is a beautiful context when it comes to music. And it works both ways, really. It's like watching old sci-fi movies. Tron and Star Wars were GROUNDBREAKING, but they look like shit now. As such, there are loads of records that have not withstood the test of time. Sometimes, an album was just born in the wrong place.

Some records just weren't made for these times.

It still looks astonishigly cool.

Good music is good music. Also, I don't listen to Loveless because it was groundbreaking in 1991, I listen to it because I like the sound of it and I like the melodies.

Presume we are just talking guitar music here?

and there's no such thing as objectively good music
therefore the argument that 'it would have been good then but isn't so good now' is perfectly valid

but also your 1989 quip sort of shows that you agree with the idea. I mean the only reason people say stuff like this is because they're the sort of person who's always seeking out new music and new ideas. I loved Britpop when I was at Uni but I don't really have time for bands that sound like that now, I want to hear stuff that is new to me. As a result I was a big fan of John Talabot's album last year but I remember a thread on here where it was plain that dance music fans weren't so bothered.

And the same is true with old bands doing new records, where as a new listener I can really get into them but a lot of older fans tend not to have the time to get into it or else the fact that the band really just rips themselves off is of no interest to them.

But going back to Britpop, I know a bunch of people from Uni who still live that sort of sound. They're big Coldplay fans and probably are into that sort of band right now (the Vaccines even? Who knows?) because that's their sort of thing. I think the majority of music fans like to enjoy the same sort of thing. It's just a few of us annoying bastards that care a lot.

sure other people do as well

cos over the past couple of years they've become incredibly trendy again, but 15 years ago they certainly weren't cool and if you'd gone on about Rumours people would have thought you were into the sort of stuff their dads listened to.

Also it's easy to write music that would have been good in X decade. Like all these dull indie pop bands around at the moment making music so restricted in it's purposeful mediocrity- yeah, it could have been genuinely great 25 years ago, but now it just sounds like a pastiche of bands from 25 years ago. Which it is.

A more obvious example- write a really good, authentic sounding delta blues song, with a biting lyric and a really raw and powerful recording. It will NEVER be comparable to genuine delta blues music, because it's not a product of that time, it wasn't developed spontaneously as music should- it was studied then recreated. It says nothing about its creator, other than that they listened to a lot of southern blues music.

I don't really know where I'm going with this but basically- you can't write a song that sounds like a Beatles song then get upset when people don't hold it in the same esteem as a Beatles song. Which isn't even what you were saying, I know, but whatever. It's just a general comment. It's been a long day. Anyway, in my opinion, songwriters should write for now or not at all. Context is everything.

I think clearly it probably is possible to have a hard time getting your head around a record on account of the cultural baggage it's saddled with, but in general the idea that you'd enjoy a record if it was from one year but not from another strikes me as pretty ridiculous - that's being a historian, not a music fan, surely.

Cool.

Anyway, you sound just like my dad complaining about how much previous music he could hear in the Pixies album I thought was so amazing. Not every record, book, film or stool needs to be something groundbreaking. Sometimes it's enough just to write a nice song. Other times it's perfectly acceptable to have fun remaking the same sound some irrelevant old bastard tried to make 100 years ago for people your own age.

if an album like Ten by Pearl Jam came out now - sounding just the way it does now - would you consider its Bon Jovi production and histrionic delivery perfectly acceptable because the song writing is solid or would you think it sounds like it came out in 1991 and that that sound isn't quite right in 2013