Does the "fake" music of the 80s sound less dated than the naturalistic stuff?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

When I first went on slsk, I downloaded loads of stuff that's collecting dust at home in cassette & vinyl format. That means that much of the music is from the 80s. Right now, I'm listening to some Cocteaus .mp3s that I downloaded.

I'm struck by how the sound is so dated that it's un-dated. And it makes me wonder why I don't listen to more "natural" sounds from the 80s anymore (whether underground or more mainstream, "college" rock).

I remember listening to this stuff with some embarrassment back then, thinking that all of those big hair sounds would become dated in two years. And it did, but there's something about the fact that this stuff is so of-its-time that makes it more enduring for me.

This is probably a dumb question, but I want to read other people's experiences with this. I remember justifying my Cocteau love because I felt they were really a Gothy ABBA.

I think the fake lasts much longer! And it's more compatible with the contemporary on my hard drive.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

As dated as the big reverb sound of the 80s is, during this new wave of 80's madness some people call electroclash, noone's been able to really capture the essence of glitter, decadence, hairspray, and reverb that we hear in our favorite music of that period. the closest i've spotted is the future bible heroes, but even theyve got a long way to go.

― Felcher (Felcher), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:12 (twenty-two years ago)

That's what I mean - when people go back, they want to recover and re-assess things that didn't get a fair shake the first time around. I can understand that, but I don't think it works. Doesn't faking the fake cancel out the appealing fakeness that was there in the first place? Does the whole thing turn on a notion of a "correct" way to do the 80s, and isn't that really inherently anti-80's?

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

That said, I think Ladytron have some songs that really do work and hit the same spots as the old stuff, but maybe it's because they sound so minimal and effortless.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

taking sides: scritti politti vs. anything on slash in the early-mid 80s

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Scritti, baby, no digitti.

― Sean Thomas (sgthomas), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:27 (twenty-two years ago)

"fake" always sounds dated in the short run

80s pop has been disassembled and reassembled so ruthlessly, efficiently, and often into 90s-00s pop that you can hardly see the joins anymore

it kinda makes sense that 00s hipster revivalists are focusing so much on surface fakeness since they can't pinpoint necessarily where it's been assimilated into "the modern music"

all i guess it means is that in 20 years we'll have lots bands with black bowl cuts releasing jittery drum programming r&b with baby gurgling noises

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:30 (twenty-two years ago)

When I was in high school, Slash was for the fashionable decadent coke-sniffing abortion-having rich kids, while Scritti et al. were for the "band fags" and "choir queers" (I was a choir queer). I'll admit to having listened to Slash bands, though. But it looks like the choir queers have triumphed! The angular rich kids are all in their tenth rehab.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's true of any time period -- but yeah, especially the 80s, when all sorts of new production techniques were floating around. The average record is meant to sound both "natural" and "up-to-date," which leaves everything from that era sounding incredibly dated: it's what passed for "natural" at a very specific moment in time. Except yeah, like you say: plenty of acts just ran with the unnaturalisms of the moment. And while technically that stuff can sound stylistically dated -- you know when it's from -- you'd never bother calling it "dated," because it's not like they were trying to hide it: it's dated in the good way, working interesting things out of the sonic trends of the time. Records that want to sound somewhat natural and timeless but want to get there in the most modern way they can: those are the ones that wind up sounding like they're faking something. Those are the ones that sound like they think they're being real, while a thousand contemporary production decisions shout otherwise right behind them, making them look awfully silly.

I think it's a distinction between levels of style. Like Jess says, the "fake" sounds dated in the short term, because the style of its fakeness expires. But further down the road, the question has nothing to do with time: it's whether or not the fakenesses those particular acts were working with were interesting ones or not.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Ladytron comes close. Really, though, the 1999+ Eighties sound is far too videogame - I think that people are too accustomed to synthesizers now, and few producers are layering the chorus and reverb on top of synths the way they did during the early days of synth pop and new wave. That and the fact that everybody remembers keyboards and nobody remembers the pastel guitars, run through the amp clean and then reverbed and chorused all to shit to make them mix well with the heavily-treated synths. If you listen to the OG you'll notice that everything is heavily effected; it's very rare to find even an unadulterated human voice from that period/style. Nowadays people use distorted radio vox, atari beeps clean as you can be, ixnay on the guitar and bass guitar - lots of misremembered history as far as I can tell. That and insipid posturing that encompasses far too much irony to be anywhere near as interesting as the original New Wave et al. (W.I.T. versus Bananarama - tough one eh er no)

I got about halfway into giving a shit about electroclash and the early-80s style resurgence thing when I realized I'd be better off getting the original tunes than the imitators. I even went to see The Faint live in DC and I still don't feel like I'm missing anything.

― Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:39 (twenty-two years ago)

...and what would be today's equivalent of that sort of "pretentious" (in a good way), romantic, indulgent pop? It wouldn't be revivalist, and it wouldn't give a shit about technological puritanism.

I like Ladytron because they are kind of romantic and dark - they're very reverent about what they're working with.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

it wasn't just the slash bands that had the "we're naturalistic not manufactured" schtick. that was also the selling point for the smiths, lest we forget.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:42 (twenty-two years ago)

before anybody calls me out on confusing Bananarama with New Wave I'd just like to point out that was not the comparison I was trying to make and it's your fault for misreading the parenthetical

― Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

it's funny because what millar describes is probably the only way that modern/hip-hop production values have filtered into electroclash/nu-wave: all those impeccable loops, defender pings and pongs (which could slot right into the first kelis album), everything have equal space in the mix, even the buzzsaw bass.

kerry, i think i'd probably nominate the self-titled aaliyah record irt to yr last point

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

...and what would be today's equivalent of that sort of "pretentious" (in a good way), romantic, indulgent pop?

HA I wish we had some, I might give a shit about new music

― Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

The hair people were attacked so viciously in the eighties for latching onto every new piece of gear (maybe they thought it was too materialistic and therefore Reaganite). I think I absorbed some of this dogma at some point, but now I see that it worked beautifully for them.

It just further confirms my belief that many of the people who took extreme and obsessive anti-Reagan postures just ended up looking like Reaganites. Whereas the hair people were actually creating something, not merely reacting.

Oh, and Tad - the Smiths were exactly the band I was thinking of. I just can't listen to them anymore, and I haven't listened to them since those records came out (and I did love them).

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't have that problem with the smiths at all...possibly because i view them as "english" via associations from being a kid and therefore they're as "artificial" to me as the associates or abc (okay, not really, but you know what i mean...)

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I do think it's a lot to do with you being tapped into the current ZEITGIEST for early 80s things, be they spiky or fluffy, in opposition to classic guitar sound. I mean if you were tapped in (god help you) to listening to most Britpop in the mid 90s then it would be Marr's guitars that would 'fit in' much better on a compilation tape. When the Kinks and Big Star were the old records being promoted by current artists. Ach, this sounds like I'm GETTING THE SMITHS WRONG but in broad strokes, it's what I believe.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

(I have the same problem with the Smiths popping up when my iTunes is on random. Partly it's just cause they are too precious to me and I've never really mixed them up with other stuff, partly it's partly it's just cause I've overplayed them, but partly it's cause I don't want to hear a classic guitar sound this year)

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

my hip-hop loving co-worker has also come to like kraftwerk and gary numan, precisely b/c elements of their sound have been integrated into hip-hop.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Records that want to sound somewhat natural and timeless but want to get there in the most modern way they can: those are the ones that wind up sounding like they're faking something.

What are some of the '80s examples of this? Like U2, maybe, Smiths, REM, Bruce Springsteen? That kind of stuff?

― Mark (MarkR), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Not U2, I don't think.

Lloyd Cole and the Commotions? The Housemartins?

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

REM records after murmur and before out of time now all sound like transmissions from some bizarre lord-of-the-flies island...the place they kept "college rock" in the 80s to keep it from having any effect on modern music

u2 circa the joshua tree/rattle & hum certainly, no?

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

cowpunk?

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

DIE!!!!!!

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry i just like saying that

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:11 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry it just sorta came out

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

From that list I'd think more of U2 and "Born in the U.S.A." especially. That big snare gate, the twinkly keyboards. It's wound up working for him in the long run, of course, because now that song perfectly captures the sound of mid-80s American enthusiasm. Actually now that I think about it Springsteen knew how to run with 80s production, which is surprising given his roots: "I'm on Fire" and "Dancing in the Dark" were so 80s and should have been so incompatible with his persona, but they were both unbelievable.

There was just such a swing of production ideas over this period. In the mid-80s, yeah, everything was all about maximum studio grooming, to the point of making tracks that felt ridiculously smooth, almost squishy and soft-focus. Giant reverb on everything was definitely part of it (Associates, "Party Fears Two"). And the stylistic trends lent themselves to hyper-grooming: I'm thinking here of "Everybody Wants to Rule the World," the Furs' "Here Come Cowboys," OMD or "Hold Me Now" or whatever else. It was all about a hazy swoon behind the heavy-reverbed vocals, even across into hair-metal.

Which of those sounds most unpleasantly "dated" now? I'd say that Furs track, because they're still somehow trying to work within the idea of themselves as a rock band -- but if you're going to play that way, we need to hear the individual bits! I mean, man, the 80s were the era of a seven guys standing on a stage playing things and the resulting music having no sense whatsoever of being connected to any one of them -- there's a guy over there playing guitar, but half the time you're not even sure he's playing anything at all until he gets to the solo. "Save a Prayer" hardly needs Duran Duran standing there; Simon could just have Howard Jones standing behind him and the music would seem just as natural. (And Duran Duran were one of few bands who mostly knew how to square this style of production with their sound and look! The trick: give in. Every 70s holdover who got talked into keeping their production contemporary but still wanted to emphasize their real-life rock sound: those poor guys.)

What sent that swinging back in the other direction, I think, was ... well, in rock I think the hair-metal thing led up to a point at which people needed more of a sense of individual characters playing instruments, which the soft-focus swoon didn't provide. (See G'n'R for the transition point, I guess: they seemed to need people to hear their guitars like a normal rock band, not all watercolor muted.) And then hip-hop and dance music, which were so much more direct and minimal. Killed the floofy reverb act. Plus obviously it just started to sound dated, so anything going in the opposite direction seemed thrilling.

Since then it's been back to an emphasis on things sounding -- well, if not sounding "real" or "live" then at least warm and punchy. The peak sounds of the 80s -- sort of thin and muted -- are still considered sort of the worst ones you can record, as evidenced by Daft Punk or Andrew WK only being allowed to touch such things through various levels of supposedly messing with them. I think the thing with electro is that it hasn't tried to capture the 80s sound, at all -- it's gone for something much more up-front and visceral, which is part of why I don't see it as interchangable with its antecedents. W.I.T. vs Bananarama: the latter's tracks have a hundred things moving and all air around them, soft-focus and windblown; the former have got like three sounds going on at any one time, all popping right up front.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Good God, Andrew WK: completely recaptures the feeling of ten guys on stage doing their thing and the music just being this big floaty thing that has nothing in particular to do with them. I'm all in favor of that sort of thing, I think it works wonders for so many things. But the more I think of it the more I think that's the complete emblem of 80s rock production. See: the second version of "Don't Stand So Close to Me." See: "King of Pain." It's not like you hear Andy-playing-guitar so much anymore: he just stands up there and moves and the things happen.

And right now we're stuck in the opposite, a return to guitar players doing windmills for big slam chords: look at me play this. (Yet another reason the Strokes have nothing to do with the garage revivalists around them.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 21:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Springsteen's 80s production steez is what made him great, and why he's no longer nearly as awesome as he was. The sound just FIT, his voice and the big gated drums were PERFECT somehow.

The ultimate example of how the 80s can never be recreated is of course Phil Collins 'In the Air Tonight' with its lonesome 808 in the echo chamber intro, and then BIG GATED DRUMMAGE and Phil's nostril singing somehow not sounding like complete shit for once in his career. If anybody tried something this brilliant nowadays they'd be kicked out of the A&R office and told to come back with a 'hit.'

― Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 22:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Nabisco, that's interesting, but I don't think from your descriptions of the Springsteen and U2 that they fit into what Kerry is talking about. I mean yeah it's guitars, but it's pomp and stadium rock which is another thing, distinct from the 'fake' 80s sound and the down to earth classic guitar pop rock sound of the Smiths, which Kerry says is the archetype of what she means by 'naturalistic'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 22:23 (twenty-two years ago)

funny you should say that nabisco cos i just got 'open up and say ah' by poison (great album!) and listening to it the first time i kept thinking of the strokes.

the 'naturalistic' thing reminds me of watching period films from the 70s or 80s so you have that double layer of datedness.

― minna (minna), Wednesday, 18 June 2003 22:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, what Nick said. There were just a lot of 60s-styled bands back then, but I find that they feel more dated for me than the "fake" stuff, which has no such associations for me. The fake things don't feel nostalgic, when they should. Perhaps lyrics have a lot to do with this as well - "naturalistic" guitar rock & pop gives me a more teenage-y feeling, and that's not something I care to revisit. As a comparison, I was also listening to the Clean today - very strummy, it just wasn't doing it for me. It's the same with amerindie bands - I can get with the noisy ones, but, again, a band like Scrawl I just can't listen to with the same enthusiasm that I had when I was 20.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh! I guess I'm misunderstanding, then. I can think of a lot of "naturalistic" indie records from the time that could be released today without anyone except for audiophiles noticing -- Galaxie 500, Sonic Youth, etc. But yeah, part of what I mean is that -- especially for sort of strummy/jangly sounds -- they'd use just enough modern production to wind up sounding really dated down the road. This is why I have trouble listening to the later Feelies albums, especially by Only Life or whatever. But Kerry -- it sounds like you mean that what's dated about it is more the musical styles and content than the production, right?

(I'm slowly realizing that one of the problems with the standard 60s-style guitar-band setup is that it's inherently disposable: since the 60s themselves there have always been bands like this in every era, so there's hardly any point listening to the antiquated last-decade model.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I have an intense feeling that Tears for Fears are about to have a revival. Sumptuous over-production needs to come back as a way of balancing out electroclash's minimalism. But really this feeling is inspired by hearing someone playing a CD of instrumental extended mixes of Tears for Fears songs and thinking it was something contemporary - without the voice to give it away my eighties alert scanner totally passed over this stuff. Although maybe Tears for Fears had their revival and it was Garbage 2.0.

I tend to think that stuff like electroclash shouldn't necessarily be judged diachronically (eg. eighties to now) but rather synchronically (electroclash in the context of modern pop eg. r&b/hip hop, garage rock). The connections that way are much more interesting and telling (eg. Brandy's "What About Us" --> Ladytron's "Seventeen").

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Thursday, 19 June 2003 00:23 (twenty-two years ago)

You had to go and mention Tears for Fears! I've had 'Head Over Heels' stuck in my head for a solid week now and I was just beginning to hope that I had rid myself of it, but now it all comes flooding back! I'd be really angry if I didn't love the song so much.

― Dan I., Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Nabisco's analysis may have been slightly skweiff to the topic, but as an explanation of the quintessence of the mid-to-late 80's' big, puffy, smeared-out sound it really hits the nail on the head, for me anyway. One thing though - the link in pop terms between electroc**** and 80's music is much stronger than he thinks. However, you need to link it to a certain late 70's/early 80's sound that was very, very hip at the time and dominated the clubs while not really denting the pop charts much (there were some exceptions). European, UK and Aussie acts like The Normal, Der Plan, Ideal, Nina Hagen, SPK (circa 'Metaldance'), Sodt Cell (THE pop progenitors of the new electrotrash aesthetic), Prince (Controversy), The Human League up to and including Dare.

By about 1985 this sound had been almost completely wiped out by a sudden transition to a big 80's puffy sound, the bridge being provided by Trevor Horn behind the desk for Frankie Goes To Hollywood. Frankie's an interesting one, as it starddles the divide between the cheap, chunky raw electro sound that hit its apogee in about 1981, and the hyper-unreal artifice of the post '85 artsist mentioned above by Nabisco and others.

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)

errata:

1. for skweiff read skewiff
2. for Sodt (ha!) Cell read Soft Cell

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:47 (twenty-two years ago)

3. For starddles read straddles.

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:47 (twenty-two years ago)

4. For artsist read artist

And I forgot to mention Gary Numan and the two most overrated bands in history, Depeche Mode and New Order, as two other big movers in the change in production aesthetic that arrived in about '84-'85.

― colin s barrow (colin s barrow), Thursday, 19 June 2003 02:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, Colin, I'm certainly aware of the less chart-oriented stuff that forms more of the inspiration for new electro, but I'd still venture that there's a big difference in production: with the exception of the new acts mimicing Italo disco, most of them are a lot more beholden to modern dance sounds, which ask for things to be a bit more up-front and popping than that turn-of-the-80s stuff was. We might be talking about different types of new electro, though: I'm thinking of Gigolo-type singles, which have a clarity and a strong grainy quality that I don't hear nearly as often in the original stuff. It's the Europeans doing more Italo-oriented things -- Polytron or sometimes Legowelt or whoever -- who take up the vintage sound, which tends to be very smeary, except for the kick drums. (And there are a few tracks from that direction, like Legowelt's "Disco Rout," that go ahead and bring it up-to-date with the firmer pump of modern sounds.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 19 June 2003 05:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually I thought electroclash was influenced by stuff like The Normal to the extent that a lot of electroclash is basically mid-to-late-eighties EBM redux. Terence Fixmer's Action Mekanik compilation makes this point pretty well, I think.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Thursday, 19 June 2003 05:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Which EBM acts didn't have the typically 80s airy-reverb thing, though? I'm thinking sonically here, and less about content: the Normal, for instance, always surprise me with the amount of room sound they have in there, which strikes me as very much like a lot of U.S. electroclash (Peaches, or that last Adult) but a bit less like electro in general.

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 19 June 2003 06:01 (twenty-two years ago)

(Sorry, this is all a sidetrack due to my misunderstanding Kerry's question! My apologies, Kerry.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 19 June 2003 06:01 (twenty-two years ago)

more people borrow my tr505 than my 808 (other way round in the 90s) - so i go for 'fake-natural' being IN rather than obv. fake. ditto the D50 strings/choirs.

― s.r.w. (s.r.w.), Thursday, 19 June 2003 06:58 (twenty-two years ago)

TR505 = roXor

I am not understanding the question, really. Considering that Cocteau Twins are the example put on the "big hair, fake" side of the equations. I really want to go back and listen to Victorialands and Treasure, as I haven't done so in about 10 years. They certainly sounded timeless in about 1993, but that was because I floating in so much shoegazer that a highly treated and processed guitar sound sounded natural. I would have expected something like Talk Talk to sound highly dated, but Spirit Of Eden sounds like it could have been recorded yesterday, or could have been recorded in 1932.

The division in our school was between art fags - who listened to Depeche Mode - and punks - who listened to Crass. I hung out with the punks, but my musical taste was always viewed with vague suspicion as I listened to a lot of art fag bands like Bauhaus and the Velvet Underground. Those sort of tribal divisions seems silly to me now, but at the time they were Mods and Rockers social death.

When HSA puts on the sort of late 70s/early 80s hardcore punk that they used to listen to, *that* sounds hideously dated to me now. As does a certain 80s guitar-as-percussive-instrument sound in 80s Watermanpop.

The funny thing is, in music, you should never ever try to sound "cutting edge" because sounding cutting edge dates far more quickly.

I don't know, these are random thoughts. I need more coffee.

― kate (kate), Thursday, 19 June 2003 07:37 (twenty-two years ago)

The problem is that if you don't try and sound 'cutting edge' then you presumably end up sounding like somebody else's way-back-when idea of cutting edge.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 19 June 2003 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

But the problem is, if you TRY to sound cutting edge, you are trying to sound like a preconceived idea of what the cutting edge sounds like. Which will already be dated 5 minutes after you put it out.

― kate (kate), Thursday, 19 June 2003 07:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Exactly, it's a no-win situation, just go for what sounds neatest :)

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 19 June 2003 07:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Have to agree with Kate on this one. Listening to countless ppl's demos it becomes clear that while everybody believes themselves to be *cutting edge*, only a few actually *are*, obvious really, I mean think of the amount of work it takes, you'd have to have everything currently released transmitted directly into your brain to 'keep up', plus even the thought of trying to 'keep up' will affect your processes as it infers a certain lack of confidence with what you're doing, result = the sound of stumbling. (Re 80s, no idea, I hated the naturalistic stuff first time around and haven't been curious enough to check it out since)

― dave q, Thursday, 19 June 2003 08:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 9 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

More like the Big Chill for 80s teenagers.

― kate (kate), Thursday, 19 June 2003 10:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I remember justifying my Cocteau love because I felt they were really a Gothy ABBA.
Wow...you find a way to simultaneously compliment and insult both the Cocteau Twins and Abba at the same time!

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 19 June 2003 11:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I was ignoring that.

― kate (kate), Thursday, 19 June 2003 11:43 (twenty-two years ago)

No insult intended...that was how I felt at the time... Everyone I knew hated ABBA back then as well. And Tears for Fears...I was wondering what I would hear if I went back and checked them out.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 19 June 2003 13:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely saying they were Gothy is the insult part.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Thursday, 19 June 2003 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean think of the amount of work it takes, you'd have to have everything currently released transmitted directly into your brain to 'keep up', plus even the thought of trying to 'keep up' will affect your processes as it infers a certain lack of confidence with what you're doing, result = the sound of stumbling.

I have to say, with reference to my disquisitions elsewhere over the last couple of days, that this nails what is also a running thought in whether or not one tries to 'keep up' with music as a listener and commentator, not just a creator. Quite possibly I just fear stumbling...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 19 June 2003 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

another eighties band that seems to be in the Smiths "we're natural" mode would be Echo and the Bunnymen. except they weren't -- in fact, i think that one of the interesting things about them is how they took an essentially retro-"natural" outlook (doors, velvets, television) and added goodly portions of eighties studio effects ("the cutter," anyone?) well before they went through their "lips like sugar" phase. and which may be why i still listen to them more than contemporaries like the smiths or the cure (though the latter were also pretty fond of studio effects, come to think of it).

― Tad (llamasfur), Thursday, 19 June 2003 19:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think of Echo & The Bunnymen as "we're natural" at all. To me they always MM, whereas the Smiths were NME.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 19 June 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

nine years pass...

This is a really fascinating thread to reread from the vantage of 2012, insofar as electroclash seems like a billion years ago and the dominant sounds (in my mind) of the later years of the 2000s were all swooshy, smeary, reverbed and maximalist generally. Still punchier than the OG, but nabisco comes out looking like some sort of prophet here...

― Doctor Casino, Saturday, 7 July 2012 17:18 (thirteen years ago)

The problem with natural in the 80s was a self-consciousness problem. For some reason there was a widespread post-70s-hangover fog of embarrassment over enjoying big guitar sound, especially big acoustic or non-feedback electric guitar sound. So you have these promising records like Felt's "Primitive Painters" and King Crimson's "The Sheltering Sky" (the lame flanged acoustic backdrop) and REM's whole album "Fables of the Reconstruction" where the guitar sound is neutered. What is the acoustic guitar allowed to do in "Burning down the House"? Have identity issues, that's what.

"Natural" approach records that escaped this fate? Immediately coming to mind: Meat Puppets II. Or any record by The Clean.

― Vic Perry, Saturday, 7 July 2012 19:37 (thirteen years ago)

all i guess it means is that in 20 years we'll have lots bands with black bowl cuts releasing jittery drum programming r&b with baby gurgling noises

― jess (dubplatestyle), Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:30 PM (9 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― carly rae (flopson), Saturday, 7 July 2012 19:42 (thirteen years ago)

the other day i was listening to that album that paisley underground band three o'clock put out on purple prince's paisley park imprint and man that record sounds fucked up. i gotta play it again. ain't nobody bringing that sound back. ahead of their time? of their time? behind their time? who the hell knows? maximal punchy smeary swooshy weirdness.

― scott seward, Saturday, 7 July 2012 20:13 (thirteen years ago)

Just listened to Stop Making Sense last week for the first time in years. Holds up very well.

Even back then, as a teenager, I think I loved live recordings most of all. John Doe doing "See How We Are" on an acoustic guitar on The Cutting Edge, hearing a live acoustic "The One I Love" on a classic-rock station. Maybe it's why I loved The English Beat and jazz/pop stuff like early Everything But The Girl and The Style Council and Carmel and Sade.

― Odd Spice (Eazy), Saturday, 7 July 2012 20:19 (thirteen years ago)

I really must buy a Style Council comp one of these days.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 7 July 2012 20:26 (thirteen years ago)

For some reason there was a widespread post-70s-hangover fog of embarrassment over enjoying big guitar sound, especially big acoustic or non-feedback electric guitar sound. So you have these promising records like Felt's "Primitive Painters" and King Crimson's "The Sheltering Sky" (the lame flanged acoustic backdrop) and REM's whole album "Fables of the Reconstruction" where the guitar sound is neutered.

I think in the R.E.M. case, it was about amp sounds but not so much about big vs. small. Guitars are nicer sounding and crisper on Reckoning but not any bigger sounding.

― timellison, Saturday, 7 July 2012 21:42 (thirteen years ago)

And the Felt song = chorus pedal, right?

― timellison, Saturday, 7 July 2012 21:57 (thirteen years ago)

I have an intense feeling that Tears for Fears are about to have a revival.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:23 PM (9 years ago) Bookmark

rueful lol

― I'm HOOSin' out, 36 o's, so I'm drivin' round with that steena (some dude), Saturday, 7 July 2012 21:59 (thirteen years ago)

― Doctor Casino, Saturday, July 7, 2012 5:18 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not sure this is really true as a statement except w/r/t indie-and-related.

In general ~~eighties~~ revivalism has been accretive rather than adversarial - so yes you got more swooshy maximalism but it was alongside rather than instead of all of electroclash's sonic principles. Lady Gaga's sound expresses the problem quite succinctly.

― Tim F, Saturday, 7 July 2012 22:01 (thirteen years ago)

rueful lol

― I'm HOOSin' out, 36 o's, so I'm drivin' round with that steena (some dude), Saturday, July 7, 2012 9:59 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It was called 'Merriweather Post Pavilion'.

― Tim F, Saturday, 7 July 2012 22:02 (thirteen years ago)

also, re: Primitive Painters--i blame Robin Guthrie.

― nerve_pylon, Saturday, 7 July 2012 22:03 (thirteen years ago)

"For some reason there was a widespread post-70s-hangover fog of embarrassment over enjoying big guitar sound, especially big acoustic or non-feedback electric guitar sound."

listen to bauhaus or love and rockets. or metal or punk. felt had amazing acoustic guitar sounds on their records! big acoustic guitar sounds!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSxqOEyAFXA

― scott seward, Saturday, 7 July 2012 22:40 (thirteen years ago)

i don't get the fear of big guitar sound thing at all?

― scott seward, Saturday, 7 July 2012 22:43 (thirteen years ago)

like at all! the 80's had huge guitars. maybe i'm missing something.

― scott seward, Saturday, 7 July 2012 22:45 (thirteen years ago)

maybe i don't know what natural approach means.

― scott seward, Saturday, 7 July 2012 22:46 (thirteen years ago)

I have an intense feeling that Tears for Fears are about to have a revival.

Once you get past the "Life's What You Make It" cop, it's all Roland Orzabal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdc2xFpjedg

― doug watson, Sunday, 8 July 2012 01:47 (thirteen years ago)

the other day i was listening to that album that paisley underground band three o'clock put out on purple prince's paisley park imprint

Is that record any good at all? I've always just assumed it isn't and have kept away. I loved the Three O'Clock up through Arrive Without Traveling, but the one after that was where they gave up their Nuggets revivalism and tried to be current (or I guess "fake" in the terms of this thread). Funny to see the electroclash discussion up above, because tonight for who-knows-why I put on Fischerspooner for the first time in years.

It is interesting to think about the smeary late 2000s in context of the smeary mid-late '80s, but they were smeary in different ways. The '80s stuff had a deliberate echoey hollowness to it that the 2000s didn't, whether you're talking indie or R&B.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 8 July 2012 02:41 (thirteen years ago)

Am I listening to Devo wrong that it sounds more 70s than 80s to me? There was a space ghost throwaway bit where zorak is dressed in a devo hat and goes "whip it good!" but the song playing in the background is "just can't get enough" because I guess whip it doesn't sound sufficiently 80s.

― Philip Nunez, Sunday, 8 July 2012 02:45 (thirteen years ago)

i don't think i even understand the original thread question.

― scott seward, Sunday, 8 July 2012 02:56 (thirteen years ago)

not an Alexander O'Neal ref alas

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 8 July 2012 02:57 (thirteen years ago)

If I'm reading it right, the question was, did the Cocteau Twins sound less dated in 2003 than the Smiths did. (The answer was probably yes.)

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 8 July 2012 02:58 (thirteen years ago)

I guess the equivalent question now would be, I don't know ... does Tricky sound less dated than Jeff Buckley?

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:00 (thirteen years ago)

i think i'm gettting it...kinda. and bauhaus and love & rockets would be "fake" people and not natural i guess? i need a list of natural people or i'll never get what's going on.

― scott seward, Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:12 (thirteen years ago)

or what was going on in 2003 anyway...

― scott seward, Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:12 (thirteen years ago)

Some references there to the Slash bands, which I guess mostly means Dave Alvin and whatever.

Which, in a way, is just saying that "rootsy" stuff of any era is going to sound more dated in later years than "contemporary"-sounding stuff. Which is really the point of rootsy stuff, to sound dated as soon as it comes out, defining itself against whatever the New Sound is.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:19 (thirteen years ago)

I can't even tell what sounds dated any more, since I've lived through enough pop music cycles that everything reminds me of something.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:20 (thirteen years ago)

one of the only retro 80's people i ever liked wss ed dmx. i still love his stuff. wish i could find it to buy. i have the great new wave dmx krew album but not any of the later stuff. he's really talented. most of the electroclash people really weren't. i mean there are lots of 80's leaning dance people who are talented, but rock and indie rock 80's leaning people...not so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI0bHEA_WY8&feature=related

― scott seward, Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:21 (thirteen years ago)

well, you know, put on an album by The Alarm or something if you want dated. there was that horrible big dumb echo-y nightmare sound that sounded bad then and sounds bad now. it always sounded bad. 79% of everything on a major label post-1985 sounded a little or a lot bad.

― scott seward, Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:25 (thirteen years ago)

if you are talking rock or new wave or indie rock anyway. for the most part.

― scott seward, Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:26 (thirteen years ago)

I love it on some things. Like those two Flesh for Lulu singles.

― something of an astrological coup (tipsy mothra), Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:43 (thirteen years ago)

Answering the title question, "In Between Days" (still great) sounds far more dated than "Under The Milly Way" (still great).

― Odd Spice (Eazy), Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:58 (thirteen years ago)

Milky, that is.

― Odd Spice (Eazy), Sunday, 8 July 2012 03:59 (thirteen years ago)

True that my post is not helping with the question of "dated," which means lots of things of course.

Anyway, I don't feel like one day I will think the guitar sound on the records I mentioned will suddenly sound good to me again. It bugs me that the same people seem to have made a decision for murk, like the differences in the way Roger Bechiran produced Hypnotized, 1980 (sounds great) and then Positive Touch, 1981 (sounds lousy).

― Vic Perry, Sunday, 8 July 2012 05:20 (thirteen years ago)

I have nothing to add except this: Boy, do I love the Style Council. Man, they were good.

― Austin, Sunday, 8 July 2012 05:26 (thirteen years ago)

I haven't heard it in years, but I liked that Three O'Clock record on Paisley Park quite a bit. I know some of the guys in the band don't like it. It's cool sounding, though, and I think their talent kind of wins out on that one in the end.

― timellison, Sunday, 8 July 2012 06:34 (thirteen years ago)

When I think of bands that really didn't need chorus/flanged/gated production, the Gun Club's Mother Juno is what comes to mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i-KqwWRgSk

The songs are good! Guthrie's production style doesn't destroy it, nor doesn't it help it any way. Nor is it oddly compelling yet inappropriate, like Laswell's work on Orgasmatron. It's like "here's the new Gun Club record, patched through Robin Gutherie's nervous system before it gets to your speakers."

― bendy, Sunday, 8 July 2012 14:00 (thirteen years ago)

Whether a song sounds "dated" is far down the list of things I use to assess its worth.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 8 July 2012 14:02 (thirteen years ago)

timeless. one of the best songs of the 80's and it sounds beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwXCr16pcF8

― scott seward, Sunday, 8 July 2012 14:24 (thirteen years ago)

this was the big cocteau twins track on mother juno. i love it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSEw5bEmXfk

― scott seward, Sunday, 8 July 2012 14:50 (thirteen years ago)

one year passes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PITUfFllKZI

just checking this out now, the above-mentioned three o'clock record. Holy fuck, the sound of this. Is it just whoever recorded it for Youtube setting the dials wrong or is it really this overcluttered and nuts? Beautiful - if it were less of a "song" with a melody and verse and chorus it would just be perfectly disjointed and unhinged. Amazed if nobody's revived this yet.

― Doctor Casino, Wednesday, 10 July 2013 16:47 (twelve years ago)

it's distorted to fuck which probably doesn't help.

ian broudie, worst producer of the 80s?

― electricsound, Thursday, 11 July 2013 04:19 (twelve years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.