I used to sometimes use "Take It Easy" in class as an example of 'the moment where music on the radio began to sound more like it does today', and other musical Year Zeros

from the Eagles thread:

I used to sometimes use "Take It Easy" in class as an example of 'the moment where music on the radio began to sound more like it does today'.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Monday, February 25, 2013 6:47 AM (1 week ago)

When I were a lad, it was 1963 (She Loves You); with 1977 (punk) as a kind of resetting of the clock. Neither seems compelling today. Maybe 1977 would still work, for I Feel Love, but the only Year Zero I'm really confident about is Edison and his phonograph.

Is there a single Year Zero anymore? Is Take It Easy it?

you could make an argument for thriller.

the old 'could you go back to a certain year and convince them you're from the future with a piece of music' thing always used to use 1994 as a year zero, although I think things have progressed beyond that stage in recent years.

A whole thread could be made about '70s AOR cuts that were overproduced, had claustrophobic production and a decent hook but little substance. Maybe this could be that thread?

I submit much of Boston, Electric Light Orchestra and this "nugget"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3WbTU_awCY

Why 1994? The first Oasis album?

Year Zero as I understood it meant there was no need to listen to anything before then. Not sure I could justify that now.

Oh god these home made videos.

I would love to see Sund4r elaborate on that post at the top.

I'm not entirely sure I hear what's distinctive about 'Take It Easy'. xp, yes.

That quote reminds me of Diane Keaton's line in Annie Hall, "I'm from Philadelphia, we believe in God", and Woody is like, "I'm from Philadelphia, we believe in God, does anyone know what the hell she is talking about?"

overcompressed

1994 - IDM stuff, maybe?

I'm guessing it has something to do with production values. I am willing to give Sund4r the benefit of the doubt to the extent that I assume he has a serious reason for saying this, that there's something he's hearing. If he can put it into words that would be all the better.

xp

s

1994 - jungle? Or is that too late. When did jungle kick in?

I guess 1994 as a marker kind of works, particularly for dance/electronic music - you had things like Snivilisation and Music For A Jilted Generation and jungle and SAWII all indicating a next-step up from the first wave of rave/ambient music and being incorporated into more (for want of a better word) "mature" productions. You could take, say, a Skrillex record back to '92 and impress people, but by '94 I think people would still be ever so slightly wary of your time travelling credentials.

Better to take a Skrillex animated .gif back in time for proof.

"Take It Easy" was 1972.. I guess that could make sense. 1971 still had less-polished 60's sounding production within radio singles.. "Don't Pull Your Love," "Here Comes That Rainy Day Feeling Again," "Ain't No Sunshine," etc.. While this did not completely disappear within the next few years, higher production standards probably started around the time of "Take It Easy," "A Horse With No Name," Elton John...

Stevie Wonder is a good example. In '71 "We Can Work It Out" and "If You Really Love Me" fell in line, production-wise, with most of what he had released in the 60's. Within the next year "Keep On Running" and "Superstition" had a more polished sound.

I dunno if I'm anywhere close to on-base, but this is what came to mind when reading the thread title.

I was not around then, but I'm assuming most of these songs were broadcast on AM signal so the difference was probably not obvious to listeners.

i will use 1994 era jungle to convince people i have come from the past

i get sort of the same vibe from metalheadz now as i do from putting 'information superhighway' into google images

if there's a year from the 90's where radio started to sound like it does in the present, i would choose 1998, especially for hiphop and Top 40.

I need to make a few clarifications before I explain:

i) I said "Take It Easy" was an EXAMPLE of a moment, not the one song that changed everything or something like that.

ii) This was something that occurred to me when putting together the listening for a low-level gen-ed survey course 6 years ago, not an issue that I studied intensively. In class, it was something I mentioned in passing when talking about country-rock and the Eagles. As such, I may have overstated things in the quote above. Still, students seemed to get what I meant as soon as those first huge shiny double-tracked, compressed, reverbed chords started ringing, especially after they had been listening to 60s music for a while.

iii) I never said anything about a 'Year Zero', which I see as a fairly stupid concept, at least when talking about pop music history.

iv) The production tricks of the last 10 years or so may well make this statement itself a little dated.

Having said that:

"Take It Easy" was 1972.. I guess that could make sense. 1971 still had less-polished 60's sounding production within radio singles.. "Don't Pull Your Love," "Here Comes That Rainy Day Feeling Again," "Ain't No Sunshine," etc.. While this did not completely disappear within the next few years, higher production standards probably started around the time of "Take It Easy," "A Horse With No Name," Elton John...

Stevie Wonder is a good example. In '71 "We Can Work It Out" and "If You Really Love Me" fell in line, production-wise, with most of what he had released in the 60's. Within the next year "Keep On Running" and "Superstition" had a more polished sound.

Yes, this is a big part of it. There was a major leap in recording and production quality right around this time. But I don't think it's only a matter of production quality: I think rock music production aesthetics also changed around this time. The ways stereo placement, multi-tracking, and compression are used in this song sound much more contemporary to my ears than what, say, the Band or CCR or the Byrds were doing not too much earlier.This cover was a hit in 1994 and does not sound radically different imo: http://youtu.be/HFbCOA0C-1c . I was still hearing it on country radio 5 years ago. Of course, 1994 is almost 20 years ago now but I can't imagine someone covering "Down on the Corner" 22 years later and still sounding so close to the original. Not anyone hoping to score a chart hit anyway.

Even when considering how the guitars sound on this more recent track by a James Taylor/Fleetwood Mac fan, right off the bat, it doesn't seem too hard to draw a line, while there seems to be a much greater difference from 60s music: http://youtu.be/Pb-K2tXWK4w

I wasn't only thinking about production though. I think the sort of light rock/country synthesis (with clearly identifiable but more laid-back rock backbeat) that the Eagles were an example of (but easily the most famous and successful example) makes it easy to draw a line forward to plenty of huge hits from both MOR rock (e.g. Sheryl Crow, Avril when she's not doing pop-punk) and new country artists from the 90s onward, in a way that it's harder to do with earlier country-rock or folk-rock artists.

Boston (who came later) and ELO (who came out around the same time) had great production, and I prefer both bands to the Eagles, but they both sound more of the 70s to me. I can't imagine a current chart artist emulating Boston's vocal sound, for example. Plus, hard rock generally got harder.

I'm guessing the adoption of solid-state mixing board technology at the time be a part of the reason. It's the reason why Abbey Road has a much cleaner, more modern sound than any previous Beatles album.

on modern rock radio, 1991 is kinda year zero -- some stuff from before that is played but not much and it generally sounds different or reflects a different time, everything after is post-Nevermind or whatever.

similar thing now on hip-hop radio with 1994 -- on a lot of stations Ready To Die singles and maybe "Gin & Juice" are the oldest things you hear outside of 'old school' mix slots.

Yeah, modern rock radio is stunningly stuck in the 90s.

I'm guessing the adoption of solid-state mixing board technology at the time be a part of the reason. It's the reason why Abbey Road has a much cleaner, more modern sound than any previous Beatles album.

That makes a lot of sense.

The stereo separation on Abbey Road still sounds much less contemporary in comparison though. Not bad (at all!), just unlike more contemporary pop.

didn't we just have some thread recently about the White Album inventing modern rock? i kinda agree with that, moreso than w/ Abbey Road (which definitely did presage a lot of 70s stuff).

(A huge fan/critic of new country thinks I'm not wrong btw.:P)

just listened to it and it's kind of amazing how '80s it sounds. the high end is so annoyingly crisp. I wonder if there's been any remixing or remastering done though that emphasizes that.

That's a good point, actually.