| |
Discussion: "Dated" is not a valid criticism.
Member Since: 8/27/2011
Posts: 13,026
|
"Dated" is not a valid criticism.
Why is ATRL so obsessed with bringing down new releases or even <10 year old ones by calling them "dated"? Every piece of music is influenced by the context it was created in, that's unavoidable and not at all a criticism. To say something sounds "dated" as a reason to dislike it only proves your own ignorance . If you're going to make a claim like that, at least make it sensible: "I don't like the production on _X song_ from 2010, it sounds very cheap" is valid because it specifies what you don't like about the music. To say something is "very 2010" as a negative though, WHEN IT WAS MADE IN 2010, is just stupid. For example, all of Madonna's 80s hits (happy birthday True Blue) sound exactly like the times they were made in and they STILL STOMP on all of your current flash in the pan "edgy" releases that are hailed as "fresh" and whatever other buzz words the twinks throw around in Music News.
Now, to say a 2016 song sounds like it was released in 2010 is also stupid. If you don't specify what about the music that actually bothers you, it's rubbish.
This has been a public service announcement.
Buy Mylene Farmer's discography on iTunes.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,099
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
I always thought dated was a term used for older material that sounds trapped in its era? I think to describe current **** we should use the term "out of touch" or something similar.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2009
Posts: 4,228
|
Would you critique a criticism if you were not a criticism yourself?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/27/2011
Posts: 13,026
|
Quote:
Originally posted by madonnas
I always thought dated was a term used for older material that sounds trapped in its era?
|
Well, yeah. Madonna as the example has plenty of songs that sound unmistakably 80s, how does that make them bad?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/17/2012
Posts: 33,611
|
Quote:
Originally posted by HonourableVomit
Well, yeah. Madonna as the example has plenty of songs that sound unmistakably 80s, how does that make them bad?
|
I love music that sounds old or of a different era. It's my T. So I'm the wrong person to ask.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/13/2012
Posts: 21,615
|
Um I'm just going to say I disagree with pretty much every point you tried to make
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 41,181
|
If someone brings out an EDM song that sounds like a 2009 Taio Cruz reject, we can call it dated and it's valid criticism.
Is it the most inclusive, specific and concise criticism? No. But it's accurate in some cases
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 15,009
|
because timeless >>>> dated
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 5,626
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2012
Posts: 26,389
|
Dated is the opposite of timeless, as in...it just doesn't hold up. It was good at the time, but lost its magic quickly.
EDIT: This didn't touch up on the subject of songs that sound dated even when it was just released, so I'll address that now. Some songs, even though they were influenced by the time they were released, are still very fresh sounding today. I'll just use a lot of Michael Jackson's songs for reference on this. However, some songs try this "throwback" thing where they sound stuck in a time period they weren't even released in, and being "influenced by the time they were in", and being perpetually stuck in that era, are two different things.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/9/2012
Posts: 18,572
|
I agree with what you're saying, but I think dated usually means something that follows a trend that has already peaked, been overplayed, and died down. Like, if someone released a pop-rock nickelback esque song now, it would be dated since it's already been done before so many times that it feels stale.
Idk if that's universal, but it's what I usually mean.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 4,333
|
To me, something dated is marred by production or writing gimmicks that inextricably link a song to a specific time. It's only a problem when popular trends are used on songs that are weaker than the tricks being used. Erotica harkens back to the early 90s without being trapped in it because it was innovative & fresh & not playing to fads. It's not a bad thing to be reminiscent of a different time but if nostalgia is the track's only value & it'd flop if released today, then it's certainly dated. Madge has a lot of music, however, that I don't believe would do well now without the very specific context of the time, namely True Blue; nice singles, atrocious album tracks. It's a fair criticism. Good art should be timeless.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 16,541
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Truth Teller
If someone brings out an EDM song that sounds like a 2009 Taio Cruz reject, we can call it dated and it's valid criticism.
Is it the most inclusive, specific and concise criticism? No. But it's accurate in some cases
|
.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/20/2012
Posts: 24,225
|
If a song is good enough, the production doesn't matter whatsoever tbh.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 271
|
your post is dated 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/15/2012
Posts: 5,059
|
I agree with this, but I think ATRL's obsession with things being current has always been ridiculous. Like it is cool if something from the past still sounds like it could be a hit today, but that shouldn't be the requirement for something being "timeless". I think there are plenty of timeless songs that you can actually date pretty easily upon hearing it even if you aren't familiar. That shouldn't take away from the song.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/27/2011
Posts: 13,026
|
Quote:
Originally posted by That Bad Eartha
I agree with this, but I think ATRL's obsession with things being current has always been ridiculous. Like it is cool if something from the past still sounds like it could be a hit today, but that shouldn't be the requirement for something being "timeless". I think there are plenty of timeless songs that you can actually date pretty easily upon hearing it even if you aren't familiar. That shouldn't take away from the song.
|
Right, and who gets to decide what is "timeless"? That's more of a subjective than "dated" and isn't the criteria of such a claim that it's remembered and enjoyed years after the release? How can anyone claim that a 2016 song is timeless? It's absurd.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 9,301
|
Hum there's good "dated" and bad one.
Good = Kiss It Better cause it sounds early 90 but with good quality
Bad = Me Too cause it uses those awful 2011 synths.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/18/2010
Posts: 29,224
|
I couldn't agree with this more. "Dated", IMHO, is by far the most baseless and reductive comment I have ever seen! There's no reason for it. I can't take anyone seriously if they use this word as their main issue with a song, because it's like you're saying "I'd like it if it came out when everyone else was following the trend." Now when it comes out outside of the trend, you notice it and dislike it rather than have never notice it in the first place had it come out in it "given time." It's ridiculous: just because the small group (and I mean SMALL GROUP) of popular artists defect from their usually style to follow some silly three-month trend, it shouldn't directly date songs that come thereafter. If it sounds like a genre, style, or musical motif you've heard before, then it's no different than a number of songs that have graced the radio for the past eight years. So just deal with it and stop trying to sound like a hipster for once…
|
|
|
|
|
|
