A BIT ON DATED MUSIC, HOW TO AVOID IT, AND THE 2012 HIT I PREDICT WILL SOUND DATED BY 2023

A song's potential to become dated is an interesting conversation to have.  To be clear, "datedness" doesn't reflect, in any way, how good or bad a song is.  After all, the skeleton of a song lies in its melody and lyrics— attributes which have nothing to do with whether a song becomes dated or not.  How could they?  Those things have been in music forever!

So what determines a song's datedness?

Datedness is determined by either the song's instrumentation or how the instrumentation is placed within the song's overall mix.  Here's an example of a great song which sounds totally dated because the use and tone of its synthesizers doesn't hold up today. 

"I'm On Fire" by Bruce Springsteen

Here's an example of a good song that sounds dated because the drums are so loud in the mix.

"Behind The Sun" by Red Hot Chili Peppers

And here's an example of a good song that sounds dated because of a chorus effect on the rhythm guitar—an effect that really isn't used on guitars in mainstream music anymore.

"Paradise City" by Guns N' Roses

Some of the above songs have dated elements which I wish weren't considered dated today.  Others have dated elements which make me glad they are never coming back.  So the logical question becomes this: why did these dated elements make it into the song in the first place?  The simple answer is because it seemed like a "fresh idea" at the time.

But a funny thing happens over time.  It keeps on moving.  And moving.  And moving.  And something happens to the "fresh idea" in the process. Like all things fresh, it  spoils until it eventually rots!   So, shit.  How do you avoid sounding dated then? 

Your last song became dated because the sound was fresh like bubblegum.  

The bubblegum that this girl is chewing won't be good in 10 years. Just like her bubblegum, the "cool" within your dated song's production also has an expiration date.  

What a production actually needs is something that stays fresh like honey.

It's sweet like bubblegum—that's good.  But the difference is that honey has no expiration date.  HONEY IS TIMELESS!  It will be just as good good 30 years from now as it will be today.

So let's look at a song whose production is timeless like honey.  

"Kodachrome" by Paul Simon

The drums sit nicely in the mix.  The bass isn't filled with fuzz.  The vocals have a little compression and not too much reverb.  There's acoustic pianos and the electric pianos that are there aren't effected with phasers or other artificial-sounding sounds.  There's little to no delay on the guitars.  Everything is just sort of straight.  In other words, this 1973 song could be released today.  It's fresh like honey, baby!!

This means the key to making a song fresh is to not get overly fancy with your production.  A great song will sell itself with the wonderful music and inspiring lyrics you've created.  

It's my opinion that in the last 15 years or so, we've done a good job of making mainstream music that has a low risk of sounding dated in the future.  

I just don't hear anything in these songs that could make them sound dated in another 10 years.  We'll see if my opinion changes in 2023.

However, I have heard one hit song this year that just SCREAMS "dated potential"  whenever I hear it.

"Too Close" By Alex Clare

It really is a shame, because Alex Clare's international smash "Too Close" really isn't a bad song.  It has an instantly singable hook  and Clare has a strong and soulful voice which is needed to really sell a song like this.  Without a doubt, there is something good here.  There's also something which I think will make it sound incredibly dated 10 years from now  You probably know what I'm talking about.  It's the wobble-wobble of that dubstep which is holding the rhythm in the chorus.  Granted, I'm not a huge fan of dubstep.  But even if you love the genre, you have to recognize that, like disco, it's not going to be popular forever.  It's fresh like bubblegum, not like honey.  

Even Deadmau5 agrees with me.

"It's a conduit now for previously mainstream pop acts to use. I've only made one dubstep track and I will admit I only did it because it was cool at the time." 

Thank you, Mr. Mau5.  Now, what do you think? 

HOW TO ENJOY MUSIC YOU'RE NOT USED TO LISTENING TO (OR NOT USED TO LIKING)

The following are my opinions.  That's why they are on a blog and not on Encarta or World Book.

Like the taste you taste with your tongue, musical taste is the taste you taste with your ears.  Take pop, for instance—as in soda pop and pop music.  Both are acquired tastes that require a matured palette to enjoy fully.  Sweet sugary soda may taste good as a kid, but you might enjoy a more sophisticated soda like Orangina as you get older.  The same is true with pop music.  It's pretty much like candy and that's why kids love the hell out of it.  Of course, you don't stop loving candy when you're  an adult, but you just might prefer dark chocolate or Toblerone better—that pretty much describes Paul Simon or Paul McCartney.  Or how about some Sour Patch Kids, like Katy Perry?  That's the kind of candy you hide in your backpack or in a special drawer so nobody will find it.  Am I right? 

The point of all this is that we all want to have great taste in music.  We can't control how good we look or how smart we are, but we can control the music we listen to—and that music is often the thing that makes us cool.  I don't know the psychcology behind it, but I'm sure there's some awesome chemistry—a change in endorphins or whatever—that makes us feel cool whenever we listen to something "out there."  I don't know how else there would be a hipster subculture if we didn't feel a warmth or receive a message that told us to continue listening to music that is very esoteric.  Something pleasurable has to happen in our bodies when we hear something that few people have heard. Nobody wants their musical reputations sullied by uncool music.

For some reason, I keep on remembering the best education I received, in and out of the classroom, at The New School in New York City.  The school was the beacon of hipsters who desperately wanted (or even needed) to be artists.  One of those "artists" smugly stated "I try my best to never listen to any tonal music."  As a naive 18 year old,  he taught me exactly who I didn't want to be.  "Have fun listening to the air conditioner all day," I laughed.  In response, he called me a dirty word that rhymes with "hunt."  True story.  I ironically learned the most from the least pretentious students.  They were the dudes and the chicks who liked the artsy stuff, but weren't shy on digging the hottest number one single either.  

Anyway, I remember taking music theory in college and having my first introduction to extremely dissonant music through the compositions of a dude named Milton Babbitt.  Our professor studied under him and she was very cool.  She sung well and was a somewhat gifted composer herself, who played damn good piano (though she claimed it was "total shit").  She was the intellectually honest type, who pretty much admitted that "Babbitt is important and I think he's a genius, but anybody who thinks the dissonance is actually beautiful is bullshitting and lying to themselves."  Now, this wouldn't be The New School if somebody didn't pipe up and say "I think it's beautiful."  To nobody's surprise, somebody said just that.  The professor rolled her eyes and said in confident disbelief, "okay, I don't believe you." 

To this day, I still don't know where I stand on this issue.  I was proud of the student for calling the music "beautiful" and I was just as proud of our Professor for calling "bullshit" on him.  Is "beautiful" really the right word to describe his music? You decide.

I'll repeat the question: Is "beautiful" really the right word to describe this kind of music?  Listening to it, I don't want to say "yes" but I have a lot of trouble saying "no."  I've determined that the word "beautiful" complicates things in a really unnecessary way.  So, let's simplify it.  Do you enjoy Milton Babbit's music?  I'm going to take a guess and say if you do enjoy it, you're probably liking it less in your gut and more in your head.  You know what I'm saying? 

If you don't enjoy it—on any level, at least—I think it's important to figure out a way to.  Why? Because you will find yourself liking a lot more music.  Musicians often learn how to play faster than they ever need to play because it makes them better on their instruments.  In the same way, learning to like music you'll never listen to can help you open your mind to other inaccessible music and art in general.  If you want to enter the music business in any capacity, its important to figure out a way to enjoy something, even when it seems you can't.  

The key to enjoying music you're not used to listening to (or not used to liking) is: acceptance and tolerance.

(HINT: There is a justifiable reason for why any music was released on a label. The artist has to be talented in some capacity.  Figure out where that talent—that "it" factor—is.  And always remember: It's all in the material.)

• You don't like Randy Newman's voice.  Well, that's the voice he has.  What about the music?
• You hate this synthesizer in this 80's song.  Well, that's the way it was recorded.  You can't do anything about it.  What's good about the song or the performance despite it?
• This jazz feels very disorganized.  Maybe it is.  But is the disorganization completely random? What emotions does this particular note choice or sequence make you feel? Furthermore, can you make disorganized music that sounds better?
• The song had three chords.  Does it need more? Is the progression deceptively simple? 
• You don't like Bob Dylan's voice.   But what about his phrasing? What about the way he emotes?
• This record has too much echo and reverb.  Try getting used to it and then judge it on different terms.
• These lyrics are really weird.  That's the universe that the music lives in.  
• RULE OF THUMB: If you find yourself getting lost in a groove, the artist is doing something right.  

Finally I want to remind you of something and this is very important.  "Honesty" and "Authenticity" are total myths.  You weren't there at the session and you aren't the artist.  Either all music is honest and authentic or no music is honest and authentic.  It's just music.  Enjoy it. 

TESTING FOR TALENT IS LIKE TESTING FOR DRUGS

Talent

Talent

Talent

Before you go off and say someone is talentless, I'd like you to remember something:

Testing for talent is like testing for drugs.

Now what do I mean by that?  

Let's say a couple of 16 year olds go to a party.   At this party they do a lot of things.  They dance with a couple of girls, sing some Black Eyed Peas songs and drink a lot of really bad—but really cheap—beer.  As the hours pass, people start to leave until there's only five kids left.  One of those kids breaks out some pot.  The two 16 year olds take a hit or two and then they. chill. out.  They spend the next few hours playing Super Smash Brothers and listening to Pink Floyd.  Inspired by the band Sublime, two of the other kids smoke two joints each.  Then there's a kid named Ian, but he goes by "Rainbow Sprinkles."  Rainbow Sprinkles takes out an eight foot bong and he just annihilates himself on a mixture of two types of weed called Rosacea and Lee Sklar's Beard.  It's ridiculous how stoned Rainbow Sprinkles gets.  

Suddenly, something hits each of these kids simultaneously.  They're hungry—really fucking hungry.  So Rainbow Sprinkles decides they should all drive to Carl's Jr.  Together all five of them drive in a VW Bus to get some burgers.

They don't get too far, however.  Rainbow Sprinkles drives the VW Bus into five different mailboxes.  All the lights turn on in the neighborhood and the cops arrive.  Each of the boys gets taken into the station for a drug test.

Now let's reexamine how stoned each of these kids are.  Our original heros—the two 16 year olds—only took a couple of hits.  The Sublime idolizers smoked two joints.  Rainbow Sprinkles? Nobody knows how much he smoked—but, boy, was it a lot!

All of them receive the same grade on their drug tests: POSITIVE.  

Testing for talent is like testing for drugs.

I suppose people can be one of three things in life: a minor talent, a major talent or not a talent at all.  Only one of them will fail the talent drug test and that is the one who has no talent at all.  Everyone else passes—even if their talent is as small as Tinkerbell.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone incorrectly refers to a musician as talentless.  Chances are if you've heard of the artist, they're more than likely talented.  It doesn't mean they're as talented as Bob Dylan or Paul Simon.  It just means they passed the test.  

Most people do not pass the talent drug test.  How do you know for sure when someone does? You're going to hate this answer.  You know someone is talented when everybody is listening to and watching them.  People do not engage with an artist that lacks any talent.  

Now this has nothing to do with how good someone is.  We all have a different test for that.