Why do new albums not hold up over time compared to 'classic' albums?

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I got rid of ALL of my rolling stones albums and I had everything up to and including let it bleed. I only kept Beggars Banquet. I sort of wish I had kept Their satanic majesties. The rest just didn't have lasting appeal for me. I love that poster Ralphie!

I buy tons of classical music discs. (mostly second hand but that counts. Some new too)
 
.... Even BILLY JOEL ADMITS HE HASN'T RELEASED A NEW ALBUM SINCE THE MID 90's and yet he's still packing Madison Square Garden performing those old hits!....
Gonna have yo step in here and add that the REAL REASOn that Blly Joel does not release "new music" is that, when he creates his kind of Music, he has to open himself and his Soul, which leaves him in a a very delicate and vulnerable state since everyone can see into his own swlf and he says he does not want to do it anymore... he releases OTHER kind of music: "Bach like" Classical music for the Piano...

...TOTALLY agree about the muses being the ones who "WRITE MUSIC" cause real musicians and stars will always tell you that it was not they who wrote their music, but that they were CHANNELING the Muses...
 
The 'old classic stuff' remembered by 'old classic folks' had infinite more exposure to our ears and brains compared to modern music and the current young population.

1) We bought an album once in a while and played the thing to death many times just because we spent the money on it. And in most cases, both sides, all the way through. You think anyone would know tunes like "Wild Honey Pie" (White album) or "Vienna" (the Stranger) without playing the albums over and over and all the way through?

2) The music was of the time was heard almost everywhere we went. Most radio stations played all of the same stuff. We heard it in the stores, at our friends, at restaurants, etc. Music was everywhere and it was not specialized. You had a pretty good shot of hearing 'Hotel California' no matter where you found yourself in the late '70s

3) You could make your own cassette comp, that's true, but most folks back then made album tapes, again exposing the listener to the entire track list
4) Most people attach themselves to their surroundings when they are growing up, thus the 'stop listening at 39' deal. Because older people learned the music when the exposure was much greater, they remember those as the best times and the best music. You do shut down as you get older and while you might like a song you hear today, you are less likely to seek out a title from an old favorite artist, and even less likely to listen to 'the whole album' over and over like you used to do. Plus, you will find that no one else is listening to it either. You don't hear it anywhere else. I have a stack of CDs from artists I absolutely cherish, but have only played through once or twice.

The past is better because it's easier. It's what you know and is your foundation. That's why we buy DSOTM 100 times, or try and get the best and greatest pressing or mix or remix of the old stuff, because it's EASY. Easy to listen to. It makes us happy.

Remaster of "Band on the Run" in Atmos - GO GET IT, who cares what it costs !! Remaster of 'McCartney III' in Atmos - uh, no thanks.

And the youngest people learning music now get it in songs, not albums. And they only get the music they want to hear. They don't put up with 'Wild Honey Pie' because they don't have to. And, unlike us old guys who heard Frank Sinatra, Peggy Lee, Louis Armstrong, Roger Miller, and so many other non-rock artists ON THE SAME STATION we listened to for the Beatles, Stones, CCR, etc, they never get exposed to other music. They just don't want to and don't have to.

And old guys like me, I don't want to be exposed to it either! ;)

So give me 'Wild Honey Pie'. Even though I can easily skip it with a remote, I just let it roll because that's what we do. It's supposed to be heard, otherwise how can you get to "Bungelo Bill?"
 
The 'old classic stuff' remembered by 'old classic folks' had infinite more exposure to our ears and brains compared to modern music and the current young population.

1) We bought an album once in a while and played the thing to death many times just because we spent the money on it. And in most cases, both sides, all the way through. You think anyone would know tunes like "Wild Honey Pie" (White album) or "Vienna" (the Stranger) without playing the albums over and over and all the way through?

2) The music was of the time was heard almost everywhere we went. Most radio stations played all of the same stuff. We heard it in the stores, at our friends, at restaurants, etc. Music was everywhere and it was not specialized. You had a pretty good shot of hearing 'Hotel California' no matter where you found yourself in the late '70s

3) You could make your own cassette comp, that's true, but most folks back then made album tapes, again exposing the listener to the entire track list
4) Most people attach themselves to their surroundings when they are growing up, thus the 'stop listening at 39' deal. Because older people learned the music when the exposure was much greater, they remember those as the best times and the best music. You do shut down as you get older and while you might like a song you hear today, you are less likely to seek out a title from an old favorite artist, and even less likely to listen to 'the whole album' over and over like you used to do. Plus, you will find that no one else is listening to it either. You don't hear it anywhere else. I have a stack of CDs from artists I absolutely cherish, but have only played through once or twice.

The past is better because it's easier. It's what you know and is your foundation. That's why we buy DSOTM 100 times, or try and get the best and greatest pressing or mix or remix of the old stuff, because it's EASY. Easy to listen to. It makes us happy.

Remaster of "Band on the Run" in Atmos - GO GET IT, who cares what it costs !! Remaster of 'McCartney III' in Atmos - uh, no thanks.

And the youngest people learning music now get it in songs, not albums. And they only get the music they want to hear. They don't put up with 'Wild Honey Pie' because they don't have to. And, unlike us old guys who heard Frank Sinatra, Peggy Lee, Louis Armstrong, Roger Miller, and so many other non-rock artists ON THE SAME STATION we listened to for the Beatles, Stones, CCR, etc, they never get exposed to other music. They just don't want to and don't have to.

And old guys like me, I don't want to be exposed to it either! ;)

So give me 'Wild Honey Pie'. Even though I can easily skip it with a remote, I just let it roll because that's what we do. It's supposed to be heard, otherwise how can you get to "Bungelo Bill?"
I think you're dead on with the album vs. song idea. Are most new albums even really albums, in the sense they used to be, where there was some kind of theme, no matter how tenuous? On the other hand, I definitely did not stop liking new music when I was 39. There is a lot more for me personally to sort through now, but my Apple music library is full of stuff I would have dismissed when I was younger.

I do think musicianship has gone down, for a variety of reasons. There just aren't as many virtuosos, percentage-wise.
 
In a way, I address this topic in my two latest Metallica review videos.
While "old fart syndrome" can play a factor, I assure you there are some recent albums from bands I grew up with that do it for me, like from Anthax, for instance.

One answer that I think is very often a factor is album length. Artists and bands either feel the freedom to stretch the length of their work well beyond the "classic" 44 or so minutes, or maybe compelled to.
As more material is piled on a project, the odds of some of it not being great rises (to my ears, in my experience).

Short and sweet is one ingredient for success.

Speaking of success, I think another factor is that successful artists become deaf to criticism. With enough money and sycophants around, you end up in an echo chamber. Sure, greatest can result, but the odds are against it. When an artist is ascending I think there's more humility and a tendency to pay attention to what "works" and go with it.
 
( Old Fart Rant Ahead )
This is in reference to U.K. Music late 60/70s ( a brief synopsis)

Progressive Rock music was really made by the elite few...you had to have a lot of talent to get a recording deal. Studios were very expensive to hire and most of the good ones were owned by the record companies.
Many of the musicians of the time had been classically trained in their childhood and had actually gone on to academic music institutions like the Royal Academy of Music in London and art schools. Most of them were proficient readers of music and had major experience in composing skills.
These acquired skills allowed them to write virtuosic music that we still listen to today 50 plus years on.
The correlation is therefore with Classical music which has been listened to for over 400 years..due to composition skills and virtuoso playing skills...the same ingredients that Prog required.
Music has always been synonymous with the drugs of the time.
As a lot of musicians took acid at this time and used this to enhance their composition and lyrical skills and the smoking of hash / marijuana amongst both musicians and listeners linked the connection between the two.
Then in 1976 along came Punk and broke the rules about elite musicians and democratised that " Anyone" could play an instrument and compose music ( even if it was only three chords ) It was the "attitude" that mattered. Smaller recording studios were setup and the start of the "home studio" ( although owned by healthy wallets ) appeared in small numbers.
Punk was also a fashion thing, dyed spiked hair, leather jackets and safety pins.
The drugs of that time were mainly pills of all descriptions mixed with copious amounts of lager.
This put an end to the PROG bands who were seen as totally pretentious and past their day.
This splintered the music scene and a lot of independent record companies ( such as Stiff ) were formed in opposition to the major record companies like EMI, CBS etc
This started the fracturing of music and the attendant fashion and drugs going from the late 70s New Romantics to New Wave, Rap, Techno, Hip hop, grunge, urban etc
These are all synonymous with fashion....music became more about fashion than about music !
Prog lovers weren't tied by fashion other than a blue pair of Levi's (and maybe some loon pants !). It was about the music and always about the music..... and we still listen to it for nostalgia because after that era, the world started going crazy and everything started to splinter.
Prog is our island, which cannot be attacked, and is the bedrock of our lives !

PS One day, in Hamamatsu in 1988, I was talking to Ikutaro Kakehashi who was the boss of Roland Corporation ( a major Japanese Synthesizer manufacturer ) and in a quiet time I asked him.... " Taro, what do you see as the future of music ?" He thought about it for five seconds and said " Nymo-San ...one day everyone make music at home "
A simple, but disturbingly profound truth that was a two sided coin ....it lead to Music fracturing even more.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Jon. Radio in the sixties and seventies played a much greater variety of music than today's ultra targeted stations. Even the stations that catered to the older people often played at least some of the current hits. We all were aware of and exposed to much/most of the new music of the day, even parents couldn't escape most of it.

Listening to albums often the best tracks were ones that didn't get played on the radio but "kids" were buying and listening to albums now not just hit singles. As radio listeners shifted from top 40 AM over to FM we were exposed to even more deep tracks and even entire albums.

Meanwhile top 40 stations were struggling, many switched to country, sports, news/talk or other formats. In Canada many "flipped" to FM leaving the AM band a wasteland. Meanwhile the overpopulated FM band was now full of stations each "narrowcasting" trying to find their own niche. Personally I have a hard time finding a station that I actually want to listen to now. Instead I find myself flipping back and forth to get any variety, or just listening to news/talk.

Kids seem to get their music from YouTube and Spotify, listening exclusively to individual tracks. My kids used to purchase and listen to CD's but that practice has faded away.

Rap/hip-hop, yech! The downfall started with Disco! When one local station used to play "Today's Hottest Music" It seemed (to me) that especially with the weekend feature "American Top Forty" the music never changed, same boring tracks all year long! Back in the day there were new hits every week! Now they play older music, but still no variety, no wonder that they are still struggling!
 
On the other side of the coin, I like the newest Tears for Fears album far more than their others.
Certainly they are a very rare example.
Agreed with others on here, seems that the music you loved when you were 13 ish digs in the deepest.
 
1) We bought an album once in a while and played the thing to death many times just because we spent the money on it. And in most cases, both sides, all the way through. You think anyone would know tunes like "Wild Honey Pie" (White album) or "Vienna" (the Stranger) without playing the albums over and over and all the way through?
This is pretty much it for me. I could only afford an album or two a month at best, so you’d better believe I got my money’s worth. Plus, I wasn’t distracted with the Internet or cable TV or a mobile device or even a computer... it was me, the music and, hopefully, decent liner notes.

Today, I have access to just about everything through streaming and I can afford most music I want to buy. I just don’t have that uninterrupted time to let it bury itself deep into brain. So my listening of newer things are often superficial.

And now with anniversary editions, I’m spending time with old music that I already know I’m going to love, but hearing it in a new way with surround.

I’ll toss out one other possible option as to why new music might not be as good as old. Remember back in the day when a band had to knock out about two albums in a year between tours? You certainly didn’t have time to overthink the music. And often the the most famous song was a throwaway they did in a hurry just to get a full album’s worth of material before heading out for more gigs.

Today, you could spend years on an album, not only the writing but the mixing and getting everything just perfect. I wonder if that hurts the music on some level. Don’t know... just an odd theory I thought of while writing this.
 
3) The new stuff simply isn't as good as the old stuff: The artist's creative peak is long gone...along with his / her singing ability.
That gets my vote.
There are a few new recordings from old names that I continually visit.
Pink Floyd & David Gilmore immediately come to mind. I listen to.
Or is On An Island or Rattle That Lock not new enough?
 
Roger Daltry said in the 80s its all been done Mate.
The CD had a lot to do with it. Classic Albums are 45 minutes long. Creativity runs out when a band puts all the songs on the “record”. How many classic double albums are there? The Who managed 2, Zep, Stones, Beatles, PF had one. BTW my fav bands.
 
One answer that I think is very often a factor is album length. Artists and bands either feel the freedom to stretch the length of their work well beyond the "classic" 44 or so minutes, or maybe compelled to.
As more material is piled on a project, the odds of some of it not being great rises (to my ears, in my experience).

Short and sweet is one ingredient for success.
Classic Albums are 45 minutes long. Creativity runs out when a band puts all the songs on the “record”.

Absolutely. Ever hear anyone complain that Sgt Pepper is too short? How about DSOTM? I haven't. Please Please Me...14 songs in 32 glorious minutes.
 
I will second that comment on CDs and time. A lot more material that would have been thrown away pre-CD ends up being released which certainly thins the overall quality.
Hell I love me some Maiden, but that 4:36 bullshit intro Satellite 15 from The Final Frontier beats you down before the album even starts.
 
Another aspect of this discussion is synergies within the band. Lennon-McCartney is a phenom and I have a major Beatles collection.
But I bought "All things must pass" back in the day and got rid of it and have never bought it again. It just didn't do it for me.
Because some have come my way recently, I have picked up a few DVDs with multichannel of each of the Lads individually but its more to sample the multichannel than even completism.
 
There are a few new recordings from old names that I continually visit.
Pink Floyd & David Gilmore immediately come to mind. I listen to.
Or is On An Island or Rattle That Lock not new enough?
Same here. Along with their newer stuff too!

Fortunately there are a lot of new solo artists and bands that along with singing and playing their own instruments, write the lyrics, arrange the music and produce it too. Only time will tell which ones will be remembered and/or go on to have long careers within the music industry.

Unfortunately, their are still far too many solo singers and bands that don't have a creative bone in their bodies. They sing lyrics and play along to music that other people behind the scenes have written. Personally, apart from being a novelty I hold very little affection for such 'performers'.... Past or present!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top