Albums which haven't aged all that well

[EliasMooseblaster]

I've been rather enjoying Nancy Johnson's thread about Albums You've Really Tried To Love... and it reminded me of a bit of a shock I got a few weeks ago.

But first, the question: are there any albums which you used to love, but which have aged really badly in retrospect?

 

For me, the shock was Nirvana's apparently seminal Nevermind. I'd gone back to Soundgarden and Mudhoney with reasonable regularity, but I hadn't put this album on in years. And I adored that album as a teenager. So, I thought, surely it would do to revisit the album that is, for many, the defining grunge LP?

My god.

Two things stuck out: my tastes have matured, and the sloppy-but-kind-of-cool songwriting I used to be impressed by now just sounds sloppy. It's also painfully apparent that Cobain couldn't really sing. But the other is the production...it sounds so dated now. That strange conflict of trying to move away from the pomp of overproduced '80s rock albums but still using most of the same techniques, combined with the (possibly coke-driven) instinct to keep nudging the faders up until everything's far too loud and compressed to buggery.

(Further revisiting has led to me be to believe that the Foo Fighters' debut, from later in the decade, has stood the test of time a lot better.)

Over to you...

[radiophonic]

A lot of of albums with signature production suffer this problem. If it sounds 'now' now, it'll sound 'then' later. Any 80s LP by a 70s artist is a good start, particularly deliberate attempts to update their sound (cough Bowie cough). To whit - I love Joni Mitchell's 70s LPs and I like Thomas Dolby too, but Dog Eat Dog makes my face hurt. Jethro Tull's Broadsword and the Beast sounds paper thin and slathered in cheap sounding digital reverb to my 2018 ears but at the time seemed like a step out of the 70s murk. That said, I listened to all three self titled House of Love LPs last week and the one that still grips is the really nasty toilet cubicle reverb drenched take of Shine On, so sometimes the performance can transcend the medium...

[Barking Spiders]

15 minutes ago, EliasMooseblaster said:

I've been rather enjoying Nancy Johnson's thread about Albums You've Really Tried To Love... and it reminded me of a bit of a shock I got a few weeks ago.

But first, the question: are there any albums which you used to love, but which have aged really badly in retrospect?

 

For me, the shock was Nirvana's apparently seminal Nevermind. I'd gone back to Soundgarden and Mudhoney with reasonable regularity, but I hadn't put this album on in years. And I adored that album as a teenager. So, I thought, surely it would do to revisit the album that is, for many, the defining grunge LP?

My god.

Two things stuck out: my tastes have matured, and the sloppy-but-kind-of-cool songwriting I used to be impressed by now just sounds sloppy. It's also painfully apparent that Cobain couldn't really sing. But the other is the production...it sounds so dated now. That strange conflict of trying to move away from the pomp of overproduced '80s rock albums but still using most of the same techniques, combined with the (possibly coke-driven) instinct to keep nudging the faders up until everything's far too loud and compressed to buggery.

(Further revisiting has led to me be to believe that the Foo Fighters' debut, from later in the decade, has stood the test of time a lot better.)

Over to you...

You beat me to the punch there with Nevermind. I think the key to its datedness in the production because I'd also say Siamese Dream by Smashing Pumpkins also hasn't lasted the test of time. For a short while as a teenage wannabe in the 80s I used to be a bit obsessed  with shred guitar and had albums by Satriani, Vai, Steve Morse and a bunch of others.  These sound as outmoded as riverboat type jazz and parlour songs. I recently went back to some 80s electro /synth  noises and was surprised that much of it hasn't really dated despite the advances in technology. On the other hand a lot of 80s indie  guitar bands now sound pretty dated in particular Echo and The Bunnymen, and The Sound but not The Smiths and House of Love. I used to be a big EATB fan but Crocodiles and Ocean Rain  sound irrelevant now

Edited July 4, 2018 by Barking Spiders
typo changes

[NancyJohnson]

A lot of that 80s hair metal stuff I was pretty much forced to listen to by association.  I'll always have a soft spot for DLR-period Van Halen and Motley Crue's Too Fast For Love and the John Corabi fronted Motley Crue album, but beyond that, meh.

[Edit]  There's a ton of stuff been released with a limited shelf life.  I guess all you need to do is fire up Wikipedia and look at the long lists of bands that have played Glastonbury (etc.) over the years and juxtaposition these with the ones that the BBC actually feature on their woeful round up shows.

 

Edited July 4, 2018 by NancyJohnson

[TheGreek]

Nearly everything made between 1995 - 2010.

[Monkey Steve]

I'm doing a bit of this - having had to replace my laptop a few months ago I lost all the iTunes stuff on there,  and thought that rather than just loading up the same old favourites I'd work my way through my CD collection, save everything to an external hard drive and load most of them only my phone.  I'm currently up to G, have used more than half of the memory on my phone, and am reconsidering the policy.  But I am rediscovering a lot of old stuff that I haven't listened to for ages.  Some good...

The ones that so far have stuck out as being awful are the Gene albums, Olympian in particular.  i don't understand how I quite liked them back in the '90's rather than seeing them for the watered down Smiths knock off that they clearly were.

There may well be many more in there - I haven't actually played most of the stuff that's made it on to my phone, let alone the rest of the alphabet to come...not looking forward to Molly Hatchet, who in my youth I loved as a southern rock band, but on re-buying on CD a few years back just seem to be very loud country music

[BigRedX]

Production fashions go in cycles. That much is obvious from the few comments here already.

In the 80s I couldn't stand listening to most of the albums I'd grown up with in the 70s due to (at the time) sterile sounding production with their weedy cardboard box drums. Now it all, sounds fine again to my ears. 

I can remember someone on one of the recording forums in the late 90s berating the gated reverb drum sounds and wondering how we ever tolerated them. It didn't go down too well when I suggested that in another 10 years time they'd be saying the same about the currently fashionable ping-y snare drum sounds. 

And to answer the OPs question, it is for me not so much about the production as about songwriting quality control. There's plenty of albums on CD from the mid 90s onwards that are simply TOO LONG. Just because the CD format allows you to put 80 minutes worth of music on a single album doesn't mean that you should. Like most albums there are a couple of killer tracks, some other songs that are OK and then an additional 40 minutes of self-indulgent rubbish. I find that the higher proportion of poor songs makes me less likely to listen to the album as a whole, whereas if it had been a normal 35-40 minute release I'd have probably played it more often and spent time getting to like the less obvious songs. Instead I just stick with the 2 or 3 tracks I know I like and never listen to the rest.

[Cat Burrito]

I think as suggested these things come around again. There was a time whilst growing up when reverb on the snare and chorus on the bass was just standard. Equally the really old stuff becomes a trend for certain niches desperately trying to recreate something from a previous era.

I used to love recording 24 track 2" reel but I must confess life is easier now the world is digital.

[skidder652003]

I had a real love of Passion Grace & Fire when it came out around 83',  bought it on Vinyl last week, put it on, hasn't aged well to me,  pretty self indulgent with the odd moment of beauty, too many cooks and all that...

[TheGreek]

Oddly enough I bet that most of the albums listed will be considered classics in 20 years time.

[Dad3353]

It's been a while since I sat down to an evening of The Incredible String Band; it'll probably be a while before I renew the experience. A soft spot for Swift As The Wind, but I'll leave the rest as happy memories, best kept in a drawer...

 

[SubsonicSimpleton]

Is it possible to make a completely fair judgement on this if you listen on a different playback system/format and if you haven't imbibed the same chemicals, and don't have the same hormone levels, emotional angst  or world view?

 

[tonyquipment]

Basically any millennial music. They have a shelf life of 15 minutes. 

[bassbiscuits]

Def Leppard's Hysteria sounds very dated now, in terms of production etc. I bought a copy a year or two ago having not heard the original for about 25 years since it came out, and it was a bit of a shock. Same as the albums I used to have from the band who supported them on some UK dates of the Hysteria tour - Tesla. Used to love them in late teens, but their albums had aged dreadfully.

Weirdly stuff like INXS 'Kick' which was released the same year (or nearly - i'd need to check) still sounds pretty fresh.

 

[Daz39]

4 hours ago, Monkey Steve said:

I'm doing a bit of this - having had to replace my laptop a few months ago I lost all the iTunes stuff on there,  and thought that rather than just loading up the same old favourites I'd work my way through my CD collection, save everything to an external hard drive and load most of them only my phone.  I'm currently up to G, have used more than half of the memory on my phone, and am reconsidering the policy.  But I am rediscovering a lot of old stuff that I haven't listened to for ages.  Some good...

The ones that so far have stuck out as being awful are the Gene albums, Olympian in particular.  i don't understand how I quite liked them back in the '90's rather than seeing them for the watered down Smiths knock off that they clearly were.

There may well be many more in there - I haven't actually played most of the stuff that's made it on to my phone, let alone the rest of the alphabet to come...not looking forward to Molly Hatchet, who in my youth I loved as a southern rock band, but on re-buying on CD a few years back just seem to be very loud country music

Gene - absolutely. Their live album Rising for Sunset was fairly perfect: their studio albums lame by comparison. They peaked once and that's it.

Anything by the shredders: Vai, Satch etc. although I do think they are brilliant musicians.

Most U2 stuff - same as above.

The Blaze albums from Iron Maiden. totally over-produced and anaemic-sounding.

 

[jezzaboy]

The Rush albums from the late 80`s - early 90`s. Hold your fire, Roll the bones, Presto etc. I tried to play them the other day but the production is terrible and the lyrics that at the time were meaningful, just sound like tosh to me now.

Still love the 70`s and early 80`s stuff.

[LeftyP]

Anything by The Friends Of Distinction.  I used to really like them (still do but don't tell anyone) and their "Grazin' In The Grass" track is brilliant.  They were very much of their time and really sound dated now.  Check out some of their rather grainy videos on YouTube and cringe - but in a nice way.

[T-Bay]

I could pick loads (though not Nevermind for me, still love it) but two,of my favourites in my early teens were pyromania and hysteria, boy do they sound poor now but could just be my taste moving on. Stanley road seemed to be a return to a bit of post Jam form but feels very lightweight now (Did I really buy it?) and any Iron Maiden post Paul Dianno, Brucey just hasn’t got it for me.

[mikel]

Any so called "New wave of British heavy metal" album. Over produced and thin sounding compared to the original heavy stuff.

[Mykesbass]

10 hours ago, radiophonic said:

A lot of of albums with signature production suffer this problem. If it sounds 'now' now, it'll sound 'then' later. Any 80s LP by a 70s artist is a good start, particularly deliberate attempts to update their sound (cough Bowie cough). To whit - I love Joni Mitchell's 70s LPs and I like Thomas Dolby too, but Dog Eat Dog makes my face hurt. Jethro Tull's Broadsword and the Beast sounds paper thin and slathered in cheap sounding digital reverb to my 2018 ears but at the time seemed like a step out of the 70s murk. That said, I listened to all three self titled House of Love LPs last week and the one that still grips is the really nasty toilet cubicle reverb drenched take of Shine On, so sometimes the performance can transcend the medium...

Very much this. The early digital revolution sounds very poor in retrospect. Dire Straits Brothers in Arms sounds terribly dated whereas Communique and Dire Straits both still sound great to my ears. 

[Lozz196]

The Clash, by The Clash - and to be honest most of the early punk albums. In comparison to Never Mind The Bollocks by The Sex Pistols, The Clash sounds really dated/of its time, whereas NMTB could have been produced anytime onwards of 77. Not that I dislike said Clash album, far from it, and in some ways I think the rough production shows where punk really came from, but listening to the production now it sounds like a demo imo. But a bl88dy great demo.

[Passinwind]

Most Fusion and and a fair amount of Prog from the mid-70s. The guitar and drum sounds especially are pretty grating to me in many cases.

[radiophonic]

17 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

It's been a while since I sat down to an evening of The Incredible String Band; it'll probably be a while before I renew the experience. A soft spot for Swift As The Wind, but I'll leave the rest as happy memories, best kept in a drawer...

 

I always thought that one was over-rated compared to the 5000 Spirits / Layers of the Onion. It's always the one that gets cited as 'the classic' though. I'd take Little Cloud over a Very Cellular Song any day. I play 5000 spirits fairly often for someone who is largely into electronic music.  I was about 1 when it was released as well so definitely not my era.

[Woodinblack]

14 hours ago, jezzaboy said:

The Rush albums from the late 80`s - early 90`s. Hold your fire, Roll the bones, Presto etc. I tried to play them the other day but the production is terrible and the lyrics that at the time were meaningful, just sound like tosh to me now.

I hated those, because I liked the older stuff so much. I had a friend that kept trying to persuade me 'listen, this new album sounds just like the old stuff' - it didn't.  I didn't actually mind some of the songs, just the sound wasn't there. Odd really, I liked power windows, and that was the same producer as hold your fire.

[HaNgMaN]

Guns n Roses Use your Illusions 1 and 2 Its all the Honky Tonk Piano Axl added. It has really dated those albums. Also Metallica justice for all that guitar sound with no bass, a lot of bands came after copying that awful caterwauling whiny guitar sound, just pitiful.