Time and Music Perception

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Hayden




Location: CDMX
Canada

  • #1
  • Posted: 04/29/2016 00:09
  • Post subject: Time and Music Perception
  • Reply with quote
I want to start off by saying that replies in this thread are meant to be theoretical and take place in an alternate universe. The point of this thread isn't to say 'yeah, but that didn't happen'. If this has been done before, I apologize.

I had a thought a few years ago, and it only resurfaced recently. Do we, as listeners, perceive music differently depending on when it was released? Is it possible that we discard certain albums based on how they sound due to the era they were released in? For instance, would a Gang Starr album such as Step In The Arena do well in 2016? Or would The Life of Pablo do well in 1990? Is Buddy Holly released an album today, would it be ignored? How about Mozart? or Elvis? or Frank Sinatra? Perhaps one of Herbie Hancock's funkier records, which have aged badly and are now associated with porn soundtracks. Would Earl's Doris have taken off if it was released in 1985? Is it possible that some classics (perhaps those of Jackson Browne and Steve Earle), if released today, would be completely panned? If Donna Summer released an album this week, would it be laughed at? What about Captain Beefheart? Would the Beach Boys be considered ridiculous? If Sophie released an album in the 80's, how would people react?

This is just to open an area of discussion I'm curious about. When we listen to an album, how much does the time of release affect our experience? Is it possible that we've tuned out and ignored albums that we would have considered great if they were released 20, 25 years beforehand? Perhaps if something like Lulu had been released in the 80's, would it be considered an experimental classic? This of course brings the issue of innovation into play, so you would have to work around that (if Theo Parirsh released an album in 1930... well.. that would probably change music as we know it). It might be easier to analyze older albums being released today rather than today's albums being released earlier.

If this is coming across clearly, I apologize Anxious This is just to open some interesting arguments and discussions.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Applerill
Autistic Princess <3


Gender: Female
Age: 30
Location: Chicago
United States

  • #2
  • Posted: 04/29/2016 01:27
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Dang, Hayden. I haven't seen you try to be this deep since Who's Masquerade. In fact, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how I should begin to answer these questions.

It does remind me of the complaints people often have with critical context, though. We often wish others could base art purely on its own sensory merits (as opposed to a band's previous albums or a director's auteur or, or course, the landscape in which it was released), but I've become more and more convinced that this fantasy is all but futile. If art really is life, then it cannot be separated from the zeitgeist that surrounds our lives. (Of course, we always have the opportunity to re-listen to albums from the past in today's context, but trying to remove that context still seems like it takes away more than it adds.)
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
alelsupreme
Awful.


Gender: Male
Age: 27
United Kingdom

  • #3
  • Posted: 04/29/2016 09:07
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Yeah it absolutely does. Like I listened to Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie comps recently and I think if those two had released similar material 15-20 years later (ignoring the butterflies that would occur from them having never been around to influence future artists as they did then they'd sound incredibly ordinary in comparison to many of the artists working in jazz then - stuff that's revelatory and groundbreaking at the time is, alot of the time, only so because of its time. Like, to use another example, if the Ramones came out in 1996 rather than 76, I doubt they'd pick up any real attention at all.

As for how it effects personal listening, I'm not sure. It's likely many of us have skipped on what could be amazing albums due to its association with a certain sound or style from a period we dislike, but I find it hard to figure out whether or not albums we do enjoy transplanted into a different time would still be enjoyed by us, simply because with many of them it's hard to even imagine it. I can't imagine a Pet Sounds released in 1986 sounding the same at all.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
meccalecca
Voice of Reason


Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment
United States

  • #4
  • Posted: 04/29/2016 21:21
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
alelsupreme wrote:
Yeah it absolutely does. Like I listened to Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie comps recently and I think if those two had released similar material 15-20 years later (ignoring the butterflies that would occur from them having never been around to influence future artists as they did then they'd sound incredibly ordinary in comparison to many of the artists working in jazz then - stuff that's revelatory and groundbreaking at the time is, alot of the time, only so because of its time. Like, to use another example, if the Ramones came out in 1996 rather than 76, I doubt they'd pick up any real attention at all.


Absolutely. When an artist has been copied over and over for decades, it can hinder the perception of just how original they were at the time they first released music. Context is a major major factor in perception. I think this is also why quality of songwriting/composing has a greater ability to sustain longterm relevance than having a particular sound. Sabbath and Metallica were both really heavy for their times, but in comparison to contemporary metal, they wouldn't sound anywhere near as powerful or threatening.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
meccalecca
Voice of Reason


Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment
United States

  • #5
  • Posted: 04/29/2016 21:28
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
In addition, while the sociopolitical messages of TPAB and Lemonade may still be relatable in 20 years, I can't imagine them having the same impact on a kid listening to those records in 2036 as they will in 2016.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash



Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts
United States

  • #6
  • Posted: 04/29/2016 21:46
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I would say most music is simply inseparable from its historical context, especially albums that were recorded and released on a regular schedule, and widely distributed enough to catch on.

I do find it interesting to consider archival releases, or albums that didn't have adequate circulation/promotion, or albums that were delayed. Gorilla Manor by Local Natives (completed in 2008, released more than a year later) is an album that was delayed for long enough after its recording that it sounded very similar to a lot of other indie bands by the time of its release. So it seemed more conformist and uneventful than it might have otherwise, because it was judged in the context of a host of other albums that had actually been recorded more recently.

A more extreme example would be Papoose, who at one time was very hot in NYC, but had his debut album delayed for around 6 years. Wouldn't have made a huge difference either way imo because he's incredibly wack.
_________________
Add me on RYM
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Hayden




Location: CDMX
Canada

  • #7
  • Posted: 04/29/2016 22:19
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
meccalecca wrote:
Sabbath and Metallica were both really heavy for their times, but in comparison to contemporary metal, they wouldn't sound anywhere near as powerful or threatening.


Really glad with all the responses so far Smile Looks like it's unanimous that this is a thing.

Mecca's comment definitely made me think of an interesting point. If Black Sabbath released their debut today (in the understanding that they never existed beforehand, but all the bands they influenced still did exist), do you still think it would be a good album? Or at least as good as an album?

Quote:
I haven't seen you try to be this deep since Who's Masquerade.


Laughing

I should say that I have a new album coming out sometime this year. I took about a year long break from making music, but got back around to it sometime early March. It was originally going to be my follow up to Who's Masquerade, but I think it's going to end up being another side project. It's turning into something quite interesting. It's nowhere near finished, but I'm hoping to get it out sometime before August.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #8
  • Posted: 04/29/2016 22:27
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Production value and how I rate an album does have some kind of influence. I feel this loosely ties with when an album is released... technology is able to capture sounds better or worse pending on what it is at different times. Mixing and Mastering has also changed over time. Some mixes have an emphasis on vocals and guitar and some have mixes focusing on bass and snare drum (Reggae).

If the recording quality is so bad that it detracts from the music OR doesn't properly represent the music if I were hearing it live, it get's dinged on the score.

Super genre releases maybe fit under this. For example Boogie Down Productions (80s) vs Dr. Dre (90s)... Dr. Dre sounds are much more developed... and is that a limitation of the artist or the technology? Same goes for Jimmy Page vs Chuck Berry, or Bitches Brew vs a jazz recording from the 30s.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Sticky: Music Diaries SuedeSwede Music Diaries
Sticky: Info On Music You Make Guest Music
Sticky: Beatsense: BEA Community Music Room Guest Lounge
Does age affect your perception of mu... Guest Music
Which artists forever changed your pe... Spyglass Music

 
Back to Top