How Old is too Old for a Song?
 

50s? 60s? 70s? 80? 90?

or even 00?

I read a comment on youtube today, saying :"70s' music never get old", some guy posted on a video "Original Kung Fu Lighting". Most of people including me think this song is new in the cartoon movie "Kung Fu Panda", but we all are dead wrong. It was 70s' work. But it is still so sharp!

So it rang my bell. for songs or music, how old is too old?:hphones:

Good music never gets old.

Yup, never dude.

It is not easy to hear good "old" music or songs from today's radio, they are playing such many new but ugly songs, almost. They would rather choose "new and bad" than "old but good", enh?

Well don't listen to the radio :) I can't agree with khfreek enough.

Yes, definitely. So many one hit wonders I hear on the radio now.
I'm not much of a radio guy, just my computer, my CD's and my 80gb Zune

Music's evolution is not very linear. I mean, one would think that music is constantly improving or degrading, where rather it obviously does levels of both in various ways over time.

Since music does not degrade in quality, only changes in tone, a good song is a good song, no matter when it came out. Those who don't appreciate this are the people who listen to only new music, and are fooled by the fact a lot of it is obviously rehash.

Most top 40 hype-ish music gets old really fast.
I listen to recordings ranging from the 40's to today.

If it's too old, you're too loud

Haha :D

Do you have other examples like the song "Kung Fu Lighting", created a long time ago, then has sunk for a long time, and recently been dug and rehashed again, and fool many people it looks like a new one?

I mean a good one.

I don't listen to much music pre-90s...I really should...

There's plenty of old music ;D.

good music never dies it just gets better with age

Okay this is bugging me. Have you been living under a rock? I'm pretty sure you mean Kung Fu Fighting and it never disappeared. I've seen it in commercials and referenced all over the place. Kung Fu Panda didn't rediscover it after it had been lost upon release.

Anyway, I'd say about twenty minutes is too old. I can only listen to songs by unsigned artists that are just freshly written in their garages. I can enjoy them for one or two listens, but I'm basically done after that.

I can only listen to music by bands with 1000 members (999 of them being interpretive dancers) that was recorded on a dictaphone in a black hole. I think music gets old 10 minutes before it was written and recorded. ****ing mainstream sheep.

You could always take the Vetinari stance, which is that the only true music is music that was written, but never played.

I think the best answer has been said by a few other members - "good music never gets old". That's the truth.

Music kind of sucks in general.

whys that?

Or were you just being temperamental?

Sure, my fault, it should be "Kung Fu Fighting", not "Kung Fu Lighting".

Temperamental.

Boxing day, saw an album of Jackie Evancho. This little girl can sing old songs well. It is stunning.

I find that pre-1960's music is too old for me. Why? the quality is terrible. that is all.

otherwise, a good album never gets old. That can be said for NEU!, Aphex Twin's first SAW album and most of the golden age IDM

Really? This is a bit bewildering. You can't appreciate any music that might have subpar sound quality?

^^
Seriously, Dayvan. I think I just lost a bit of respect for you.

999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 years; 26 days; 4 hours; 3 minutes; and 2.018521 seconds

I listen through bad sound quality (and I think the quality of most 50's recordings is way better than those of the 60's, especially in Jazz and Classical music), but I hate it when people just don't care what music sounds like. So a point for Dayvan ;).

Eitherway, Zoë, there's some brilliant recordings from the last half of the 50's. Probably not your style, but people back then already did know how to make a proper recording. E.g. Miles Davis' "Kind of blue". still sounds bloody perfect.

I obviously don't like to listen to painfully shit recordings, but being an audiophile just really doesn't make much sense to me. Why obsess on the quality of the recording? You should be able to listen past that.

I can, as I'm a fan of old ska and reggae and that always sounds like ****.
But I do want my proper recordings to sound the way they were meant to sound or, because that's what it's all about for me, I want the instruments to sound like the instruments sound. I don't want to listen to what my audio set makes of things.
That's what 'high fidelity' is all about in the end.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself too well. I can understand why one would like their albums to have good quality, I just don't understand - for example - dismissing a whole era of music just because the sound quality isn't too good.

Recording is really an issue. But I don't think tiny recording problem will hurt a real good song too much, if it is really good.

Talking about recording, Yanni is an old gun. He can do excellent recording outside, for example at the Acropolis in Athens, the Forbidden City in Beijing, Taj Mahal in India, etc..

Recording needs skills, for sure, especially outdoor.

Well, that is another topic.

Neither do I. I mean, I collect 78rpm records so, yeah.
But I do understand that sound quality can be an issue.
I actually have some records that I don't play in my living room because my rig makes them sound really harsh. I usually don't really mind listening to stuff that sounds particularly bad, but I can't stand listening to music that sounds irritating. Has nothing to do with age, though.
The latest album by the Soundcarriers. I just can't finish it. Gives me a ****ing headache. **** limiters. **** loudness war.

Yanni? Seriously? :laughing:

Do I look like joking?:)

Yes?

This is original, around 1974.



Rehashed in 2008.

Which one is better?

The original to me. The original one is funky, the other one is just a popsong.

I like the Yanni version best.

original is just too good no offense to the newer version