I've been recently listening to a load of old 80's bands and singers recently - acts I thought were fresh and exciting at the time. But it's funny how some of them sound so incredibly dated to me, when I listen to them now - acts like Duran Duran, Culture Club, Spandau Ballet, Thompson Twins, Human League for example. Not all their stuff, but a lot of it! Even though they did write some brilliant songs, so much of it sounds like a million years ago.

Yet other bands from that period still sound as fresh and relevant today, like Tears For Fears, Talk Talk, The Smiths, The Cure, and to a certain extent Adam And The Ants (earlier stuff more). And then of course there's some from that period still going and who are better than ever - U2, Depeche Mode and pop queen Madonna, for example. Obviously they've always moved with the times but their early stuff still sounds very relevant too.

And take two pop groups of the 80's I loved - The Nolans and Bucks Fizz - I find the Nolans' music extremely dated today (and cheesier than ever!) whereas Bucks Fizz (with the exception of their cheesy first hit) still sound pretty fresh and I'm sure some of their songs (like Rules Of The Game, You And Heart So Blue, When We Were Young, Now Those Days Are Gone and Golden Days, to name just a few) would still sound good in the charts today.

I guess it's just purely down to the songwriting, or is it? I mean, Spandau, Duran and co all wrote some great classic songs, they just sound completely out of time and place to me now, whereas songs like Talk Talk's Life's What You Make It, The Smiths' How Soon Is Now or Tears For Fears' Mad World, for example, sound like they could have been written yesterday, they're still so relevant and modern sounding to me.

Anyone else find this with groups they once thought sounded the height of modern and cool?!

Damn, I meant to post this in the Music forum. Could a mod please move it to there for me?

You can say the same about other decades too.

I can date a song by its production.

Yes, defintely. But all the groups/singers of each period had the same production technology/equipment at their disposal, yet some still end up sounding like they were recorded a million years ago whilst others sound like they were recorded yesterday. That always amazes me.

A good producer/sound engineer can make a huge difference.

Despite that, a cheesy song sounds dated at any time

Quite simply, artists like Depeche Mode, u2 and Madonna moved with the times and reinvented themselves.

I know less than nothing about music production, but even I can tell that the sound was thinner than technology offers us today. This doesn't show up on pared-down acoustic music; nor does it make much difference on simple four-square rock tracks. But attempts to make a 'big sound' a la Duran duran sound oddly weedy today.

What about those early discoveries of sampling? How dated do they sound today? "Look at me ma, I can run a bit backwards! I can put in three seconds of some catchy 'ethnic' sound then segue into something completely different!"

Am I dreaming, or is there a tiny revival of 70's prog, the very last genre I ever thought we would hear from again? All together now,

That was John Peel you know.

A lot will have to do not just with production techniques, but with instruments and sounds themselves.

For instance, a lot of early Hip Hop used cowbells. Hell knows how that got in there. Hated that sound then, still hate it now. But the point is that it was overused and became a lazy cliche.
For some reason if you made Hip Hop pre-1986,..that's just what you did. No reason, didn't add anything, just bang a cowbell sound in there.

Keyboards are important too.
Several of the acts you mention are synthesiser bands ('Groups' back then, not 'Bands').
Digital synthesisers were the in thing. Certain brands of synthesisers had their own very distinctive sounds. Like the DX7.
But the problem is that if you try too hard to sound modern and cool you may be all the rage for a while and be the coolest thing around for a time, but ironically the very act of doing that would root you to the period of that time.

In the 1990s due to economical reasons, some of the more underground sounds came out of rave because they couldn't afford these expensive digital synths so they ended up getting cheap second hand analogue synths from the 1970s as that's all they could afford and nobody used them anymore so they could get them at dirt cheap bargain prices.
So 'new' retro analogue sounds started to sound better than the digital synths of the 1980s which themselves started to sound dated now.
Interesting innovations in electronic music were coming out which sounded more imaginative and interesting than what was coming out of mainstream pop in the late 1980s using their old digital synths and Stock Aitken and Waterman tired old digital drum machine loops.
Layered break beats originated from Hip Hop and brought forward by Rave started to sound better than the old tinny SAW formula drum machine loops.

So even by the early 1990s a lot of the 1980s synth pop sounded so dated even at that point. Even though there were exceptions which still sounded good simply because they were good songs.

So nowadays I think music from the 1970s can often seem more relevant today than a lot of 1980s stuff because analogue is very flexible and can still produce interesting sounds, even though the keyboards are expensive again, and good guitar stuff always seems to be a staple, which is possibly why acts such as The Smiths in your list are still appreciated today.

For me Kraftwerk from the 1970s still sounds great, wheras a lot of the New Romantic pop from the 1980s sounds extremely dated.

I'd also add that for me 1970s retro still often works for me, it still has a lot of presence in today's music, from garage rock/punky guitar stuff to experimental electronic music.
But 1980s retro is still usually just weak pop and seems to just be regurgitated by the industry because they seem to think that you can just artificially regenerate the 80s because it worked for the 70s when 70s influences were replicated in retro ways. But if it was tinny little teeny bopper pop in the first place then it's still going to be tinny little teeny bopper pop now.
Raw analogue sounds carry some beef to their sound. That's why a lot of synthesisers and soft synths today which try to approximate an analogue sound are very popular.

They even tried to brand the 80s retro synth pop stuff as 'Electro', which is just plain wrong if you know your Hip Hop.
That song 'Acceptable in the 80s' is one of the most awful sounds to pass my ears. It's just like somebody scratching their nails down a blackboard. Oh, I forgot, some people here won't know what a blackboard is so won't get that reference. 80s revival synth pop...that's a close approximation of what it is.

One of the most important factors in determining whether an pop artists music is successful is how it sounds sonically. If it's poorly produced and mastered even good songs struggle to see the light of day. However a great song married to a great production and a perfect master cut is timeless. A few examples from the ages, Something in the Air, Honky Tonk Woman, River Deep - Mountain High, Papa was a Rollin' Stone, Hotter than July, Owner of a Lonely Heart, Everbody Wants to Rule the World, La Isla Bonita, Smells like Teen Spirit, Don't Speak, Wonderwall, Skater Boy etc. add your favourites to the list. A sub standard pop production guarantees historical oblivion, a lot of the eighties 'image pop' stuff especially Duran Duran is IMHO naff, I thought it was at the time but it certainly sounds even more so now - at least to my ears, I guess lots pf people won't agree but I don't hear great timeless songs or production in their work.
Tears for Fears still sound great and a lot of the Thompson Twins songs too. The best thing that happened to music in the eighties though was the birth of 'Chicago House' and Hip-Hop. Quite a lot of it was pap and sounds it big time now but they were pioneering, experimental styles of music linked heavily to the technology of the day and suffer consequently, but there are some gems.
Anyway I'm rambling but to sum up, great songs and great production make hits but how the music sounds, perhaps its call it its 'warmth' is very important. So much of current pop music sounds like it's mixed with nails added to the final masters or something; it is too harsh!

Depeche Mode reinvented themselves by becoming more & more depressed!

(I love 'em by the way!)

True..........lol.......I like them too though.

A lot has to do with the type of synths used. Early 80s models sound 'dated' whereas synth pop from the late 80s/early 90s sounds fuller and more sophisticated. Depeche Mode around 'Speak & Spell' sounds incredibly 'dated' but 'Enjoy the silence' era Mode doesn't grate. Personally i like the 'dated'ness as it conjures up the times the music was made in so well, whether it's 80s synth pop, 70s glam or 90s house/rave. As for the Smiths they don't sound dated because they consciously created a sound that wasn't 80s but 60s influenced (guitars, no electronics etc). A lot of guitar rock is hard to place in a given time because it faithfully tries to recreate the sound of bygone eras.

I always thought that the 80's marked a watershed in the way that albums were written.

It's the bands that were writing their albums as a collection of singles, each one attempting to appeal to the youth of the moment, that seem to have dated most noticeably. After all, pop is disposable. The bands writing an album in the traditional style have fared much better IMO. Quality writing wins.

Alot of music from the sixties and seventies sounds fresher than a lot of stuff recorded in the eighties.
Synths and drum machines were new and overused by a lot of bands during the eighties in the post punk period. The sound that was fashionable then sounds really dated now.
Anything recorded using more traditional instruments (guitars, real drums etc) has stood the test of time better.

One word - Fairlight.

All interesting stuff from alrightmate. Though I'm not sure I understand the point about analogue stuff being 'flexible'; I would have thought digital gave producers a far greater range of possibilities?

Maybe the word 'flexible' I used was misleading as I wasn't specific.
In truth I think in general I'm probably wrong due to the fact that digital synths could have more settings and instruments on them.
But I am talking more about then than now.

I think I should have used the word 'organic'.
The analogue synths had a directness to them which would be more flexible in terms of direct knob twiddling to get interesting sounds on the fly, instead of having to go through menus and settings on their digital counterparts.
A lot of musicians say this as well as saying that they felt that analogue had a more natural and organic sound.

It's a bit different to back then now though as even with software synths that you can even download off the internet which are obviously digital they can do a very good job of emulating vintage analogue synths.
Now we've got bit crushers, sample manglers, and other user friendly production techniques that can create all sorts of interesting weirdness. So digital now has improved a lot in respect to creating lead synth sounds since the 80s.

I guess that there's pros and cons to both types. But a lot of those old 80s synth pop songs had harsh, tinny, synthetic sounds which probably roots them in their time. I often found a lot those synth sounds quite boring to hear as well, apart from some exceptions.
Analogue tended to have a wibbly wobbly, organic, rich, beefy, and warm sound.

From the 80s to the 90s you definitely noticed an overall general difference.

When I listen back to some old CDs I have from the 80s, they sound quite dated but when a GH comes out, the same songs can sound much fresher, so I don't know what they do with them in the studios but it works.

That said, a good song is a good song and will stand the test of time.

Records are like wine - some improve with age, some do not. I'm currently rediscovering a lot of 80s/early 90s stuff as I load up my iPod, and it's been really interesting to find how some CDs still sound fresh, eneregtic and give me listening pleasure, while some stuff I really liked 20 odd years ago sounds flat, dull and meh.

As rose says, a good tune is a good tune, you just may not realise it at the time

Interesting thread - We were talking the other day about Whams "Last Christmas" - I live in Canada,and in December its played everywhere just like in the UK.
I always think its timeless and sounds a little more contempary than the 70s Christmas hits

Well it's certainly contempary compared to 00s christmas classics, what the X Factor?? lol

without reading through the thread (time restraints) and to suggest an answer (apologies if this has been already posted) ... music by the smiths, talk talk etc were pretty superior to the more lightweight pop of duran duran, spandau etc. with the current fad for what passes as 'indie' (but in truth isnt REAL indie) smiths, talk talk etc are obvious influences.

talking about current 'indie', which seems to be the discription for 'jangly guitars' music, does that make west coast groups from the 60's like the byrds the godfathers of indie and not the manchester punk /new wave groups of the late 70's?...lol

I think good music is ageless, One of my favourite bands ever is Depeche Mode and i think their 80's albums are among the best they've ever done, Music for the Masses for example, and their sound today is more relevant than ever, on the other hand we have things like Modern Talking that were already cheesy back then and today still sound dated, although quite fun i have to admit...Good music never goes out of fashion.

Hey Rob
Talk Talk superior - Is that why they had to release It's My Life three times to make it a hit in the UK ?
They were so uncommercial that EMI had to remix songs behind their backs to make some money !

I couldnt stand the Smiths,but I will concede that they were influential in the Manchester sound

Im off to play the Duran Duran million sellers...LOL

oh duran duran sold more.... they were more popular, not in doubt (and im not saying they were bad...indeed they were good pop) . talk talk though were one of the 80's gems that were not commercially popular but were rated by 'the biz' and musicians in general. imho the produced class pop .... but then again throughout pop music history many of the great influencial bands never had great commercial success.

obviously i love talk talk, id also cite squeeze and especially XTC as other producers of classic pop in the 80's who had scant commercial success but were respected and influencial.