CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › Timeless / dated music
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Timeless / dated music

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 

I know I'm writing about music, which is something that's very subjectively experienced and relates to how the listener changes and matures. But there was an interview with Greg Dulli on The Onion where he described his song Somethin' Hot:

 

“Somethin’ Hot” is like a line of cocaine. It’s a blast. Okay, so maybe now it’s a double espresso, but at the time, it was definitely a line of cocaine."

 

I thought about this when I listened to Troublegum by Therapy, one of my favorite albums from my teens years (released 1994). The opening song Knives still kills and sounds like it was released yesterday. But some of the songs sound very dated, like the single release Nowhere. I have no idea why this is. Any ideas? Why does Life is Peachy by KoRn sounds like a 15 year old album and Around The Fur by Deftones doesn't? And to be clear, I don't mean sounding aged equals bad, just wondering what makes a timeless song and/or a timeless album?

 

Links to mentioned songs:

 

Knives

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF5b_mf99AE

 

Nowhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4roPZbY3zh4

 

ADIDAS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=239vHrwt8Rs

 

Be quiet and drive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvknOXGPzCQ

post #2 of 63

I always amazed at how old OK Computer is. I'm not even a huge fan of Radiohead but that album could have been released yesterday.

post #3 of 63
Thread Starter 

It blows my mind that OK Computer is also 15 years old. That album is a very good example of what I mean, it wasn't just ahead of its time when it was released, it sounds completely timeless.

post #4 of 63

It seems to me that, for a song to be timeless, it almost has to exclusively use basic instrumentation and not be overproduced.

 

I'll use Rush as an example.

 

Their early albums mainly consisted of guitar, bass, and drums.  They brought in keyboards after a few albums, but its use was fairly minimal.  They'd occasionally have songs that featured the keyboards more heavily, but the basic structure of their music was essentially the same: guitar, bass, and drums

 

After MOVING PICTURES, they decided to experiment more with keyboards.  At this point, what I like to call '80s production syndrome' set in:

- the drums got that technical, poom poom sound.

- the guitars lost their hard edge and took on that 80s sound.

- the keyboards got overly bright in the mix.

- sampled sounds and whatnot poked up over the music.

 

Now, I like a lot of these albums, but they really sound tied to a specific time and place that really doesn't fit with the rest of their catalog.  It took them a good decade to strip back down to the basics: guitar, bass and drums.  Everything from COUNTERPARTS on sounds timeless again.

 

Another artist hit with 80s production syndrome:

Bruce Springsteen.  I love the TUNNEL OF LOVE album, but it's undeniably an 80s album.  I'd love to see it re-recorded to a more timeless sound.

post #5 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

Another artist hit with 80s production syndrome:

Bruce Springsteen.  I love the TUNNEL OF LOVE album, but it's undeniably an 80s album.  I'd love to see it re-recorded to a more timeless sound.

 

I'd say the prime offender of BROOOOOOOSSSS!!!!'s, as far as being a victim of 80s production goes, is Born in the U.S.A.

 

 

I'm not going to link the album version of the title track, because I'm pretty sure we all know it. But I WILL link a different version, and I think it illustrates the difference between dated and timeless as well as anything: 

 

 

 

 

On the album, the song is cheesy and overblown (and it isn't even the worst offender on the album - "Glory Days" and "Dancin' in the Dark" are probably far better than the production they got*); as performed here, it's stark and powerful. 

 

 

* - not sure about "Glory Days" - the fact that he confuses a "fastball" and a "speedball" is mind-boggling; it's not even a cheat to get the proper rhyme, because one would work as well as the other

post #6 of 63

Excellent version of the song, Chavez.  Thanks for the link.

post #7 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtanen View Post

It blows my mind that OK Computer is also 15 years old. That album is a very good example of what I mean, it wasn't just ahead of its time when it was released, it sounds completely timeless.

 

Doesn't hurt that OK Computer is such a unique experiment in genre and instrumentation whereas Radiohead's earlier alt-rock stuff and even their later electronica stuff is somewhat out of fashion now.

post #8 of 63

Another example: David Bowie and DEAD MAN WALKING.

 

Now, I like the EARTHLING album.  I like it a lot, actually.  It's undeniably a product of the late 90s, though.  A great song is a great song, however.

 

Observe the original:

 

And listen to how much stronger it is when it's reduced to its basic elements:

post #9 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evi View Post

 

Doesn't hurt that OK Computer is such a unique experiment in genre and instrumentation whereas Radiohead's earlier alt-rock stuff and even their later electronica stuff is somewhat out of fashion now.

 

THE BENDS and OK COMPUTER hold up beautifully.  THE BENDS, in particular, sounds like it could have been released yesterday.

 

While I love those two albums, everything after OK COMPUTER completely lost me.

post #10 of 63

I find it hard to believe this is 40 years old.

 

post #11 of 63

We use acoustic guitars and solo songwriting as signifiers of "timeless" because that's the oldest music we still listen to (in the pop area, classical's a different beast of course). But there's no real indication that 80's cheese will seem more "dated" a hundred years from now when listeners will come to it without our cultural baggage (70's acoustic rock/folk rock certainly sounds dated).

 

Also, I once read an article about 80's Boogie (you know, Imagination, Pleasure, etc.) as the last movement where you can tell exactly what era the songs were recorded in, because it's the last genre to pre-date sampling, after which any given recording may include snippets from several different decades and it becomes harder to tell.

 

(This is all following on the OP's idea that dated = sounds like it's from a specific era, not "doesn't hold up" or "sounds bad". Most of my favourite music/movies/whatever are dated, it's part of the appeal!)

post #12 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post

We use acoustic guitars and solo songwriting as signifiers of "timeless" because that's the oldest music we still listen to (in the pop area, classical's a different beast of course). But there's no real indication that 80's cheese will seem more "dated" a hundred years from now when listeners will come to it without our cultural baggage (70's acoustic rock/folk rock certainly sounds dated).

 

 

Hmmm, maybe I'm misreading but you kind of contradict yourself here - you say acoustic guitars and solo songwriting are "signifiers" of timelessness but then use the acoustic folkies of the 70s as an example of datedness. 

 

 

The thing with an acoustic version of a song is that is strips away the artifice, and you're left with the performance; the music then is either good, or it isn't - as opposed to something like Lady Gaga (not to pick on her, I love some of her stuff) where I think a HUGE part of the appeal is the layering and overproduction. Something where the production tricks are out of the way holds up a little better. Look at classic Motown, which is wonderfully produced, in that it doesn't sound produced at all:

 

 

 

I just don't see that ever getting old. Now, KT Tunstall does a solo acoustic version that is terrific, but I don't think it's really an improvement over the original:

 

post #13 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chavez View Post

 

 

Hmmm, maybe I'm misreading but you kind of contradict yourself here - you say acoustic guitars and solo songwriting are "signifiers" of timelessness but then use the acoustic folkies of the 70s as an example of datedness. 

 

 

The thing with an acoustic version of a song is that is strips away the artifice, and you're left with the performance; the music then is either good, or it isn't - as opposed to something like Lady Gaga (not to pick on her, I love some of her stuff) where I think a HUGE part of the appeal is the layering and overproduction. Something where the production tricks are out of the way holds up a little better. Look at classic Motown, which is wonderfully produced, in that it doesn't sound produced at all:

 

 

 

I just don't see that ever getting old. Now, KT Tunstall does a solo acoustic version that is terrific, but I don't think it's really an improvement over the original:

 

 

Yeah, my point is that we have acoustic guitars as signifiers of "timelessness" but this isn't actually how things work out (thus my point about 70's Folk-Rock, which I love, sounding very much of its time). It's an idea of "authenticity" that is very much connected to our current modes of thinking, and I have no idea how that will apply to future generations.

 

Your Motown point confuses the hell out of me, to be honest, because in the 60's Motown was as overproduced as you could get. String sections! Brass sections! Background singers! Exotic instruments! I defintiley think "1965" when I hear those Motown originals, which doesn't really decrease my enjoyment of same because, again, I don't think dated = got old. Actually, now that I think of it, I guess you could make the case that what passes as "timelessness" in these debates ends up being more anonymity or genericness than anything else - I mean, does The Godfather look like it could have been made anytime but the 70's?

post #14 of 63

My point wasn't to strip it down to the acoustic level with my David Bowie post.  My point was to strip away all of the flapdoodle so that you get to THE SONG itself.  Timeless music shouldn't need all of that 'flavor of the moment' trendy shit to stand up.

post #15 of 63

For bringing Therapy?'s "Knives" into my life again today I thank thee Virtanen. One of the best songs of the 90s from one of the best albums of the 90s.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

THE BENDS and OK COMPUTER hold up beautifully.  THE BENDS, in particular, sounds like it could have been released yesterday.

 

While I love those two albums, everything after OK COMPUTER completely lost me.

 

I think The Bends particularly benefits from the fact it was so massively influential that a lot of indie rock pop music really hasn't moved on since. It's a 17 year old album but when a band like Coldplay is topping charts and selling out arenas today The Bends may as well be 17 weeks old. Since "Alt" broke through in the wake of Nevermind there really hasn't been a significant shift in popular music.

 

Love,

Old dude

post #16 of 63

Wait...a thread exists that talks about Bowie & Radiohead and I'm only catching it now???

 

Anyway...

 

I'll submit three examples of old music that sound as if they could be made in 2012:

From 1981, this album's treble-y/slight overcompression pre-dates that particular fad by nearly 30 years.

 

From 1983. Nile Rodgers is a god on this production. Refusing to fall sway to any trend, this is Bowie's freshest sounding and - on a purely engineering level - best produced album. One thing that keeps this album so fresh is that it's completely unencumbered by 1982 trends. It simply refuses to age.

 

From 1982. The bass in this production is the only thing that betrays this song's timelessness. Like LET'S DANCE, the instrumentation is thick, crisp, & widescreen. AVALON is one ofthe best produced albums ever.

post #17 of 63

From 1983. Absolutely avoids the bassless approach that so many bands took at the time. Chunky enough in the middle that it almost sounds like modern overcompression.

 

post #18 of 63

Fuck, I killed the thread, didn't I? Oh God, I'm like Duke Fleed, but with Metal instead of action-figure movies.

post #19 of 63

 

Whenever I hear this album, it blows my mind that it's from 1981. Listening to it, you would swear that Henry, Greg, & the gang are a brand new band who recorded this album in 2012 using their laptop.

post #20 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtanen View Post

 

I thought about this when I listened to Troublegum by Therapy, one of my favorite albums from my teens years (released 1994). The opening song Knives still kills and sounds like it was released yesterday. But some of the songs sound very dated, like the single release Nowhere.

 

Damn sir, you know the way to my heart. Therapy? are one of my all-time favourite bands, and I see what you mean comparing Knives and Nowhere. Therapy? have always been very diverse though; they had that 90s pop-punk side which probably does feel dates nowadays, but then you have stuff like the first couple of albums which still sounds like nothing else out there. You could play someone Teethgrinder or Meat Abstract today and they'd still be stumped as to what band it was. Maybe Ministry would be a comparison point, but even then the style's very different.

My 'time' for music was definitely the U.K. in the 90s, and a lot of the best rock bands of that period had that tendency to come out with stuff that was either very era-specific or completely on its own tack in ways no-one else has attempted. Case in point: The Wildhearts (My #1 favourite band).

 

EDIT: this would be where I attach a couple of Youtubes of Wildhearts track but I'm at work. Daw, shit.

post #21 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post

 

THE BENDS and OK COMPUTER hold up beautifully.  THE BENDS, in particular, sounds like it could have been released yesterday.

 

While I love those two albums, everything after OK COMPUTER completely lost me.

 

I was like that for a while, then (relatively) recently got into Kid A.  Going back to OK Computer was really hard after that, primarily because I had rinsed it SO much. In fact the thing that actually got me back into it was Radiodread.  It reminded me of what a completely solid album it is by having different interpretations of the same tunes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Decade View Post

 

 

From 1983. Nile Rodgers is a god on this production. Refusing to fall sway to any trend, this is Bowie's freshest sounding and - on a purely engineering level - best produced album. One thing that keeps this album so fresh is that it's completely unencumbered by 1982 trends. It simply refuses to age.

 

 

 

Let's not forget Stevie Ray. I love this album so much, and Let's Dance is, for me, the sexiest song ever made.  I have a long standing argument with the wife.  She says China Girl is, I tell her she's wrong.

post #22 of 63

You're both wrong. The correct answer is "Cat People".


From 1985. If this were a brand new Radiohead song, I wouldn't bat an eye. It's timeless.

post #23 of 63

No offense but "Cat People" is NOT the correct answer (plus you linked to a Talk Talk song not Cat People).

 

The correct answer is.....

 

post #24 of 63

And, heed my words Chewers, sometimes "dated" works. As evidence I submit.....

 

post #25 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

No offense but "Cat People" is NOT the correct answer

 


I was kidding.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

(plus you linked to a Talk Talk song not Cat People).

 

Yes, Talk Talk was my next example of "timeless music". Jeez, get on the trolley, mate.

 

 


From 1970. This is bizarrely timeless. It sounds like Gotye if he were produced by Nigel Godrich.

post #26 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post

 

Also, I once read an article about 80's Boogie (you know, Imagination, Pleasure, etc.) as the last movement where you can tell exactly what era the songs were recorded in, because it's the last genre to pre-date sampling, after which any given recording may include snippets from several different decades and it becomes harder to tell.

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with your examples; what is this genre?  Is it that early-to-mid 80s dance-pop with funk and hip-hop influence, the most popular artist whom I can think of would be Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam?  The best example I can think of is the non-rap or -electro components of the Breakin' soundtrack.  If not, what are some other examples/artists and what is that darned sub-genre I've been searching for the name of for almost 30 years?

post #27 of 63

From 1988. With it's uniquely implacable instrumentation & sharp, "80s-trend" free drums, this sounds as if it could have been made in 1980, 2000, or 2012.

post #28 of 63
Thread Starter 

Confession time: I kind of like Linkin Park. There's a band that's more or less doomed to sound like its time. I don't know if this is true, but they seem to release an album everytime there's a new version of Pro Tools out. I predict their two Rick Rubin -produced albums (Minutes to Midnight & A Thousand Suns) will age more gracefully than most of their output (like this year's self-produced dubsteppy album). Especially A Thousand Suns sounds just plain weird most of its running time. And nothing ages better than weird.

post #29 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielRoffle View Post

 

Yeah, my point is that we have acoustic guitars as signifiers of "timelessness" but this isn't actually how things work out (thus my point about 70's Folk-Rock, which I love, sounding very much of its time). It's an idea of "authenticity" that is very much connected to our current modes of thinking, and I have no idea how that will apply to future generations.

 

Your Motown point confuses the hell out of me, to be honest, because in the 60's Motown was as overproduced as you could get. String sections! Brass sections! Background singers! Exotic instruments! I defintiley think "1965" when I hear those Motown originals, which doesn't really decrease my enjoyment of same because, again, I don't think dated = got old. Actually, now that I think of it, I guess you could make the case that what passes as "timelessness" in these debates ends up being more anonymity or genericness than anything else - I mean, does The Godfather look like it could have been made anytime but the 70's?

 

Agreed! I'm wary of the way timeless (in the sense of not being clearly tied to its era) gets treated as a compliment, or something people should aspire to. As you point out, our idea of what sounds timeless is based on a lot of baggage and there's a good chance it'll all sound in some way dated a few decades from now, and a lot of these ideas about timelessness seem to come from the slightly unadventurous mindset that music made by one man and a guitar is some how more authentic or legit than music based more around technology.

 

Take The Bends. Maybe that album could have been released this year, but the context would make it different. Instead of being in any way cutting edge it'd sound more like a retro throwback to the days when alternative rock was on top of the world. With its grungy guitars it's probably dated more than anything they did since, as they pretty much sealed themselves in their own idiosyncratic bubble after that point.

 

Also Let's Dance strikes me as a pretty odd choice for Bowie's most 'timeless' album. It's got the early-80's all over it! In fact all the 80's stuff Art Decade posted sound pretty obviously from that decade. Not that that's automatically a bad thing.

post #30 of 63
Thread Starter 

Also when bands strive for timeless sound, they usually end up sounding like a pastiche of another decade, usually the 60's. Take Oasis, for example. Granted, Wonderwall sounds both current and timeless, but most of their songs sound excactly like 1960's Beatles records re-mastered by someone high on cocaine.

post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Dahlia View Post

 

 

I'm not familiar with your examples; what is this genre?  Is it that early-to-mid 80s dance-pop with funk and hip-hop influence, the most popular artist whom I can think of would be Lisa Lisa and Cult Jam?  The best example I can think of is the non-rap or -electro components of the Breakin' soundtrack.  If not, what are some other examples/artists and what is that darned sub-genre I've been searching for the name of for almost 30 years?

 

I think it's only become a "genre" retrospectively; it certainly wasn't being called Boogie when it was around. Your examples aren't too far-off; basically I'm talking early 80's R&B with sort of a Disco sensibility, but slower and more synth-driven. A lot of stuff that came out on Prelude and West End records. I imagine it as the sort of music well-behaved kids listened to while their peers started getting into Hip-Hop...Cosby Kid music, though I know the chronology doesn't add up on that level. I've also heard it described as "Modern Funk" and "Electro Funk".

 

http://www.electrofunkroots.co.uk/articles/the_building_blocks_of_boogie.html - this is a good article on the phenomenon

 

http://10mixes.com/dm-funk-boogie-mix/ - and this is a great mix by Dam-Funk, who does similiar stuff today.

post #32 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virtanen View Post

Take Oasis, for example. Granted, Wonderwall sounds both current and timeless, but most of their songs sound excactly like 1960's Beatles records re-mastered by someone high on cocaine.

 

 

Hmmm, I wonder why that is? 

 

 

 

 

I've come to the conclusion that all the reasons people list for "why Oasis sucks" are EXACTLY the reasons I like them. 

post #33 of 63
Thread Starter 

I would NEVER say or imply that Oasis sucks. But I admit that they... erm, take a lot of influences from past bands. Based on Gallaghers' post-Oasis output, Noel took all the songs with him and Liam took all the cocaine.

post #34 of 63
Oasis were hardly trail blazing innovators but people made way too much of the whole Beatles rip-offs thing. Whatever and a few other songs were pretty blatant nods, and Liam's vocal style is Lennony, but most of their stuff doesn't sound all that Beatley to me. Their stock in trade was straightforward swaggery rock, not artsy pop.
post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post

Oasis were hardly trail blazing innovators but people made way too much of the whole Beatles rip-offs thing. Whatever and a few other songs were pretty blatant nods, and Liam's vocal style is Lennony, but most of their stuff doesn't sound all that Beatley to me. Their stock in trade was straightforward swaggery rock, not artsy pop.

 

 

...and even if they did rip off the Beatles, so f'in what? They probably didn't do it any more blatantly than, say, Cheap Trick, who everybody loves (myself included) (it goes without saying that the Cheap Trick love is with damn good reason). 

post #36 of 63

 

This sounds like an alt rock radio hit you would hear in 2012. Gabriel is timeless. 

post #37 of 63

From 1980. Hasn't aged a fuckin' day.


With newer bands like My Tiger My Timing, Field Music, Wild Beasts, & Jack Peñate mixing Afrobeat w/electronica, it seems like a whole wing of Indie has only just caught up with the Talking Heads in the past 5-6 years.

post #38 of 63

I was mulling this over, and to an extent, I think that Judas' point about 80s cheeze production (and to an extent the non-cheesy but flawed production methods of the 50s-60s) is what makes some music sound "dated" even though it's more about the sound of the RECORDING much less than the sound of the music. I don't know that it follows that you need to use "basic" instrumentation, as we're closing in on 50 yrs of electronic instruments in music (and when you listen to a remastered Kraftwerk, say "The Man Machine", to me it still sounds fresh) so that is rapidly decreasing the ability to immediately pigeonhole a time frame/decade where a song/album came from. 

 

 

And to clarify a point I made that confused Daniel Roffle, I guess I'd hesitate to use the term "overproduced" - because, as you point out, Motown (generally speaking) was arguably overproduced, as were Pink Floyd, and they hold up just fine. I think maybe a better indicator would be a production tactic (or musical trend) that existed, fell out of favor, and never came back into favor because it was fucking stupid (examples - the "psychedelic breakdown/freakout" in 60s psychedelic/garage rock; the strings in late 60s/early 70s Countrypolitan; cheesy synths and booming drums in all 80s music*, whether it needed it or not). 

 

 

 

As the "rock" timeline increases, you see genres show up, go away, and come back - since the White Stripes showed up, suddenly you can't tell if a garage rock song is a lost 60s classic or some new band from Detroit. Same with soul - is it Stax, or is it Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings? 

 

 

 

I guess in my mind, the real debate here is less whether or not something is "dated" or "timeless" but more "does it hold up to repeated listens?" If it's good, it'll last (hopefully); if it's not, it won't (hopefully). 

 

 

 

* - though the other week, I stopped on commercial country channel and was boggled by how much it EXACTLY sounded like some 3rd-tier L.A. Glam band would have back in the late 80s - production wise, it was indistinguishable; lyric-wise, it was close enough were you wouldn't notice a difference if you weren't paying attention; the ONLY giveaway was instead of a "rocking" chorus, it had more the "country" twang-y chorus)

post #39 of 63

I was surprised to learn that this was released in 1984. Always sounded like a '90s song to me.

 

post #40 of 63
Remain In Light is definitely one of the best arguments against the idea that music needs to be stripped down and traditional to sound timeless. That one all but throws out the four-piece band setup (making the cover slightly ironic), is full of cutting edge effects and production trickery, and half the time the guitars don't even sound like guitars, but it's all so perfectly put together and alien sounding it doesnt sound tied to any particular era at all. I think similar can be said for something like Kid A, not to mention plenty of purely electronic music.
post #41 of 63

That version of Tom's Diner is a 1990 remix by DNA.  I made the same mistake with this:

 

post #42 of 63

When I think timeless, I think Frank Sinatra.   That man made pop hits that are still played today and danced to.   When I saw the thread title, I thought we were talking about music that still works vs. music that doesn't.   My suggestions under that criteria would be "ABBA" and "Queen".   Their music is still great pop/rock (respectively)

post #43 of 63

Another problem with "timelessness" is that stuff may sound fresh right now because there's a lot of new acts reviving it, but these revivals are also a product of their time - which is to say, Talking Heads may not sound quite as timely in 5-7 years when there won't be as many Indie bands messing about with African rhythms anymore (they'll still sound great, though, I dunno why I keep making these disclaimers but I'm keen to separate the two).

post #44 of 63

 

The first time I heard this I couldn't tell if it was from 1980, 1995 or 2013.

post #45 of 63

When I think timeless, I think of the Beatles and Bob Dylan

post #46 of 63



The music of these two women is timeless the passion and the beauty of the lyrics that sparks sparks my imagination of how well it flows
post #47 of 63

post #48 of 63

There's a lot of "coulda been made last week!" being thrown around in this thread as a mark of timlessness (I guess)  when what is being picked is either an example of a particular 70s or 80s musical/instrumental/production style revival or an original from said style that has been revived   Even Paranoid Android is heavily reliant on old school prog rock and Pink Floyd-ish experimentation.  It was the modern rock record that your dad didn't mind listening to.

Music goes forwards by doing backward loop-the-loops.

 

Anyway, I can't stand that thin 80s sound either.  I can't really explain how anyone thought that style was a good idea.  I tend to suspect cocaine, irrational love of Martin Hannett, general bad taste and lots of new tech coming along that no one really knew how to use properly.  It's kind of amazing though.  I'm not a big fan of 80s pop musically either, but I listen to stuff like La Roux and Goldfrapp doing rather 80s inflected stuff and it sounds soo much better than it would have done back then just because its produced well.

post #49 of 63

Blind taste tests have concluded that people may have difficulty determining what year these songs were created:



post #50 of 63
A lot of Donovan's music feels timeless to me. Colours, Hurdy Gurdy Man, Season of the Witch, etc
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
CHUD.com Community › Forums › MUSIC › Music › Timeless / dated music