Ya know, Greg, I took a listen to the tunes on your Soundclick page again. I think these songs are all quite strong (while not all to my taste), I have to agree with your original critic that they don't sound current. 
Underlying the tunes is classic structure, smart choices, and smooth changes. All the hallmarks of great pop.
To take these tunes into more "current' sounding production would not be that hard. The hook and the song is what sells the tune, but it is the sound that gets it sold. IYKWIM.

Let's face it boys. If you are over 40 and male, chances are you won't be selling your music to anyone soon regardless of how modern it sounds.

If you are female, 20 something, with a body to die for and a face to match, and you write music regardless of it being even interesting. That is the modern sound. Taylor Swift, Katie Perry, et als. See a trend here.
 
Just listened to the OPs tunes and here is my critique.
 
1. Instruments sound thin as if they were all generated in software. 
2. Too much reverb on everything makes its sounds circa 1985. Try all of these mixes dry with the exception of a delay on the vocal.
3. The rule of most music in this genre is start at 10, 15 or 20 seconds into the song for the vocal.
4. Build to the chorus with your instrumentation don't introduce it too early in the song.
5. A real 1980s technique was a strong intro and dropping back to a lower driving verse. You did that in the first song.
 
Tips: Run all computer generated sounds out to a decent preamp with tubes or transformers and back into the computer. That will make them sound more authentic like they were recorded in a room.
 
Get a richer sounding vocal mic. The one you are using is very thin sounding for vocals.
 
Only add supporting instrument notes in the spaces between the vocals.
 
Kill the reverb. It should be applied in spoonfuls not like a swimming pool.
 
Dry, pumping. That is the modern sound (Think SSL if you have those plug ins)
 
 
 

Middleman


Let's face it boys. If you are over 40 and male, chances are you won't be selling your music to anyone soon regardless of how modern it sounds.

If you are female, 20 something, with a body to die for and a face to match, and you write music regardless of it being even interesting. That is the modern sound. Taylor Swift, Katie Perry, et als. See a trend here. 
  
  
  
 

I am getting a sex change and then adding heapfuls of botox!

James: I have to agree with your original critic that they don't sound current

The hook and the song is what sells the tune, but it is the sound that gets it sold. IYKWIM.

Well said! Thanks :-)

And your criticism of my songs is fair and right on, this is why I'm wanting to take it further, experiment more, put in the extra effort.  As for the 'thin sound' that you and Middleman noted?  I need to stop 'cutting' too much low-end (HPF), I've over done this because I wanted to get more 'clarity' in my mixes.

I'll will move in another direction (style/genre) with stronger influences of Electronica, Hip-Hop, Prog-House, IDM.  Because; (See post #41), lately I've been experimenting with those genres.

Again James, thank you! I greatly appreciate your comments :-)


Middleman: Let's face it boys.  If you are over 40 and male, chances are you won't be selling your music to anyone soon regardless of how modern it sounds.

Sadly Yes, I agree but not entirely beause (1) your considered too old when you get closer to 30, but on the positive side occassionally (although it's rare) to succeed later in life.   And (2) there are alternatives such as; publishing, film-score, jingles, or find young singers to collaborate with, all these options I have taken seriously.  This is something I have done before, and I know of others who are doing that now with success :-)

Honestly! I would prefer to work behind the scene, co-produce, co-write and let the young guns have the spotlight (center stage), because quite frankly I don't want to be in the spotlight, I rather sit in a pit (backstage) with computers (backing tracks).

Thanks for bringing up an issue and thanks for giving me constructive criticsm on my work. As for the mic? I prefer to close mic with good proximity... honestly all my initial raw vocal recordings have a ton of bass-end warmth.  Unfortunately I don't have SSL, I have Ozone and T-Racks.  Anyway I greatly appreciate you comments, excellent advise. :-)


Edit:  Before I go and cook dinner and forget to mention...

This thread is 'opened for others to have their own work discussed'.  I don't want this topic to be about my work only.

Thanks.

I had a chance to listen to a few of your tunes... my constructive criticism is that the first two songs on SoundClick both did have a style that dated them but the style or date was indecisive.

One of the songs sounded like a great sixties period piece but every now and then the mix would sound very 80's in that *I thought it sounded polished but now I know it sounded 80's* sort of way.

My feeling is that if the song and vibe the matched up more cohesively it would seem more natural even if it was a dated style.

When I have previously argued that dating shouldn't matter much I have been assuming that the feeling and vibe we are talking about is at the very least confined to a period... where as I think I'm hearing a bit of a mash-up in your mixes.

I really like the songs... and I like the mixes... but I think they can be done with a greater sense of commitment to a certain vibe or feel.

Does that make sense?

all the best,
mike

After I posted questioning "genre" and "modern" correlation, if OP or anybody had any factual thought about...with no reply...and questioning the definition of "modern" definition with audio examples, and again, no replies...
In trying to understand exactly what is being talked about that is factual, if any of it is, and not reading anything that I would consider as factual in defining "modern" (unless it blew over my head) I've read everything as opinions.
 
So alternative was to search. Below was copied from Wiki. I don't and wouldn't stop with this in trying to get a better understanding of what "modern music" may be, it is a good example in demonstrating that defining "modern" has many categories that should be known before one may consider a definition being accurate, I would think.

Modern rock is a term commonly used to describe a rock music format found on American commercial radio. Generally beginning with late 1970s punk but referring especially to rock music since the 1980s, the phrase "modern rock" is used to differentiate the music from "classic rock", which focuses on music recorded in the 1960s through the early 1980s. More specifically, the modern rock format consists of commercial radio stations that primarily play alternative rock. As such, the format is also frequently called alternative radio.[1]
A few modern rock radio stations existed during the 1980s, such as WLIR-FM in New York City and WFNX in Boston[1] Modern rock was solidified as a radio format in 1988 with Billboard's creation of the Modern Rock Tracks chart. The 1988 episode of the VH1 show I Love the '80s discussed INXS, The Cure, Morrissey, Depeche Mode, and Erasure as modern rock artists representative of that year. But it was the breakthrough success of the grunge band Nirvana in 1992 that resulted in a large number of American radio stations switching to the format.[1] Modern rock is considered by some to be a specific genre of alternative rock.[2]

Personally I feel "modern" as well as genre's are things that I will probably never consider before I write.
I write with the state of mind and feelings that I have at the time. Should after completion one care to classify or analyze it, cool.

I also feel, with a very few exceptions, that IF what the radio/commercial music being aired is "modern"...it's a compliment to me NOT to be modern. As my music is not for monetary gain in any manner. Should money be the goal then one may be forced into understanding a genre's current "style". Which would include: Song structure, preferred instruments, current mixing techniques, vocal style and harmonies of and probably many other area's I'm not aware of.

It's been an interesting topic SongCraft.

An aspect that I could consider as being modern is current music that is composed by digital programs specifically. If "opinions" are what one use's to define "modern".  
As we know, many of today's works are "built" with loops, .wav files, etc. and manipulated, morphed, and created maybe by one person. Not only the instruments but voice as well.
So one could or may have the opinion that "modern music" is music created solely on or with a computer by a composer. Where real instruments and musicians were not used in the process. Only digital information.

At any rate, hope you find what you're looking for. I'll just stay with wether I like the sounds or not.

I can't answer your question Spacey but having studied visual art and other types of music I would say that the stuff people are calling modern today should be called contemporary while Modern is a term reserved for a period that is now part of history.

Modern painting occurred between 1880 and 1945

Modern music is exemplified by American Jazz ( think Duke Ellington ) and classical works by people like Stravinsky and Copeland.

When I think of Modern Rock I instinctively think of the guys that played right after the roots guys introduced mass media audiences to rock and roll. I'm speaking of The Beatles, Yardbirds, Bob Dylan and the Band.... to me that is modern music.

Any claim that newer music is "modern" leaves me feeling that the claim is just a cheap rip off of a term that serious observers of culture reserve for a specific period of time... chiefly the period when certain artistic trends met with a mass audience via reproduction in a mass medium.

I understand why some dudes in the eighties thought they could call their style of radio rock "Modern"... our culture allows people to make stuff up when it comes to marketing labels.... for example; you can sell imitation food with just about any label you want. You don't have to say "imitation cheese" or "imitation chocolate" any more. :-)

But if you want to be serious about discussing how various artistic trends have effected our lives it's helpful to use more specific labels.

For example in all other art disciplines the Punk movement is decidedly POST modern...  so it's sort of arbitrary for some radio marketer to label what ever they want "Modern"... and that's one of the problems with mass media today... many of the decision makers that choose what content is presented haven't been alive long enough to know what the breadth of their choices are. It takes a LOT of time to listen too and understand all the music out there.

I'm not complaining... I just live in the woods and make stuff because making stuff makes me happy. :-)

all the best,
mike

Probably like a lot of the musos on here,I'm struggle with the defination of 'modern' too. I listened to Kasabian  today (fairly recent / current) and to my ears they're just repeating what Primal Scream did 10 ten years ago. I'm talking about the riffs,the production,the attitude....in places the singer from Kasabian actually sounds just like the singer from Primal Scream. OK this is going back just 10 years,but my point is you can't dismiss something cos it's 'dated'. If Kasabian had dismissed the sound from the 90s - I'm not sure they'd even be around today.
But I've been at that cross road myself where I've felt the need to be more 'modern',so man I really know where you're coming from. Don't get me wrong I think it's cool you're looking on and checking out new horizons ! It just made me mad a little to hear the contact you had preaching to you on what music you should be playing. I would of said to him so a 2 part fugue would be out the question then ? har har. Good luck to you,I hope whatever you decide to do works out.Best wishes for xmas and the new year !
Kev

Mike and Kev,

I sure enjoyed your posts. I was starting to feel...like I'd missed the boat.

Mike-"I can't answer your question Spacey but having studied visual art and other types of music I would say that the stuff people are calling modern today should be called contemporary while Modern is a term reserved for a period that is now part of history. "

Exactly why I thought defining "Modern" should have been established at the start of this thread. IF "modern" definition could be agreed on.

 

Try to collab with younger musicians.  Try not to make them sound like "real" music.