If I still like something it's aged well. If I don't anymore, then it hasn't aged well.
I'm not talking about looking back on the music, I'm talking about the creation of the music. Is there anything you can do musically to set it up to age well? What are the actual qualities of an album that allow it to hold up well throughout decades? Production, structure, themes, lyrical ability, technical prowess? What is it? I think it's a good question.
Edit:
I actually vehemently disagree with that argument. While I understand it completely, and acknowledge it's evident for example in some of the pop references Em makes (to use him as an example), I feel like you could use the same argument for anyone from a decade or so ago.
Now, to me, aging well is more based on listening to an album years later and seeing if it still knocks. I can listen to MMLP and still see how good it is. Of course it sounds out of place at times, it was a completely different era. Hell look at Ready to Die (comparing the age). To me the aging argument is more was the album all hype and a product of the climate at the time or is it actually still good. And to me hearing the sheer hunger on those first two Em albums means I can never shit on them for some dated references.
I fully admit I'm a stan though lol.
On the other hand, D12 and even G-Unit have some stuff that didn't age well in the production department I would say...but now that may be construed as hypocritical when it could've just been the sound of the time lol
Sorry, I missed this. This is a good answer.