Wavves is a good example. The first two albums are super lo-fi. I don't mind that though I think they're just noisy for the sake of being noisy. It was ok for those first two albums but I'm glad they moved away from that. That would have gotten old fast.
Overall I prefer better soudning albums. Examples would be RATM debut, BSSM, Sailing The Seas of Cheese by Primus.
I d'know, aslong as I can hear the music well I'm all for it.
@CanadianChronic2121 I would say The Libertines album has a nice production. Good production is subjective imo. Marquee Moon has a nice production, so does the new Jeffrey Lewis LP, REVIEW IT
I think a lo-fi sound should be used in a similar way to screaming. They're both in a way ugly, but artistically useful to get a point across. Where screaming is good at showing anger, lo-fi can be used to show boredom or apathy, like in "So Bored". It's also good for artists centered on the sound of youth, showing they don't give a fuck, about the world or sound quality. The best use in my opinion would be How To Dress Well, where due to the poor production, his voice like it can't be contained
well a good track consists in my opinion of a good recording , well at least a descent one anyway it doesn't have to be in a studio but it just needs to be clear, it depends how "bad" we are talking about, i've listened to recorded tracks from a radio to a tape and from the tape to a computer and the amount of compression they had was just unbelivable plus the quality itself was also not so good besides that but i could hear everything i needed to hear and i enjoyed them.
The only time I really prefer hi-fi is in Brutal Death Metal where I want it to be as loud and pummeling as possible. With any other variation of Death metal, with black metal, doom metal, sludge metal, thrash, drone, power... Any other kind of metal: it all depends on how good the song is.
There are two things, I think, that contribute to a person's enjoyment of a song. One is how it sounds musically and the second is how it sounds sonically. I don't think it's very black and white. A good song will always be a good song no matter how it was recorded, however, people would probably enjoy a quality recording better than a low fi recording. I think the two really have to go hand and hand to make a great sounding album both musically and sonically.
lo fi is never dead! i love all music qualities. it's not that the quality matters, it's that the quality makes you experience the piece differently. I wouldn't say that its bad or good, just different. I think Lo-Fi recordings can have a lot of personality with room noise and stuff but even if you listen to a "good" recording, it's still going to be reliant on the room in which it's recorded and how it's recorded. I would consider it merely a decision made by the artist, producer, or both.
i LOVE listening to demos and barely being able to make out what im listening to, its so...VINTAGE! i mean theres nothing wrong with proffesional recording quality but im loving any quality as long as they dont try too hard
If it's recorded on anything more expensive than a 4-track, it's not lo-fi. It's baffling that people would spend thousands of dollars trying to make expensive equipment sound like a boombox.
The Sound should fit the mood and the message of the Songs
And the soundquality of a Recording depends on how good the Producer and the Engeneers worked.... When you use old crapy stompboxes on guitars or fucked up equipment to get a special sound, then it is very cool
But it often is very difficult to get THAT sound you want
And in some cases you need very expensive very proffessional equipment to catch a real nice dirty and organic Lo-Fi Sound ...
Really, it depends on the aesthetic quality the band is trying to achieve. If their sound goes down better steeped in noise, then hell yeah, make it "lo-fi". If they couldn't possibly be any more beautiful sounding with crystal clear, expensive as shit recording, then break the bank and god forbid I hear an imperfection.
Honestly, I think the term "lo-fi" is thrown around far too loosely. For some reason it seems to be synonymous with noisy production. But why?
Am I ready to receive the music, is what really matters. Does it resonate with you? OK....does it hit you in the gut. The desire or need to hear it again - that's the test. Sound quality is way down the list
I love lo-fi as much as I love hi-fi. Each have situations which they are eat suited to, but it really just comes down to the music. Good music will always shine through. Personally I think lo-fi is probably dying because good quality equipment is so darn cheap these days. The recordings I make in my bedroom are by no means studio quality, but they sure aren't lo-fi. And I payed for it all on mcdonalds wages.
It's a question of the how rich the sonics being recorded are and how well the musicians play the music. Music played well can usually make at least a semi decent recording. But sometimes great musicians can get lost in lo-fi. A singer with a very rich voice can lose a lot of their depth due to poor recording quality. Low frequencies are also at risk. But as far as I'm concerned, the real measure of a band is how well they play live. Recordings are pretty new. Music is pretty old.
After Death Magnetic's shit recording I definitely think it matters. Honestly, Metallica's songs on that album aren't half bad but the production just totally ruined it for me.
A good song is a good song, regardless of the recording quality. If somebody can record a song in their bedroom and reach thousands of people and they can connect with it in a positive way without caring about production quality, that's a good song. Yet many of the big pop artists today still spend big bucks in major studios and producers to make their shitty songs "sound good". But you cant polish a turd. A crappy song still sucks no matter how pristine it sounds.
a shitty recording can be amazing, but i also have no idea what over produced means. recording has become much more than just a way to capture a moment. like photography, it is an art form. producers are artists. that's why a lot of artists are producing themselves now. it's just another tool for expression. so if recordings are art, some recordings are conceptual, some are retro, some are even found art, or collage pieces. if it helps to create a feeling it doesn't matter how it was recorded.
I think that good recording quality can be a good thing, but it isn't always necessary. For example, death metal needs good production IMO, otherwise it just sounds like mush, and a lot of the aggression is lost that way. Black metal is a bit different because anger isn't always the point. Sometimes you want a dreary, sort of hazy sound to it. On the whole though, I would prefer the music to have a more "professional" sound to it though.
I feel that 'poor' quality recordings can do wonders for the atmosphere of a song; but sometimes/most of the time that is not the case. So I guess it depends on the sound you the artist wants to convey to the listener. I find that a lot of bands in certain genres tend to utilize that low quality sound to their advantage to add to atmosphere, and it sounds great.
Grizzly Bear record songs wherever they are because a decentish mobile recording set, they made in my opinion the best album of 2009. Phoenix have almost too clean sounding songs, but they made another of the best albums of 2009.
i like both. eg pheonix their songs are very well produced and their a great band.the white stripes earlier stuff like de stijl,white blood cells or their self titled album havent got great recording quality but their the best albums released by them.As long as i find the song good ill listen to it wheither or not its good quality
I do like albums to be of high recording quality, but there are albums with low recording quality that I can tolerate. Take for example John Frusciante's album Niandra Lades & Usually Just a T-Shirt. It was pretty low quality, but most of the songs are still GD awesome. (Untitled #2 is the best)
i believe that, in today's music world, the less big bucks and access to a professional studio a band has, the better the chances are that the band's music will sound more exciting (ex: Arcade Fire, TV on the Radio, Death Cab). I also have always been captivated by music that sounds very mysterious, like it came out of someone's little cabin or garage. All music sounded so much better back in the '60s, '70s and even early '80s, before the whole compression war started.
I like to consider myself an audiophile yet one of my favorite albums of all time is Guided By Voices - Bee Thousand, which is recorded horribly in VERY lo-fi. I feel the lo-fi actually added to the charm of the album. Goes to show that the audio quality is not as important as the quality of the content.
lo fi music is cool and being a music fan i like a lot of different kinds of sounds and production styles. there is a point when the recording is so muddy, or the levels are so off that notes in the song are lost that i get a little turned off. for example: the album 20 lb Brick by Dope Body is filled with really good songs, but the recording quality is so bad that a lot of the drums and guitar are totally lost, however they are really amazing live because you can hear all of the insturments
Yea i guess the quality does matter depending on what your listening to... lets say like your listening to minor threat then screw the quality, but if your listening to tool then the quality should be present.
I think it matters but neither is better. It just depends on what the artist is trying to do. For instance early Mountain Goats albums wouldn't hold as much merit if they were produced and polished because it wouldn't match the the content of the music. Visa-Versa with their later stuff.
I hate really produced music it just sound too fake. I like lo-fi music thats sounds not so lofi cause the band plays very well and they don't need much production. Lo-fi wavves was better.
it has alot to do with the musician and the song style. if the emphasis of the music is on the virtuosity of the musician or vocalist,like The Mars Volta, hi-fi is important because you get to hear the nuances they put into the music itself. if the emphasis is on the song writing, then lo-fi doesn't necessarily hurt, and can sometimes help. Genre also plays an important part. it would be hard to make a prog-rock album sound good lo-fi, but folk or blues sometimes depend on the gritty sound.
Like everything in music, it's all about what the artist is trying to communicate. So yes, it does matter. Depending on the message or emotion they are trying to give off, they are able to change from hi to lo-fi. Or the other way.
i think t depecnds on whos making the music and if you like the band in the first place...for example, animal collective has made some pretty well produced stuff such as merriweather post pavilion and strawberry jam. those who enjoy that would probably still like campfire songs even tough its a low-fi recording because...they like the band!
I think a song can be taken from two quite different aspects depending on quality. If a band isn't in a position to get hi-fi sound, that's one thing, but an intentionally lo-fi recording is something entirely different. I don't mind lo-fi music, but I do much prefer hi-fi stuff, the integrity of an instrument's character and timbre is more intact, and therefore the sonic interplay is more interesting. But to answer the question, I don't think quality matters, it's a case of individual taste.
I love lo-fi! not to say I'm against high quality recording, but certain albums become so much more because of the poor sound. The Mummies, the Shaggs, Couchwhips, and even Daniel Johnston all made poorly recorded albums but those albums they made I LOVE! With lo-fi sound I feel an almost desperation and urgency in the music. A sort of "I have to get this music out, people have to hear this" kind of sentiment. I feel as long as the listener find something in the recording, the art is valid.
of course good qaulity recordings are better. its not like bands like the beatles were like "eye john... lets go find the shttiest recording studio... EVER! and go record there." if you like the sound of your music why wouldn't you wanna hear it in the best production value possible. i mean everyone loves the sound of a nice vintage song but doesnt mean you should try to make modern music sound that way. the way we record music is gonna sound vintage in 30 years anyways. good recordings FTW!
I think whether you use high or low quality is in the producer's vision. If the producer doesn't have the equipment for the best quality recordings, they make use of what they have. Heck I could just plug a mic in to my computer hit record and start singing and playing into it and it could sound good still (unless the music is crap haha)
As long as you can make out the instruments - it doesn't matter. I hate perfectly clear sound, the best is somewhere in the middle. Scott Burns' productions were perfect and fitting the albums, despite the fact they weren't 100% crystal clear and overloaded with effects and shit. Listen to Demolition Hammer's "Tortured Existence" - the bass drum sound is simply devastating. As for lo-fi - the Dead Kennedys albums. Or MC5. Or Darkthrone and Burzum - perfectly fitting sound.
I don't mind lo-fi if it's quiet/less noisy music, as it makes it sound a bit more personal and almost live. Now if a loud/abrasive band has low end production, it can make something awesome, sound like complete garbage to me. I want to be able to hear each instrument, and not be hit by a wall of noise. So basically I think lo-fi is okay for simpler music, but the more complex/layered/heavy/fast it gets, the more the production matters.
Velvet Underground's "White Light / White Heat" album wouldn't sound "right" if it were recorded with the most advanced technology of the time. The raw grittiness of the music itself was mind-blowing, but the frequent changes in volume and sound quality as a whole ("The Gift" suffers from vocal drop-out, for example) give the album a strange appeal that makes the entire listening experience that much more enriching. Production matters, I suppose, but in more ways than just today's definition.
It really doesn't matter. Self recorded tracks have the potential to be great as quality recording equipment becomes cheaper and audio processing software becomes better. You just need the will to make your music sound better.
I'm into the audio side of things and so yeah, I prefer a recording to sound good, but it also depends on the author's / artist's intention. BTW, I feel that more and more music today is getting so compressed... it's a frustration to have good music sound this way
Anthony, I focking LOVED Wavves' new record. hot shit. but in general, music doesnt have to be 'hi-fi' in order to get the message across. I think low fi has stemmed from stuff like feedback manipulation and stuff, i mean all this 'bad' sounding shittake sounds cool in the context, be it Japandroids' noise pop or shitty sounding acoustic metal.
I really love Lo-Fi music, andI think production quality does matter, but I only really notice it when it's below the threshold and going into 'Lo-Fi'. I find it hard to make a distinction between a decently produced album and a very well produced album, but easy to make a distinction between a decently produced album and a 'poorly' produced album.
I don't know if it's 'dead', though, seeing as I'm still catching up on a lot of the music from 2008/2009.
Yours truly had decent hi-fi equipment before seriously getting into music, which I guess is different from most people. A good song is nothing to be argued with, but sound quality definitely is a priority, too, especially if I am to spend some of the every-tight smallchange. Hope that puts my scribblings into perspective.
Another point: Modern-day gizmos like easily applied compression and EQ can be both a blessing and a curse. They can easily make things sound, for lack of a better word, /unnatural/ to those used to "classic" recordings. In general, I'm not sure how many people still have a good idea of how things /ought to/ sound.
Overproduction? Absolutely exists. See e.g. Cutting Crew's 2nd album. Perfectly produced but sterile and cold.
Problem #2 is lack of front/back staging and piling instruments on top of each other, all at the same volume. As a listener, I typically do not appreciate being assaulted by everything at once. Caribou likes to do that, for example.
Another thing I'm not too happy with is the kind of echo/reverb they use these days. Replicating a typical '80s big studio reverb (which sounds just about right to me) appears to be a challenge for some reason.
A number of my gripes with modern-day music are related to recording quality aspects, so I'll chime in here.
Problem #1 is having material which would sound fine on its own if it weren't mastered a good bit too loud.
Dynamics in general seem to be a bit of a problem. Even if people do embrace them, the result typically is not a patch on what was done in the '80s. (Last Bat For Lashes album, anyone? Compare to, say, Peter Gabriel's brilliant 1982 IV/Security.)
Define a high or low level fidelity? Beck's Mellow Gold has a very lo-fi noisey asthetic, but the actual production is pretty good and everything sits well in the mix - even the starkest shrieks of feedback feel within the sonic realm of it all.
However, while pop could be considered Hi-Fidelity and using a very clean asthetic I find the production on Lady Gaga's Bad Romance pretty poor- the music is over compressed and the timbres are pretty boring. Not to mention the mix is muddy as hell!
I think it matters to the extent of how much the artist intends to use it. For example, the bands WOMEN set out to make an extremely 'lo-fi' debut album but only becuase they intended their music to have an abrasive and erratic, 'crappy' sound. It all depends on what the artist sets out to do.
It's a matter of taste to a degree. The Ramones were more lo-fi and the overproduced album they made with Spector was an example of goods songs being drowned out by overproduction. However, Jay Reatard, The Thermals and Wavves all made changes in recording quality on their last efforts and it worked.
I think the music itself is more important than the quality. Using lo-fi sound can add some atmosphere (like in black metal) to the recording, or it can just make it sound more ''in your face'', if you know what I mean.
It depends on the genre, style, etc. Of course there are many brilliant albums that have poor production and/or audio quality. What particularly comes to mind with low production, rawness...Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska. Or, Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works Vol 85-92 (Vol I). While the audio quality in SAW isn't great, you do get the distinct feeling it was mastered by old ass tapes or some shit like that. After listening to first and remaster pressings back to back, I prefer the original.
I like both... but it has to be entirely one way or the other. Sometimes lo-fi can add to the mood of the track... either way it's not the end of the world in my opinion
I listen to a lot of eighties punk and grindcore, so no, I don't think good production is necessary. Tom Waits, another favorite of mine, also isn't all that polished production-wised (much of the time).
I liked what Neutral Milk Hotel did with lo-fi, at least i think it was lo-fi on some of their/his songs. But on the flipside Clap Your Hands Say Yeahs newest album had a couple tracks that were recorded badly on purpose and they kind of blew. I think recording quality matters and i think things can be overproduced. Sometimes especially on acoustic guitars if the sound is clean you probably lose alot of emotion.
Usually, it doesn't matter that much to me, but there are a few exceptions I can think of. The biggest being Ariel Pink's latest, Before Today. I hadn't heard anything by the guy before, and I really wanted to like the album, but I couldn't get past the recording quality - even though I know that's his style or shtick or whatever.
recording quality matters with certain types of music, but is generally able to be disregarded. one of my favorite lo-fi albums is Iron & Wine's debut "The Creek Drank the Cradle." The lo-fi recording added an intimacy that polished recordings would have eliminated. Lo-fi music is not always good though (one of ym favorite new artists, Zola Jesus, started her career with extremely lo-fi scraps that were just irritating). Too mcuh production? Regina Spektor's "Far".
This isn't really answering your question...but I was watching your other videos and came across one where you listed your fav albums of 2010(so far)...could you maybe do a video listing the albums you think are the worst of 2010 so far?
Jeff Buckley's Grace is an example of over production in a record. However this is no bad thing, recording quality (and how much production is actually needed) is totally dependant of the song writing style, and such production brings out Jeff's song writing, allowing it to glisten like the album does, and on the other end of the spectrum you have records like JAMC's Psychocandy and more recently The Pains of Being Pure at Heart's record that thrive on having less production.
I like a lot of 'lo-fi' music because when it's done well it's inspiring in a sort of 'I could do this to' sort of way. Also, for me the lo-fi-ness in Daniel Johnston's 'one-take out of tune crappy tape recording' style adds a lot to his music I think. His studio work doesn't have the same effect on me as his early lo-fi work.
absolutely not. take Black Moth Super Rainbow, their first album "Falling Through a Field" was recorded with tape recorders in a barn and the album is amazing. Foals' "Total Life Forever" was recorded in the Svenska Gramophone Studio in Stockholm - high quality recording and just as amazing.
as long as they're trying then i really don't care what quality it is.
It's funny I was listening to Song of Green Pheasant today on my way to work. I love that album and it was recorded on a four-track in the dude's kitchen. It sounds like a moldy tape that's been dipped in sulfuric acid. Forever.
i think it's up to the artist. they are the ones creating music for us, so let them paint the picture of what the recording quality on their songs should be like. we are the listeners.
As for bitrate, I always try to get at least 256kbps when using my Klipsch desktop speakers. If I use headphones I prefer 360kbps or FLAC. I'm an audiophile I can pick up small details and frequency in songs very easily. So lossless is always a treat for me.
I tend to be in the middle on this one. I find both extremes of the argument fairly silly: the audiophiles who refuse to listen to anything lower than FLAC make me believe they care more about the sound quality than the music itself, whereas the lo-fi junkies who think more raw emotion can be packed in lo-fi recordings and harp against how fake over production sounds I think need to open their eyes to what else is out there.
Personally, I don't think lo-fi is a fad that every group should have jumped on in the past couple years, but I really like it when it suits the musical style and lyrics/vocals. While most of the albums I have liked this year, though, were crisp and had a clean studio mix, that doesn't mean I am done with dirty lo-fi.
pffff... i prefer lo-fi music generally because its totally stripped back and at its core has to be good musicianship/songwriting otherwise it just doesnt work.
on highly produced tracks it just seems to say that the rough cut of the song wasnt quite good enough so they need to tart it up.
Its hard for me to really say in terms of rock music. But I did get "Wavvves" after listening to "King of The Beach" and though "Wavvves" is still a great album I feel "KOTB" sounds better.
I guess another example I could use is early White Stripes vs Post Elephant White Stripes. The early stuff sounds so much more raw and powerful.
sometimes lo fi recordings actually add to an album.. i listen to anti-folk from time to time and it truly does enhance the experience.. when you here the singers voice crack of fluctuate it gives me a sense of real music in a way, somewhere along the lines of live music. And honestly what would have of become of beat happening if other people didn't think the same way as me.
so in my opinion i would rather listen to under-produced than over-produced music.
Some sounds are better in low fidelity while other sounds are better in high fidelity. A good artist will make compose a song together, finish it up, and then decide if the song best suits a lo-fi production or hi-fi. It's all circumstantial with the material at hand. With a band like... Pink Floyd, it is essential for it to be recorded in high quality, since they're music matches something that is polished and well put together. While a band like, My Bloody Valentine, needs to be messy.
Loveless wouldn't have anywhere close to the same affect if it to us if it was recorded in high quality. It would've lost that special feeling it gave us all. So yes, recording quality is VERY VERY important. Personally, Lo-Fi > Hi-Fi... but that's just me. : D
Engineers patent smart design and charge a ton for it, because big studios can pay a ton for it, because the big labels that pay big studios own the airwaves and run a monopoly on artist exposure.
In a nice situation, top designers would still have to charge a fair amount to break even with their gear. Because homebrew artists don't want, or can't afford, to pay a fair amount; designers sell low numbers of product, which runs the mark-up high.
Well given the choice between the two, I would much rather prefer a higher quality album/song then a lower one. That being said, however, I do enjoy many low-fi albums/songs.
I think it all depends on the genre and teh feel your trying to get. And I could enjoy both hi-fi and lo-fi music if I was in the mood. And no lo-fi is not dead, as long as their is underground musicians there will music with low recording quality.
i think it all comes down to the music; the production is really just another characteristic. for me, if something is 'produced well', it just means that the productions values reflect the nature of the music, regardless of whether its lo-fi or hi-fi.
yes it does matter. i like clarity, but it's nice to have certain clarity mixed in with other stuff that also has a fluzzy sound to it. Washed Out does this alot, but his first cassette he made was WAY too low-fi for me. i liked it, but it felt like there was mud in my ears preventing me from enjoying this nice fresh synth pop.
It depends on what best supports the musical idea (that's basically my answer to everything; album length, vocal style, technicality, simplicity/complexity, etc).
Low-fi used amazingly well? Boards of Canada - Geogaddi
Ovapoduction? Porcupine Tree - The Incident
Low-fidelity components can give music a certain atmosphere that's unachievable in a high fidelity recording, and atmosphere is the first thing I personally look for in music. I prefer a mixture of hi-fi and low-fi components.
I think generally that the higher the recording quality the most clear the message comes across to the listeners. If the quality isn't as good then the message and intention can become quite opaque and misleading in a sense...
Well... I listen to alot of electronic music, which which I would say is equally about the composition and about the production quality - because the artistry is IN the production.
It depends. Sometimes good quality can really accentuate the awesomeness of a song, but lo fi and home recording often brings an earnest and warm feeling to the music.
Lo-fi isn't deeead... c'mon is that even a real question? As long as there's authentic self-recording artists, Lo-fi will be around... Alive and kickin
i love it when a track is produced well, when your ears are almost about to pop, high tide by dan castro is a great example, theres buildups and breakdowns and listeing to it on some really good speakers or on a good set of headphones makes your ears want to fall off
and i think it is up to the listener or viewer. in your example, we were looking to see you and the background. so in that case it is low quality. but to someone looking for the what it turned out to be it was just dandy. its an opinion of your expectations.
It really just depends on what it is you're listening to. Sometimes, I find that the recording quality alone can shift the atmosphere of a track or album into one direction or another.
depends on the genre or style it depends on what sound your going for,bad accoustics in a studio or recording can ruin a song but for folk and indie musicans it might not mater all that much its all ways nice though to have a high fidelity set up in your home
I think the recording quality matters a big deal, but that is not to say that a song with low quality recording isnt good. A really good example is Smith Westerns. I love their music, but couldnt imagine it being polished and squeaky clean. I really like the production on Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix.
Times New Viking is the best example of good Lo-Fi. Check out "Dancer Equired".
LessThanJayson 1 week ago
Quality means shit all. Check out Black Metal for example.
MarxistBrutalMatt 2 weeks ago
It's all about the attitude to me
IStehSHIT 1 month ago
Wavves is a good example. The first two albums are super lo-fi. I don't mind that though I think they're just noisy for the sake of being noisy. It was ok for those first two albums but I'm glad they moved away from that. That would have gotten old fast.
Overall I prefer better soudning albums. Examples would be RATM debut, BSSM, Sailing The Seas of Cheese by Primus.
I d'know, aslong as I can hear the music well I'm all for it.
DoubleO711 3 months ago
A good production can make or break a record, but I do enjoy lo-fi artists alot aswell. Hard to answer really, dunno if I have a preference there.
GrungeRockabilly 4 months ago
@GrungeRockabilly
i hate perfectionists......
music should be anything besides " perfect " ..... probably why i don't get along with most metal fans =/
CanadianChronic2121 3 months ago
@CanadianChronic2121 I would say The Libertines album has a nice production. Good production is subjective imo. Marquee Moon has a nice production, so does the new Jeffrey Lewis LP, REVIEW IT
GrungeRockabilly 3 months ago
@CanadianChronic2121 Black Metal is low quality.
MarxistBrutalMatt 2 weeks ago
Low-fi is the best for a good hardcore record!
ndSpaz 4 months ago
RATM's debut is constantly cited as an audiophile's favorite
zabrak999 5 months ago
I think a lo-fi sound should be used in a similar way to screaming. They're both in a way ugly, but artistically useful to get a point across. Where screaming is good at showing anger, lo-fi can be used to show boredom or apathy, like in "So Bored". It's also good for artists centered on the sound of youth, showing they don't give a fuck, about the world or sound quality. The best use in my opinion would be How To Dress Well, where due to the poor production, his voice like it can't be contained
lilswaggy93 7 months ago
Emperor's In the Nightside Eclipse has the best production in my opinion. Just perfect.
Loliciousfuga 7 months ago
What album is that for AOTW?
BigNigshizzle 8 months ago
well a good track consists in my opinion of a good recording , well at least a descent one anyway it doesn't have to be in a studio but it just needs to be clear, it depends how "bad" we are talking about, i've listened to recorded tracks from a radio to a tape and from the tape to a computer and the amount of compression they had was just unbelivable plus the quality itself was also not so good besides that but i could hear everything i needed to hear and i enjoyed them.
Linkydj 8 months ago
what album is metioned at 1:14
searched 'waves' but couldn't find that cover
br00talKidHxC 9 months ago
@br00talKidHxC Try looking for "Wavves", which is how it's spelled on that cover
Rizimar 9 months ago
@br00talKidHxC King of the Beach by Wavves
123jumppp 8 months ago
The only time I really prefer hi-fi is in Brutal Death Metal where I want it to be as loud and pummeling as possible. With any other variation of Death metal, with black metal, doom metal, sludge metal, thrash, drone, power... Any other kind of metal: it all depends on how good the song is.
austinthefreak 10 months ago
There are two things, I think, that contribute to a person's enjoyment of a song. One is how it sounds musically and the second is how it sounds sonically. I don't think it's very black and white. A good song will always be a good song no matter how it was recorded, however, people would probably enjoy a quality recording better than a low fi recording. I think the two really have to go hand and hand to make a great sounding album both musically and sonically.
SmileysRevenge100 10 months ago
lo fi is never dead! i love all music qualities. it's not that the quality matters, it's that the quality makes you experience the piece differently. I wouldn't say that its bad or good, just different. I think Lo-Fi recordings can have a lot of personality with room noise and stuff but even if you listen to a "good" recording, it's still going to be reliant on the room in which it's recorded and how it's recorded. I would consider it merely a decision made by the artist, producer, or both.
glasgowdrive 11 months ago
I like when it sounds kind of shitty, it makes it sound more magical
alotofcheese76 11 months ago
i LOVE listening to demos and barely being able to make out what im listening to, its so...VINTAGE! i mean theres nothing wrong with proffesional recording quality but im loving any quality as long as they dont try too hard
johnedmiston123234 1 year ago
If it's recorded on anything more expensive than a 4-track, it's not lo-fi. It's baffling that people would spend thousands of dollars trying to make expensive equipment sound like a boombox.
daviddidonato 1 year ago
A Record should be one piece of art
The Sound should fit the mood and the message of the Songs
And the soundquality of a Recording depends on how good the Producer and the Engeneers worked.... When you use old crapy stompboxes on guitars or fucked up equipment to get a special sound, then it is very cool
But it often is very difficult to get THAT sound you want
And in some cases you need very expensive very proffessional equipment to catch a real nice dirty and organic Lo-Fi Sound ...
deepthought0lukas 1 year ago
Really, it depends on the aesthetic quality the band is trying to achieve. If their sound goes down better steeped in noise, then hell yeah, make it "lo-fi". If they couldn't possibly be any more beautiful sounding with crystal clear, expensive as shit recording, then break the bank and god forbid I hear an imperfection.
Honestly, I think the term "lo-fi" is thrown around far too loosely. For some reason it seems to be synonymous with noisy production. But why?
rickardo89 1 year ago 2
Am I ready to receive the music, is what really matters. Does it resonate with you? OK....does it hit you in the gut. The desire or need to hear it again - that's the test. Sound quality is way down the list
unfretted1 1 year ago
funny you ask these questions while holding yer show on YOUTUBE : / some of worst quality webpages are youtube lol
checkabreak 1 year ago
lo-fi is the best!
ActonTownBand 1 year ago
As long as it doesn't hurt your ears.
Stereocircus 1 year ago
ive never really sought out low fi but "a sufi and a killer" was tight
PyroMan3 1 year ago
I love lo-fi as much as I love hi-fi. Each have situations which they are eat suited to, but it really just comes down to the music. Good music will always shine through. Personally I think lo-fi is probably dying because good quality equipment is so darn cheap these days. The recordings I make in my bedroom are by no means studio quality, but they sure aren't lo-fi. And I payed for it all on mcdonalds wages.
mikewazowski333 1 year ago
It's a question of the how rich the sonics being recorded are and how well the musicians play the music. Music played well can usually make at least a semi decent recording. But sometimes great musicians can get lost in lo-fi. A singer with a very rich voice can lose a lot of their depth due to poor recording quality. Low frequencies are also at risk. But as far as I'm concerned, the real measure of a band is how well they play live. Recordings are pretty new. Music is pretty old.
meganjeanfamilyband 1 year ago
Production doesn't matter.
Everything should be recorded with cellphone cams on live concerts and uploaded to youtube.
dhfhdfhd 1 year ago
After Death Magnetic's shit recording I definitely think it matters. Honestly, Metallica's songs on that album aren't half bad but the production just totally ruined it for me.
Neb866 1 year ago
A good song is a good song, regardless of the recording quality. If somebody can record a song in their bedroom and reach thousands of people and they can connect with it in a positive way without caring about production quality, that's a good song. Yet many of the big pop artists today still spend big bucks in major studios and producers to make their shitty songs "sound good". But you cant polish a turd. A crappy song still sucks no matter how pristine it sounds.
SSgtAnderson 1 year ago
a shitty recording can be amazing, but i also have no idea what over produced means. recording has become much more than just a way to capture a moment. like photography, it is an art form. producers are artists. that's why a lot of artists are producing themselves now. it's just another tool for expression. so if recordings are art, some recordings are conceptual, some are retro, some are even found art, or collage pieces. if it helps to create a feeling it doesn't matter how it was recorded.
wiltonmusic 1 year ago
I think that good recording quality can be a good thing, but it isn't always necessary. For example, death metal needs good production IMO, otherwise it just sounds like mush, and a lot of the aggression is lost that way. Black metal is a bit different because anger isn't always the point. Sometimes you want a dreary, sort of hazy sound to it. On the whole though, I would prefer the music to have a more "professional" sound to it though.
krakhaid 1 year ago
I feel that 'poor' quality recordings can do wonders for the atmosphere of a song; but sometimes/most of the time that is not the case. So I guess it depends on the sound you the artist wants to convey to the listener. I find that a lot of bands in certain genres tend to utilize that low quality sound to their advantage to add to atmosphere, and it sounds great.
I feel like a broken record in this comment.
low quality = good for atmospheric purposes.
low quality in any other situation = bad
LiftYourSkinnyFist 1 year ago
Grizzly Bear record songs wherever they are because a decentish mobile recording set, they made in my opinion the best album of 2009. Phoenix have almost too clean sounding songs, but they made another of the best albums of 2009.
4beerstime 1 year ago
i like both. eg pheonix their songs are very well produced and their a great band.the white stripes earlier stuff like de stijl,white blood cells or their self titled album havent got great recording quality but their the best albums released by them.As long as i find the song good ill listen to it wheither or not its good quality
johnireland246 1 year ago
I do like albums to be of high recording quality, but there are albums with low recording quality that I can tolerate. Take for example John Frusciante's album Niandra Lades & Usually Just a T-Shirt. It was pretty low quality, but most of the songs are still GD awesome. (Untitled #2 is the best)
FanofAli1964 1 year ago
I would rather listen to a really good song recorded in someones bedroom, than a bad song overproduced.
evad520 1 year ago
I only care about the recording quality, some things are recorded like shit and I hate that
ShitCrap 1 year ago
i believe that, in today's music world, the less big bucks and access to a professional studio a band has, the better the chances are that the band's music will sound more exciting (ex: Arcade Fire, TV on the Radio, Death Cab). I also have always been captivated by music that sounds very mysterious, like it came out of someone's little cabin or garage. All music sounded so much better back in the '60s, '70s and even early '80s, before the whole compression war started.
fatmaninbearsuit 1 year ago
I like to consider myself an audiophile yet one of my favorite albums of all time is Guided By Voices - Bee Thousand, which is recorded horribly in VERY lo-fi. I feel the lo-fi actually added to the charm of the album. Goes to show that the audio quality is not as important as the quality of the content.
NewYorkCityTimes 1 year ago
lo fi music is cool and being a music fan i like a lot of different kinds of sounds and production styles. there is a point when the recording is so muddy, or the levels are so off that notes in the song are lost that i get a little turned off. for example: the album 20 lb Brick by Dope Body is filled with really good songs, but the recording quality is so bad that a lot of the drums and guitar are totally lost, however they are really amazing live because you can hear all of the insturments
matteblack6606 1 year ago
Yea i guess the quality does matter depending on what your listening to... lets say like your listening to minor threat then screw the quality, but if your listening to tool then the quality should be present.
TriforceMat 1 year ago
I think it matters but neither is better. It just depends on what the artist is trying to do. For instance early Mountain Goats albums wouldn't hold as much merit if they were produced and polished because it wouldn't match the the content of the music. Visa-Versa with their later stuff.
Lucanio 1 year ago
youre so condescending at the beginning lol
dirtycoffee22 1 year ago
I hate really produced music it just sound too fake. I like lo-fi music thats sounds not so lofi cause the band plays very well and they don't need much production. Lo-fi wavves was better.
KOB245 1 year ago
@KOB245 This is a pretty hollow argument. A band can be well produced on record while still being technically proficient.
0AcrossAmerica0 1 year ago
@0AcrossAmerica0 I never said that you interpreted it wrong.
KOB245 1 year ago
lo fi is great
acevfilms 1 year ago
hell. no. that is all.
theycallmekiki 1 year ago
Lo-fi is definitely not dead.
heron1991 1 year ago
anthony,are you into tibetan buddhism?hence the flag's?just curious,kind regard's from matt.
mattborel 1 year ago
it has alot to do with the musician and the song style. if the emphasis of the music is on the virtuosity of the musician or vocalist,like The Mars Volta, hi-fi is important because you get to hear the nuances they put into the music itself. if the emphasis is on the song writing, then lo-fi doesn't necessarily hurt, and can sometimes help. Genre also plays an important part. it would be hard to make a prog-rock album sound good lo-fi, but folk or blues sometimes depend on the gritty sound.
hdfalls 1 year ago
Like everything in music, it's all about what the artist is trying to communicate. So yes, it does matter. Depending on the message or emotion they are trying to give off, they are able to change from hi to lo-fi. Or the other way.
kevo753 1 year ago
i think t depecnds on whos making the music and if you like the band in the first place...for example, animal collective has made some pretty well produced stuff such as merriweather post pavilion and strawberry jam. those who enjoy that would probably still like campfire songs even tough its a low-fi recording because...they like the band!
brencerta 1 year ago
I think a song can be taken from two quite different aspects depending on quality. If a band isn't in a position to get hi-fi sound, that's one thing, but an intentionally lo-fi recording is something entirely different. I don't mind lo-fi music, but I do much prefer hi-fi stuff, the integrity of an instrument's character and timbre is more intact, and therefore the sonic interplay is more interesting. But to answer the question, I don't think quality matters, it's a case of individual taste.
Libranmusic 1 year ago
I love lo-fi! not to say I'm against high quality recording, but certain albums become so much more because of the poor sound. The Mummies, the Shaggs, Couchwhips, and even Daniel Johnston all made poorly recorded albums but those albums they made I LOVE! With lo-fi sound I feel an almost desperation and urgency in the music. A sort of "I have to get this music out, people have to hear this" kind of sentiment. I feel as long as the listener find something in the recording, the art is valid.
bendyckpart2 1 year ago
of course good qaulity recordings are better. its not like bands like the beatles were like "eye john... lets go find the shttiest recording studio... EVER! and go record there." if you like the sound of your music why wouldn't you wanna hear it in the best production value possible. i mean everyone loves the sound of a nice vintage song but doesnt mean you should try to make modern music sound that way. the way we record music is gonna sound vintage in 30 years anyways. good recordings FTW!
xBELIEVERx928 1 year ago
Recording quality does matter. But it's not allways that good quality = better song. I think that a bit poor quality gives the song something extra.
VicciZ 1 year ago
I think whether you use high or low quality is in the producer's vision. If the producer doesn't have the equipment for the best quality recordings, they make use of what they have. Heck I could just plug a mic in to my computer hit record and start singing and playing into it and it could sound good still (unless the music is crap haha)
searinglead15 1 year ago
I think lo quality is good to an extent i.e. neon indian sound where it makes your speakers sound crappy.
After that it makes me not really interested.
metalmania7778 1 year ago
As long as you can make out the instruments - it doesn't matter. I hate perfectly clear sound, the best is somewhere in the middle. Scott Burns' productions were perfect and fitting the albums, despite the fact they weren't 100% crystal clear and overloaded with effects and shit. Listen to Demolition Hammer's "Tortured Existence" - the bass drum sound is simply devastating. As for lo-fi - the Dead Kennedys albums. Or MC5. Or Darkthrone and Burzum - perfectly fitting sound.
gbgdgr 1 year ago
@gbgdgr totally agree mate!good call!
mattborel 1 year ago
The first Sunset Rubdown album
homeonice 1 year ago
I don't mind lo-fi if it's quiet/less noisy music, as it makes it sound a bit more personal and almost live. Now if a loud/abrasive band has low end production, it can make something awesome, sound like complete garbage to me. I want to be able to hear each instrument, and not be hit by a wall of noise. So basically I think lo-fi is okay for simpler music, but the more complex/layered/heavy/fast it gets, the more the production matters.
xPwnzanichx 1 year ago
Velvet Underground's "White Light / White Heat" album wouldn't sound "right" if it were recorded with the most advanced technology of the time. The raw grittiness of the music itself was mind-blowing, but the frequent changes in volume and sound quality as a whole ("The Gift" suffers from vocal drop-out, for example) give the album a strange appeal that makes the entire listening experience that much more enriching. Production matters, I suppose, but in more ways than just today's definition.
TyphoidBryan 1 year ago
It really doesn't matter. Self recorded tracks have the potential to be great as quality recording equipment becomes cheaper and audio processing software becomes better. You just need the will to make your music sound better.
ExtremePlatypus 1 year ago
I'm into the audio side of things and so yeah, I prefer a recording to sound good, but it also depends on the author's / artist's intention. BTW, I feel that more and more music today is getting so compressed... it's a frustration to have good music sound this way
chiagerald 1 year ago
Anthony, I focking LOVED Wavves' new record. hot shit. but in general, music doesnt have to be 'hi-fi' in order to get the message across. I think low fi has stemmed from stuff like feedback manipulation and stuff, i mean all this 'bad' sounding shittake sounds cool in the context, be it Japandroids' noise pop or shitty sounding acoustic metal.
ItHappens117 1 year ago
i love music..thts all tht matters to me
90sbaby92 1 year ago
I really love Lo-Fi music, andI think production quality does matter, but I only really notice it when it's below the threshold and going into 'Lo-Fi'. I find it hard to make a distinction between a decently produced album and a very well produced album, but easy to make a distinction between a decently produced album and a 'poorly' produced album.
I don't know if it's 'dead', though, seeing as I'm still catching up on a lot of the music from 2008/2009.
TheBearDylan 1 year ago
you just reviewed a daughters album.. how van you say lo-fi is dead?
natrat888 1 year ago
(...and finally...)
Yours truly had decent hi-fi equipment before seriously getting into music, which I guess is different from most people. A good song is nothing to be argued with, but sound quality definitely is a priority, too, especially if I am to spend some of the every-tight smallchange. Hope that puts my scribblings into perspective.
OK kids, that's it for today's novel... :p
yeoldeengineer 1 year ago
(and yet more...)
Another point: Modern-day gizmos like easily applied compression and EQ can be both a blessing and a curse. They can easily make things sound, for lack of a better word, /unnatural/ to those used to "classic" recordings. In general, I'm not sure how many people still have a good idea of how things /ought to/ sound.
Overproduction? Absolutely exists. See e.g. Cutting Crew's 2nd album. Perfectly produced but sterile and cold.
Lo-Fi has its place, for some (few) artists.
yeoldeengineer 1 year ago
(cont'd)
Problem #2 is lack of front/back staging and piling instruments on top of each other, all at the same volume. As a listener, I typically do not appreciate being assaulted by everything at once. Caribou likes to do that, for example.
Another thing I'm not too happy with is the kind of echo/reverb they use these days. Replicating a typical '80s big studio reverb (which sounds just about right to me) appears to be a challenge for some reason.
(cont'd)
yeoldeengineer 1 year ago
A number of my gripes with modern-day music are related to recording quality aspects, so I'll chime in here.
Problem #1 is having material which would sound fine on its own if it weren't mastered a good bit too loud.
Dynamics in general seem to be a bit of a problem. Even if people do embrace them, the result typically is not a patch on what was done in the '80s. (Last Bat For Lashes album, anyone? Compare to, say, Peter Gabriel's brilliant 1982 IV/Security.)
(cont'd)
yeoldeengineer 1 year ago
Define a high or low level fidelity? Beck's Mellow Gold has a very lo-fi noisey asthetic, but the actual production is pretty good and everything sits well in the mix - even the starkest shrieks of feedback feel within the sonic realm of it all.
However, while pop could be considered Hi-Fidelity and using a very clean asthetic I find the production on Lady Gaga's Bad Romance pretty poor- the music is over compressed and the timbres are pretty boring. Not to mention the mix is muddy as hell!
ChrisTheContagion 1 year ago
I think it matters to the extent of how much the artist intends to use it. For example, the bands WOMEN set out to make an extremely 'lo-fi' debut album but only becuase they intended their music to have an abrasive and erratic, 'crappy' sound. It all depends on what the artist sets out to do.
BLOCkasPARTYabian 1 year ago
raw, lo-fi music that sounds good is the best, but a good song is a good song
cocoadelete 1 year ago
Sure it matters. It matters kind of like rythm or voice. It can enhance music and a "not fitting" recording quality is disturbing.
MrRundll 1 year ago
i think a good song feels more heart felt when its in a slightly lower quality
tobyiswierd 1 year ago
I liked Wavves' second album a lot more than the first and I think the better quality was a big part of it
BlackVirusxz 1 year ago
2:10 - 2:30
Great xD
BadButNotSad 1 year ago
It's a matter of taste to a degree. The Ramones were more lo-fi and the overproduced album they made with Spector was an example of goods songs being drowned out by overproduction. However, Jay Reatard, The Thermals and Wavves all made changes in recording quality on their last efforts and it worked.
MrEpiclylaterd 1 year ago
I don't think it matters really, both have their charms, well at least I don't mind bad quality
EnokiSkai 1 year ago
I think the music itself is more important than the quality. Using lo-fi sound can add some atmosphere (like in black metal) to the recording, or it can just make it sound more ''in your face'', if you know what I mean.
rubengrappig 1 year ago
The original, lower quality pressing just has a difficult to explain character that is missing in the later one.
Maybe I'm just a little crazy though, cause I doubt most people give a shit.
paulmerz 1 year ago
It depends on the genre, style, etc. Of course there are many brilliant albums that have poor production and/or audio quality. What particularly comes to mind with low production, rawness...Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska. Or, Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works Vol 85-92 (Vol I). While the audio quality in SAW isn't great, you do get the distinct feeling it was mastered by old ass tapes or some shit like that. After listening to first and remaster pressings back to back, I prefer the original.
paulmerz 1 year ago
Daniel Johnston, and the argument ends there.
bizzarro 1 year ago
Perhaps it depends what genre it is. I'd like psychadelic and progressive music to be clean and clear, where punk can be a bit raunchy.
NeilKensington 1 year ago
recorded well! but not too well..
briano1983 1 year ago
This is just one of those things I have to judge on a song-by-song/album-by-album basis.
SonofMrPeanut 1 year ago
I personally like good productions on songs. Lo-Fi is kind of a trend now, though. Some bands record really badly for the sake of it. I like hi-fi.
scenester64 1 year ago
I like low-fi for a more grungy-powerful feel, but I generally prefer hi-fi
slyfan64 1 year ago
I like both... but it has to be entirely one way or the other. Sometimes lo-fi can add to the mood of the track... either way it's not the end of the world in my opinion
LaTubeDeTu 1 year ago
I listen to a lot of eighties punk and grindcore, so no, I don't think good production is necessary. Tom Waits, another favorite of mine, also isn't all that polished production-wised (much of the time).
MRBLuD 1 year ago
I liked what Neutral Milk Hotel did with lo-fi, at least i think it was lo-fi on some of their/his songs. But on the flipside Clap Your Hands Say Yeahs newest album had a couple tracks that were recorded badly on purpose and they kind of blew. I think recording quality matters and i think things can be overproduced. Sometimes especially on acoustic guitars if the sound is clean you probably lose alot of emotion.
fungamesss 1 year ago
Usually, it doesn't matter that much to me, but there are a few exceptions I can think of. The biggest being Ariel Pink's latest, Before Today. I hadn't heard anything by the guy before, and I really wanted to like the album, but I couldn't get past the recording quality - even though I know that's his style or shtick or whatever.
avatard31 1 year ago
also, Beach House's debut self titled album is so amazing. just a sidebar.
squirtgunrobbery 1 year ago
recording quality matters with certain types of music, but is generally able to be disregarded. one of my favorite lo-fi albums is Iron & Wine's debut "The Creek Drank the Cradle." The lo-fi recording added an intimacy that polished recordings would have eliminated. Lo-fi music is not always good though (one of ym favorite new artists, Zola Jesus, started her career with extremely lo-fi scraps that were just irritating). Too mcuh production? Regina Spektor's "Far".
squirtgunrobbery 1 year ago
This isn't really answering your question...but I was watching your other videos and came across one where you listed your fav albums of 2010(so far)...could you maybe do a video listing the albums you think are the worst of 2010 so far?
905Justin 1 year ago
my thoughts on the subject are on theneedledrops youtube channel.
PS sorry anthony for posting it elsewhere as well, i hate editing long comments.
lukeashmoore 1 year ago
Jeff Buckley's Grace is an example of over production in a record. However this is no bad thing, recording quality (and how much production is actually needed) is totally dependant of the song writing style, and such production brings out Jeff's song writing, allowing it to glisten like the album does, and on the other end of the spectrum you have records like JAMC's Psychocandy and more recently The Pains of Being Pure at Heart's record that thrive on having less production.
RusticNinja 1 year ago
I like a lot of 'lo-fi' music because when it's done well it's inspiring in a sort of 'I could do this to' sort of way. Also, for me the lo-fi-ness in Daniel Johnston's 'one-take out of tune crappy tape recording' style adds a lot to his music I think. His studio work doesn't have the same effect on me as his early lo-fi work.
Aaronpowellfilms 1 year ago
absolutely not. take Black Moth Super Rainbow, their first album "Falling Through a Field" was recorded with tape recorders in a barn and the album is amazing. Foals' "Total Life Forever" was recorded in the Svenska Gramophone Studio in Stockholm - high quality recording and just as amazing.
as long as they're trying then i really don't care what quality it is.
NeonFoxLetsPlays 1 year ago
It's funny I was listening to Song of Green Pheasant today on my way to work. I love that album and it was recorded on a four-track in the dude's kitchen. It sounds like a moldy tape that's been dipped in sulfuric acid. Forever.
jstlive 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i think it's up to the artist. they are the ones creating music for us, so let them paint the picture of what the recording quality on their songs should be like. we are the listeners.
As for bitrate, I always try to get at least 256kbps when using my Klipsch desktop speakers. If I use headphones I prefer 360kbps or FLAC. I'm an audiophile I can pick up small details and frequency in songs very easily. So lossless is always a treat for me.
TheLionzHeart1 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheLionzHeart1 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheLionzHeart1 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheLionzHeart1 1 year ago
Unless the quality is utterly horrible I really don't notice it. It's the song's that matter.
tlinscott1 1 year ago
I tend to be in the middle on this one. I find both extremes of the argument fairly silly: the audiophiles who refuse to listen to anything lower than FLAC make me believe they care more about the sound quality than the music itself, whereas the lo-fi junkies who think more raw emotion can be packed in lo-fi recordings and harp against how fake over production sounds I think need to open their eyes to what else is out there.
funlovingmonkey 1 year ago
I think that Ariel Pink shows that it doesn't matter about recording quality, you can make amazing music in any quality.
Also, your not going to do Revival, are you? :(
tastyfoxman 1 year ago
some of the best tracks i have heard were lo-fi demos of certain songs
these include things like
broken social scene - untitled 2
this later became a song on their new album but i will always have a spot for the live rougher version.
this can also go both ways. i feel closer to wavves first album but a little polishing up isn't a bad thing for some.
EmericanIdole321 1 year ago
Personally, I don't think lo-fi is a fad that every group should have jumped on in the past couple years, but I really like it when it suits the musical style and lyrics/vocals. While most of the albums I have liked this year, though, were crisp and had a clean studio mix, that doesn't mean I am done with dirty lo-fi.
Usulplokoon 1 year ago
pffff... i prefer lo-fi music generally because its totally stripped back and at its core has to be good musicianship/songwriting otherwise it just doesnt work.
on highly produced tracks it just seems to say that the rough cut of the song wasnt quite good enough so they need to tart it up.
xx
robgeorge87 1 year ago
That Dustin Wong track is amazing. I love it. :D
Steoandnoodles 1 year ago
i love the raw energy that you get on more lo-fi releases.
stewyjmu 1 year ago
hd camera?
stewyjmu 1 year ago
i like lo fi music more than anything. my favorite lo fi album is probably The Unicorns' "Who Will Cut Our Hair When You're Gone"
Am3ricanMuscleMan 1 year ago
Its hard for me to really say in terms of rock music. But I did get "Wavvves" after listening to "King of The Beach" and though "Wavvves" is still a great album I feel "KOTB" sounds better.
I guess another example I could use is early White Stripes vs Post Elephant White Stripes. The early stuff sounds so much more raw and powerful.
Crim122 1 year ago
Yes, it matters. No Lo-Fi is not dead.
Music is all about the feeling you get from it. So Lo-Fi will always have it's place.
But the last year, the quality of sound of EDM is very noticable, and in a good way.
Stupid question actually.
peterbriers 1 year ago
sometimes lo fi recordings actually add to an album.. i listen to anti-folk from time to time and it truly does enhance the experience.. when you here the singers voice crack of fluctuate it gives me a sense of real music in a way, somewhere along the lines of live music. And honestly what would have of become of beat happening if other people didn't think the same way as me.
so in my opinion i would rather listen to under-produced than over-produced music.
MrNastyzProductions 1 year ago
Well, it really depends on the effect the musician wants to achieve.
But really, in my opinion I like lofi, rough and unpolished songs way more than, for example, the totally overproduced U2 stuff.
drtoothpimpheimer 1 year ago
Some sounds are better in low fidelity while other sounds are better in high fidelity. A good artist will make compose a song together, finish it up, and then decide if the song best suits a lo-fi production or hi-fi. It's all circumstantial with the material at hand. With a band like... Pink Floyd, it is essential for it to be recorded in high quality, since they're music matches something that is polished and well put together. While a band like, My Bloody Valentine, needs to be messy.
WolfDiamond123 1 year ago
@WolfDiamond123
Loveless wouldn't have anywhere close to the same affect if it to us if it was recorded in high quality. It would've lost that special feeling it gave us all. So yes, recording quality is VERY VERY important. Personally, Lo-Fi > Hi-Fi... but that's just me. : D
WolfDiamond123 1 year ago
some bands need a well produced style or the music suffers
some bands require a less produced sound as their songs are better like that.
e.g. would velvet underground's first two albums sound as good if they invested a lot of money into a proper producer? probably not.
donnybilo 1 year ago
yes , google loudness war
bs2290 1 year ago
lo-fi makes untalented artists sound like they've got "potential" and talented artists' better produced albums sound soulless.
sheHATESus 1 year ago
his name is dusty wong? hehe
codenameGIZM0 1 year ago
lo-fi, i hate it when people spend hours mixing and mixing to where nothing is real any more
pana619 1 year ago
me like nice sound. But nice sound is EXPENSIVE!!
Engineers patent smart design and charge a ton for it, because big studios can pay a ton for it, because the big labels that pay big studios own the airwaves and run a monopoly on artist exposure.
In a nice situation, top designers would still have to charge a fair amount to break even with their gear. Because homebrew artists don't want, or can't afford, to pay a fair amount; designers sell low numbers of product, which runs the mark-up high.
finalmattasy 1 year ago
Well given the choice between the two, I would much rather prefer a higher quality album/song then a lower one. That being said, however, I do enjoy many low-fi albums/songs.
hzthereaper 1 year ago
I think it all depends on the genre and teh feel your trying to get. And I could enjoy both hi-fi and lo-fi music if I was in the mood. And no lo-fi is not dead, as long as their is underground musicians there will music with low recording quality.
filipr700 1 year ago
i think it all comes down to the music; the production is really just another characteristic. for me, if something is 'produced well', it just means that the productions values reflect the nature of the music, regardless of whether its lo-fi or hi-fi.
liledman76 1 year ago
I like albums/songs in good quality production over lo fi. It shows that tthe artist put time into making the track sound good.
Nobodie92 1 year ago
yes it does matter. i like clarity, but it's nice to have certain clarity mixed in with other stuff that also has a fluzzy sound to it. Washed Out does this alot, but his first cassette he made was WAY too low-fi for me. i liked it, but it felt like there was mud in my ears preventing me from enjoying this nice fresh synth pop.
grayfox622 1 year ago
Unlike disco, lofi will never die!
MonMccool123 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZRN959 1 year ago
It depends on what best supports the musical idea (that's basically my answer to everything; album length, vocal style, technicality, simplicity/complexity, etc).
Low-fi used amazingly well? Boards of Canada - Geogaddi
Ovapoduction? Porcupine Tree - The Incident
Low-fidelity components can give music a certain atmosphere that's unachievable in a high fidelity recording, and atmosphere is the first thing I personally look for in music. I prefer a mixture of hi-fi and low-fi components.
SquishypuffDave 1 year ago
I think generally that the higher the recording quality the most clear the message comes across to the listeners. If the quality isn't as good then the message and intention can become quite opaque and misleading in a sense...
TheKalebKouture 1 year ago
Is it me or dead the outro music sound higher quality.
Zookmuh 1 year ago
@Zookmuh Hahaha. No, same quality. :-P
theneedledrop 1 year ago
Well... I listen to alot of electronic music, which which I would say is equally about the composition and about the production quality - because the artistry is IN the production.
invanorm 1 year ago
There are some lo fi artists which I cant stand (Jon Spencer Blues Explosion) and some that I love like Wavves first and second album.
notsert123 1 year ago
LOL i love the example hahahahaah.
As long as people can record in lo-fi it wont be dead.
CurrentlyDisconected 1 year ago
I wish the more "punk" songs like Post Acid, King of the Beach and Idiot were lo fi.
Wavvvves 1 year ago
It depends. Sometimes good quality can really accentuate the awesomeness of a song, but lo fi and home recording often brings an earnest and warm feeling to the music.
standingonair777 1 year ago
I don't like the new Wavves album in hi fi, probably not lo fi either.
TheTelepathicKid 1 year ago
In music the quality of the tracks do matter.
Do you wanna lower the bit rate to fit more music on to your MP3?
I rather get the best quality of the tracks I can get with the music I listen to and chance purchasing another MP3.
Because it's worth the music.
rainstrife 1 year ago
i dont think the quality matters that much, if the songs are good they will come across no matter what quality.
schmitty3 1 year ago
I think it depends on the music.
JBBIGAIRskater 1 year ago
The recording quality only really matters to me, unless it's black metal then the shitier the better in my ears. :)
DerBertRam 1 year ago
Anthony Fantano, why are you so awesome?
Jonmad17 1 year ago
Lo-fi isn't deeead... c'mon is that even a real question? As long as there's authentic self-recording artists, Lo-fi will be around... Alive and kickin
TittyMcFuck 1 year ago
Wavvves was the best Wavves album
fuzzytongue0 1 year ago
i love it when a track is produced well, when your ears are almost about to pop, high tide by dan castro is a great example, theres buildups and breakdowns and listeing to it on some really good speakers or on a good set of headphones makes your ears want to fall off
TSKPat 1 year ago
lo fi is as dead as the hair on my head!
....so yeah, its pretty dead
colbertvp 1 year ago
and i think it is up to the listener or viewer. in your example, we were looking to see you and the background. so in that case it is low quality. but to someone looking for the what it turned out to be it was just dandy. its an opinion of your expectations.
Gibson2471 1 year ago
It really just depends on what it is you're listening to. Sometimes, I find that the recording quality alone can shift the atmosphere of a track or album into one direction or another.
Burgertrons 1 year ago
No. Only live.
iamjezuzchrist 1 year ago
depends on the genre or style it depends on what sound your going for,bad accoustics in a studio or recording can ruin a song but for folk and indie musicans it might not mater all that much its all ways nice though to have a high fidelity set up in your home
synth77 1 year ago
Hello? Slanted and Enchanted?
eggplantboy7 1 year ago
While good quality is a nice thing, bad quality doesn't make for a bad song.
geekzam 1 year ago
I think the recording quality matters a big deal, but that is not to say that a song with low quality recording isnt good. A really good example is Smith Westerns. I love their music, but couldnt imagine it being polished and squeaky clean. I really like the production on Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix.
digiacomoc 1 year ago