A return to “produced” records…?

[mattdee1]

Aye, but it represented, I think, the first step in a change in production style - drier, less processed sounding drums and vocals,

I guess everything is relative, and yes, in relation to the gated-reverb glory of the 80's, I suppose you're right. But it's worth noting that Grohl's Nevermind drum sound was augmented with samples (I'm going on memory here, but I'm 90% sure I remember reading this somewhere in one of the Nirvana biography books). As for the vocals, the basic individual performances were howling and raw, but they were still built layer upon layer and buffed to a radio-ready studio sheen.

more aggressive, rawer guitars,

Yep, but is that a production value, or is it more a consequence of the nature of the band's musical style?

and a less pronounced emphasis on musicianship.

Can't argue that.

I think if you draw a line from oh, a Warrant or Ratt album through Nevermind, eventually if you extrapolate that trend you'll end up in Jack White's studio.

Interesting way of describing it.

 

[Tony-bobs]

Recording something GOOD has more to do with the energy of the performance as well as some ability to play a cohesive line or two on your instrument, than the quality of the gear its being made on.

Of course theres a line drawn there somewhere, where actual shit-sounding captures will be viewed as such by anyone within earshot.

I think its great that so many people have the desire to try their hand at this. As in all things with a fairly extensive learning curve, the truly inspired and driven folks will still be at it as all pretenders and wannabes fall by the wayside after finding out how completely dedicated and insane you have to be to excel at this business.

I agree, esp. with the fact that a good lo-fi performance will sound better than a shitty hi-fi one. take texas flood for example. that album was recorded in a warehouse with the whole band playing together and cubical dividers set up to try to cut down on mic's picking up everything thats going on. to this day it is considered one of SRV's best albums. I don't know if you can get much more lo-fi than a warehouse and cubical dividers...

 

[miroslav]

I'm not even sure I agree with the premise of this thread; namely, that there is some kind of "lo-fi" revolution going on that started (roughly) with the Strokes debut album.

I never said it "started" with the Strokes...I just used them as an example since their album was voted Album of the Decade and it’s pretty darn Lo-Fi!
The specific Lo-Fi sound I'm talking about really started as a segue off the "Grunge" and post-Punk styles of music ...and it’s not quite the same as so-called Lo-Fi of the 50s/60s/70s.

AFA major Lo-Fi “market share”….ahhhh, I don’t think that’s ever going to be the case. Bands who live heavily off the corporate dollar are rarely bands on the Lo-Fi cutting edge (even if they have a huge following in college radio circles).

Still…IMO, there have been more bands doing the Lo-Fi thing in the last decade or so, than there ever were in previous decades…so yeah, I do see it as some sort of “movement”. I’m talking about the bands who find it “un-cool” to even sound somewhat polished/produced.
Pixies…The Breeders…Sonic Youth…and many more…that specifically went for Lo-Fi productions on everything they did.

Of course, these days, if you get a lot of music via the free internet…it’s hard to tell which Lo-Fi is pure intent VS limited technology VS limited skills…and/or any combination of the three.
The lesser focus on very produced music may have a lot to do with the fact that many bands are just doing their own productions based on what they know and/or what they are capable of…VS having a big studio, funded by a major label and guided by a veteran producer with tons of albums under his belt.
These days it seems a lot of “producers” decide they are producers simply because they have an opinion.
Lots of Lo-Fi bands bring one of their buddies in to be the producer…so a session becomes “on the job training”...and that too may lead to some Lo-Fi choices.

 

[noisewreck]

Watch Tarantino movies much? Lo-Fi on purpose all over the place on that guy's productions.

I also think it's very much genre specific. You won't see much of Lo-Fi in pop, country and the like. A lot of electronic genres, at least the mainstream "club" type stuff also strives for pristine quality, even though most of it is produced at home.

So, I don't think it's a generation thing. It's more of a genre thing. In most decades there has been lo-fi music.

 

[Sound & Vision]

The specific Lo-Fi sound I'm talking about really started as a segue off the "Grunge" and post-Punk styles of music ...and it’s not quite the same as so-called Lo-Fi of the 50s/60s/70s.

IMO the Lo-fi sound you are referring to is a direct result of the 60's and 70's bands you try to distance them from. The Pixies and Sonic Youth (since you use them as examples) were directly influenced by bands such as The Stooges, Velvet Underground, etc.. who had a trashy lo-fi element to their sound.

Still…IMO, there have been more bands doing the Lo-Fi thing in the last decade or so, than there ever were in previous decades…so yeah, I do see it as some sort of “movement”. I’m talking about the bands who find it “un-cool” to even sound somewhat polished/produced.
Pixies…The Breeders…Sonic Youth…and many more…that specifically went for Lo-Fi productions on everything they did.

I think this definition of Lo-fi is splitting hairs. Just because a band has a raw/aggressive sound doesn't make them lo-fi in my mind. In others' it might. I agree it isn't polished to perfection but that is a conscious decision as many others have stated. Being cool is all relative too. Most people take elements from all of their influences and put them together and make music. Two of my influences are the Pixies and Pink Floyd. Drastically different as far as production goes in your definition. I think both ends of the spectrum will always exist. Many of the modern rock recordings are so polished and then compressed/limited to crap so they sound terrible IMO. Those aren't considered lo-fi for some reason though...even though I would argue what they do to the tracks in the final stage degrades their fidelity. So it is a gray area IMO.

Of course, these days, if you get a lot of music via the free internet…it’s hard to tell which Lo-Fi is pure intent VS limited technology VS limited skills…and/or any combination of the three.

Agreed. Sometimes it is pretty obvious though when band just drench their songs in reverb to make things sound messy. A lot of local indie bands do that in my area. You can tell that they are just covering up their poor performances and recording skills.

In the end, its an interesting subject...but with the existence of the internet I think a lot of "lo-fi" albums will continue to be put out. For all three of the reasons you stated.

I'd be curious to hear people's opinions on a guy like Neil Young...is he "Lo-Fi"? I think the term lo-fi is more of a trend than the actual existence of new lo-fi songs. Maybe?

 

[bozmillar]

I agree that there isn't any more a trend now than there was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago.

I think it's more a "kids these days" attitude that makes people think for whatever reason, that their generation did things right and today's generation doesn't know what they're missing out on. I think what is cyclical is people getting to a point in life where they no longer accept that things change.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Anybody who doesn't see the current trend to lo-fi production in the college/alternative scene over the last decade either (as someone said rightly earlier) lives in a geographic area of the country that doesn't give them much access to those branches of the music stream, or they don't have the perspective of years that allows them to see the trend and the cycles that such trends most definitely take over time, or they just don't have the aptitude to see the big pictures.

Miro is right, it's a real and definite trend. *BUT*, it's not what I would call a mega-trend in music. Country is getting more complicated and more sophisticated in production value, hip hop is growing and expanding in musical production value, and so to a bit lesser-known of a degree is the leading edge of blues. So to say that the current "alt lo-fi" swing is a major trend in music in general is an over-statement; it's just one eddy cycling around in a large river of different currents and eddies swirling all over the place.

G.

 

[miroslav]

OK...I'm sure we can split hairs about specific bands being "Lo-Fi" or not…or about there being some elements of Lo-Fi styles in every decade.
But that aside...I've never heard the term Lo-Fi used as much, or run into more discussions about it and/or comments about "going for a less produced sound" …than in the last several years.
Glen gets it...there HAS been a trend that is much more focused than it ever was in the last 60+ years of Rock/Pop music.

I don't disagree that we can pick any decade and point out some bands or songs that have some aspect of "Lo-Fi"...or that there is polished/produced music around us today and always...
…but I can't see how anyone could miss the fact that the pendulum has swung pretty far over to the Lo-Fi side. So I’m just wondering if that means it will swing back toward more produced music as a "trend" same as it's been for Lo-Fi.
It’s true that Lo-Fi does seem to be associated mainly with a certain flavor of Alt/Mod Rock which is driven by college youth mostly…but then, there were also decades when youth went for more polished/produced music, so I don’t think that youth always leans toward the Lo-Fi sounds.

As a side point…I hate the fact that Country has become SO polished!!!
I preferred Country music when it had more of that country/cowboy feel…with its roots in folk and bluegrass as opposed how it now draws much more from slick Pop and even some R&B undertones.
It’s like Country has lost its roots…..but that’s just my opinion.
I’m sure many of the country kids like the new modern flavor that is permeating country music.

And to touch back on another point someone made…there ARE a few different ways that Lo-Fi seems to be defined. Raw and “roots” music with its more minimalist approach can be thought of as Lo-Fi…though I think quite often that music is actually played from a very polished skill set…it’s just the intent/vibe that makes it come off as unpolished.
But that’s different from Lo-Fi the stems primarily from musicians lacking in the skills and then choosing NOT to expand/improve on those skills but rather staying within the limitations thus making music that is Lo-Fi. It’s more about using music purely as an emotional outlet.

 

[noisewreck]

Anybody who doesn't see the current trend to lo-fi production in the college/alternative scene over the last decade either (as someone said rightly earlier) lives in a geographic area of the country that doesn't give them much access to those branches of the music stream, or they don't have the perspective of years that allows them to see the trend and the cycles that such trends most definitely take over time, or they just don't have the aptitude to see the big pictures.

I am somewhere in the middle on this one. As I alluded to, the Lo-Fi ethic is more genre specific, and as you state, there is a trend in the alternative scene... the trouble is, there really wasn't much of an "alternative" scene in say.. 70s Plus, what is "alternative" anyway? The term itself has sort of gotten bastardised.

 

[Freudian Slip]

Does anybody really believe the the Strokes or the White Stripes or the Ravonettes or any other such similar "lo-fi" act sounds the way they do because the budget forced them to sound that way? Not a chance. Each of those is/was a conscious production decision, and each one of those sounds could just as easily be gotten with a Presonus interface in a basement or an AMS board in a quality room. The "lo-fi"-ness of those records is an illusion created by conscious arrangement and production choices, and has nothing to do with an actual paucity of fidelity in their recording conditions or budget. Most of the stuff coming out of this board on $100 mAudio/MXL crap has a higher fidelity "sound" than the bands we're talking about.


G.

I agree. Another recent non-produced album would be American IV, the man comes to town. Johnny Cash and Rick Rubin. A brilliant decision, not lack of money.

F.S.

 

[darrin_h2000]

Having owned two, I'll tell you they can and will be run in a wide variety of modes. You would know this if you weren't trying to act like a douche to WS.

I was just answering his question...he seemed confused.

 

[bozmillar]

ok, so I'll admit there is a possibility that there is a trend for bands to produce lo-fi albums more so than there was years ago. I would guess that it's due to the strange fascination people have with "vintage" gear and people trying to get that "vintage" sound.

 

[darrin_h2000]

Anybody who doesn't see the current trend to lo-fi production in the college/alternative scene over the last decade either (as someone said rightly earlier) lives in a geographic area of the country that doesn't give them much access to those branches of the music stream, or they don't have the perspective of years that allows them to see the trend and the cycles that such trends most definitely take over time, or they just don't have the aptitude to see the big pictures.

I think the trend goes right back to the eighties with REM and bands like The Smithereens...and it isnt really a stretch that they were played on college campuses since those bands got thier starts touring universities...and the formats at the places didnt conform to the BS large market stations did...it sort of replaced the album rock format that was king of the radio in the 70s when they could just put on an album side.

Many of those bands were self produced and 8 track reel machines were inexpensive finally...so you heard more unpolished stuff...and there has been a College band genre ever since.

 

[darrin_h2000]

ok, so I'll admit there is a possibility that there is a trend for bands to produce lo-fi albums more so than there was years ago. I would guess that it's due to the strange fascination people have with "vintage" gear and people trying to get that "vintage" sound.

Years ago I think it was more about making some music and trying to break into the buisness, than trying to sound old and cool...it was lo-fi from doing what they could with what they could afford.
The White stripes is kind of the opposite...they could at this point have any quality they want...but chose lo-fi...its a double edge sword...sure they sound cool that way...but they are also lowering the bar.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I am somewhere in the middle on this one. As I alluded to, the Lo-Fi ethic is more genre specific, and as you state, there is a trend in the alternative scene... the trouble is, there really wasn't much of an "alternative" scene in say.. 70s Plus, what is "alternative" anyway? The term itself has sort of gotten bastardised.

I agree on the "bastardization", which is why I called it a "fuzzy" description. Then again, there's a multitude of "titles" that have gotten bastardized from their classic definitions. Today's "country" bears little resemblance to the classic definitions; "rock" practically has no definition any more, and can mean anything.

I only partly agree in the lack of a pre-80s "alternative" scene, it's just that the classification of "alternative" didn't really exist in it''s current form back then. "Alternative" started out really more as a radio and indie label marketing term than anything else, by those stations and labels that wanted to distinguish themselves as catering to more than just classic album rock or Billboard 200 pop. Which of course, meant just about everything; which is why the term is so nebulous.

But before then there was always an "alternative" scene, but it was more difficult to find on the radio on anything other than the low-wattage "underground" or "avant-garde" stations, and propagated mostly from the back wall isles of the local independent record stores through local friend networks (no Internet back then either ). One might be surprised how little difference there can be between the "alt rock" of today and the similar equivalent 30 or 40 years ago. And like someone said correctly of the Pixies being influenced by bands like the Velvet Underground, I have little doubt that much of today's "alternative" has influences dating back to Hawkwind, The Jam or even earlier.

G.

 

[darrin_h2000]

I only partly agree in the lack of a pre-80s "alternative" scene, it's just that the classification of "alternative" didn't really exist in it''s current form back then. "Alternative" started out really more as a radio and indie label marketing term than anything else, by those stations and labels that wanted to distinguish themselves as catering to more than just classic album rock or Billboard 200 pop. Which of course, meant just about everything; which is why the term is so nebulous.

But before then there was always an "alternative" scene, but it was more difficult to find on the radio on anything other than the low-wattage "underground" or "avant-garde" stations, and propagated mostly from the back wall isles of the local independent record stores through local friend networks (no Internet back then either ). One might be surprised how little difference there can be between the "alt rock" of today and the similar equivalent 30 or 40 years ago. And like someone said correctly of the Pixies being influenced by bands like the Velvet Underground, I have little doubt that much of today's "alternative" has influences dating back to Hawkwind, The Jam or even earlier.

G.

Id have assumed that punk counted as underground music in the 70s too...even the stuff the sex pistols did in major studios lacked polish and sounded lo-fi.

 

[loveofjazz]

This is turning out to be a great thread. Lots of perspective to consider here.
Me likey.

 

[gcapel]

People like the rawness and realness of stripped down recordings. It actually makes you listen instead of being spoonfed and taking a nap afterward. I don't think it's going anywhere. I don't think the heavy production stuff is going anywhere either.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Id have assumed that punk counted as underground music in the 70s too...even the stuff the sex pistols did in major studios lacked polish and sounded lo-fi.

This is a good example, I think, of how classifications can be nebulous and how geography can affect music availability and popularity.

Punk and new wave definitely stared put pretty underground, and certainly had a genesis as an alternative rebellion, first much to 70s production rock. But by the time the Sex Pistols and the Clash and the Talking Heads were making names for themselves in the late 70s, punk and new wave's audience popularity had become in some areas a populist response against the disco movement. I know here in Chicago, if you listened to the alternative and more progressive album rock stations, which around here were full-time, high wattage stations by then, you couldn't get away from them and they were anything but "underground" here by then. Yet if you went 70 miles out to Rockford or Peoria, or stuck with the classic rock stations in Chicago, you tended to get the harder rock and metal trends instead, that wound up leading to Metallica in 1981.

And in the theory of cycles, I'd even argue that the synth rock of the 80's was at least in part a response to/against the rawness of punk. Then grunge came along in the late 80s as a more earthy, grounded alternative to 80s synth rock (flannel shirts and torn jeans replaced upturned collars, thin ties and rolled up suit jacket sleeves )That's the thing about "alternatives"; it doesn't take long for someone to look for an alternative to the current alternative.

G.

 

[Terry Wetzel]

Could it be then that....

I agree that there isn't any more a trend now than there was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago.

I think it's more a "kids these days" attitude that makes people think for whatever reason, that their generation did things right and today's generation doesn't know what they're missing out on. I think what is cyclical is people getting to a point in life where they no longer accept that things change.

A). The home recording movement and the Internet has made it easier for musicians with less experience, not only in their chops but in their knowkedge of recording basics, to be heard?
B). There are more studios in business recording bands with less experience and talent behind the board due to the current,"anyone can do it" attitude". Home recording equipment costs and reasonably priced home study coarses are avilable at the click of a mouse.
C). The hourly rate costs,plus necessary add ons,(I.E.) mixing,mastering,etc. are out of most young bands budget reach?
D). The bands that you are referring to have grown up hearing so much "lo Fi" that it's all they know and are now doing a great job of copying it? (Hey, Their friends like it).
E). None of the above ?.
By the way. Good quality recordings and good quality music should never change, unless they start burning books. In which case all will be lost!