Lo-Fi Recording

  • Thread starter Thread starter lieasleep
  • Start date Start date
L

lieasleep

New member
I am going to say, right up front, that I love low fidelity or "lo-fi" musicians, everything from the microphones to pavement to neutral milk hotel to guided by voices (just to name a few of the more recognized names in the genre).

in today's music industry, there is a growing (and has been growing since the 90's) trend of self-made musicians where self-production and vintage/ analog recording really reign.

I love these musicians because I feel that their music is intelligent, emotional, creative, and (most importantly) raw and authentic. I guess my question, jump off point, whatever, is:

should these recordings be praised for their low fidelity? or should the aim of an analog artist be to make the highest fidelity recording possible just with all of the warmth and authenticity of an analog recording?
 
i would say it depends on the artist. some use lo-fi as a segue to "bigger and better" sound (embracing what they have access to at the moment), while others use it more as an "effect" to create a certain mood.

lo-fi is often described as simply "capturing the moment" with whatever is available at the time. but this is not always the case. i know i have labored meticulously over small aspects of getting a certain kind of sound or vibration that listeners might think was just thrown together.

i guess what i mean is that some people might spend a lot of time/energy/money getting something to sound like someone just through a microphone in the hallway and pressed "record". and others simply throw the mic in the hallway and press "record".
 
wat

Id say that this thread has 99 percent chance to start out with several people who agree/disagree, then turn into a debate that likely involves analog vs digital and lo-fi vs hi-fi arguments. In the end, after a few pages of posts, it will be determined that the recording must serve the song, and ultimately a great song can be recorded at any fidelity and still sound great. Then people will get bored of the thread and go max out their credit cards at guitar center rather than practicing songwriting. Then the circle will be complete and begin again on another recording forum, somewhere far far away.
 
The Great Cobb said:
Id say that this thread has 99 percent chance to start out with several people who agree/disagree, then turn into a debate that likely involves analog vs digital and lo-fi vs hi-fi arguments. In the end, after a few pages of posts, it will be determined that the recording must serve the song, and ultimately a great song can be recorded at any fidelity and still sound great. Then people will get bored of the thread and go max out their credit cards at guitar center rather than practicing songwriting. Then the circle will be complete and begin again on another recording forum, somewhere far far away.
Click to expand...

hahahahaha honestly, you are probably right, but the in between stuff can be more enlightening than the end product, whether inevitable or not. just read a real good book and you will understand that.

just because we know how it is going to end doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. I use that line on my girlfriend every night :cool:
 
well

Whats bizarre is despite my short and lame answer i am actually a huge fan of lo-fi recordings. The lower the better. Ill even listen to boombox recordings and be totally fine with it. If they made a law tomorrow that forbid bands from releasing albums that werent recorded by their own 2 hands id be more excited than sad. It would level the playing field in one go.
 
I'm not a big fan of lo fi recordings, in and of themselves, but if it's a good song I don't usually care much what the recording sounds like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top