Rough 'edgy' recording

[oldskooldave]

At what point in recording does it go from 'edgy' to 'amateur'

Due to my financial situation im well aware that my recordings are going to sound very different to mainstream stuff, but I want to make that a selling point.

Anybody else had any ideas like this or know of any bands who do this on purpose?

 

[miroslav]

I don't know if they do it "on purpose"...
...but there's a lot of bands out there that are both edgy AND amateur.

Just hit some MySpace/Facebook band pages...you will find them.

 

[rene-lemieux]

At what point in recording does it go from 'edgy' to 'amateur'

Due to my financial situation im well aware that my recordings are going to sound very different to mainstream stuff, but I want to make that a selling point.

Anybody else had any ideas like this or know of any bands who do this on purpose?

I like to mix exceptionally edgy, and to many (on here) my recordings probably sound amateur, and I am very much an amateur don't claim to be anything more. However, for me, it's a stylistic choice, I prefer edgy to clean, I must be clear though that I do not like stuff uncomfortably edgy, or just plain bad sounding and harsh.

I don't think edgy itself is amateur, but that nasty sharp edginess that sound like a cell phone, not good.

Also, I wanna add, for me, the Non-Pro aspect of recordings are definitely a selling point. The hallmark that everyone aspires to that is recordings done by big pro studios are generally unattractive to my ear, there too big, too bossy, unpleasant and uncolorful, often sterile, THEY LACK EDGINESS! OK, now I know thats a general statement, and I'm not here to start a heated debate over whether or not lo fi or hi fi is better, but to say that I prefer well made amateur mid-fi recordings over pro stuff FOR THE MOST PART, and that there are more like me out there, there's a market for that stuff.

 

[oldskooldave]

I like to mix exceptionally edgy, and to many (on here) my recordings probably sound amateur, and I am very much an amateur don't claim to be anything more. However, for me, it's a stylistic choice, I prefer edgy to clean, I must be clear though that I do not like stuff uncomfortably edgy, or just plain bad sounding and harsh.

I don't think edgy itself is amateur, but that nasty sharp edginess that sound like a cell phone, not good.

Also, I wanna add, for me, the Non-Pro aspect of recordings are definitely a selling point. The hallmark that everyone aspires to that is recordings done by big pro studios are generally unattractive to my ear, there too big, too bossy, unpleasant and uncolorful, often sterile, THEY LACK EDGINESS! OK, now I know thats a general statement, and I'm not here to start a heated debate over whether or not lo fi or hi fi is better, but to say that I prefer well made amateur mid-fi recordings over pro stuff FOR THE MOST PART, and that there are more like me out there, there's a market for that stuff.

Thats an awesome piece of information to have, like, after years of proffessionalism most artists must crave that raw sound they had when they started out
.

Do you have any of your edgy recordings available for a listen?

 

[rene-lemieux]

Sure, nothing is really complete, up until now iv'e recorded almost solely as a hobby.

You'll Never Walk Alone
http://www.sendspace.com/file/gibezl

Some R&B Recordings I made
http://www.sendspace.com/file/h2j9i5

The Time Is Now (Demo of something I'm working on right now)
http://www.sendspace.com/file/9xp9a0

This stuff is all just stuff I've been fooling around with in the last few months, nothing too serious, still trying to master the sound I'm looking for. Tell me what you think? Edgy enough for you, or not enough?

 

[Chibi Nappa]

On the sound quality end of things, all a pro recording needs is to be listenable. Granted almost all are way more than that, but that's the minimum.

The divide between home and pro is the song arrangement, the performance, the selection of sounds, and how it all fits together. Professional lo-fi still fits together like a glove in all of it's grungy sounding sloppy loose playing glory. It all comes down to professional minds knowing what fits together and what works for the vibe being created.



I always think of Operation Ivy. The guitars sound like shit. Tempo is all over the place. The drummer falls off all over the place. The sound is thin. The singer can't sing... But it is 100% exactly what it is supposed to be. There is an intelligence guiding the whole production with a purpose. Somebody saw the rough raw material they had to work with and guided it all in a direction that led to awesomeness.

God I love those songs.

 

[rene-lemieux]

The divide between home and pro is the song arrangement, the performance, the selection of sounds, and how it all fits together. Professional lo-fi still fits together like a glove in all of it's grungy sounding sloppy loose playing glory. It all comes down to professional minds knowing what fits together and what works for the vibe being created.

Well put...

 

[RawDepth]

You've got to be shitting me.

First over-compression gets popular...
Then Cher's autotune effect gets popular...
And now Professional Lo-Fi ???

What is happening to the recording industry?

 

[Chibi Nappa]

And now Professional Lo-Fi ???

What is happening to the recording industry?

Operation Ivy was recorded in the 80's.
The Greatful Dead's "American Beauty" was a masterpiece of lo-fi way before that.
Aerosmith had "Bootleg Live". Nirvana had "Bleach".

Sometimes it is a band with no money.
Sometimes it is a band lashing out against "overproduction".
This isn't a new thing.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The Greatful Dead's "American Beauty" was a masterpiece of lo-fi way before that.

I'd grant you that A.B. is not the highest fidelity album in the world, but - unless you know of a reliable story otherwise - I have never considered that album to be exactly lo-fi, either, at least not on purpose.

I think much depends upon one's definition of "lo-fi" perhaps, but for me something like American Beauty is what I would classify more "mid-fi" or perhaps "no-fi"; i.e. an album that for it's time does not sound necessarily lacking in fidelity, but it's exactly an example of high-fidelity either. Yeah, "Truckin" doesn't have a lot of excitement in it's production value, but that's pretty much how the Dead sound; very midrangey with not a lot of sonic tricks or definition. OTOH, I still have "Ripple" on my main playlist rotation to this day (whereas "Truckin' was retired decades ago), and I love the sound of the guitars and the mandolin in there; I never even considered it to be "lo-fi" so much as just another average 60's recording of some better-than-average music.

I don't bring this up to argue the merits of that album or it's sound quality so much lead into a point that there are a million cases where a "professional" or "commercial" recording can be considered mid-fi or even lo-fi, and it's not necessarily a conscious artistic decision to make something lo-fi to be grungy or edgy, but just simply a lower-fidelity recording because that's the way the cookies crumbled.

Sometimes they just want to document the stuff well enough without sounding like a Telarc super-fi high-definition effort. Sometimes they just don't have the studio time or budget for it, or have burned the time and budget elsewhere. Sometimes the producer or engineers just don't have their best day or week. Sometimes the artists as co-producers just don't have an engineer's ear or taste and wind up hampering the fidelity in that way. And so forth.

Is that lo-fi or just not bending over backwards for super hi-fi?

I think we have a tendency to sometime put too much stock or read too much meaning into the production value of some commerical recordings. "Professional" does not necessarily mean perfection, either in intent or execution; there are plenty of boring, mundane real-world factors from human to financial and logistical that can shape the final sound of any given effort, not all artistically intentional acts of "professional genius".

G.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I consider American Beauty to be lo-fi due to the obvious effects of "there is no time or money to get this done". I think they had like, a day to do the whole thing. And it shows. Some of those vocal takes? Ouch.

All comes together great tho'.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I think we have a tendency to sometime put too much stock or read too much meaning into the production value of some commerical recordings. "Professional" does not necessarily mean perfection, either in intent or execution; there are plenty of boring, mundane real-world factors from human to financial and logistical that can shape the final sound of any given effort, not all artistically intentional acts of "professional genius".

G.

Glen, I was primarily trying to answer the following question for my own benefit (I don't think anybody even asked this but I've wondered about it): There are recordings in the world that obviously sound 'crappier' than my own, yet are obviously more professional than my own. How is that?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I consider American Beauty to be lo-fi due to the obvious effects of "there is no time or money to get this done". I think they had like, a day to do the whole thing. And it shows.

My point exactly. It's not like they set out saying, "Hey guys, let's make a lo-fi album." They made an album. The fact that the fidelity is uneven at best on that album is not so much a conscious artistic decision as it is a boring "oh well" thing.

Glen, I was primarily trying to answer the following question for my own benefit (I don't think anybody even asked this): There are recordings in the world that obviously sound 'crappier' than my own, yet are obviously more professional than my own. How is that?

My own answer to that would be in my last post. Just because something is "professional" does not guarantee that it's going to be the best of the best in any way. It doens't even guarantee that something isn't going to absolutely suck.

We've all seen movies that we thought had less-than-professional production value or where they were just directed wrong, or where the actors phoned it in or were mis-cast, etc., even though they were directed and produced by and starring real big-name "professionals", we're used to that. The same thing happens in commercial music production; sometimes things come together, sometimes they don't.

G.

 

[heatmiser]

I consider American Beauty to be lo-fi due to the obvious effects of "there is no time or money to get this done". I think they had like, a day to do the whole thing. And it shows. Some of those vocal takes? Ouch.

All comes together great tho'.

Hey, I know this isn't a thread about the grateful dead, but since it came up...

They actually worked really hard on this album in the studio over the course of a couple of months in 1970. Now, their debut album was supposedly recorded in like a day or so and is decidedly dated and lo fi sounding. They were all hopped up on speed and just rushed everything...no budget.

American Beauty and Workingman's Dead (of the same year) were really an attempt by this band previously known for great shows and sucky albums, so do something more mainstream, professional and commercial. They were really impressed by CSN&Ys rich harmonies and stuff and were really trying very hard to go in that direction. I love it personally, but even I recognize they fell short of their goal in terms of vocal arrangements (your "ouch" comment indicates you do too ).

So, I guess my point is that, ironically, the Dead really wanted this album to sound hi-fi relative to what was out there. The result in my opinion is a great recording of some great tunes that falls somewhere in the middle in terms of technical merit for 1970. They did not just go in there and blow through this project with no budget, nor did they conciously try to sound edgy or lo-fi. This was pretty much the best they could do.

 

[Supercreep]

I think "edgy" is a euphemism for "crappy sounding".

 

[miroslav]

I see people using the term "lo-fi" to describe several different things.

1.) Poorly recorded music

2.) Just plain crappy music

3.) Music that has that "mono" or AM radio, 60's sound.

4.) Music that has sparse/simplistic arrangements/performances

5.) Well recorded music, but using limited/low tech gear and processing

6.) Music that appears "lo-fi" due to its "vibe", but is actually pro & polished

7.) A combination of some of the above

 

[RawDepth]

I understand how often it happens unintentionally.

The reason I was amazed was because the OP implied that he wants his "Edgy" technique to be a strong selling point.

 

[rene-lemieux]

The reason I was amazed was because the OP implied that he wants his "Edgy" technique to be a strong selling point.

It's just different strokes for different strokes man, like I said, I prefer a lower fidelity recording over a hi fi one, theres a market for it whether you like it or not. I, am the same as you, but opposite, I can't believe people like such incredibly hi fi stuff. I can't buy it, doesn't sound natural to me.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of (but I don't despise) the ultra lo fi scene either, alot of my friends are (the entire edmonton hipster music scene wont listen to anything that's not lo fi!) but I gotta admit, some of those recordings have a unique quality that enhances the song, that would be otherwise unobtainable in a hifi situation. Crusty unpleasant recordings made with computer mics and tweaked with audacity effects that are like sandpaper in the high freq's are never pleasant, but most of the "true" lo fi guys make there music on 4 track portastudios and stuff like that. It's simply lo fi cause of overdriven tape, as well as just being an all around basic setup.

THEN, there are the fake lo fi guys, pros who record everything well in a studio, then shit all over the tracks in the mixing stage to make it sound "lo fi", that is stupid. They use more stuff to make it sound bad than pros would use to make it sound "pro".

The combination of lo fi and hi fi tracks is actually a pretty great thing, I like super lo fi stuff when its nestled in the middle of a otherwise well recorded mix. EXAMPLE. Street fighting man by the Rolling Stones. Listen to that acoustic guitar! I know that it and the sitar were recorded on a little mono recorder with the built in mic. Never has a song that only contains one electric instrument (bass) rocked so hard. Lo fi and Hi fi must work together.

Must establish the fact once more, that I don't hate Hi Fi, or love Lo Fi, im somewhere in the middle, I dislike both of the extreme ends of the spectrum an equal amount.

 

[kcearl]

I understand how often it happens unintentionally.

The reason I was amazed was because the OP implied that he wants his "Edgy" technique to be a strong selling point.

we have software to introduce vinyl crackles, bit crushers, decimators, saturators...even distortion to some extent "lo fi's" our listening experience in some uses..

I like well produced and even over produced recordings depending the genre but I also love my collection of 60s garage tunes and "kitchen sink" production soul numbers


I cant believe that this is even a point of amazement to any one...its just another technique imho

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I understand how often it happens unintentionally.

The reason I was amazed was because the OP implied that he wants his "Edgy" technique to be a strong selling point.

It wouldn't be a first. Some of the top albums of the last fifty years have been intentionally what we would call "lo-fi", from a lot of T-Rex, to the album duo of Bowie's "Heroes" and Iggy's "Lust For Life" to a lot of the punk and new wave of the late 70s/early 80s, to a whole boatload of "college rock" hits of the past 15 years.

Personally, I'd rather find my "edginess" in the form of the songwriting and arrangement and *clever* production value rather than in the "tone" or the creation of fake low production value; taking an average song and trying to force edginess out of it through some form of studio trickery just sounds phony to me.

Not to mention much of the fake trickery has gotten way overdone. Am I the only one who's found the "fake AM radio" sound or the introduction of fake pops and clicks to a digital recording to have lost their charm about the second or third time someone did it, let alone the millionth time?

Just one IMHO opinion, nothing more.

G.