Yeah. Jordan & I found out that Shel was living in LA not far from Jordan's place, so we got hold of him & asked him to produce the record. We were both big fans of The Who/Kinks/Creation. Speaking of the Creation, their bass player used to own the Cat N Fiddle, the best English Pub in Hollywood. He owned it until he passed away. The first time I went there (when it was in it's original location in Laurel Canyon) I sat at the bar & realized I was sitting next to Mitch Mitchell. Another time I went there & Ron Wood was sitting behind me. Behind the bar was a really cool framed promo shot of The Creation, from back in the day.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I actually didn't know that at the time. LOL I was just a huge Fuzztones fan back in the late 80s/early 90s. It still sounded like a slightly modern album but modest, not OVER produced.

John Carlucci said:

Rod,

Shel Talmy produced The "In Heat" lp.... maybe that's why you like it! and @ mikel, I meant to reply to your post about Johnny Rotten but it ended up as a general reply, so if you have not seen it, it's below...click on the link, it's pretty funny.



Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I personally wish that records still sounded like 1963 Beatles albums or Shel Talmy productions from 1965. Or even Mickie Most recordings. Produced for its day, but you can still hear static from the vocal mic.

Rod, Shel Talmy produced The "In Heat" lp.... maybe that's why you like it! and @ mikel, I meant to reply to your post about Johnny Rotten but it ended up as a general reply, so if you have not seen it, it's below...click on the link, it's pretty funny.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I personally wish that records still sounded like 1963 Beatles albums or Shel Talmy productions from 1965. Or even Mickie Most recordings. Produced for its day, but you can still hear static from the vocal mic.

I personally wish that records still sounded like 1963 Beatles albums or Shel Talmy productions from 1965. Or even Mickie Most recordings. Produced for its day, but you can still hear static from the vocal mic.

Actually, Springsteen can still easily sell out arenas, so Little Steven is still reaping the benefits from that.

Dana V. Hatch said:

Dirty Ugly Records said:

I completely disagree with what you have to say on this John.

1st, if it's "cool and retro" to do lo-fi recordings, it's news to me. Maybe it is, I'm pretty out of the loop on what's cool..except for what I think is cool.

This isn't some new development, people have always been doing this since home recording was an option. If it's bigger now, it's just a healthy reaction towards everything being super slick and shitty. Many people want and need a rawness in their music.

I've been playing lo-fi music and helping other people record it since the mid 90s, and have never met one person who was doing it to be hip or whatever. They were either doing it because they had no money, or they plain liked the sound.

You're talking about bands being popular on the club circuit, but can't get their music played on the radio. Frankly there are a LOT of people out there who don't give a shit about being popular or getting played on the radio. Getting big isn't on their agenda. They are doing what is fun for them, and making the sound they want to make.

You're talking about future income, and generating royalties. This is so meaningless to me. I think most people playing lo-fi music don't care about this crap. Again, they do it because they like it.

Really it's just embarrassing to mention you're getting royalties from being on Jay Leno and commercials, or that you were on a major. To a lot of people into raw and lo-fi music, this leaves us scratching our heads...I don't think you get that these are BAD things to most of us into lo-fi..really lame things we would never want to do. Making money is the last thing most of us care about.

Your advice at the end is kind of insulting. "Don't sell yourself short. If a record is un- listenable why even bother?"
Nobody is doing that. Franklly you're just being a snob, and saying this stuff is un-listenable to YOU.

Also how the hell do you know what will stand the test of time?? And why should people care if it does? Some do, some don't. And you can't predict what people will look back on in 20, 50 or 100 years as being good.

If you don't like it, just don't listen to it. Seriously, you're kind of coming off as a cranky old guy who doesn't like what "the kids" are doing today because it isn't what you were into doing.

Why on earth would anybody care about being on Little Steven's show? There are tons of radio shows that play lo-fi music, just not mainstream ones. Frankly, Little Steven and his DJs can go fuck themselves for all I care. There are plenty of podcasts available right on this site that put on way better shows than him. Again, you look at this from the perspective of every band wanting to get big and make money.

What I hear over and over from your two posts, is that it seems you think there is one right way to do things, YOUR way. And you assume that everybody wants what you wanted. You kind of assume everybody wants a big record deal, to make money, to do this and that. Well almost everything you named is completely meaningless to us.

Anyway you have the right to your opinions, but I just think you're dead wrong on this and looking at it in a really weird way.



I don't tell people they suck for recording in a studio, and I don't really appreciate people telling me I suck for being involved in home recording.

i completely agree with your post especially what you say about Little Steven. Mr. Arena Rock douchebag suddenly fancies himself an expert on garage rock. "No bass, no band" he insists, invalidating the Seeds, the Cramps, Hound Dog Taylor & the Houserockers and countless other worthy bands. Someone asked him "What about the Gories?" and HE'D NEVER HEARD OF THEM. Garage rock expert, my dick. What really frosts my ass is in the 70's all the money gigs went to bands playing Springsteen and Zep type crap while rockabilly, garage, and punk bands played in toilets for spare change. But soon as the big money stopped rolling in for fucks like Little Skeevie and Bob Plant they acted like they were into real rock & roll all along.

That's also a good way to sum it all up.

The Foreign Characters said:

I like plenty of lo-fi bands and to me both those albums are unlistenable... I agree unlistenable is in the ear of the beholder :)

I like plenty of lo-fi bands and to me both those albums are unlistenable... I agree unlistenable is in the ear of the beholder :)

BTW, I share both impulses on this subject. Sometimes I do like stuff that's really raw, and other times I like it more produced. Usually, when it's rootsy, I like it raw, and when it's poppy, I like it produced. However, this is not an ironclad rule for me. I've heard rootsy bands that put out well produced albums, and poppy bands that sound a little bit more raw than usual. Then again, it all boils down to one question for me..does it sound good? If it does, then that's all that matters.

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

Kurt Cobain said the same thing about Nirvana's major label debut (or at least unlistenable to people use to the sound of Aerosmith and Guns N Roses albums).

Well it sure is a good thing that Johnny never sold out!! (see link) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mSE-Iy_tFY

I understand everything ever. Unlistenable is in the ear of the behearer. There are some things from the 80's (due to production style) that I can't hardly stand to listen to anymore even though they were good songs, well played, and had hi fi recording. Stuff like some (not all) of the Lime Spiders, Smitherines, Hoodoo Gurus, Jason and the Scorchers just make me wince. The arena rock drums and Marshall stacks drive me crazy but not in a good way. I realize I am a weirdo and would rather have heard these guys play in a small club or basement with cheap amps and cobbled together drum kit but this is my personal preference and everyone is entitled to theirs.

Kurt Cobain said the same thing about Nirvana's major label debut (or at least unlistenable to people use to the sound of Aerosmith and Guns N Roses albums).

That reminds me of what Johnny Rotten said about the one and only Sex Pistols' album, that if it had been up to him, it would have been unlistenable. Some people just think anything more than that is selling out.

Ryan = Funny.

Ryan Katastrophe said:

I hate lo-fi recordings. Eric Clapton over Robert Johnson all day.

I hate lo-fi recordings. Eric Clapton over Robert Johnson all day.

In my own recording experiences, I don't know that I've ever tried to make something sound crappier, but I have run into a lot of situations where I just wasn't all that concerned with waiting until I could get into a studio, and I wanted to get the song down. Once I had recorded on whatever equipment I had available, I realized the song had enough of a drive and power that I didn't really have a need to rerecord it later. And I've had studio recordings that have actually lost a great deal of raw power when compared to the 4 track demos. But that's probably as much due to lack of ability in a studio as anything else. And pretty much my entire rock and roll life has been strictly for kicks, so when you introduce a desire to actually make something of yourself, lol, these fidelty issues might come into play.

That being said, I think it's all pretty subjective. There's plenty of great bands that I can't even imagine the Steely Dan version of, Guitar Wolf being one. All I ask from a recording is that I can hear the individual instruments, but past that, I'm looking more at the song itself than any particular fidelity.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not so much that I enjoy lo-fi recordings, it's that it doesn't cause me to judge the recording one way or the other. Lo-fi is something that I tend to treat like a extra grungy guitar sound or distorted drums or anything else you play around with when recording to try to make a unique sound.

Hey John.

I have the Bassman TV Duo 10, I like it, but I wish I would have waited for the Rumble 350, it's half the price. I feel like I paid an extra $500.00 for the "retro" look. Your the second person that recommends the Sans Amp, I'm going to look into one of those.

Hey John W. I do as well. I usually go that route with a Sans Amp Bass driver. I have a stock 72 P Bass with flatwound strings that I only use to record with. It gets the fattest sound you can imagine. Even when recording live basic tracks, I prefer to sit in the booth with the engineer & hear the bass through the big overhead speakers rather than use headphones, unless I have my own separate mix for the bass. If I don't hear myself loud enough, I tend to hit the strings too hard, then I need to compress the shit out of it to get it from peaking in the hot zone. On occassion I will do both, direct & through an Amp, however it has to be the right amp. I recorded tracks with my new band through a Tube Compressor on one track and through a mint condition Beautiful Vintage 1960's Ampeg B-15 that my buddy has at his studio. I have a pretty cool Fender Bassman TV15 that I might try on anothe occassion, It's got a tube pre-amp that sounds pretty awesome. When I played with Sylvain I used a 1970's Fender Bassman 135 which was an awesome amp, but I eventually had to sell it because it it became unreliable & it hummed too much record with.

John White said:

I like plugging my bass strait into the board, always seems to get the best sound. That way you have all those EQ's at your disposal or just use your tone control on the bass. If you want to dirty it up you can also use a foot pedal. Check out Soundblox for bass, they have a great video ad on Youtube.

I like plugging my bass strait into the board, always seems to get the best sound. That way you have all those EQ's at your disposal or just use your tone control on the bass. If you want to dirty it up you can also use a foot pedal. Check out Soundblox for bass, they have a great video ad on Youtube.

Awesome thread! I kinda agree on all sides. I'm thinking of Teengenerate and Guitar Wolf alot reading all of you guys arguments. Plus, the bar I'm in right now is playing some great mongoose! I remember when I first heard Get action! by Teengenerate. It blew me away and I used to be a metalhead and like produced recordings. Teengenerate made me understand that even though something: If you record lo-fi, you'd better know what you are doing... and you'd better have alot of energy to give away. It's actually not that simple to record in lo-fi.

Guitar wolf is just pure raw energy! It's a deliberate choice to be super No-fi and it's fine for them. I wouldn't dig the New bomb turks if they sounded as no-fi as Guitar Wolf. It's part of a certain esthetic and has to 'fit', to be calculated.

Bands who just want to sound like will sound like shit. Bands who 'get it' will think about what they're doing and work on it.

The raw urgency of Rock N Roll comes from within. You either have it or you don't. If you feel that your band sound is best captured by lo-fi recording & you are happy with that, then all power to you. I have a different point of view. It takes many years of practice & experience to learn recording techniques that capture the quality of tone that I seek when I'm recording. It also takes many years of musicianship, for the art and attack of recording is quite different than playing live. Especially for bass. The bass sound wave is a very wide frequency, If you do not know proper mic usage, you will end up with a pretty distorted bass signal. If you record with the same attack that you play with live, it will work against you. The bass will end up peaking out the VU meter and will need to be brought way down in the mix, unless you are fine with hearing the metallic noise of strings clacking against the bridge & the pickups.

- you need to get a little more inside the raw urgency that is Rock n Roll.

I don't know about the shows on Sirius XM but I still feel that the Milkshakes and Billy's other bands should have gotten a spot on Little Steven's syndicated show. I would agree that a lot of bands who record in "white noise" style shouldn't be played on radio.

The Hives' album that got them noticed was kind of low-fi and still gets more airplay than their more polished follow ups.

Hey Rod,

There are exceptions to every rule. Regarding The Mummies getting airplay on The Underground Garage. They are an exceptional band. They have something that transcends the quality of their recordings.

I don't want to name names, but I know for a fact that some bands have been rejected because of the low quality of their recordings.

The 50's bands had limited technology available. Yet they still sound better than a lot of today's Lo-fi recordings. I'm not saying something needs to be sparkly clean, digital or over produced. I just prefer to hear all the instruments with good sonic quality and as little bleed & white noise as possible. Another poster said it best. The recording should sound like the band.

To Mr. Dirty Ugly & friends, You totally missed so many of my points in my post. I made my statements based on my own experience. If you enjoy lo-fi recordings, great. To me, in most cases it sounds like the musician's can barely play & the engineer's know nothing about acoustics or microphone placement. There are exceptions. Because I choose another route does not make me a snob. I'm entitled to my opinions as much as you are to yours. Making money with my music has never been my agenda. I have another career in which I make a living, I too play for fun. Since 1972 I have been in one band after another. That's 32 years straight of playing Rock N Roll. There has never been a time during that span that I have not been in a band. In fact there were times when I had 5 bands going at once. I've played in front of 50,000 people, I've played in front of 5 people. It does not matter to me. On the occasion that I have made some cash from my music, you think I should be embarrassed? Now I'm the one scratching his head. It costs money to have a band. Gear is not free, rehearsals are not free, gas to drive to gigs is not free, recordings are not free, food & lodging on the road is not free & manufacturing CD's or vinyl is not free. If a band gets a little airplay whether it be on XM, College Radio or Podcasts, which brings more people to their gigs, or earns some royalties that can help them survive, what's wrong with that? I have funneled my royalties back into my musical projects. You missed my point entirely regarding having been on a major label. My point was that even then it was hard to survive. Throughout my years playing in bands, I have found that it's always the musician's on the edge, the one's who say they are not in it for the money, that quit music because they can not cope with the reality of what it takes to actually be in a band. Long drives, crappy food & hotels,sitting around for hours to sound-check and little or no pay can very quickly take the "fun" out of being in a band. I do agree that most pod-casts are playing some interesting music. I subscribe to a few myself. The reason why I support XM is because they in turn support the musician's. They pay royalties through sound exchange that go right back to the artists. So since you & your peers are not into making money, I assume you are giving away the records & CD's you make & you are not charging bands for your recording services? If you are, kudo's to you, however if you are charging money, well then you are in the same boat as I & your argument is fruitless. Regarding which music can stand the test of time, while I can not predict the future, I can look back. I was referring to the fact that a recording I made 31 years ago is still being used on TV, has been re-issued & commands high prices on the collectors market. Whether you like it or not, it's a fact. I was offering my advice to younger musician's based on that fact & my own experience. There were plenty of bands back then amongst my peers that had better songs & were better musician's. My feeling is that since we took the time to record that single at the highest quality available, it stood out & got noticed. That's the reason we were asked to open for the Jam & The Undertones, and many other well respected bands of the day. Our recording opened doors for us. What it all boils down to is this. The recordings live on. Long after the bands are dead and buried that will be all that is left.

Dirty Ugly Records said:

I completely disagree with what you have to say on this John.

But you're version of lo-fi sounds like what I agree with. I know exactly what you mean by ring of the room and extra noise. Even that lack of noise like you can sense the space between the band and the stereo speaker in which you're listening from. But someone trying to sound like an answering machine at top volume is just lame. I think some people can agree on that.

The Ahabs said:

some music isnt really about clarity. we recorded in a full studio set up and it sounded terrible, and we spent most of the sesion trying to make everything sound rougher. which is a waste of time and money. the thing i love about lo-fi is the sound you get, the ring of the room, extra noises, overdriven...etc etc

mind you i'm also a sound artist, so i love all that kind of thing anyway.

I don't think the issue is using two microphones, it's who is controlling what they're plugged into. I think the OP is bitching about the lack separation in the instruments in some of the music he's heard lately. Meh, deal with it. Personally I couldn't give a shit as long as it's loud and nasty.

Brother Panti-Christ said:

I don't see nothing wrong with bands using two mics to create a Lo-Fi sound.

Fred Cole gave me some advice one time during a discussion about recording, goes something like this... ''You can take a bad song into the best studio with the best engineers and producers, and it's still a bad song. You can take a great song and record it with the worst equipment in the world, and it still sounds like a great song!''

'Un-listenable' sounds like a compliment more than anything.