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.

I can't really get into something that's been purposely done lo-fi. That seems kind of contrived. But I do like happy accidents, and miss the sound of some of those old 70's early albums by certains artists that must have been recorded on a really tight budget in not the best studios under God knows what conditions. There are sounds on those records that will never be created again in a commercial studio. Records I'm thinking of in particular of course Iggy's Raw Power , also Blue Oyster Cult's debut, early Kiss, especially Hotter Than Hell is one cool mess with an unrivaled trash can drum sound.

It really depends from one act to another, I personally love low-fi recordings. We used to record to computers (ugh) and then recently, at the beginning of this year, we got our grubby little paws on a second hand Open Reel 16 track tape machine and matching desk. The difference between the two is a whole universe! With Computers we had bleed, awful sound and a general "dead" feeling to the recordings. Now we record live, in one room and it sounds great, we barely get any bleed from one track to another on our machine and the quality, to me, is better than any studio here could offer (South Africa only has digital studios and they are all stuck on pro tools). Some of my favorite records are dirty, noisy and low-fi and because there's so much over-produced crap floating around I tend to love them even more!

It seems like there's a big misunderstanding what can be considered lo-fi and sounding like you recorded into an answering machine.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear... I do agree with what you're saying... I mean, if a band sounds just as lo-fi live as they do on their records, I think that's fine... but otherwise it's a problem...

Rockin Rod Strychnine said:

I don't think that's true either. I loved seeing the Brentwoods at Budget Rock but couldn't bring myself to buy any of their records. They do NOT bring out the true sound of the band. I think there's a big difference between lo-fi and NO-fi. Becoming one big sound of mush is just crappy. I don't understand why bands wouldn't rather sound like the Shitsville 45 than Party at Steve's House.
The Foreign Characters said:

.

Lo-fi or not is really a question of taste, and I think we've got to respect the vision a band has of their own project. If you don't like a band because their records are lo-fi you'd probably won't like them live anyway, so just don't listen to them.

But I agree with the original post that it's a shame when you listen to a band that sounds great live and then the record sounds bad (whether it is on purpose or not). I guess in that case the band should just decide if they want to be lo-fi or not and be consistent :)

I don't think that's true either. I loved seeing the Brentwoods at Budget Rock but couldn't bring myself to buy any of their records. They do NOT bring out the true sound of the band. I think there's a big difference between lo-fi and NO-fi. Becoming one big sound of mush is just crappy. I don't understand why bands wouldn't rather sound like the Shitsville 45 than Party at Steve's House. The Foreign Characters said:

.

Lo-fi or not is really a question of taste, and I think we've got to respect the vision a band has of their own project. If you don't like a band because their records are lo-fi you'd probably won't like them live anyway, so just don't listen to them.

But I agree with the original post that it's a shame when you listen to a band that sounds great live and then the record sounds bad (whether it is on purpose or not). I guess in that case the band should just decide if they want to be lo-fi or not and be consistent :)

Personally, I don't see why a few over modulated things can't get commercial play. "Have Love Will Travel" made it into a truck commercial but it's the Sonics, so I guess they'll let that one slide. And that seems to be a bit of BS that lo-fi things can't be played on a Little Steven's Show. He's personally played the Mummies "You Must Fight to Live (on the Planet of the Apes for national radio to hear on his Halloween shows. and waht about some 50s stuff like Gary US Bonds? They sound like they were recorded down in the sewers. I use to think, when I was a kid, that those were live concerts, especially "Quarter to Three". I can understand why no one would touch Supercharger or The Brentwoods but The Milkshakes? Their stuff is pretty good sounding for a group who wants to sound like 1963 NOT recorded at Abbey Road or Olympic Sound.

John Carlucci said:

I used to think that wtiting music for commercials was a total sellout. Then I heard "Search & Destroy" used to sell sneakers.That shot that theory to hell. In my own case, the commercial deal fell in our lap 30 years after the band broke up. So it was not created with that as a goal. However, because we recorded at the highest quality available, these things have come our way.

I agree with you regarding the fact that it's getting harder to make a living off of music. It was hard enough 20 years ago when I had a major label deal with RCA. That's why I have another career in which I make my money. This way I can play the type of music I love without ever having to worry about making it commercial. Still, I want whatever I do to sound as good as possible.

I'm not just talking about local bands either. I've seen a few national acts even bands coming over from Europe that play really well & draw good sized crowds at the best clubs in town. I bought their CD's from their merch tables, & found them unlistenable. I personally know a few DJ's from Little Steven's Underground Garage radio. I've given them CD's of some hot local bands. They can not play these lo-fi CD's on the air. A little airplay on a station like that can really help a band survive.

I went to Art School. I studied Photography. I remember a kid in my class came to school with a crappy camera. Our professor told him that he should think of the camera as the tool of the trade & that a craftsman is only as good as the tools he is using will allow him to be. It's the same with music. If you use crappy gear and record as cheaply as possible, it's going to sound cheap & crappy.

Till this day I hear people complaing about the mix on Johnny Thunder's Heartbreakers LP LAMF. I remember them in the very early days as a much better live band than that record captured. They're gone, the record is all that's left. It's not as good as it could have been. You see where I'm coming from here?

Interesting discussion!

I agree with Matt. What I appreciate in a recording is that it closely conveys the live sound of a band. I know, not all recordings are done with this intent, but I feel that in garage/rock'n'roll/punk this is very important. There are bands that I almost never listen to on records because their recordings feel flat as compared to what I saw live. It's very hard to capture what makes a live band special on a recording, and the recording being lo-fi (or hi-fi) may not be related at all with this...

Lo-fi or not is really a question of taste, and I think we've got to respect the vision a band has of their own project. If you don't like a band because their records are lo-fi you'd probably won't like them live anyway, so just don't listen to them.

But I agree with the original post that it's a shame when you listen to a band that sounds great live and then the record sounds bad (whether it is on purpose or not). I guess in that case the band should just decide if they want to be lo-fi or not and be consistent :)

If you want reach a wider audience, you've got to do it right and make it listenable . But there is a cult of people, including listeners out there that want things to sound bad on purpose. You can't stay small time/lo-fi for this minority if you're looking to go somewhere with your music (if you don't care or want to be a hobbyist or play to a limited audience, that's OK too if that's all you want out of music). My current recording project is in a weird double bind situation with this. I play bass with George Brigman, who is best known for his very lo-fi 1975 album Jungle Rot. This record was not intentionally made to be lo-fi; George was working with what he had at the time, and with almost zero recording knowledge at age 18, and had only been playing guitar for about a year and a half. Our last record, Rags In Skull, was digitally recorded (at home) on a Yamaha MD-8, and mastered at Invisible Sound Studio . It was a huge sonic improvement over anything George did in the past, but some were miffed at the fact that it didn't sound like Jungle Rot. We didn't make a record for people who only wanted Jungle Rot. Your playing, writing, gear, all progresses from the time your 18, to thethe time your in your 40's and 50's. We couldn't make Jungle Rot II if we wanted to, although that's what a lot of people including our manager would rather hear us try to do..

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.

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 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.

In my opinion the recording process (of a band that is) should first and foremost attempt to accurately capture the sound of that band. So if you're band sounds like cavemen banging on garbage cans and singing through broken megaphones then you're recording should capture that. if you're band sounds like robots programed to execute technical passages with precision and tonal perfection, then your recording should reflect that. Your recording quality can be a way of further trying to recreate that experience and sound and with technology as advanced as it is and recording equipment as cheap as it is, cost is not really an excuse. it's more of a choice.

On a side note, I know many people will disagree with me, but i've always been of the opinion that post production effects or overdubs that couldn't be/aren't created live or don't promote the true sound of the band usually have no place on recordings of bands (this would include using a lo-fi recording style on a not lo-fi band). This is also why i prefer when bands record live because there is something of the group dynamic that is lost when instruments are individually tracked, and thus part of the band's true sound is lost.

Anyway, with all that said, i know some people view recording as an opportunity to create something that can't be created live and like to take advantage of it's power to do so. sorta like animations ability to reach beyond the bounds of what live action can achieve, and this type of recording certainly has it's place as well...but perhaps that's a different discussion.

I don't understand why somebody doesn't want to make the best sounding record they can. The technology is so accessible now, it's easy enough (for me) to do it right at home.

lo Fi has always been a part of Garage, I like to hear distortion in recordings. Trying to convert the people of Garage Punk Hideout will be a losing battle. If distortion keeps you off the radio, who cares? I don't listen to the radio, I get exposed to new music thru podcasts. I play music for fun, if you try to crate a recording to please radio, you will be very disappointed.

i think is better something cool that play super shitty to the max than a fukkin plastic sound..the world is full of "the perfect sound" every band that has a computer, record instrument one by one, than super editing, sound modeling plug in isnt what we need now!! ..that was holy grail of the 90'..now we all have to go back in the caves and find the souls we have left there!

Good topic!

I guess you can't count out trying to get that classic garage sound like you hear on the pebbles/back from the grave comps. Problem is that using two shitty microphones into a tape deck isn't going to give you that sound. Even though a lot of it was recorded using reel to reel two tracks the engineers had knowledge of mic placement, sound levels etc and more importantly how to mix to two tracks.

And I guess the other side of the coin is necessity. Some bands simply can't afford to record and just try to do the best with what they have. That's the way I've always had to operate. The cost of recording is prohibitive. I've never used a professional studio and not because I didn't want to, it's because eating and paying the rent are higher on my list of priorities. I will say that I have never been happy with anything that I have recorded, does that make me sad? No, life is full of disappointment's; deal with it.

Also you're hardly going to find a trash band going into a 48 channel pro tools studio to record their next album perfectly and then spends days or weeks processing it down with digital effects to make it lo-fi. That just wouldn't make sense for that type of band, it just wouldn't fit with the aesthetic of a trash band to my mind.

meh.. i have a job to make money. i honestly couldn't care less if 1 or 10 million people hear my music.
i prefer some music raw and lo-fi and some not. and i know alot of people that couldn`t give a flying fuck about the radio. for me music is an outlet not some lame opportunity to cash in on the newest craze.

I used to think that wtiting music for commercials was a total sellout. Then I heard "Search & Destroy" used to sell sneakers.That shot that theory to hell. In my own case, the commercial deal fell in our lap 30 years after the band broke up. So it was not created with that as a goal. However, because we recorded at the highest quality available, these things have come our way. I agree with you regarding the fact that it's getting harder to make a living off of music. It was hard enough 20 years ago when I had a major label deal with RCA. That's why I have another career in which I make my money. This way I can play the type of music I love without ever having to worry about making it commercial. Still, I want whatever I do to sound as good as possible. I'm not just talking about local bands either. I've seen a few national acts even bands coming over from Europe that play really well & draw good sized crowds at the best clubs in town. I bought their CD's from their merch tables, & found them unlistenable. I personally know a few DJ's from Little Steven's Underground Garage radio. I've given them CD's of some hot local bands. They can not play these lo-fi CD's on the air. A little airplay on a station like that can really help a band survive. I went to Art School. I studied Photography. I remember a kid in my class came to school with a crappy camera. Our professor told him that he should think of the camera as the tool of the trade & that a craftsman is only as good as the tools he is using will allow him to be. It's the same with music. If you use crappy gear and record as cheaply as possible, it's going to sound cheap & crappy. Till this day I hear people complaing about the mix on Johnny Thunder's Heartbreakers LP LAMF. I remember them in the very early days as a much better live band than that record captured. They're gone, the record is all that's left. It's not as good as it could have been. You see where I'm coming from here?

I can see both sides of the debate on this. I find some of the more extreme lo-fi groups aesthetically pleasing, others not so much. "Un-listenable" is definitely a relative concept now days. I think the songs and ideas in the music are more important than getting paid. However, sometimes you need to get paid in order to keep doing it. Really though I think the era of "going somewhere" with your music (for bands playing rock 'n roll, punk, etc) is coming to an end. The only place you're going to go is to little pools of people in the huge ocean of the internet (unless perhaps you're really good. Even then don't count on it) If you're writing a song to try to get in a tv commercial you're just as bad as Justin Beiber or someone like that. On the other hand if you record a certain way to fit in to what you think people in a certain clique like or expect you aren't really any better. So in the end just do what you like and please yourself first and foremost.