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.

Diggin' the download!!! Thanx tons!!

The ones that have held up best for me are The Modern Lovers and Ramones debuts, both are perfect albums, not a false note anywhere. Also still love Saints Eternally Yours, Heartbreakers Live at Max's Kansas City, Cramps songs the Lord Taught Us, Iggy Pop New Values, Buzzcocks Singles Going Steady, Christchild Hard and Dead Boys Young Loud and Snotty.

It would have to be 'Damned Damned Damned' and the first 3 Ramones albums. But then albums weren't really the coin of the realm of the first punk era; singles were where most of the action was.

There are too many great LPs from that era to choose from and I'd agree with all the usual suspects in this thread but The Boys don't get mentioned enough. Their debut and Brickfield nights still sound fantastic and should have done big things for them.

I agree :)

Joe Schmo said:

The Sex Pistols was my first introduction to punk back in those days (Never MInd the Bullocks). There still one of my all time favorites!

bruillants, énervés, mais des pionniers tout de même les premières crêtes et les pogos c'est eux non ? moi je m'en met une petite dose quand j'ai envie de tout casser :)Bon c'est sur ils ne sont plus ce qu'ils étaient mais tout de même j'aimais leur côté extrème.

Chris Damned said:

Exploited ! Le genre de truc qui me filait la honte d'être mis dans le même tonneau punk à l'époque...
Les punks à chiens viennent de là...
Franchement mauvais, voir nul.

Oh, there is a Halloween Surfcast. Check episode 12 , hosted by the wonderful best Surfcast podcaster ever : Paul "Sharky Von Gasser" Vandervort .

You may check episode 10 of THE HAUNTED SHACK THEATER too if you dig surf'n'monsters !

All you have to do now is enjoy these spooky coktails from the sea my fiend.
Cheers !!!

there should totally be a halloween inspired surfcast for the upcoming halloween, The Ghastly Ones, The Bomboras and The Nebulas come to mind, i know they were all on a halloween surf comp.

I am a small-time record collector and an amateur DJ and I have a simple question that deals with both.

If you have a chance to get a rare copy of a record in mono, would you pass it up for a stereo version because it might sound better in a club?

Or, for the veteran DJs out there... do you opt for stereo for sound,  mono for authenticity or do both have their merits in a club setting?

I'm guessing it's probably case-by-case and depends on individual songs, but any input would be appreciated...

I just posted this on my music blog. I'll share it here too Solomon Burke, one of the greatest soul singers of all time died yesterday at the age of 70. He had just landed in the Netherlands, where he was scheduled to perform. Born in Philadelphia, Burke, who also worked as a preacher, began recording in the 1950s. One of the first 45s I ever had as a kid was Burke's soul version of "Down in the Valley," an old cowboy song he turned inside out and made it into a soul testament. In recent years he'd been making something of a comeback. He did a country album called Nashville in 2006. That featured a heartbreaking version of Tom T. hall's "That's How I Got to Memphis." But my favorite song of his in recent years was from his 2002 album Don't Give Up on Me -- a cover of Tom Waits' "Diamond in Your Mind." Rev. Burke left many diamonds for our minds. Below are some performances -- they look fairly recent -- of some of his soul classics. UPDATE: What the heck, here's Solomon with The Rolling Stones:

Oh, wow. I just saw the news. What a great, great loss. The world of soul will never be the same. He will be greatly missed.

Wow! Just saw this. He gave us classics like "Cry to Me," "Everybody Needs Somebody to Love," and "If You Need Me," recorded by the Rolling Stones and The Pretty Things! RIP.

The world got a whole lot less soulful this morning:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/2789320,solomon-burke-dies-airport-101010.article


In a world full of manufactured "soul", he was the real deal.  He leaves behind 21 children, so at least he propagated the soul gene to full effect!

Safe journey Brother Solomon.

Im kinda the same never really got into the rollins side of them, but to be fair i haven't given it much of a chance!

i love metal too