I just read this about the White Stripes and it mystified me

[SEABEAST]

[ QUOTE ]
Art is for the audience

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, anyone who does like "low fi" is juvenile and faux-hip.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like a few bands that use cheap recording equipment. It has nothing to do with liking lo-fi and everything to do with their music. Am I still a poser?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not at all. I said the same thing myself - I like the White Stripes - I have 3 of their CDs, and I'm certainly not going to claim to be a poser :-)

There are certain times when lo-fi is used to great effect. The intro to Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here", for example. Another example is obvious artificial sound like sampling or synthesizers, but I still want to hear the intention with clarity.

Some people think an analogy might be something like impressionistic painting. Monet didn't use photo-realistic painting techniques. But that's not the analogy. I want to see what he painted. I don't want to see it through a dirty window. So the analogy might be that the artist wants you to see his painting through a dirty window. That might work sometimes, but in the case of "lo-fi" sound it rarely does. I can think of some other examples when it might, but usually it doesn't. That's just one man's opinion.

In general, I really don't like overly processed, unnatural sound, or lo-fi unnatural sound. I want to hear what's coming out of Jack's amp, and if he wants to change it I'd prefer he alter his guitar or amp.

[+EV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, anyone who does like "low fi" is juvenile and faux-hip.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like a few bands that use cheap recording equipment. It has nothing to do with liking lo-fi and everything to do with their music. Am I still a poser?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not at all. I said the same thing myself - I like the White Stripes - I have 3 of their CDs, and I'm certainly not going to claim to be a poser :-)

There are certain times when lo-fi is used to great effect. The intro to Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here", for example. Another example is obvious artificial sound like sampling or synthesizers, but I still want to hear the intention with clarity.

Some people think an analogy might be something like impressionistic painting. Monet didn't use photo-realistic painting techniques. But that's not the analogy. I want to see what he painted. I don't want to see it through a dirty window. So the analogy might be that the artist wants you to see his painting through a dirty window. That might work sometimes, but in the case of "lo-fi" sound it rarely does. I can think of some other examples when it might, but usually it doesn't. That's just one man's opinion.

In general, I really don't like overly processed, unnatural sound, or lo-fi unnatural sound. I want to hear what's coming out of Jack's amp, and if he wants to change it I'd prefer he alter his guitar or amp.

[/ QUOTE ]

A recent lo-fi example that I really like that was used to good effect is the new Queens of the Stone Age album Era Vulgaris. I have seen QOTSA 4 times now and this album to be "not hi-fi." The reason why I say that is because I am not sure if they went intentionally lo-fi but the great thing about it is it almost exactly matches their live sound, whereas most of their previous studio albums sound much more polished and almost overproduced. To me the dirty window analogy is completely wrong. Its more like someone took the stereo out of the way so that you can hear them play live.

My feeling on the white stripes which is also one of my favorite bands is that Jack White has always tried to create a folksy aura of mystery around the band. My initial impression when I read this thread was exactly the opposite of OP. I am amazed (and a little incredulous) that they wrote and recorded this entire album in three weeks. The lo-fi aspect is most likely to try to produce an older sounding recording like you might hear on an old blues record. I for one like it and totally put it into the artistic vision category. However, you don't have to like the artistic vision. I for one do not like the majority of their last album even though I am a huge fan and listen to all of their other albums regularly.

+EV

[thecincykiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is simple. If you sell your art, then you expose yourself to criticism (which you might or might not care about, but which is *always* legitimate), and you enter a Darwinian process whereby you make what you're worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

How's your sense of art history, Tonto?

Nevermind that your premise is false (and the product of much too much opinion and far too little thinking) but you have to admit that if this were true, there would be no such thing as art. At least, not as humans have been defining it for a few millenia or so.[ QUOTE ]


I admit no such thing. If you think a little more flexibly you'd probably feel the same way.

You're confusing artistic conversation with capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Public art goes through an evolution with or without money (or whatever barter form you want.)

[/ QUOTE ]


Here's what you wrote:

This is simple. If you sell your art, then you expose yourself to criticism (which you might or might not care about, but which is *always* legitimate), and you enter a Darwinian process whereby you make what you're worth.

But now you're arguing that money has nothing to do with it.

Are you high?

[magister ludi]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, I really don't like overly processed, unnatural sound, or lo-fi unnatural sound. I want to hear what's coming out of Jack's amp, and if he wants to change it I'd prefer he alter his guitar or amp.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the recording process. Under no circumstances, will what you hear on the CD sound exactly like what the amp sounds like in real life. The microphone, preamp, console, recording medium, effects, etc... all color the sound and are all parts of the recording process that cannot be removed. What you hear on CD is never going to be exactly the same as what you hear live.

[ICallHimGamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In general, I really don't like overly processed, unnatural sound, or lo-fi unnatural sound. I want to hear what's coming out of Jack's amp, and if he wants to change it I'd prefer he alter his guitar or amp.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the recording process. Under no circumstances, will what you hear on the CD sound exactly like what the amp sounds like in real life. The microphone, preamp, console, recording medium, effects, etc... all color the sound and are all parts of the recording process that cannot be removed. What you hear on CD is never going to be exactly the same as what you hear live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of his point. He specifically said 'overly processed, unnatural sound, or lo-fi unnatural sound'. He is not talking about coloring a sound with mics and preamps.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's what you wrote:

This is simple. If you sell your art, then you expose yourself to criticism (which you might or might not care about, but which is *always* legitimate), and you enter a Darwinian process whereby you make what you're worth.

But now you're arguing that money has nothing to do with it.

Are you high?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring your screwed up quoting, no I'm not high. I didn't say money has nothing to do with it, I said money isn't the point. I did'nt mention money in the quote you posted either. If you can't figure out the nuances of what I'm writing, then ask a high school English teacher to explain it. Or stop reading it with your filter on.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
But now you're arguing that money has nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of it this way. When artists put something out to the public, they want to be "compensated" in some way. Otherwise they'd keep it to themselves, or only do commissioned, private work (which is also compensated, but presumably doesn't undergo the same Darwinian process, since that work was requested to a certain extent. But it often still exists - just ask Mozart's patrons, for example.)

[SEABEAST]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the recording process. Under no circumstances, will what you hear on the CD sound exactly like what the amp sounds like in real life. The microphone, preamp, console, recording medium, effects, etc... all color the sound and are all parts of the recording process that cannot be removed. What you hear on CD is never going to be exactly the same as what you hear live.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah seriously. do you ever actually go and see live music? stadium concerts with huge sound crews don't count. lo fi is what music sounds like before you go to considerable effort to make it stop sounding like that, not the other way around. the white stripes specifically have a very dirty, raw, lo-fi live sound.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In general, I really don't like overly processed, unnatural sound, or lo-fi unnatural sound. I want to hear what's coming out of Jack's amp, and if he wants to change it I'd prefer he alter his guitar or amp.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the recording process. Under no circumstances, will what you hear on the CD sound exactly like what the amp sounds like in real life. The microphone, preamp, console, recording medium, effects, etc... all color the sound and are all parts of the recording process that cannot be removed. What you hear on CD is never going to be exactly the same as what you hear live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no such misunderstanding. It's true everything (including wire) technically colors the sound. However such things can be minimized to the extent that some recordings are excellent and some recording engineers do excellent work. This is most easily heard with acoustic material which has a reference we are all familiar with (live classical, vocal or jazz, unamplified). Some audiophile labels have done a great job with this. It's also possible to get great sounding amplified recordings, it's just harder to know what the original sound was supposed to be like.

Also, your premise is slightly false. There is no fundamental reason, for example, that there has to be a "console". There has to be a microphone and a recording device, of course. Read up on minimalist recordings, direct-to-disc, etc. (By the way, some recordings from the 60s are excellent, primarily because they were not very "sophisticated" and didn't muck up the sound by overprocessing it.) Also see the magazine "The Absolute Sound" - the premise is that there is an absolute reference, and the recording and playback system should aspire to that. Some come damn close.