Really dumb genre discussion, go....
 

Daniel Johnston is pretty good. He's way too inconsisten though. He has some very good albums (Fun) and some awful albums (Songs of Pain, Don't Be Scared, The What of Whom, Live at SXSW). Overall, I still like Daniel Johnston when he's on a roll.

I wouldn't say The What of Whom and Songs of Pain we're bad, in fact I love them. Just because you're not into lo-fi doesn't mean they're bad.

Most of those bands aren't anywhere near as Lo-Fi as Daniel Johnston's early stuff. Daniel Johnston's early stuff was recorded on a tape recorder. I wouldn't call most of those lo-fi anyway, I mean Beck? His early stuff sure and Apples in Stereo? Not in the slightest. Oh and Fun was released on a major label so comparing its recording quality to his early tapes is pretty laughable.

Okay I already said Beck's earlier stuff is lo-fi so you're proving nothing with that. And posting a live video and saying "See? LO-FI!" is just....no. I'd only consider Fun Trick Noisemaker lo-fi thinking about it and maybe Tone Soul Evolution.

Fun isn't lo-fi, it was recorded by ATLANTIC RECORDS. This is common knowledge amongst Daniel Johnston fans and always mentioned during conversations about Fun because the quality is so high in comparison to everything else he's done. So either you have no idea what lo-fi is or you've never heard Fun.

Your argument was literally "Fun is lo-fi." and of course I disregarded the videos, I already acknowledged Beck's earlier stuff was lo-fi so posting Loser (an early song) is just you agreeing with me and then posting a live video as evidence they're lo-fi? Lo-fi isn't a style or a genre, it's about RECORDING QUALITY. It has nothing to do with how a band sounds live. It's not something subjective and up for debate, Fun isn't lo-fi it's literally that simple. There is no tape hiss, the quality is pristine and clear, it's not lo-fi.

Lo-fi isn't a genre of music, it's all about record quality. People DO describe primitive recording quality that bands like the Adverts used as lo-fi, I don't know what rock you've been under. I would argue further but since all you can do is repeat yourself I'll just pull a you and go: LOLOLOLOL get over it!

Thats exactly right. I generally hate lo-fi recordings, thats why I don't enjoy Guided by Voices's music as much as if all of it weren't so lo-fi. I'm so glad they got Ric Ocasek to produce Do the Collapse. I love his glossy production.

Daniel Johnston's stuff actually works better the worse the sound quality and production is. He's the only artist I can say that about.

I didn't disregard your points. You're expecting me to argue things like Beck's early albums being lo-fi despite the fact I SAID THAT THEY WERE ALREADY. You don't think thats a bit stupid? I don't.

You know I just looked up the wikipedia article on lo-fi music and I'm kind of curious how come all the lo-fi artists you listed as being 'fans of' we're just the artists they list as examples of being lo-fi? Lo-fi music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait so you've decided that wikipedia proves Beck and Apples in Stereo are lo-fi but wikipedia directly contradicts you and says lo-fi is just a recording technique, not a genre of music. Explain?

I don't really need to since I already explained what lo-fi is and it applies to the Advert's recording quality which is all I was getting at. Not necessarily the Adverts in particular, seriously learn to read I was talking about their recording quality. If wikipedia is good enough for you to copy your taste in music from I don't see why its definition is any less reliable.

Getting back to the original point before you decided to completely dodge the issue over and over and try and argue around it how is Fun lo-fi? The instruments and vocals are all clear, no tape hiss, etc none of that. How is it lo-fi? Please explain this and don't start going on about your supposed knowledge/taste because I don't care too much to be honest.