That's a really interesting point, about lo-fi being based around achieving a "live sound" in many cases. I'd never thought of it that way...but it's probably true for some bands (I'm sure you could tell me of a few who definitely had this as a primary motive). I always saw lo-fi as more an act of near-desperate ambition. The artist had this music he wanted to share with the world so urgently that he couldn't wait until he had the means to record it "properly." Anyway...I guess Ariel Pink probably wouldn't classify himself within the classic lo-fi contingency, because he's trying so hard to achieve a very specific sound, which is kind of the opposite of the lo-fi methodology. His music might sound underproduced, but really it's been produced to an extreme. Likewise...I can see why someone wouldn't like his music (even I get tired sometimes of turning up his records more than any other just to hear them properly, because his songs are so damp with saturation).
Thanks for responding so clearly and openly. It's about time this forum got down to documenting a near-academic obsession with pop music...everyone needs to post with your level of consistency and passion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swim
I didn't mean sincere to have anything to do with intentions. I mean I'm sure he wouldn't do that style if it wasn't something he liked. I meant sincere like true to the real sound. It's a little bit too faded, a little too hissy and it comes of with this fake filmy feeling that I just don't like. It's not a believable live real sound which is what I always thought lofi was about. I can see how someone could like it. It's cool that someone went down that avenue but I just don't like it is all.
|