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.

How can you call my definition of lo-fi wrong when you're too scared to even present your own?

How about you actually argue instead of just going "you're wrong" and stuffing words in my mouth? I already said recording quality LIKE THE ADVERTS I never said the Adverts in specific, once again please stop telling what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.

Love Wheel isn't fuzzy, I can't listen to the video because youtube won't play for me anymore but I have the album and I put on the song now there is no fuzz, unless you consider distortion fuzz in which I guess Nevermind by Nirvana is a lo-fi album too? If there's any fuzz its because the youtube video is simply low quality not the recording itself. I will upload the song for you if you can't refer to it yourself.

So indie rockers recording on a fourtrack machine is a genre? Well okay then seeing as Daniel Johnston recorded Fun in a studio not exactly lo-fi by your standards is it? You make no sense.

See below.

I was providing their recording quality as an example, not them. Stop telling me what I did and didn't say and trying to change the definition of what I said.

It's really not subjective, the only thing "fuzzy" in there is the distortion.

In regards to the whole lo-fi argument...no band is really part of any genre, objectively. Genres are representative terms that are part of a shortcut system of explaining things for fans and critics. Is it wrong to decide that a band fits into one category or another, I don't see how it can be, as there's no universally accepted reference point. Psychology has the DSM as its source for all standards and labels, for instance, but pop music has no equivalent, so can't we just let each other use generic labels however we like?

well if we're talking lo-fi, that'd be a subgenre, and if you check the allmusic guide, I believe it would back that up. Anyway, bands can easily combine genres...I hate to use them as an example, but was Limp Bizkit rap or metal? weren't they, albeit, in a very sh!tty way, both? Subgenres are more easily combined than genres, I suppose, because they're more specific in their characteristics. But who are you to limit bands to one genre? Did you email all of them to let them know? We wouldn't want any of them f-ing up and going to jail.

Most bands don't fit into just one genre.

Even so...also: Why doesn't Cajun fit into folk or world, since it's a strictly regional type of music (although the term world music is a very lazy classification).

Thats great and all but Blues, Cajun, Celtic, Country and World are all Folk. Soundtracks isn't a genre. Pretty much you don't know your stuff so there's no point in arguing.

Who's being rude? Folk is regional music which is equivalent to Cajun, Celtic and World all of those are regional music. Folk is simply music of the common people. Country and Blues are off springs of American folk or as you would say different styles of American folk. I mean if we're going to be looking at everything in the big picture.

There's no difference between world and folk and all the others are specific sounds of the folk. Anyway the point is bands can cross over genres.

So american folk and blues are two completely genres?

Blues came from american folk and they share very similar structure. I think that constitutes as a sub-genre. Country also came from american folk and shares similar structure.

Blues can be just as traditional as folk. And folk can be just as personal and improvisational as blues (funny you mention Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger said that Woody could pick up a guitar play the longest cowboy ballad you ever heard and you'd never hear it again). I don't see either as distinguishing traits. Blues as we know it has taken its notes from american folk. Who's a pre-late 1800's blues artist?

who deleted all of their posts?

I think blues had its roots in African American tradition rather than American roots music.