Really dumb genre discussion, go.... (indie, punk, rock, albums)

~~Civic Depreciator~~ · 05-21-2008, 05:50 PM

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.

sleepy jack · 05-21-2008, 05:51 PM

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.

sleepy jack · 05-21-2008, 06:07 PM

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.

sleepy jack · 05-21-2008, 06:46 PM

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.

sleepy jack · 05-21-2008, 06:59 PM

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.

sleepy jack · 05-21-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slint

Yes Beck's earlier stuff was lo-fi, his prime stuff. This would definitely make him a lo-fi artist. Half of his albums are lo-fi, which would push him over the edge. About the live video, I couldn't find a regular recording of it on YouTube, so I did the best I could with that song. Listen to the original version since you need further proof. Yes, lo-fi is in fact a genre. I already explained this. If it purely had to do with recording style, why aren't 60's garage rock bands and 70's punk bands considered lo-fi? Because it's a genre, that's why. Sure, Fun may be more polished than his previous recordings. But it isn't slicked up to be user-friendly. Both Fun and the bands I listed are lo-fi, get over it.

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!

sl1ck · 05-21-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack fire drill

Lo-fi isn't a genre of music, it's all about record quality.

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.

sleepy jack · 05-21-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slint

I'd love to hear who describes The Adverts as a lo-fi band. Could I see your sources? The only reason I repeat myself is because you disregard my points the first time, and then restate yours, completely oblivious to what I just said.

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

sleepy jack · 05-21-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slint

You just disregarded another point. Where are these sources that call The Adverts lo-fi? Fine, I'll list more lo-fi artists since you think I ripped them off Wikipedia. Kind of pathetic, actually because that just proves my point that Beck and The Apples in Stereo are in fact lo-fi, despite your claims. Thanks for the help in proving you wrong! I also like Lou Barlow, Beulah, Eric's Trip, Folk Implosion, Alastair Galbraith, Grifters, David Kilgour, Chris Knox, Magnetic Fields, The Microphones, Neutral Milk Hotel, Robert Pollard, Portastatic, and (Smog).

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?

sleepy jack · 05-21-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slint

No, you decided to use Wikipedia as a source, so it should be backing you up, should it not? I never claimed Wikipedia as a source, so I'm not saying it's necessarily going to back me up. I just laughed at how it backfired against you when you relied on it. You still haven't told me who calls The Adverts lo-fi. I'm not going to drop this, so good luck trying to dodge this point like you dodge all my others.

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.

05-21-2008, 05:50 PM	#1 (permalink)
~~Civic Depreciator~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 200	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.