Wow, this is the best thread ever.

mybe because clasical music was around for so long that it does not need visuals to promote itself.
contemporary classical composerss did and do have visual graphics though, Glass, and Cage and the like.

I agree that it is just a convention, but it goes hand in hand with rock n roll.

But then wasn't RnR really defined by the 45 (which originally had no sleeve art at all) before sort of getting hijacked by the album in the mid 60s? In that sense, the idea of people downloading single songs by artists seems far more 'Rock n Roll' than investing in a whole bunch of songs collected together as an album. What's more, people played those old 45s on the most primitive record players, through tiny speakers, or listened to them on handheld transister radios. I've listened to 45s on my mum's old Dansette and while it was a beautiful object, I defy anyone to tell me it produced a better sound than an MP3 player.

Also,with regards an earlier point you made about a lack of music being properly worked out, I've been listening to a lot of old Sun recordings recently. Those things are full of little mistakes and were usually recorded within a few hours, often in a single take. So again, the very things that the digital 'revolution' seems to promote are, if anything, more like a return to the principals of rock n roll than any kind of departure from them.

I concur with yr statement regarding 45's and that being the original format of RnR
album oriented rock was a more recent phenomenon

I think you misunderstand me when I talk about songs being released too quickm without having the kinks worked out.
I love technical playing mistakes in recordings. that does not bother me becuase that is reality, and no truly live performance is ever free from "alterations" of some kind (mistakes, improvs, rhythm changes, faster tempo etc.)
what I mean is the actual songwriting craft, the time needed to live with a song you wrote and realize the chorus does not work, or the bridge is too short and stilted, or that the verses would be better flipped, or that maybe you need some cowbell.

I feel that rushing to release songs jkust because you got them recorded does a disservice to the songs themselves.

I just want to post this again.

Good rock n roll does NOT need visuals. It relies on the songs, short, direct, to the point no bullshit. Yet not boring.

The BEST rock n roll, is the kind just mentioned, with visuals on top of it!

too many shitty bands that visuals are better than the music tho.

that's what I meant.

Back then due to both time constraints and the technological state at the time everything was recorded live and usually on a very tight budget.

Exactly, and while I personally think that method produced some of the best music that's just my own preference. The thing is that now an artist can spend as long or as short a time as they want to in order to perfect and record what they want. That most will take the short-cut of releasing something half-baked or else lack the talent to produce something really worth listening to hardly detracts from the fact that someone somewhere will produce something utterly brilliant that otherwise might never have seen the light of day. In that sense, the real challenge is finding a way of negotiating through the avalanche of crap in order to get to the real gems.

one of my favourite albums of the last two decades is kyuss' sky valley for the very reason that it is a live studio album with next to no overdubs and it fucking rocks balls.

Yeah Kyuss rules.

This thread, like most threads, needs more Harry Partch. His Chromelodeon solos ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!

damn hobo trip across america

to be honest, I don't understand what you're trying to say, dude :P

ditto

I tend to think this this may be the only genuinely unarguable point made on this thread so far.

(1) When your hard-drive crashes, you will wish you bought records. Records are gonna endure. I doubt that mp3s will. Like, where the hell are my Severed Heads mp2s??? I thought I'd have had them forever.

(2) Those great Sun records that are just raw and honest and spontaneous and human are nonetheless great despite the lack of any studio sorcery. Sorcery is not required to make a good record. It is not necessary even if you are "lo-fi"--whether by choice or by necessity--to produce records in such a way that they are creatively produced or larger-than-life. That certain excellent records on Sun were raw and such does nothing to impeach my argument that today's musicians should not use "lo-fi" as a crutch or excuse for being lazy, but rather strive to make "lo-fi" sound awesome....just as those records on Sun are awesome. Note that none of those records suffer from any of the problems I've identified with lazy DIY recordists.

Sorry, I am not always capable of the specficity you guys require for internet forum posts that are formulated as I type while waiting for my reports to grep at the office....

Your post above reminds me, what the fuck is FLAC? I keep saying these random FLAC files on the internet, and whereas a 3minute MP3 would be like 3mb, these flac files are like 50mb a piece. They're even bigger than wavs!
Can someone explain the point of that to me?...

they are viruses ;P

Come on, man, don't gimme no FLAC.

I wasn't using Sun records as any kind of defence of 'lo-fi' just suggesting that Rob's use of RnR as an argument against the immediacy of lots of today's net-bound music was quite a problematic one.

Of course no musician should use a recording method as a crutch or an excuse for being lazy. Although to be fair this applies just as easily to any recording method, be it 'lo' or 'hi' fi. After all, isn't it just as easy for a musician to hide behind a glossy wall of state of the art production as it is tape hiss?