[[Sandbag]]

Most of people who record a song on audacity and upload it to myspace don't really have the money, (bandmates, maybe?) or connections to go into a studio and record everything as they wish it was.

Those sketches, demos, can be used to get signed to a label, who will maybe spend some bucks in giving you some freedom and better production..(not really probable)

there are lots of ways to make your songs sound like you want to...but I don't see anything wrong in sitting one day, record an acoustic song with a cheap computer mic and then upload it on myspace... If I really feel the need to do it better, then I'll certainly do it one day.

I agree that we are exposed to a lot of new music and art in general, but I don't mind as long as I can recognize what I like and what I don't..

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

You are right, however I do feel an extra connection of holding something in my hands like the cover with full artwork etc while i listen to the music. As for the teething issues, you have been able to buy/download music from the internet for a while and it seems people obviously aren't asking these companies to give them full audio quality otherwise they would have by now, there is a complacency that i see in the generations younger than myself about the quality of the goods they consume and this isn't just in the quality of the music they download. Peoples home internet connections these days have the bandwidth to download a full album at full audio quality in less than 15 minutes. I guess though I am showing my age and are kinda the last of the generations of people that like scouring all the record stores for that special find.

Don't get me wrong, the things you mention are very much things that I believe in too. I just don't think they're absolutes. I think the traditional album format has proven to be a great way of communicating, but it's a fairly unique one really. Take album covers. In many ways certain covers have become as iconic as the records inside: The Velvets and Nico, Dark Side of the Moon, Sgt Peppers, etc. etc. But nobody thinks of for-example novels in this sense. There's no 'standard' cover to something like 'The Naked Lunch', or 'On the Road'. Nobody notices because people haven't become used to seeing it. Maybe associative covers will continue with music, but if they don't I'm sure that eventually people will stop noticing their absence just as they do with novels, or DVDs (where there also isn't a 'standard' cover design.)

I find it depressing to think of the first Velvets album without the Banana on the cover, but i wonder if my two year old neice (assuming she actually listens to it one day) will. We're in that difficult age bracket where we still remember how things used to be done and hate to think that those methods might someday pass. My point I suppose is that once all the wrinkles are ironed out with the whole digital thing, there'll still be great artists that emerge out of it, i just doubt that they'll be expressing themselves through albums, will kick-ass sleeves.

[This Is Not Here]

Looks like you sorted your sleep pattern right out demonrail.

[DJ Rick]

Originally Posted by [Sandbag]

Most of people who record a song on audacity and upload it to myspace don't really have the money, (bandmates, maybe?) or connections to go into a studio and record everything as they wish it was.

Those sketches, demos, can be used to get signed to a label, who will maybe spend some bucks in giving you some freedom and better production..(not really probable)

there are lots of ways to make your songs sound like you want to...but I don't see anything wrong in sitting one day, record an acoustic song with a cheap computer mic and then upload it on myspace... If I really feel the need to do it better, then I'll certainly do it one day.

I agree that we are exposed to a lot of new music and art in general, but I don't mind as long as I can recognize what I like and what I don't..

If you're trying to disagree with me about the whole fidelity/recording thing, you're not. I totally agree with you that there's nothing wrong with recording your music with whatever's available....personally, I'm a big fan of some boombox recordings.

But there's still more to it that just hitting the red button and playing the song. There's the characteristics of the room. There's the placement of the microphone. There's also the performance itself. If you just do a basic recording of an acoustic song, and it is hampered by the hum of an impedance problem, or it just sounds totally flat because of the room it's in, or you can only hear vocals and no guitar, and any of these things actually mar the song in a bad way, or the performance was not as good as it could be, then if you put those mp3s up on your MySpace page, you shouldn't be surprised when you meet disinterest or scoffing. And if your answer is "BUT I'M JUST LO-FI...WHAT DO YOU WANT?!?!", that is using lo-fi as a crutch rather than an honest mode to record music with zero or little budget.

You needn't know much of anything except how to hit record, but you should give trial and error its due diligence. If it doesn't work in this room, move to that room. Figure out where to sit and how to hold the guitar.

Of course, you really only hafta please yourself. But I do know I've met bands that have recorded DIY stuff which they themselves weren't pleased with, and that's why they were making excuses before I even heard it. Like they were warning me...."Well, it's pretty lo-fi!" And then all I heard was the flattest, most undynamic thing ever, and they wanted to know "What do you think?" I won't go totally Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares on 'em, but I will encourage them to re-record it over and over again until they no longer hafta use the "lo-fi" thing as an excuse.

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by DJ Rick

If you're trying to disagree with me about the whole fidelity/recording thing, you're not. I totally agree with you that there's nothing wrong with recording your music with whatever's available....personally, I'm a big fan of some boombox recordings.

But there's still more to it that just hitting the red button and playing the song. There's the characteristics of the room. There's the placement of the microphone. There's also the performance itself. If you just do a basic recording of an acoustic song, and it is hampered by the hum of an impedance problem, or it just sounds totally flat because of the room it's in, or you can only hear vocals and no guitar, and any of these things actually mar the song in a bad way, or the performance was not as good as it could be, then if you put those mp3s up on your MySpace page, you shouldn't be surprised when you meet disinterest or scoffing. And if your answer is "BUT I'M JUST LO-FI...WHAT DO YOU WANT?!?!", that is using lo-fi as a crutch rather than an honest mode to record music with zero or little budget.

You needn't know much of anything except how to hit record, but you should give trial and error its due diligence. If it doesn't work in this room, move to that room. Figure out where to sit and how to hold the guitar.

Of course, you really only hafta please yourself. But I do know I've met bands that have recorded DIY stuff which they themselves weren't pleased with, and that's why they were making excuses before I even heard it. Like they were warning me...."Well, it's pretty lo-fi!" And then all I heard was the flattest, most undynamic thing ever, and they wanted to know "What do you think?" I won't go totally Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares on 'em, but I will encourage them to re-record it over and over again until they no longer hafta use the "lo-fi" thing as an excuse.

i agree djr, lofi to me is and has been for a long time an aesthetic choice, cos even the simplest computer recording setup these days can produce incredibly pro sounding production, the only difference most of the time is in the mastering. e.g. nearly all of the eels albums were recorded in small home studios but are mostly incredibly lush sounding. mostly lofi is used alot as an excuse in people not arming themselves with knowledge (not that they have to at all), but i find things more fun the more i learn about things anyway.

[atsonicpark]

All I know is, in my lifetime, this is the best musical landscape I've ever seen; such an overwhelming amount of great music coming out daily that it's ridiculous... yeah.

[stu666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

All I know is, in my lifetime, this is the best musical landscape I've ever seen; such an overwhelming amount of great music coming out daily that it's ridiculous... yeah.

I agree.

[[Sandbag]]

dj that's why I said

there are lots of ways to make your songs sound like you want to (.....) If I really feel the need to do it better, then I'll certainly do it one day.

I mean every band is fully responsible of their sound..
but I recorded an acoustic song with a really cheap mic and with obviously intentional noise and hiss overdubs and none got it..

most of time, diy myspace songs recordings sound like shit, and only work as 'demos' of a 'song' that the band needs to work on before doing a proper release.. (not myspace release i mean)..so I agree that people shouldn't use the lo fi thing as an excuse. unless it was meant to be that way.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

You talk about music as something to possess. Take film for example. People enjoyed them long before they could physically own them. The physical ownership of a person's favourite film or piece of music is a relatively recent phenomenon and as such is hardly a prerequisite to their being enjoyed. .
.

this is not exactly true.
before digital recordings you had records. before records you had sheet music. sheet music was sold for a couple centuries, and any good home had various sheet music collections for the family to play on piano or guitar or violin or whatever instruments the fammily had. sure, they were creating the music themselves, but they owned it, and it became treasured.
of course the enjoyment of music does not depend on the format, but the source for the music does add aesthetics. the aesthetics of a vinyl platter, and the sleeve and the care that must be taken not to damage it, all add to the experience. easy to get, easy to forget I say.

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

this is not exactly true.
before digital recordings you had records. before records you had sheet music. sheet music was sold for a couple centuries, and any good home had various sheet music collections for the family to play on piano or guitar or violin or whatever instruments the fammily had. sure, they were creating the music themselves, but they owned it, and it became treasured.
of course the enjoyment of music does not depend on the format, but the source for the music does add aesthetics. the aesthetics of a vinyl platter, and the sleeve and the care that must be taken not to damage it, all add to the experience. easy to get, easy to forget I say.

gotta spread some love before giving it to the instigator again

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by [Sandbag]

Most of people who record a song on audacity and upload it to myspace don't really have the money, (bandmates, maybe?) or connections to go into a studio and record everything as they wish it was.

Those sketches, demos, can be used to get signed to a label, who will maybe spend some bucks in giving you some freedom and better production..(not really probable)

there are lots of ways to make your songs sound like you want to...but I don't see anything wrong in sitting one day, record an acoustic song with a cheap computer mic and then upload it on myspace... If I really feel the need to do it better, then I'll certainly do it one day.
..

ahhh, but you are not throwing this into an album as "filler" just because you have 80 minutes of CD to work with.

[Toilet & Bowels]

so is this thread just a bunch over over 30s saying things were different/better in my day, and that young people today don't know they're born?

[DJ Rick]

Those of us in our 30s should not be arguing that things were better in our day. They are better right now.

[Toilet & Bowels]

i'm 29 and i think things are better now, but it seems the difference is confusing to a lot of old people.

[hevusa]

no one spends money on CD's anymore. musicians are having a harder and harder time making a living. as a result the state of music is getting worse and worse.

Time to start paying for those downloads instead of stealing them.

[Glice]

I like that Happy Hardcore makes more sense now than it did in the days of walkmen - it truly was the prescient format of mobile phone music. Grime works well out of mobile phones as well. I tried writing some music to be played out of my mobile - it sounded rubbish. It sounded great out of proper speakers, but rubbish on a mobile. I think that's fucking brilliant, that people make a virtue of an imperfect medium. Probably like the tape vogue that's back these days, although I've not really followed that one.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

so is this thread just a bunch over over 30s saying things were different/better in my day, and that young people today don't know they're born?

did you READ the thread? or are you one of those that cannot handle more than 4 sentences in a row?

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

this is not exactly true.
before digital recordings you had records. before records you had sheet music. sheet music was sold for a couple centuries, and any good home had various sheet music collections for the family to play on piano or guitar or violin or whatever instruments the fammily had. sure, they were creating the music themselves, but they owned it, and it became treasured.

Yes, I suppose that technically you're right with regard sheet music, although I tend to think the relationship between the listener at least (rather than the player) did change dramatically with the arrival of the recording in that it was able to become far more of a private relationship, similar in that sense to books.

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

of course the enjoyment of music does not depend on the format, but the source for the music does add aesthetics. the aesthetics of a vinyl platter, and the sleeve and the care that must be taken not to damage it, all add to the experience. easy to get, easy to forget I say.

I completely agree about the aesthetics of a specific format. It's just interesting to me that certain types of music seem to be alone in having artwork that's so immediately associated with it that there'd be an outcry amongst fans if it was dramatically altered from one re-issue to the next. I'm not sure how or why this happened, but it does strike me as interesting and suggests that for future generations it may not stand.

[Rob Instigator]

it is all about the associations. images and sound co-mingle in the mind. sense memory is a powerful thing.

[demonrail666]

So then why has it never been more widely adopted within, say, classical music? I mean I have an idea why, and it has nothing to do with musical issues so far as I can see. It's a convention, that's all, and like all conventions it can just as easily become unconventional.