Lo - Fi stands for low fidelity, right?

I keep reading about records - in one case a Nina Nastasia record, in another a Dinosaur Jr. record (recorded at Fort Apache) that are refered to 'lo-fi' as though it was a style of music, not a sonic characteristic.

Dictonary.com defines fidelityas:

1 - Faithfulness to obligations, duties, or observances.
2- Exact correspondence with fact or with a given quality, condition, or event; accuracy.
3 - The degree to which an electronic system accurately reproduces the sound or image of its input signal.

It's just annoying is all.

n

people are dumb

you can make a case for calling something like guided by voices or early sebadoh 'lo-fi,' as part of a musical aesthetic can involve specific, low-fidelity recording techniques

but you don't get much higher in fidelity than one of nina nastasia's records

Yeah, WTF?

The Blackened Air is one recording I consider as a "reference" for accuracy.

Perhaps the problem is that many of these reviewers are listing on such shitty mass-market stereos that don't translate accurate recordings well. Thus their systems aren't translating an accurate recording as well as one that is heavily compressed and EQ'd to compensate for poor playback equipment.

I've noticed this is the case with many well done orchestral recordings. They sound awful on crap stereos.

People also call modern orchestral works 'classical' regardless of the fact that 'classical' music is from a specific era.

People are (as has already been pointed out) dumb.

Champion Rabbit wrote:People also call modern orchestral works 'classical' regardless of the fact that 'classical' music is from a specific era.

People are (as has already been pointed out) dumb.

Pierre Boulez mentioned this in the interview/lecture I attended last week. He mentioned something to the effect that, in European languages, there is an all-encompassing term for the pantheon of formal music that we in America refer to generically as "classical" music. When in reality "classical" refers specificly to the music of Mozart, Haydn, and their contemporaries. Thus in the lecture - he was also to refer to the last 400 years of written music as "classical" for his American audience.

I would like to discuss this topic in greater detail, for those interested....

Guy Picciotto (and Mark Prindle) wrote: Well, first of all, I don't recognize that attribution. I've never recognized "emo" as a genre of music. I always thought it was the most retarded term ever. I know there is this generic commonplace that every band that gets labeled with that term hates it. They feel scandalized by it. But honestly, I just thought that all the bands I played in were punk rock bands. The reason I think it's so stupid is that - what, like the Bad Brains weren't emotional? What - they were robots or something? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

and i'm sure there are other examples of this. people just need to put names on things, regardless of how ridiculous they are when looked at objectively. after all, language is what makes us "human."

don't even get me started on 'slow-core'

I, for one, would like to hear what you have to say about slow-core.



-Noah

I would also loke to here some thoughts on slow core

geiginni wrote:
I would like to discuss this topic in greater detail, for those interested....

Please do.

I am interested.