The Lo-Fi / Noise aesthetic in 2010

A recent article by Tom Ewing in the Guardian inspired me to think a bit about where certain pockets of music seem to be and where they're heading in 2010.

Who would have thought that Ariel Pink of all people would be heading up a stylistic sea-change for many artists and bands who are plundering lo-fi and degraded/distorted sound as part of an aesthetic choice. This isn't strictly limited to chillwave of course - there are loads of bands these days, from Sleigh Bells to Times New Viking who make "poor" sound quality part of their sound, not because they can't do it any other way, but because this is how they want it.

And while Ariel Pink is the grandaddy of this particular scene, until recently it's been more about necessity than choice. His latest album though is recorded in a proper studio but retains the "worn copy" sound to some extent. I've become slightly obsessed with the production values on tracks like "Laughing Gas" by Neon Indian - no doubt a talented producer, but also one who incorporates a warped-tape sound to enhance the sloppy nostalgic vibe of said track. Sleigh Bells are also extremely accomplished production-wise, but add distortion to their sound to give it a rougher, more exciting edge. Similarly, Times New Viking sound like they make nice indie rock songs, but have decided out of choice to apply crass distortion all over them.

The difference between these acts and what came before, is that this is "faked" lo-fi. It's not like early Mountain Goats or Pavement where the bands were using what rudimentary recording equipment they had lying around. In many cases the new bands have all the resources at their disposal to make a clean-sounding record and yet they use these resources to denigrate the sound in some way.

Is this a cop out? Is it pretense? Or is it no different from, say, playing distorted electric guitar rather than acoustic?

If that is how they like to sound why don't they just use the rudimentary recording equipment instead of spending all the money on great recording studios and equipment to denigrate the sound? It might sound more authentic that way, if that is what they want. Just because you have the resources doesn't mean you have to use them. I wouldn't say it is pretense or a cop out. Maybe a little pretense, but what performance isn't?

In another thread someone pointed out that the microphone is another instrument, which I thought was salient. Where does noise fit into this thread?

Riiiiight.... here.

I've always wondered though, why noise artists choose lo-fi mediums to distribute their stuff more often than other artists, especially considering noise has way more going on on the entire frequency range than most music. You'd think they'd be releasing 5.1 DVDs and shit.

Or is it no different from, say, playing distorted electric guitar rather than acoustic?
^^

Maybe the high tech mediums don't allow for as much freedom? Is there more planning involved in making a 5.1 DVD? Noise always seems like it needs to be a release. It needs to sound loose and the improvised visual performance is as important as the sound.

I dunno, I'm talking out of my ass I guess. I have no idea how recording works and the only noise I've been exposed to have been live performances where people flail around on the ground eating the microphone, using a bunch of different pedals hooked up to instruments and playing the guitar with knives, drumsticks and shit. That or a bunch of drums and gongs and everyone in the room sitting really quietly.

"And while Ariel Pink is the grandaddy of this particular scene"

lolz

You may lol, but it's pretty much accepted that this lot are very much influenced by AP, along with the obvious shoegaze/electro/digital hardcore touchstones. AP coming along with a studio album seems to have solidyfied the idea that it's okay to make your sound squelchy and muddy on purpose.

it's okay to make your sound squelchy and muddy on purpose.

I'm pretty sure this has been an attitude of indie musicians for a long ass time. And they've been doing it both at home and in professional recording studios for a long ass time.

To answer peacock's question above, there is a world of difference between stuff that is truly lo-fi, and something like Neon Indian which has been artificially distressed. Nothing about Psychic Chasm says that he recorded it using a cheap microphone and a tape recorder - yet the sound is muddy in the same way Boards of Canada (the other obvious godfathers of this sound) can be. I guess this is what Wire journalists call hypnagogic pop or hauntology or something?

"And while Ariel Pink is the grandaddy of this particular scene"

lolz

yeah, i wanna call out the primacy accorded ariel pink. this is really just the mainstreaming of an existing and long-running indie aesthetic, and regardless of the technological limitations they were working under, artists like GBV and the dead C were definitely making a conscious decision to sound that way. it's arguable that AP is the leader of the pack in terms of lo-fi indie-pop revivalism as a current scene, but this sound and aesthetic never really went away and isn't confined solely to indie-pop. recorder grot was a big, much-discussed part of the garage punk, black metal and noise scenes in the years leading up to the doldrums. on avery island came out in 1996, just a little farther from the doldrums than the doldrums is from here. and tons of contemporary indie luminaries started out winning acclaim for extremely scuzzy recordings, mostly by choice: will oldham, deerhoof, jay reatard (r.i.p.) & the black lips (see garage punk culture), mount eerie, the thermals, etc.

the fact that lots of altered zones types see themselves as working in AP's shadow doesn't make him the gradndaddy of this scene/sound. it merely makes him a visible touchstone.

^ mixed metaphor. touchable watchstone.

next AP album touchable wash sounds

Good call on that Neutral Milk Hotel album. All that early Elephant Six stuff was my gateway to lo-fi.

xposts

aye, but were the Dead C, Neutral Milk etc recording these things on decent equipment or not? Maybe they liked the scuzz of their recordings, but they didn't necessarily have the kind of control someone like Memory Tapes has over that production. I get the impression that with a lot of the newer, AP-influenced acts, they are using polished home-and-pro studio products to dirty up their sound - granulizers, distortion patches etc... It's not a matter of "let's record this track on a boombox", it's "let's make this sound like it was recorded on a boombox using compression and foldback distortion plugins in Logic".

yeah, elephant 6 in general are another important reference point. one of the most influential indie-pop happenings of the late 90s, obvious precursor to what we see going on today.

that said, i agree w dog latin's argument that there's something novel in ariel pink's use of degraded tape sound. it's not the fact that a choice is being made, though. pink's work is distinguished by the use of lo-fi sound to evoke nostalgia for the analog era, to evoke nostalgia and loss in general. it's not like he invented that approach either, though. see also the disintegration loops for a direct precedent, and fennesz, hecker, etc. for an indirect one. a number of electronic artists were using digital media to create very similar emotional effects in the early 00s.

desktop ProTools and digital 4-tracks have been around since the 90s, but the difference now is that the analog equipment just isn't available outside of thrift stores. it's hard to even find a boombox with a cassette deck anymore.

I get the impression that with a lot of the newer, AP-influenced acts, they are using polished home-and-pro studio products to dirty up their sound - granulizers, distortion patches etc... It's not a matter of "let's record this track on a boombox", it's "let's make this sound like it was recorded on a boombox using compression and foldback distortion plugins in Logic".

― village idiot (dog latin), Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:30 AM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

i'd say that's more a product of changes in the nature of affordable home recording equipment. technology has improved dramatically, but indie aesthetics haven't changed much. so people are working now to make yesterday's music with tomorrow's gear.

goes back to the element of nostalgia present in a lot of contemporary lo-fi indie. not something we necessarily associate with the 90s version of these sounds.

sounding polished and hi-fi and clean is as much of a conscious choice as sounding distressed and lo-fi and dirty. you don't just walk into a big modern expensive digital recording studio and automatically sound "polished" any more than you walk into a cheap basement set-up and automatically sound "distressed." you have to try! gbv did what they did on purpose. nickelback do what they do on purpose. i assume ariel pink (who i have never heard) does what he does on purpose. i don't see how one is more true or more fake than the other. the question is: does it work?

goes back to the element of nostalgia present in a lot of contemporary lo-fi indie. not something we necessarily associate with the 90s version of these sounds.

― good news if you wear cargo shorts (contenderizer), Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:45 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark

Wasn't nostalgia for the '60s a large part of the GbV aesthetic?

grandaddy of the scene

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVE0qmOfO-A&feature=related

i dunno how much Times New Viking are influenced by Ariel Pink tbh

Wasn't nostalgia for the '60s a large part of the GbV aesthetic?

― drew in baltimore, Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:11 AM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark

maybe, but that's not how i received GBV in the 90s, as a (late) 60s baby. the hissy noise and basement jam-session quality evoked fragility and thus loss, and the music evoked the 60s/70s, but these things seemed distinct from one another. i mean, pollards lyrics and melodic ear gravitated towards that which smacked of nostalgic ache, too, but it didn't seem to me that this was what tape noise itself communicated in the 90s. it was more about the badge of weakness, of smallness, of insignificance.

same thing still goes on, but i was thinking a bit more about what distinguishes AP from his predecessors. cuz he's been hugely influential, and clearly has his own thing going. it's not deliberately "poor-sounding" sound, though, or even lo-fi as emblematic of nostalgia and loss. ariel pink's innovation is his use of tape noise to communicate a very specific 80s-baby nostalgia for the soft sounds of the 70s and 80s - parent music, family music - as dubbed off the radio. and also to suggest loneliness and outsider isolation, the wall of hiss communicating not the lack of funds for better gear, but the lack of creative partners. there's just the one voice in the bedroom, obsessively piling track after track onto a boombox. of course, lonely weirdos have been doing this forever, but ariel transforms it into a deliberate aesthetic.

ariel's particular nostalgic angle on cassette dubs and 70s/80s schmaltz seems to resonate strongly with his fans & peers. hard not attribute the recent emergence of a billion like-minded droners obsessed with the sound/vibe/look of vhs dubs of old kids' shows to his influence. then again, chiptune.

i dunno how much Times New Viking are influenced by Ariel Pink tbh

― sarahel, Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:24 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

would say not at all. they seemed to be channeling siltbreeze & early drag city influences.

yeah - Times New Viking seems to be coming from the garage aesthetic. Another touchstone for a lot of recent bands is the K Records/Beat Happening scene.

Like Times New Viking and Sic Alps seem to have a lot of the same influences - and I know the Sic Alps dudes are not influenced by Ariel Pink

relative to garage punk: teengenerate, the mummies, reatards, etc. not many fans of that shit on ILM, but it seems to me that these bands have as much to do with the current lo-fi thing as anyone else. or, well, almost as much...

see that's the thing. there are like 40 years worth of touchstones. not saying people aren't influenced by ariel pink, i'm sure there are people, but this has been going on forever. people being deliberately scuzzy/lo-fi/etc.

and the fact that people can use software to create these sounds...don't see that making a difference.

i mean, geez, this is just really broad - you can cite live bootlegs of 80s hardcore bands as influences -

but this has been going on forever. people being deliberately scuzzy/lo-fi/etc.

― scott seward, Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:33 AM (48 seconds ago) Bookmark

yeah, or les rallizes denudes and their followers

though i quoted scott, that really went to sarah

I agree with the notion that it doesn't matter how people achieve this sound.
What's more important is whether or not I want to listen to it.

^^^

I've always wondered though, why noise artists choose lo-fi mediums to distribute their stuff more often than other artists, especially considering noise has way more going on on the entire frequency range than most music. You'd think they'd be releasing 5.1 DVDs and shit.

noise is a pretty broad category - and because of its breadth, i'm not sure whether this is true

>In another thread someone pointed out that the microphone is another instrument, which I thought was salient.

Recording is hard! And nice mics are expensive, more so than throwing together some digital recording gear. Figuring out how to use gear is hard. The skills don't overlap much with playing music. It is easy to overestimate what a DIY band is capable of within their little circle of friends with some cracked software and SM57s and a Tape Op subscription.

Someone, somewhere on ilm described Jay Reatard as great, careful production of music recorded with shitty mics. Which was pretty much Jay's method, AFIK. Even crisp, uncluttered multi-track production, like say Back in Black has a lot of artifice to it. It doesn't really sound like a "band playing live". With a lot of lo-fi bands, it is more about impatience and just wanting to get the song out and liking the crunchiness and spontaneity. It's hard enough to get spontaneity if you're multi-tracking into a laptop, and it's even harder to mic a whole practice space and capture it live. The notion that these albums could sound like Born to Run is overestimated. At some point in the mixing process, it's easier push the sliders towards "crud" and be done with it.

tapes aren't lo-fi!

x-post

i'm trying to think of a "lo-fi medium"...

two dixie cups connected by a string, i guess...

bendy pretty much otm - also the impatience and learning curve of the mastering process - mastering makes a big difference

it's just as difficult to get something sounding awesome + blurry/fuzzed out/hazy/dirty in just the right way as it is to get something to sound awesome + clean. it might be more difficult these days, since in most cases you're starting with complete digital blankness, not with the natural hiss/compression/distortion/etc. you can get from an analog recording setup.

a lot of these so-called lo-fi acts are recording on multi-tracks & having their shit eq'd before they release it

poseurs, the lot of them

(that's an sc. :) btw)

we've had the poseurs vs posers argument before, right?

yes - we agreed that only poseurs use poser & vice versa

but back on topic - the singing-into-a-sock vocal aesthetic is a choice, and not a default

Glenn Gould wrote essays about the microphone as instrument.

Glenn Gould = proto-chillwaver

Glenn Gould was not a poser!

but back on topic - the singing-into-a-sock vocal aesthetic is a choice, and not a default

yes! it's also not "lo-fi" unless "fi" refers to some imagined default of clarity which is a big problem to me

basically I consider the whole 4-track/more-track crowd of people making buzz-and-hiss music nice guys with some interesting aesthetics but it has nothing to do with what I consider the compelling dictum of "lo-fi" which was "get this on tape now, don't waste your time thinking about phase & resonance & bleedthrough etc"

In another thread someone pointed out that the microphone is another instrument, which I thought was salient. Where does noise fit into this thread?

― filthy dylan, Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:42 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Riiiiight.... here.

― peacocks, Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:43 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

xxp What are you saying Sarah? He wore that fur coat even when it was 90 degrees out.

I didn't read your thread. Bye.

well the fi is an abbreviation for "fidelity" - right - i'd imagine that what is considered neutral - if there is such a thing, has changed over time

see, that's not how i ever thought about it though, as a fan. to me, lo-fi was always very specifically a way to describe "buzz and hiss music", whether it was the product of recording stuff on the fly (early GBV) or of careful labor/aesthetic choice (beatnik filmstars).

that was re UAA:

I consider the whole 4-track/more-track crowd of people making buzz-and-hiss music nice guys with some interesting aesthetics but it has nothing to do with what I consider the compelling dictum of "lo-fi" which was "get this on tape now, don't waste your time thinking about phase & resonance & bleedthrough etc"