lo-fi, no-fi, no-wave, low-wave (which are real genres?)

the answer: depends on who you ask and how far you need to reach to describe your or someone else's pretentious (but probably good) music. for those that do not know, allow me to educate with a short bloguglossary (guess which ones don't really exist! or click on the links to find out):

LO-FI: music that is recorded poorly with rudimentary equipment (but only when done on purpose despite accessibility to standard equipment, which is relatively ubiquitous nowadays), so as to make the intentionally damaged sound quality become an integral component to the music's listening experience.

NO-FI: music that doesn't even consider the technology with which to record, because usually the artist's "music" is more often referred to as "noise" or "sound art," rather than something that needs any degree of quality when being captured for documentation.

NO-WAVE: a genre that originated as a joking rebuttal to 80s new wave amongst punk rockers in nyc. commonalities between no-wave artists include catchy pop hooks and melodies distorted and deranged by punk's snotty and angular slacker-with-angst attitude.

LOW-WAVE: music with a distinct and plodding low-end provided by bass guitar, bass keys, or other kinds of subwoofer-friendly rumbling, that induces meditation, spacing out or weed smoking. often associated with dark and brooding hip-hop, but also extends to free jazz and dub.

"teenagelust!" by times new viking

when i was 14, i discovered a little band called pavement, which would soon become my favorite band. at the time, i was really into the weezer album pinkerton. when i found out there was a band who had five albums that sounded like pinkerton and had weirder lyrics and this magical thing called "tape hiss," i quickly became hooked and obnoxiously interested in this thing called "indie music." bands that didn't sound put effort into how they sounded, but were naturally talented instrumentalists and uniquely outsider but still warmly attached to pop melodies. times new viking takes this notion and multiplies the pop and the outsider quotient to the nth degree, resulting in the finest little non-ditty that could ever come into my head and refuse to leave, but have seemingly unlimited potential in repeat listenings. genre: lo-fi.

the ache by we ragazzi

i hate garage rock. it's unattractive, unromantic, unpalatable, and downright unlistenable in its sloppy mediocrity. "but chris, i thought you liked it when bands let their natural ability show rather than being glossed up by powerful production techniques." no, that's not the point of this post. i love glossy music a lot of the times, and that's the problem with garage rock. when it's glossy, it's overpowering overly simple music. and when it's grimey, there's nothing endearing or honest about it, it's just being dirty because some people think "just dirty" is fun. it's not. that's why we ragazzi shows that you don't need quirkiness (pavement, times new viking) to defy sound production standards - you just need to be biting. the ache is full of songs that bite with new wave riffs replacing soaring synths with brooding organs, crisp hi-hats with sheared cymbals, etc. and all the while, the garage-ness of the sound never overshadows the songs themselves. it's an aesthetic used to amplify a band's vision, rather than vice versa. screw off jack white. genre: no-wave. key tracks: i want you 2 love me so much i can't stand up, the cure, forever in the first stages of love

This entry was posted by chris, on Saturday, March 31, 2007. You can leave your response.