Chicago: Totally hands-free!!!

Like I think the Times New Viking songs sound way better the way they are then if they were recorded really clean.

yes yes.

I like "fuzzy" a whole lot more than "tinny" or "thin".

(way xxxx-post dammit)

Sometimes it's like a trick, like if you record something so that it distorts a little, it tricks you into thinking it's more rocking, like "Aw yeah they rocked it so hard the recording equipment couldn't handle it!"

I make good points too! me me me!

Also there's the element of if you DIY, even though it might not sound perfect, you have total control over everything and can take your time and try different things and not have to worry about shelling out thousands of dollars in the studio and looking at the clock the whole time and getting really aggravated because every time you mess up you have to pay more money. It's a tradeoff.

Sarah, you do! Nicely put.

Sometimes good production just isn't appropriate.

xxpotm

I like the Velvet Underground. I'm not sure how it relates.

Sarah, your point about (DIY/"anyone can do this"/bringing people together) is why I sometimes like bands like this when I see them live. There's an infectious amateurish energy. On my iPod, though, I'd rather just listen to Steely Dan. You might be right about blasting it from speakers, too. I don't have stereo speakers.

I like "fuzzy" a whole lot more than "tinny" or "thin".

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with "fuzzy." I mean, I like indie rock. My problem with a lot of this stuff is that it just sounds weak, like there's no bottom, I have nothing to grab onto.

jaymc all kinds of OTM on this one, that's what bothered me about that Times New Viking album.

Nick, your point about studio time is good, but it's becoming less relevant in a world where everyone can make awesome-sounding songs with cheap recording software on their computer. Not always as awesome as if it were professionally engineered in a studio, but better than a mic-in-the-middle-of-the-room set-up.

Times New Viking is an extreme example, I think. That's why I mentioned VU -- the production can range from DIY to pretty shitty, but who would want it any other way?

sometimes people want to make fuzzy shit instead of clean shit.

IHM

I like fuzzy shit! I mean, I'm a Pollard fanboy ferchrissakes. But Pollard also likes the rawk, so he drops in that low end.

Ok, so John can not chizill tonight. Anyone else up for dinner & a movie? Maybe we could eat somewhere up north and then go to the big Evanston theater?

everyone can make awesome-sounding songs with cheap recording software on their computer

I don't agree with this.

Also I think maybe TNV doesn't have a bass player, which may be part of the reason for the reason for a perceived 'tinny' sound.

Yeah, this is ultimately kind of a stupid argument, people have different tastes, blah blah blah. Despite listening mostly to indie rock from about 1996-2002, a lot of what I gravitated toward was glossy-sounding bands like Stereolab and Tortoise. Pavement and Sonic Youth were the two most traditional indie bands I liked, but in both cases I didn't like their early lo-fi stuff nearly as much as their later material. Maybe it's because of all of the Top 40 I loved as a kid, I dunno.

That's fine, and I realize that my production tastes are really different from those of most people.

Sometimes it's like a trick, like if you record something so that it distorts a little, it tricks you into thinking it's more rocking

This is OTM. Like on all those old soul records where the vocals distort when the singer screams or does something really loud, and it's the best thing ever. This is also why some lo-fi bootlegs and radio rips I have of brass bands sound like the most intense thing ever, but you can't exactly put that out as a proper record.

I am probably going to a bar tonight sort of with Courtney I think. It's weird. I guess I could invite other people since it's a bar. It's sort of like a date....it's this guy's pre-vacation-fest at a bar and I'm sort of invited. Anyway, if that falls through, I would really like to join you fuckers in Evan's town.

hey photoshop/indesign pros: don't either of these programs have any stock things you can import as pictures? i'm specifically looking for some kind of border-y thing . . . thanks dudes!

people have different tastes, blah blah blah

Kels -- Adobe has a stock library, but it's not free. I use iStock more than anything. Also not free.

I don't know what point you're trying to make by italicizing that, Laurel, I've always believed in that! I'm a big subjectivist -- I dislike the pretense of objectivity that a lot of criticism falls into and sometimes find it hard to write music reviews without qualifiers like "for me" and "I think." But that doesn't mean it's not fun to argue and grandstand for your POV once in a while.

I guess to me the only really bad kind of production is the kind you hear on demos that bands recorded at some local small studio and/or on ProTools, and the sounds are all clean and audible but not very interesting and the hi-hat sounds really bright and the snare sounds really flat and the bass sound is like WHUMWHUMWHUM and since they are a democracy all the instruments are mixed equally except somehow the vocals seem too loud and when the album comes on your iPod it sounds a little quieter than everything else.

(well, it's not the only bad kind of production but it's the only broad category of bad production I can think of)

is it bad to be applying to jobs on monster.com while on a temp job?

i don't have much to contribute to the music discussion, except that i suspect my taste is closer to jaymc's than everyone elses. i like pop, i like shiny, glossy pop. one of my favorite things about london was that it was ok to like pop there, whereas here it seems incredibly uncool.

xp

John, you don't seem to realize it, but the way you state your opinions makes them sound like more than just personal opinions. There is no unspoken but understood "I think" or "For me" there.

Oh I totally know what you're talking about, Nick. Actually the song "Fury" off of Prince's 3121 sounds exactly like this and it really bothers me, because he should know better.

major xpost to myself: You should also realize that a lot of it's borne out of insecurity. I could do a pretty good job of ignoring Bob Dylan except for the fact that I'm surrounded by people who talk about how great he is (both friends and critics I read) and so I feel like, Jeez, what am I missing? I really have tried to like his music, but it's a lot easier to loudly opine about how much he sucks than to change my entire mode of listening (e.g., paying attention to lyrics more) to accommodate any potential enjoyment.

I'm not busting your balls, honestly! Just saying that you could avoid a shitstorm by either re-wording or simply adding an "in my opinion" here and there.

xpost

To be fair, any assessment of music is by nature subjective, so qualifiers like "in my opinion" are pretty much redundant.

Or you could quit with the underlying sense of incredulity that anyone might find perfectly normal things normal and comprehensible. Which is harder than just rewording the occasional post, maybe, because it would require you to actually stop believing that your experience of the world is the obviously accurate one.

Oh fuck off.

xpost to Nick -- Not if you state your opinion as unassailable fact.

Jesse, find me a case of where I stated my opinion as unassailable fact.

It's esp. helpful when stating a negative opinion of something, and even more so when responding to someone else's positive estimation of something.

Wow. Seriously dudes. Why argue like this on a public internet forum? No offense, but who really cares? Clearly there are some personality clashes but unlike real life, you can totally avoid each other and you don't need to respond to one another directly. You wouldn't necessarily treat each other like this in person so why is the internet okay?

Actually I left the Chicago thread for a while because of John, but I missed the rest of you.

What I mean is sort of what Laurel said--the incredulity that anyone else could ever have [this or that opinion] about something is what leads to contention and what makes it sound like you're the other arbiter of taste around here.

Again, not trying to sound like a dick, or criticize you, but that's how things come across! (And you are not like this in person AT ALL which is why it's odd when I read what you write here and realize that you're opening yourself up for a lot of shit.)

i feel like i've seen people saying 'john, when you post, you sound like you're making a pronouncement rather than opinion' several times already. i don't get it, maybe i'm missing something? i think that basically any crap posted on ILX or anywhere on the internet should be read as 'my opinion...' rather than assuming the person is trying to tell you that what you think is bad. i mean, if you can't handle someone saying they don't like something you like, why are you posting about it on the internet, especially on ILX?

this isn't directed at anyone in particular, it just seems weird to me that this discussion seems to happen again and again.

Actually it's not weird at all.

i'm totally with colette on this issue. if john rubs anyone the wrong way, then just take him with a grain of salt & move on with life.

Haha. FWIW I think there's always an implied "in my opinion" behind John's (and anyone's) posts.

xpost

You guys need to chillax.

Here, watch a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6vdD5HOSgw

And I don't buy that the internet, ESPECIALLY the Chicago thread, should be taken any differently than conversation. It's not throw-away just because it happens online.

Basically Laurel and John just have a personality conflict.