Defending Lo-Fi Music to the Uninitiated

I was listening to an album at work, and a co-worker asked me, "So, do you really like this stuff?" During a conversation with Peter Dizozza, he asked me why I like Lo-Fi recordings, what do I find intriguing about them?

Lo-Fi, according to All-Music Guide, transformed from just the idea of a quick and dirty sounding recording to a genre that encapsulates the idea of recording material at home.  Much like the description of pornography being boiled down to, "I'll know it when I see it.", Lo-Fi is an aesthetic as well as an attitude.

Instrumentation tends to be sparse, and accompaniment can be nil; frequently it is one person and one instrument, but it does not have to live within that confine.  There are full bands that fall under the Lo-Fi umbrella, such as the groups in the Elephant 6 collective.  There are collaborations, like those of the Lo-Fi prince Lou Barlow, whose different band incarnations symbolize his different pairings with other musicians.   There are also other musicians that play all the instruments, preferring to work in solitude in their home studios.

A growing Lo-Fi trend is to use cheap, broken, or children's instruments which evoke an interesting, carnival-esque atmosphere.  Contrasts are something that tend to frequent a Lo-Fi recording.  Loud to soft.  Harsh to gentle.

Most of the Lo-Fi artists are making something unique and fresh.  Not being bound by traditional recording contracts or studio politics, they can feel free to express themselves in different ways than the carefully marketed pop music that frequents the radios.  Because they are at home, they can take much longer to experiment and develop their individual sound . Also, because of the lack of resources, they tend to innovate more than an established band would out of necessity.

Another aspect of Lo-Fi recordings is the potential for the lack of ability by the performer; because they are not constrained by tradition, even performers that aren't skilled players or tend to make mistakes have a fair shot at making what they produce available.  That is a liberating confinement to be released from, and makes the scene exciting.  A person's strong point can be their lyrics, and even though their delivery is far from stellar, their music can be appreciated.

Lo-Fi artists also tend to put out more material than their corporate counterparts.   You can see a growth in some of the performers just for the fact that their material is made and available.  Kimya Dawson's first solo CD has her learning her guitar, and you can see her mature as her other solo CD's are manufactured.   Of Montreal's sound developed from a jangle pop into an entirely different strata within a few years, and its' evolution is documented on their albums.

This isn't a knock against other ways of defining music, weighing merit or worth; I can only attest to the trend I see in classifying music in this one idiom.   Much like any stereotype, there are exceptions to the rule. The Apples in Stereo are classified as Lo-Fi, yet their recordings are done in a studio setting and sound very professional.  Their songs are polished, their ability is up to par. What makes them Lo-Fi can only be determined by their DIY recording style.

It's a difficult genre to define, because one or more variable in the music can classify it as such. It's only thread is in the spontaneity of the music or recording. Classic Rock recordings like Todd Rundgren's Something/Anything, or Paul McCartney's McCartney or Ram, or even Roy Wood's Boulders are solitary recordings where the musician played every instrument, but these are controlled recordings; it is an interesting side note that no others play on the album, but does not contribute to the feeling of the recording.

Some Key Artists:

Back Home