If you could give Ben and co a few pointers on the new record what would they be.

Here are mine...
1) Bring back the lo-fi sound
2) No pianos
3) No 7 minute set-pieces, write great indie songs, don't take it too seriously

You go...

1. Do what you want to do. It's your music, not mine.

1. Don't listen to Mr Tunstall as he's probably just trying to get in your pants with his superior intellect.

quote:

Originally posted by God V2.1:
1. Don't listen to Mr Tunstall as he's probably just trying to get in your pants with his superior intellect.

At least he isnt trying to get in your pants with candy..... pedophile.

Cut it out, ladies.

1. Less literal writing this time, Ben
2. No over production

quote:

Originally posted by .brian:
Cut it out, ladies.

1. Less literal writing this time, Ben
2. No over production

Good point, Brian. I still think Ben's a good lyricist, but reverting to his old style would be welcome. I'd actually love them to make a difficult album which detracted from their new found fame and re-instated them as an indie band for losers.

MORE COWBELL

quote:

Originally posted by pile of wood:
MORE COWBELL

here here, I think walla should let James Murphy produce the next album

1. More hot jams.
2. Bring back the mystery and ambiguity to the lyrics, i want to not be completely sure what the song is actually about... facts style.
3. More slo-core guitar-arpeggio-driven ballads...

1. More of a clean, produced sound none of this crackly, low-fi stuff.
2. Literal meaning in songs, I downloaded the transatlantic one after hearing dark♡ for passengerside not to go to school
3. Do what I want, I got you where you are so it's my music not yours.
4. Pianos instead of guitars.
5. More songs we can all sing along to at your pop-concerts so you don't have to

1. More gooder

I'm a bit of an audiophile, so I never really understood why someone would want to go back to a lesser-quality, lo-fi sound. Take off your nostalgia-filter headphones.

The only reason I'd want to hear a more poorly produced sound is purely for nostalgia purposes, from when I first fell in love with music. If they re-recorded their old songs with a higher quality, I probably wouldn't like them as much for these reasons, but to deliberately make new songs like that? Come on.

And chances are, if they went back to this lo-fi, lesser quality sound, they'd get nothing but bad rep about it, from fans and critics alike.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam M:
I'm a bit of an audiophile, so I never really understood why someone would want to go back to a lesser-quality, lo-fi sound. Take off your nostalgia-filter headphones.

The only reason I'd want to hear a more poorly produced sound is purely for nostalgia purposes, from when I first fell in love with music. If they re-recorded their old songs with a higher quality, I probably wouldn't like them as much for these reasons, but to deliberately make new songs like that? Come on.

And chances are, if they went back to this lo-fi, lesser quality sound, they'd get nothing but bad rep about it, from fans and critics alike.

Assume for a moment that you record the same sound source onto tape, and onto a digital system. If you compared everything out and ran the specs, you'd see that the digital systems generally come closer to reproducing the sound you heard. Tape has all sorts of weird flaws -- tape saturation, weird transfer patterns that require biasing (which introduces some harmonic distortion), etc. etc. etc.

But folks who do recording will tell you that tape sounds phenomenal, and that digital can't compare for certain sounds. Sometimes the characteristics of the machines involved just sound sweet. Sometimes transparency isn't what you want -- and sometimes the material dictates that. I prefer the Facts version of "Song for Kelly Huckaby" that appears on the Chords+10 CD; I think the darker, almost swampier tones of the recording suit it far better than the more pristine version on the Forbidden Love EP.

If they happen to write music that seems to fit the sound that comes with rougher recordings, I'll welcome a rougher recording. Case in point: The Strokes. Which aesthetic sounds better for their music -- the recordings from Is This It, or First Impressions of Earth? I don't think anyone I know who's a fan of The Strokes would say First Impressions...

quote:

Originally posted by Adam M:
I'm a bit of an peadophile, so I never really understood why someone would want to go back to a lesser-quality, lo-fi sound. Take off your nostalgia-filter headphones.

The only reason I'd want to hear a more poorly produced sound is purely for nostalgia purposes, from when I first fell in love with music. If they re-recorded their old songs with a higher quality, I probably wouldn't like them as much for these reasons, but to deliberately make new songs like that? Come on.

Hmm interesting.

hahahah