Talk:List of lo-fi musicians

Very broad definition

I think it's a pretty big stretch to call many of these bands lo-fi. I mean, Sufjan? Franz Ferdinand? Are there any specific criteria for inclusion in this list, or is it just "I think this is lo-fi, so I'm going to add it"? I tend to think this list isn't particularly useful in its current form, especially because many bands will release lo-fi albums early in their careers due to lack of money, rather than as a deliberate aesthetic. I'd argue that in those cases, it's not really fair to call the band lo-fi. If a list like this really has to exist (please convince me), I think it should be List of lo-fi albums. Comments? →smably 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What if the title of the page were changed from "List of lo-fi bands" to "Bands which have utilized lo-fi techniques" or something along those lines? Also, a notable omission might be The Black Keys? Bmathew 12:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think The Black Keys are lo-fi at all. This is an awful list. It could probably be pared down to about 5% of what it is. Not to mention, it doesn't include some major players.

Its just too broad. We need a musical expert. We need Jeph Jacques.--Kross^Talk 23:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

9 years into the future i might just state that Sufjan has recorded several albums with small multitracks and inexpensive microphones, his first being made on a cassette four track. The Black Key's first 2 albums were recorded in one of the members basements. Whether the end results sounds lo-fi or not, the artists have recorded in a lo-fi manner starkly in contrast to the typical approach of high budget use of a studio environment.95.45.161.238 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

cleaning up the list

Some of our other pages that tend to attract non-notable listings have started removing any redlinked listing, and including a hidden comment to that effect (see any date article). If there are no objections, I'm going to do that here as well. Natalie 06:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

cleaning up the list

Blur? Seriously? I'm taking them off the list. Stuart 68.161.121.165 (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following bands from the list on the grounds that not every "hip" "indie" band is lo-fi: Beck, Beulah, Black Keys, Black Moth Super Rainbow, cLOUDDEAD, Crystal Castles, Feist, Gomez, Holy Fuck, Islands, Justice, Portastatic, Odd Nosdam, Yeah Yeah Yeahs. I feel many more could go.

I agree with you 100% To my knowledge none of these types of bands have actually released any legit 'lo-fi' recordings. Many popular artists have had actual lo-fi recordings released while we never refer to them as lo-fi artists probably because they're not recognized as 'indie' or 'garage' whatever. For example:

• Nirvana were relatively lo-fi as a band i'd say if you listen to the amount of boombox recorded demos that make up their discography. Bleach was quite a low budget album too only recorded in a tiny recording studio while In Utero was intended to have a rougher live sound alternative to the sound of other mainstream albums
• Bob Dylan. Basement Tapes. Dont even need to explain
• Nick Drake - had a compilation of home recordings from a reel to reel released. at least More lo-fi than an indie band that used a bit of distortion in the studio once.--83.70.232.126 (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Merging with Category page

can someone who knows more about wikipedia and stuff somehow merge this page with Category:Lo fi music groups. This page is much more extensive and it would be good to have the category page be this extensive.

Please don't delete Waldeck

They are a new band from Vienna. When you put their album into iTunes, it categorizes the genre as "lo-fi." Thanks, Cicero in Utero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicero in utero (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This article (as well as the disambiguation page Waldeck) exists to provide internal links to other Wikipedia articles. Until the band Waldeck is notable enough to require an article and you or someone else writes that article, we won't be including the band here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

John Lennon?

I don't know if this is the right place to discuss this but John Lennon has made some notable lo-fi cassette recordings which have been released posthumously ("Real Love" for example). Also I think "My Mummy's Dead" which is deliberately recorded on a cassette player and released is pretty much the intentional idea of 'Lo-Fi'. I think JL would be an important mention....83.70.232.126 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion/redirect

With this diff the entire list, built by many editors over the last 13 years, was wiped out. There should at least be some discussion. I see a bunch of other lists that are incompletely sourced. Should they all be deleted? Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's an easy answer on this one. WP:V is policy and everything really should be reliably sourced. Any editor is absolutely free to remove any unsourced entries–which is all of them at this point–and they should stay removed until a source is added, per WP:BURDEN. But at the same time, if these bands are listed as "lo-fi" on their article, then we can reasonably assume that a source says so. Personally, I think we should follow the precedent that seems to have developed at List of post-rock bands, where new entries must have a source in this article and any removed entries should stay that way until a source is added. Woodroar (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Woodroar: WP:BURDEN is not for removing any unsourced item. It's about removing challenged content that doesn't have a source, and does not included challenging just because it doesn't have a source ("challenging" a whole page in such terms would, I think, easily be found to be in bad faith if the person blanking the page believe "lo-fi" exists and some of the bands might be part of that genre).

@Wwwhatsup: you would be justified to revert the blanking as per WP:BRD. At that point the user who blanked it and/or Woodroar could propose using an inclusion criteria that requires a source for each item. Otherwise, there's no consensus that lists should go simply because nobody has yet pulled the sources that already exist in other articles from those other articles. It's a common debate and there's no clear answer (i.e. there are parts of policies/guidelines that support both courses of action). The problem is that people add names to this sort of list willy-nilly, even if there isn't a source in their article. In that case, IMO those items are best removed. All it takes to determine is to just visit the band article, search the page for "lo-fi", see if it has a source, and copy it over. I'm not revert it myself since I suspect most of these articles do not have a source calling them lo-fi, and would not want to revert unless I had reason to believe several do. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure it is: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Except in the case of BLPs, BURDEN doesn't say anything about the nature of the material. If it's removed specifically for lacking a source, then it's being challenged. Woodroar (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Fairly sure I've seen that rejected rather explicitly, but cannot find it at the moment. A challenge is to the verifiability of the content, not a challenge because there's no source. The burden is to provide a source when challenged, not to ensure that every sentence in the pedia includes a source. That said, see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Does_WP:BURDEN_assume_a_specific_challenge?. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Just noting I did revert the deletion before in initiating this discussion. I am essentially an inclusionist at heart, and leave the resolution to more neutral and knowledgeable editors. I find the lists and others like it, possibly subjective as they are, useful, but wonder how much categories also perform the same function. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There is WP:NOTDUP. Regardless, tossing in a handful of sources for even a small number of these would probably go a long way to secure the page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)