sharke
There are some here I know who hate this obsession with sounding retro and analog, but I think if it's done well then it sounds great. Their newest release has all but lost that vibe and they're now being panned for sounding too slick. I agree, but then again it's the content of their music that's gone downhill as well. I don't know if the one had anything to do with the other, but despite the excellent production quality of their latest record, it sounds very bland to me. 
 
There's other music I love that sounds less than hi-fi, or at least part of it does. The bass on Radiohead's "Knives Out" sounds like it's coming from next door. But in a great way that suits the song. DJ Shadow's "Entroducing" from 1996 is decidedly lo-fi but is considered probably the best instrumental hip-hop album of all time. There's no way a professional engineer would have let it come out sounding like that. But the style is just one man, some vinyl records and a lo-fi sampler, and his fans wouldn't have it any other way. 

*Raises hand for hating retro and analog* LOL! BUT, only because the people attempting this that aren't in the big leagues....are failing miserably. Audio is being ruined as is with people not knowing what they are doing....add in bad retro and analog sim that is the furthest from analog and you have a cluster of "uggh". I actually love all that stuff when it's done right. But unless someone literally records on tape with the right stuff that makes it analog and retro, you're left with a cheap imitation of I don't know what. Or, you get Dave Grohl's "analog" album attempt that made me throw up in my own mouth because he wound up trying to take a poorly recorded analog album and hybrid digital or whatever he did. That said, it matters not in his case because the guy is a songwriting machine loaded with hits. But others doing this....if the music isn't appealing like you mentioned about Boards of Canada sort of losing it in the content area and you find out no form of production can save you in that situation. The other side of that coin is...when a band comes out sounding a certain way, if people buy into it....it's nice if the band keeps that sound for a few albums as to not shell-shock their audience.
 
If you look at the bands that have been successful over the years, it's rare they tried to re-define the face of music and stayed afloat. Think about bands with longevity that sort of gave you the same sound with different songs for 5 or more albums. When they changed, they often times sank and were never heard from again. Or...sometimes the change was at the right time with the right lot of songs and it made them bigger. Case in point, Aerosmith. They would have never had success like they had in the 70's if they wouldn't have had Run DMC bring them back to life....and then the production for Perm Vacation and Pump being a major factor. It was the right time for them...a totally classic rock sounding retro album would have killed them for life I believe.
 
I think anything is acceptable though sharke, as long as things are done for the right reasons with the right band playing the right songs at the right time. Though that seems like a lot to think about for a record....the truth of the matter is, when you have all those things in alignment...the songs could entail people farting in harmony. If people are ready for something like that, it's a success. :)
 
-Danny

Yeah well I think with the retro thing the problem is that you'll get one or two people who do it well and make a success of it, then a thousand copycats who try to emulate that sound and just make a pig's ear of it. Like these people throwing heavily detuned synths on all their tracks because they want to sound like Aphex Twin...and instead of sounding phat it just sounds...well...out of tune. 

sharke
Yeah well I think with the retro thing the problem is that you'll get one or two people who do it well and make a success of it, then a thousand copycats who try to emulate that sound and just make a pig's ear of it. Like these people throwing heavily detuned synths on all their tracks because they want to sound like Aphex Twin...and instead of sounding phat it just sounds...well...out of tune. 

Yes!!! That ^ there is definitely the problem! I agree so much with this I was just pumping my fist in the air yelling "hell yeah sharke!" Hahaha! In that light, it's easy to see/hear why someone like me might have a problem with some of the more retro or analog sounding stuff. But like we said, it really depends on the situation. There's nothing like a lo-fi synth done right with that little bit of sizzle distortion.
 
An analog guitar tone is to die for when done right....vocals are nice and warm, a bass can have way more identity. BUT...then we can list the opposites as well because there are things in the digital realm that accentuate things differently. I think it's great we have the tools to do what we can do and everything should always be taken into consideration. We just have to hope that when someone goes for these types of sounds, that they do the material justice.
 
Not to change gears drastically, but I think Mike also touched on a really great thing in his post:
 
"experiencing great music made with immediacy leaves a person like me suspecting that the myriad of interviews with engineers, producers and musicians who describe how they had to put out 29 mics on 7 guitar cabinets while using a measuring tape to get that perfect sound are just doing it all for the purpose of entertainment (and accounts receivable) rather than a sincere commitment to sonic craftsmanship."
 
This to me also discredits engineers that get bragging rights a bit too easily and rightfully so. I did an interview with a friend of mine who some may know....I can always share it if anyone is interested, but I had the privilege of meeting and befriending producer/engineer Beau Hill years ago and the things he had to say made what Mike said even more apparent. You could mic up certain players with a Pignose amp and they still sounded fabulous, yet some engineers get way more credit than they deserve.
 
When the band is on fire, you have the right players and at least *some* clue about recording, you're going to have great results every time. With that said, if the band has a big name already, you me or anyone else could probably record and mix this band and become famous producers. Granted, I know some of these guys have really paid their dues. But others...you know it was a "who you know and who you [link=mailto:bl@w"]bl@w"[/link] type deal. I can rattle off 8 names off the top of my head where I sincerely do not believe performed any magic tricks to get the credibility they got.
 
How do you ruin a big name artist or band? You don't...they ruin themselves with poor songs that lose their following really. Metallica is a prime example. We heard more people bash on the St. Anger album than any metal album I can think of. It still sold, the band isn't dead and their die hard fans love them. I didn't like the quality of St. Anger (I'm not even a Metallica fan and don't really care for them but they have their place) but the songs were pretty good considering how poorly produced and mixed they were.
 
At the end of the day, no matter what the style, unless the production of a song is so bad it literally ruins the listening experience, you won't go wrong with a good performance, good players and good songs. If you have a good name in the business, you have even more of a chance of being accepted unless the songs tank. You see how some of those cult type bands just keep on surviving. I think that's a good thing really.
 
A band should be able to do anything they want with artistic flair involved. But the one thing I DO wish for...is for bands/artists to at least keep good fidelity in the mix. Not to be confused with lo-fi situations. I'm saying...give us the best ear candy possible that best allows a band to be themselves without totally degrading the sound to where it is just pure noise. The bands also need to take a bit more time before they just release something. There are more filler songs today than ever before. Though I've always had a problem with that sort of thing, I've accepted it knowing how tough schedules can be. But we need to definitely give the music business some class again to where people are at least a little more concerned with what I call "musical hygiene". :)
 
-Danny