Are we trying to 'create', or 'recreate'?

Cirrus

I think if you've got something to say, music can be a good way of saying it. Maybe that'll be original, maybe it won't be. I think that being genuine and true to yourself is more important really.

mike_l

digitalscream said:

mike_l said: 

Probably a combination of both. You buy the gear you like (sound wise) based on your ears. So, for example,  you wouldn't buy a super-high gain amp for a Pink Floyd covers band.

I probably would. It just wouldn't be the usual kind of Pink Floyd covers band

 

Ah yes, but you're the musical equivalent of a psychopath....

Mind Alice Cooper has been doing a mix of Another Brick in the Wall and My Generation on his last few tours, so I guesstimate that you're right

Catthan

There's another issue which imho has a bigger effect to the semi-pro gigging musician with limited access/ funds to/ for gear.

What I mean is that it's quite tempting to use a venue's / studio's backline (if provided) or a loaner in some gigs instead of a carrying a 30 kg combo or a head and a 4x12 around. I had my "sound" (not to be confused with chops) at home for instance but I've played through 3 different amps in the last 4 rehearsals. What was there was an identity originating from my gtrs and board (and chops). But each studio and amp was vastly different. I've played through an AC30 recently and although it was lovely, it felt unfamiliar enough to push me outside my comfort zone. But that's smth that experienced players get over with time I guess.

 Smth else is the acoustics (or lack of) of each venue which play an important role as one day the rig may sound great and shit on another one. I don't suppose many of us here play stadiums, have roadies and dedicated soundmen for their bands tho the latter is not a rarity. What about the load in/ out and all the stress this 'causes to the musician; limited time to fine tune and many times there's only time for a linecheck instead of a proper soundcheck. 

to sum up, for player like me (and AFAIK most of people here) individual sound is smth that benefits from a controlled enviroment (a proper studio set up - personal) or a steady gig-venue. And 'cause of that, striving to get sb else's or even "our" sound is almost pointless. We need to work with what we have and in the particular context. 

Chops and compositions though get sb's individuality across much more effectively.

The wealth and variety of styles and music came out when there were 4-5 amp and gtr types. It was the songs and chops that set players apart.

hugbot

There was a video I saw a while back which I cant find now but the guy was arguing the point that theres no such thing as "good tone" in a vacuum. To illustrate this, he played a guitar unplugged into laptop speakers- sounds like tinny shit. Then he made a funk mix where the "tinny" sound of the clicky guitar actually worked perfectly.

This is the thing about focusing too much on finding "your sound", its so very contextual. Im of the opinion that if you really want to make whacked out shit you should try a synth or sampler, that changes the entire perspective in a fundamental way.

Cirrus

Catthan said:

to sum up, for player like me (and AFAIK most of people here) individual sound is smth that benefits from a controlled enviroment (a proper studio set up - personal) or a steady gig-venue. And 'cause of that, striving to get sb else's or even "our" sound is almost pointless. We need to work with what we have and in the particular context. 

Chops and compositions though get sb's individuality across much more effectively.

The wealth and variety of styles and music came out when there were 4-5 amp and gtr types. It was the songs and chops that set players apart.

This is true. Gigging in different venues, there's many many variables. I find that the extra effort involved in always using my own rig, from plectrum to speaker cab, is always dwarfed by the comfort of having my familiar rig with me. It takes so much stress out of proceedings. Apart from that, be rehearsed so that you can perform your songs consistently and with commitment even if the acoustics on stage are totally dreadful. To our musician's ears all we hear are the massive problems with the sound, our playing etc, but to the audience all they're hearing is the song and it's important not to forget that.

Catthan

hugbot said:

There was a video I saw a while back which I cant find now but the guy was arguing the point that theres no such thing as "good tone" in a vacuum. To illustrate this, he played a guitar unplugged into laptop speakers- sounds like tinny shit. Then he made a funk mix where the "tinny" sound of the clicky guitar actually worked perfectly.

That's a valid point indeed. Certainly true for more congested mixes like the RnB related where you got brass sections, many singers etc.

And it's equally important for the other musicians to know which range of the frequency spectrum they should occupy.

It's easier to set things up for a power trio scenario

ThePrettyDamned

There are still plenty of new sounds coming about. There is a slew of upcoming dub-metal guitarists who use either synth pickups or (more likely) a few mad effects controlled by the expression ring to create new sounds. Rhythms are also quite different.

Djent, whatever you think of the word, is a new ish one - the idea of using a high gain amp at lower gain and heavy technique for an amazingly heavy tone with plenty of top end.

I think if more people tried unusual pedals, like the newer boss drive, more new sounds would appear. It gets a bad rap because it doesn't sound like a vintage thing, but it's not supposed to - it needs imagination, just like the old ones once did. And someone *will* do it.

Dave_Mc

ICBM said:

obviously I take cues from players I like, and listen to how they use their sounds in their music, but when I play those sorts of sounds, just getting into the same ballpark is easily close enough - after that it's just whether I like it or not and whether it works for what I'm trying to do. I try to get the best tone I can for what I'm doing, but how close to 'best' is good enough depends on the context as well.

+1

I try to get something which is suitable and which doesn't sound like I just plugged a random guitar into a random amp and randomly twiddled the knobs, but I don't obsess about absolutely nailing a tone. Sometimes for example I might prefer a tone I've come up with compared to the recorded version- it's normally in the same ballpark and not radically different, but tweaked slightly.

guitarfishbay

ThePrettyDamned said:

There are still plenty of new sounds coming about. There is a slew of upcoming dub-metal guitarists who use either synth pickups or (more likely) a few mad effects controlled by the expression ring to create new sounds. Rhythms are also quite different.

Djent, whatever you think of the word, is a new ish one - the idea of using a high gain amp at lower gain and heavy technique for an amazingly heavy tone with plenty of top end.

I think if more people tried unusual pedals, like the newer boss drive, more new sounds would appear. It gets a bad rap because it doesn't sound like a vintage thing, but it's not supposed to - it needs imagination, just like the old ones once did. And someone *will* do it.

New since when?  Misha (Periphery) has been active for years, and basically he was getting his inspiration from Mesuggah and Sikth, and most djent bands seem to be ripping off from all three of those.  That is one new tone created from almost 20 years of metal.  Even then, all it is is a slightly tighter and brighter version of the old tones, mostly made available through technology (digital sounds are on average just a bit harder and sharper in general vs the smoother valve counterparts) and partly through pick technique (you have to pick really hard to get a djent sound).

This is from 1995 and really isn't that far removed from the djent movement IMO.

Add some Sikth from 2003, and that is basically how you get Djent

To me, it is all just synthesis of what influenced an artist from what they've heard before.  Take a few influences, add your own personality and interpretation to it and that is what you get.  It is a constant evolution, but each time something considerably new or different is created it is only really created once and then people evolve it (or just rip it off) until someone can evolve it into something noticeably different enough to call it a new sound or genre.  Actual genre defining moments don't happen too often, and when they do you can be sure they won't be unique for very long as if anything is successful.

With guitar, I really think the evolution of tones has been a slow one.  You can almost break tones by genre into decade chunks, give or take significant changes in available equipment.  Arguably the most significant change in recent times is the POD, or more recently the evolution of that is the Kemper/Axe - which aim to create the sounds of the past but also enable you to reimagine them in a new way with tweaks.  Before that I'd probably say nothing really new came out since the early 90s when the Rectifiers and 5150s first came out.

Blending two genres to make a new one is again just synthesis and re-imagination from a framework that already exists.  Whether this is actually new or not is an area of philosophical debate as much as anything.  Both genres already existed, to me 2+2=4 isn't really a new concept but a new way of painting from the colours you know.  Blending genres is an evolution of music to me.  In the case of dub-metal, if you listen to the heavier dub stuff it might as well just be metal.  The rhythms and heaviness are there.

I'll happily accept that maybe I just have a very high bar for what I consider to be actually new.  I think Cirrus naield it with this quote anyway.  

Cirrus said:

I think if you've got something to say, music can be a good way of saying it. Maybe that'll be original, maybe it won't be. I think that being genuine and true to yourself is more important really.

Music is a vehicle of expressing what is inside, for me.  I don't know any better way than playing guitar for me (though would love to know a cheaper one ) )

ThePrettyDamned

guitarfishbay said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

There are still plenty of new sounds coming about. There is a slew of upcoming dub-metal guitarists who use either synth pickups or (more likely) a few mad effects controlled by the expression ring to create new sounds. Rhythms are also quite different.

Djent, whatever you think of the word, is a new ish one - the idea of using a high gain amp at lower gain and heavy technique for an amazingly heavy tone with plenty of top end.

I think if more people tried unusual pedals, like the newer boss drive, more new sounds would appear. It gets a bad rap because it doesn't sound like a vintage thing, but it's not supposed to - it needs imagination, just like the old ones once did. And someone *will* do it.

New since when?  Misha (Periphery) has been active for years, and basically he was getting his inspiration from Mesuggah and Sikth, and most djent bands seem to be ripping off from all three of those.  That is one new tone created from almost 20 years of metal.  Even then, all it is is a slightly tighter and brighter version of the old tones, mostly made available through technology (digital sounds are on average just a bit harder and sharper in general vs the smoother valve counterparts) and partly through pick technique (you have to pick really hard to get a djent sound).

This is from 1995 and really isn't that far removed from the djent movement IMO.

Add some Sikth from 2003, and that is basically how you get Djent

To me, it is all just synthesis of what influenced an artist from what they've heard before.  Take a few influences, add your own personality and interpretation to it and that is what you get.  It is a constant evolution, but each time something considerably new or different is created it is only really created once and then people evolve it (or just rip it off) until someone can evolve it into something noticeably different enough to call it a new sound or genre.  Actual genre defining moments don't happen too often, and when they do you can be sure they won't be unique for very long as if anything is successful.

With guitar, I really think the evolution of tones has been a slow one.  You can almost break tones by genre into decade chunks, give or take significant changes in available equipment.  Arguably the most significant change in recent times is the POD, or more recently the evolution of that is the Kemper/Axe - which aim to create the sounds of the past but also enable you to reimagine them in a new way with tweaks.  Before that I'd probably say nothing really new came out since the early 90s when the Rectifiers and 5150s first came out.

Blending two genres to make a new one is again just synthesis and re-imagination from a framework that already exists.  Whether this is actually new or not is an area of philosophical debate as much as anything.  Both genres already existed, to me 2+2=4 isn't really a new concept but a new way of painting from the colours you know.  Blending genres is an evolution of music to me.  In the case of dub-metal, if you listen to the heavier dub stuff it might as well just be metal.  The rhythms and heaviness are there.

I'll happily accept that maybe I just have a very high bar for what I consider to be actually new.  I think Cirrus naield it with this quote anyway.  

Cirrus said:

I think if you've got something to say, music can be a good way of saying it. Maybe that'll be original, maybe it won't be. I think that being genuine and true to yourself is more important really.

Music is a vehicle of expressing what is inside, for me.  I don't know any better way than playing guitar for me (though would love to know a cheaper one ) )

90's, for guitar tones, is pretty new really - considering most folks use tones from the 50's to 70's! It's slowing down, but there are still new sounds emerging.  That djenty, sparkly sound is modern - and okay, 15 years old isn't *new* but if you're comparing it to the thousands of people emulating Clapton, it's fair to say it's relatively new, and that genre has evolved into 'djent-step'.  

John 5 took country music and made it insane - not just through tone, but the sheer speed and energy of his playing.  So new sounds are out there - and emerging.  First time I heard Protest The Hero, it was a revelation - I had never heard anything like them.  

However, I concede I agree with you on genre defining moments - they're few and far between.  

Maxi

ICBM said:

Same as guitarfishbay, although I'd still say that's Create. That doesn't mean I look to make 'new' sounds, but I have no interest whatever in 'nailing' tones - obviously I take cues from players I like, and listen to how they use their sounds in their music, but when I play those sorts of sounds, just getting into the same ballpark is easily close enough - after that it's just whether I like it or not and whether it works for what I'm trying to do. I try to get the best tone I can for what I'm doing, but how close to 'best' is good enough depends on the context as well.

I equally have no interest in playing cover songs note for note or sticking to the original arrangement. Or structure, or even chord progression sometimes! And I don't usually mind if the singer changes the words or the melody a bit either… so there would be no point in nailing the tone exactly anyway.

(I hope that doesn't sound arrogant or like I'm trying to be too 'artistic' - it's not meant like that at all, it's that I'm not good enough to reproduce something accurately, so I prefer to do something different, that's me.)

I think thats the whole point of it . We dont actually want to be mistaken for someone else even when we're standing on their shoulders so we dont really mind too much if things sound a bit different . Where it falls flat on its face is when we are still being left behind by the past .

Some things are just branded into history but make perfect tongue in cheek moments

Fusionista

Listening to Oli Brown this afternoon. Like to do a tone workshop with him.