The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Guitars for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Studios Abandoning Mic.ing Cab.s Electric Guitar Amplification
Old 2 weeks ago
  #181
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nedorama View Post
I bought one to use for playing late at night, when I can't play the real things at the levels I'd want. But also use it as my Pro Tools front end and run mic pre's through it. For the right price used (I paid $280 3 years go) it's a fun tool. Also nice to be able to pick up a guitar and play through headphones without firing up any software.

Haven't used the built-in mic pre yet, but I'm sure it works fine. I have an old original DX7 controller pedal, and it works fine for the wah.

Why would you need a pair?
Double stacks....four heads...
time based effects on bottom...
modulation based effects on top...
2 mics...one on each cab...

YYMV

Light

Temple
Old 1 week ago
  #182
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Nonsense. The primary difference is lack of talent and originality in the playing. You can tart up a pig all you want but it's still a pig. The problem is players going into the studio years before they're ready*, not using producers who know how to get a great performance from the players, settling for mediocre performances on the assumption that anything can be "fixed in the mix", and most importantly, the complete lack of any real pre-production stage.



No. It's because they can't really play the way they think they can/wish they could. They don't put the time into preparation, both in the playing and in the crafting of parts. And most often they're simply not as good as they think they are.


* - How many times have we seen the topic "What guitar should I buy? I want to learn guitar so I can add some real sound to my productions."
I don't think we're necessarily diasagreeing or talking about different phenomena, John.

"Huge sound" has become something of a crutch to make rather uninteresting players sound more interesting. To me., it seemed to start with drums. The giant cannon-like snares and kicks provided an impressive sounding beat, but made it much harder for drummers to do much except imitate drum machines, as the giant sounds were not sympathetic to dynamics, subtlety, ghost notes, shuffles etc, or anything particularly complex.

Ditto with guitars . Add enough processing that the one-note lick the guitarist is playing sounds massive, and the guitar is pretty well useless for playing anything else. I do tend to see a lot of young guitarists making their first demos that have 10 FX pedals, five of which are active at any given time. Often they have at least two overdrive pedals in series, something they tell me is "standard practice" today.

Part of it is simply culture. Look in any musicians catalog and, nowadays, there are pages upon pages of very expensive stomp boxes, all promising to add something wonderful and unique to your sound if you just spend $250 on the "Evil Black Double Ghost Warper" or the "St Augustine of Hippo Reverb."

The result is a continuation of the gear obsession that has come to dominate guitar playing and recording in the last 30 years. Every question is about "tone" rather than "how's my playing.?" "Tone" has become a byword for purchasing something that will purportedly make your work sound good without any learning or practice.
Old 1 week ago
  #183
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
I don't think we're necessarily diasagreeing or talking about different phenomena, John.

"Huge sound" has become something of a crutch to make rather uninteresting players sound more interesting. To me., it seemed to start with drums. The giant cannon-like snares and kicks provided an impressive sounding beat, but made it much harder for drummers to do much except imitate drum machines, as the giant sounds were not sympathetic to dynamics, subtlety, ghost notes, shuffles etc, or anything particularly complex.

Ditto with guitars . Add enough processing that the one-note lick the guitarist is playing sounds massive, and the guitar is pretty well useless for playing anything else. I do tend to see a lot of young guitarists making their first demos that have 10 FX pedals, five of which are active at any given time. Often they have at least two overdrive pedals in series, something they tell me is "standard practice" today.

Part of it is simply culture. Look in any musicians catalog and, nowadays, there are pages upon pages of very expensive stomp boxes, all promising to add something wonderful and unique to your sound if you just spend $250 on the "Evil Black Double Ghost Warper" or the "St Augustine of Hippo Reverb."

The result is a continuation of the gear obsession that has come to dominate guitar playing and recording in the last 30 years. Every question is about "tone" rather than "how's my playing.?" "Tone" has become a byword for purchasing something that will purportedly make your work sound good without any learning or practice.
Shaddap and play yer guitar, kid!

I agree with pretty much all of that. It's one of the reasons that so much "modern" music has become dead boring.

OH, LISTEN - He's got one of them new Gigantojiminywhaminusses!<yawn>
"How's my toan?" "What tone? I can't hear it for all the gizmos."

This whole digital "revolution" has not done young musicians any favors.

"I can get 37 different amp sounds in ONE SONG!" "Uh, but can you play anything interesting?"

"Look how fast I can play Hall of the Mountain King!" "Uh, but can you play anything interesting?"

"I've got dual stereo amps with MIDI fx switching of FOUR DOZEN different pedals!" "Sure, BUT CAN YOU PLAY ANYTHING INTERESTING?"





Old 1 week ago
  #184
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post

"Sure, BUT CAN YOU PLAY ANYTHING INTERESTING?"



There's so many reasons I fell in love with certain metal music, the classical style music melodies, the energy, the third party look at politics / science and the universe etc. (not daft things like worshipping the dark lord, only muppets think that's what most metal is about)..

Ohh some of the melodies, as a vocalist that doesn't just want to growl in a mic I found it very difficult to work with modern bands..

Some of them were only interested in creating the guitar equivalent of binary code or a lot of music was written by guitarists that didn't really understand how vocals sit into a song, actually most other instruments bar guitar and sometimes drums. The end equivalent was usually a 20 minute fretspank..

The one's who figured it out tend to become succesful and stay so for many years.. Like Scar Symmetry, Opeth, Metallica, In flames etc.

It can be a beautiful genre if done right, it's a real shame I don't see much of it nowadays.. If anybody knows some stuff to check out let me know because I gave up on it years back.

Anyway my point is, somewhere along the lines a lot of them forgot about the music..
Old 1 week ago
  #185
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post

"Look how fast I can play Hall of the Mountain King!" "Uh, but can you play anything interesting?"
Some people find arpeggios and pedal tones very interesting.... I know Bach and Mozart did.
Metal players like to challenge themselves. Playing blues scales over 3 chords is something not everyone finds pride in.

Despite what you think, many metal bands were pretty darn innovative.
Old 1 week ago
  #186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal_SINE View Post
Some people find arpeggios and pedal tones very interesting.... I know Bach and Mozart did.
Metal players like to challenge themselves. Playing blues scales over 3 chords is something not everyone finds pride in.

Despite what you think, many metal bands were pretty darn innovative.
Innovative?

Really?

(Skipping the speech this time - too lazy.)
Old 1 week ago
  #187
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Innovative?

Really?
Yes really. Considering Metal didn't actually exist before there was metal, someone had to innovate to spawn the genre... make sense?? hope so!!


<SNIP - let's not start the bickering>

Last edited by psycho_monkey; 1 week ago at 06:19 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #188
To be fair "Metal", which had not previously existed, is just a name for the genre, not its attribute. When you start to break the genre down trying to describe its actual musicality, you inevitably find parallels in other genres that have previously existed.

But anyway, lets not get into this. The thing is - a lot of great guitar recording even in metal were done with a cab and a mic, and I don't see any other real way to have the proper sounding guitars for metal. Hyper-real yes, but not something you really want to go back to and experience sonically again, like for example Ride the Lightning's guitar sound.
Old 1 week ago
  #189
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal_SINE View Post
Despite what you think, many metal bands were pretty darn innovative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post

Innovative?

Really?
Yes

Yes
Old 1 week ago
  #190
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
To be fair "Metal", which had not previously existed, is just a name for the genre, not its attribute. When you start to break the genre down trying to describe its actual musicality, you inevitably find parallels in other genres that have previously existed.
You can say this about any genre. If you really want to be honest, even a band like the Beatles never even pioneered an entire genre. In this regard a band like Black Sabbath were much more innovative sorry to say. I'm not implying BlackSab were better than the Beatles, but they own the word "Metal". Beatles were a rock band or maybe a pop band. Those genres were in existence 10 years earlier. The only genre the Beatles may have helped pioneer was psychedelic rock which is really only a sub-genre. "Metal" as genre stands Since in many cases is perhaps more classically influenced than it is rock influenced. Lyrically, metal is more like folk than it is rock.

We can argue semantics all day but fact of the matter is, only an ignoramus would claim metal and metal musicians are not innovative. Sure not all metal bands were innovative, but a select handful of them certainly were. Sabbath, Priest, Metallica, Scorpions, Slayer on and on. Just because some person doesn't like particular genre of music doesn't mean they can be in denial on the topic.

\m/
Old 1 week ago
  #191
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
Its difficult to overstate the Beatle's influence on pop music. Not just popular songs, but influence on other musicians, ways of working in the studio, creating new sounds--many followed their innovations. It may be they were the first group to push beyond the recording as a simulation of a live band performance and into the realm of sounds that could only be created in the studio. It wasn't until recently that I learned about how other musicians were influenced. I just watched an interview of one musician who said he was driving with his band in the car when they first heard sgt peppers played, and pulled over and just listened to it, and concluded pop music was changed by that single album (overrated in my mind, but many were awed by it). Brian Wilson did Pet Sounds trying to better the Beatles--the one goal beyond his musical reach.

I never consider Beatles to be a rock band--pure pop. There were lots of mid 60s songs that were getting psychedelic sounds, but beatles arguably did it more and better--I see Rain as being a very solid psychedelic. There are lots of songs that didn't chart that sound like songs that did, and maybe preceded them--I suspect that its only hearing the things that chart that make it seem like big jumps were made.

Most of musical history is evolution not innovation. To my ears, sabbath in their paranoid album had a liquid fully-distorted guitar sound that I could personally accept as the first metal band if someone claimed that--I really liked that album. Metal isn't my thing, so I don't feel 100% confident, but first in my awareness anyway.

Might be off topic, but is there really much more to the cab micing discussion beyond the strenuous expression of personal taste at this point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nugget...5%E2%80%931968
Old 1 week ago
  #192
Lives for gear
 
nyandres's Avatar
I know more people under the age of 35 who rather listen to periphery or tesseract or even modern pop than a band like The Beatles... There are awesome bands old and new is my point... The Beatles though is meh? Its consistently good, but never great by todays standards...

Anyways, todays tool allow more variety of interesting styles over the bunch of very similar groups...We still have jazz, we still have bands that sound like the beatles, we still have bands that sound like 1930s jazz, we still have bands that do classical, we have people in bedrooms doing really interesting music in all those genres, and some new ones... We have people in bedrooms and people in studios doing really interesting new stuff.... The Closemindedness is too strong with some of you... the older the more closeminded typically, except for those actually making new original styles of music
Old 1 week ago
  #193
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponzi View Post
Most of musical history is evolution not innovation. To my ears, sabbath in their paranoid album had a liquid fully-distorted guitar sound that I could personally accept as the first metal band if someone claimed that--I really liked that album. Metal isn't my thing, so I don't feel 100% confident, but first in my awareness anyway.
I don't 'really care for "metal" per se but I respect some of the pioneers. I love Sabbath's Master of Reality, some Dio era Rainbow, Coverdale/Hughes era Deep Purple Uli era Scorps, Early Maiden and Priest.... All pretty innovative. Even the first Malmsteen record and first couple Metallica. It's all good stuff. It was different at the time. To deny the impact and influence of these bands is not being realistic. Sure most metal is immature and derivative, but so are most rock bands and rap artists.
Old 1 week ago
  #194
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyandres View Post
The Beatles though is meh? Its consistently good, but never great by todays standards...
today’s standards: Autotuned vocals and guitar solos, quantized and sample replaced drums, entire songs where the guitarrists play 2 bars that are copy and paste ad nauseam, time stretching, over realistic productions to very often hide lack of skills and/or of song writing creativity, etc. If these are the great today’s standards then yeah, the Beatles are not great.

Last edited by ProgFree; 1 week ago at 08:12 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #195
Lives for gear
 
nyandres's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
today’s standards: Autotuned vocals and guitar solos, quantized and sample replaced drums, entire songs where the guitarrists play 2 bars that are copy and paste ad nauseam, time stretching, over realistic productions to very often hide lack of skills and/or of song writing creativity, etc. If these are the great today’s standards then yeah, the Beatles are not great.
The bands I listed actually, play to a metronome live.... No Autotone...The guitarrists, play two bars?? That actually sounds a lot like the beatles... They play stuff that make what the beatles are doing appear like kindergardeners music (i dont mean speed, there is that too where songs require it, but im talking about composition). And did I say this is all happening live... So yeah, the Beatles, just like everything, may have been fine for their time, but not much by todays standards. Now Pink Floyd on the other hand, is a band that although not as consistent as Beatles does a ton of stuff that is compositionally impressive even by todays standards. But again, the point is not about which music is better... But rather that the excuse that digital tech makes music bad is completely wrong. There is crappy music now, there was crappy music then... There is more variety now without doubt however, and the good music is light years beyond that of the past. And as for drum replacement, so what... Are you one of those old people that think drum replacement is not playing the drums... and anyways,... did I say those bands are doing it live... They also sound way tighter than the beatles... Other will claim what about Hendrix... The man was incredibly sloppy, and not even just by today's standards, as there were insanely accurate players... But again, im talking about composition regardless, not how the composition is executed. If artists replace drums, use midi, hell if they use beer bottles to make sounds through plugins... It doesnt matter. The point is, a lot of the music sounds very interesting... Wanna hear something old school today.... You still can... Greta Van Fleet sounds like listening to Led Zep
Old 1 week ago
  #196
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Had a chat with 2 guys in my luthiers place today, both will be releasing album and video's soon. They worked with different studios, labels and production companies.

Both said the studios they went had a hard time mic.ing the cab.s, specially for tight distortion sounds (phase issues). Finally, one went lineout+ir and the other used the studios kemper and axe fx...

When asked, I realized they were newer studios run by younger engineers. Then I explained a good guitar sound from a studio is equal to the experience of the engineer (less trial and error need for the experienced).

But the younger engineers abandoning the use of real cab.s to me is not cool. Keeping a good amp+cab. just for rehearsal purposes or marketing is something anyone can do. In the past, a "sound" of an album or studio was what made those engineers studio preferable. If every studio is going to abandon that goal in the future then the purpose of a studio to exist has no meaning.
I play in a band with an absolutely amazing 45 year old guitarist (he's is a full time musician) he has a great live rig - great amps great pedal board - the best of everything and an amazing sound live.

At my studio I have great boutique recording gear, amps, mic's pre's etc etc.

I asked him to come over to start recording a new album and he said "great I'll bring my Kemper and we can get started!"

That's progress I guess (or not depending on your sensibility)

I'm done swimming against the tide so I just said "sure whatever suits your personal workflow"
Old 1 week ago
  #197
Lives for gear
 
Mikhael's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyandres View Post
The bands I listed actually, play to a metronome live.... No Autotone...The guitarrists, play two bars?? That actually sounds a lot like the beatles... They play stuff that make what the beatles are doing appear like kindergardeners music (i dont mean speed, there is that too where songs require it, but im talking about composition). And did I say this is all happening live... So yeah, the Beatles, just like everything, may have been fine for their time, but not much by todays standards. Now Pink Floyd on the other hand, is a band that although not as consistent as Beatles does a ton of stuff that is compositionally impressive even by todays standards. But again, the point is not about which music is better... But rather that the excuse that digital tech makes music bad is completely wrong. There is crappy music now, there was crappy music then... There is more variety now without doubt however, and the good music is light years beyond that of the past. And as for drum replacement, so what... Are you one of those old people that think drum replacement is not playing the drums... and anyways,... did I say those bands are doing it live... They also sound way tighter than the beatles... Other will claim what about Hendrix... The man was incredibly sloppy, and not even just by today's standards, as there were insanely accurate players... But again, im talking about composition regardless, not how the composition is executed. If artists replace drums, use midi, hell if they use beer bottles to make sounds through plugins... It doesnt matter. The point is, a lot of the music sounds very interesting... Wanna hear something old school today.... You still can... Greta Van Fleet sounds like listening to Led Zep
Interesting, since I think that composition is where most modern bands LACK. I don't judge the Beatles on terms of their instrumental prowess; rather, the material itself which was occasionally brilliant and moving. People are still talking about them, and major artists are still covering their music 40 years later.

There is interesting music being written and recorded today, being recorded by real musicians with emotional playing, but it's few and far between, and never bubbles up to the surface of pop music. You have to search for it.

Quantized, replaced, sequenced, pitch-corrected music rarely has any deep emotional content. Sorry if that rattles your cage, but computers still don't have emotions programmed into them.
Old 1 week ago
  #198
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehightenor View Post
I play in a band with an absolutely amazing 45 year old guitarist (he's is a full time musician) he has a great live rig - great amps great pedal board - the best of everything and an amazing sound live.

At my studio I have great boutique recording gear, amps, mic's pre's etc etc.

I asked him to come over to start recording a new album and he said "great I'll bring my Kemper and we can get started!"

That's progress I guess (or not depending on your sensibility)

I'm done swimming against the tide so I just said "sure whatever suits your personal workflow"
My concern is a sound studio as concept becoming more of a mix environment instead of recording.
Old 1 week ago
  #199
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyandres View Post
The bands I listed actually, play to a metronome live.... No Autotone...The guitarrists, play two bars?? That actually sounds a lot like the beatles... They play stuff that make what the beatles are doing appear like kindergardeners music (i dont mean speed, there is that too where songs require it, but im talking about composition). And did I say this is all happening live... So yeah, the Beatles, just like everything, may have been fine for their time, but not much by todays standards. Now Pink Floyd on the other hand, is a band that although not as consistent as Beatles does a ton of stuff that is compositionally impressive even by todays standards. But again, the point is not about which music is better... But rather that the excuse that digital tech makes music bad is completely wrong. There is crappy music now, there was crappy music then... There is more variety now without doubt however, and the good music is light years beyond that of the past. And as for drum replacement, so what... Are you one of those old people that think drum replacement is not playing the drums... and anyways,... did I say those bands are doing it live... They also sound way tighter than the beatles... Other will claim what about Hendrix... The man was incredibly sloppy, and not even just by today's standards, as there were insanely accurate players... But again, im talking about composition regardless, not how the composition is executed. If artists replace drums, use midi, hell if they use beer bottles to make sounds through plugins... It doesnt matter. The point is, a lot of the music sounds very interesting... Wanna hear something old school today.... You still can... Greta Van Fleet sounds like listening to Led Zep
Greta Van Fleet was interesting at first as they had elements stolen from Led Zep, but with their new album, instead of iterating and creating something new, it feels like they're shamelessly copying Zeppelin. And I'd rather go back and listen to the real thing, or Page & Plant, or Page & the Black Crowes if Greta Van Fleet can't create their own sound.
Old 1 week ago
  #200
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyandres View Post
The bands I listed actually, play to a metronome live.... No Autotone...The guitarrists, play two bars?? That actually sounds a lot like the beatles... They play stuff that make what the beatles are doing appear like kindergardeners music (i dont mean speed, there is that too where songs require it, but im talking about composition). And did I say this is all happening live... So yeah, the Beatles, just like everything, may have been fine for their time, but not much by todays standards. Now Pink Floyd on the other hand, is a band that although not as consistent as Beatles does a ton of stuff that is compositionally impressive even by todays standards. But again, the point is not about which music is better... But rather that the excuse that digital tech makes music bad is completely wrong. There is crappy music now, there was crappy music then... There is more variety now without doubt however, and the good music is light years beyond that of the past. And as for drum replacement, so what... Are you one of those old people that think drum replacement is not playing the drums... and anyways,... did I say those bands are doing it live... They also sound way tighter than the beatles... Other will claim what about Hendrix... The man was incredibly sloppy, and not even just by today's standards, as there were insanely accurate players... But again, im talking about composition regardless, not how the composition is executed. If artists replace drums, use midi, hell if they use beer bottles to make sounds through plugins... It doesnt matter. The point is, a lot of the music sounds very interesting... Wanna hear something old school today.... You still can... Greta Van Fleet sounds like listening to Led Zep
You bring the argument of songwriting to say that the guys that invented the song as we know it aka the Beatles, are kindergarten musicians and worse songwriters (worse composition) than duh-djent bands!? The stuff one reads in this place...

As for curiosity, how many bands playing the style you mention did you record?

I have a small tracking room mostly devoted to recording guitars, bass and vocals where I record a lot of guitars. Almost every duh-djent guitarist that comes in asks if it is possible to play a couple of bars and copy paste those galore throughout the songs. It became so annoying to try to motivate such guys to not do it that I stopped tracking such "musicians" live. Now I reamp them and they decide how the takes are put up without having me arguing and ctr-c ctr-v for hours. Fortunately I don't do that for a living so I can choose how I spend my time in the studio.

And for your knowledge I was once so annoyed with such a "musician" that I asked him how on earth he thought that copy pasting a couple of bars throughout a song would lead to a good recording. He pointed me to a youtube video of a "duh-djent" guitarist, now a star, that had a video tutorial on how he records guitars. And copy pasting two or three bars is exactly how he teaches people how to record guitars. In many of the bands you name, you can hear very often the repeated few bars through the songs with the typical left guitars go right and vice versa all the time to try to pass unnoticed.

That old school band you mention are just a cheap imitation of a great band, I passed.
Old 1 week ago
  #201
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
Well, I sort of learned a new word here. So djent definition refers to Meshuggah as an example. Listened to a few seconds of a song--sounds like that entire genre to me--growling vocals, pounding guitar--video of disorienting human depravity. If anyone claims that an electronic amp simulation would somehow diminish the sound quality of this genre, compared to micing a tube amp--I find that hard to believe. Might as well tell me that that distorted growling is flattered best by a high end neumann.

Greta Van Fleet--yes, the vocalist is the most robert plant sounding singer since the original. As to the songs--well, when there is a Heartbreaker/Whole Lotta Love/In my Time of Dying level song coming from these guys, then we can talk about them being a zepp equivalent. What I have heard of them thus far is uninteresting to me beyond the initial wow factor of a genuinely robert plant sounding vocalist.

To my thinking, Page's greatest strength was as arranger/composer--if one looks at their output in total. But that's a whole nother discussion. And there is nobody who would like to hear some new zeppelin quality music more than me...
Old 1 week ago
  #202
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ponzi View Post
So djent definition refers to Meshuggah as an example.
Meshuggah are incredible musicians that record live as a band, as if playing a show, with real instruments and no trickery. The multitude of bands trying to copy-cat them, well that's another story.
Old 1 week ago
  #203
Lives for gear
 
Cardinal_SINE's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nedorama View Post
Greta Van Fleet was interesting at first as they had elements stolen from Led Zep, but with their new album, instead of iterating and creating something new, it feels like they're shamelessly copying Zeppelin. And I'd rather go back and listen to the real thing, or Page & Plant, or Page & the Black Crowes if Greta Van Fleet can't create their own sound.
They are very derivative but they get a pass because they are so young and so good. That singer still has a a lot of passion for someone who blatantly copies Bob Plant.

Old 1 week ago
  #204
Lives for gear
 
nyandres's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
Meshuggah are incredible musicians that record live as a band, as if playing a show, with real instruments and no trickery. The multitude of bands trying to copy-cat them, well that's another story.
That is what I am saying.. They have many albums recorded with a cubase plugin for their guitar tone... Blaming modern technology for bad music is lazy... There is a ton of terrible old music too.. If anything tools enable more approaches, and possibilities.. Messugah could not exist nor would sound like Meshuggah with a 4 track recorder on tape..
As for Beatles inventing the song as we know it that is way offf... There are lots of songs as we know them decades before the 60s. Lots of blues in fact. And way before there were psalms from centuries ago... Blues however is pretty similar to modern style.
Old 1 week ago
  #205
Lives for gear
 
nyandres's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikhael View Post
Quantized, replaced, sequenced, pitch-corrected music rarely has any deep emotional content. Sorry if that rattles your cage, but computers still don't have emotions programmed into them.
Neither do guitars, keyboards, drums.... People make music, not instruments
Old 1 week ago
  #206
Lives for gear
 
ProgFree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyandres View Post
That is what I am saying.. They have many albums recorded with a cubase plugin for their guitar tone...
Some songs or parts of in the album Koloss because they were endorsed by steinberg and had to... This is the studio of Fredrik Thordendal in the vid below, does it look to you like a place where folks record with amp simulations?



Guitar gear for the latest record: the violent sleep of reason, eng by Tue Madsen:


Studios Abandoning Mic.ing Cab.s-tue-madsen.jpg
Attached Thumbnails
Studios Abandoning Mic.ing Cab.s-tue-madsen.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #207
Lives for gear
 
nyandres's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgFree View Post
Some songs or parts of in the album Koloss because they were endorsed by steinberg and had to... This is the studio of Fredrik Thordendal in the vid below, does it look to you like a place where folks record with amp simulations?



Guitar gear for the latest record: the violent sleep of reason, eng by Tue Madsen:


You photo disprooved nothing... i wasnt talking about the latest album, which still uses a lot of software, and drum triggering of samples. Its known fact... proven by fredrik himself
it was posted by Fredrik of Messugah himself. Try recording a messugah tone recording purely with old school technoqies..it will sound good, but wont be messugah... a big part of their tone is how their drums hit along bass and drums.
Oo and there is an axefx in their rig
Old 1 week ago
  #208
Lives for gear
 
Mikhael's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyandres View Post
Neither do guitars, keyboards, drums.... People make music, not instruments
Correct.
Old 1 week ago
  #209
Lives for gear
 
Meriphew's Avatar
 

Sounds like the “Engineers” aren’t very good at their jobs if they can’t properly mic a guitar cab.
Old 6 days ago
  #210
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardinal_SINE View Post
They are very derivative but they get a pass because they are so young and so good. That singer still has a a lot of passion for someone who blatantly copies Bob Plant.

First album, yeah, you get a pass. Lying and saying Aerosmith instead of that you're "inspired by" Led Zeppelin could be just the dumb youth. But 2nd album? No pass - then you're just derivative.

And if they were really good, they'd develop their own sound instead of copying the vocal stylings, guitar licks, tones, and production techniques of Led Zeppelin.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump