Line 6 is going to turn the mic world upside down

  • Thread starter Thread starter TAE
  • Start date Start date
Different things...one is about quality of tone...the other is about getting it without rules (but it still has to be quality).
The fact that real tube amps sound great and pods suck ass and DO NOT sound like real amps...is NOT a rule...it's a fact.
I was open-minded many times and tried many a pod/sim…and NOPE…they can’t hide their digital pedigree.
Maybe you just don’t hear it. :D

He does...it's me/you...the player. :)

See, I don't do that. I don't care what gear anybody is using. I've been at a show where the instrument was an eggbeater. It doesn't matter.

I will agree that tube amps tend to sound better than SS amps or Pods. That is partially a self-fulfilling prophecy: guitarists are willing to pay more for them. Whatever the reason, I would say if a guitarist does a gig with a tube amp, my experience from judging battle of the bands is that it will give them about a 10% improvement. That could be because better bands have more cash or are willing to spend more cash, such that the quality of the band is a cause of and not effect of using a tube amp. It would be interesting to do a blind study on that topic, force a band to play through a random unseen head and judge a battle with 30 judges and 200 bands, and see what effect the amps really have.

Unfortunately, that is such a minor factor that for any given band it is totally meaningless what their individual gear selection is. What I am suggesting is that if you did a multiple linear regression in an attempt to correlate gear/style/dress/etc. factors with final standing, use of a tube amp would rank somewhere with whether or not the bass player is wearing a shirt.

You, on the other hand, seem to suggest that you could rank the bands mainly by their gear (you did state that was the first thing you notice), so the band with the Mesas that sounded like mud and the chick singer who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket (hot though, I love her) should have won. Hmmm.

Of course, if you think your gear sucks, then you will suck. That's inevitable. I did a show where the bassist moaned and groaned that he had to use an EUB. I tried to help, but to no avail--but it did sound OK. He was a real joy to be around :rolleyes: until he did a tune on trumpet, which was really excellent.
 
Unfortunately, that is such a minor factor that for any given band it is totally meaningless what their individual gear selection is.

Meaningless to whom...the audience or the players?

I'm talking about the player's perspective about his gear...but there will also be a few people in the audience who are listening/looking beyond the band's "party" effect...and actually picking up on the finer nuances of the playing AND of the tone/gear guality.
I guess a lot depends on the type of band/music we are talking about.
So many club bands have become rather BORING "party" bands...rather than "performance" bands.
It's just another gig...get the audience dancing and drinking (which ain't too hard to do, and once they've had a few...it matters not what the band sounds or looks like).

But there still are some bands who are both a visual and sonic *treat*...and the crowd really listens instead of just hootin'-n-hollerin' mindlessly.


You, on the other hand, seem to suggest that you could rank the bands mainly by their gear (you did state that was the first thing you notice), so the band with the Mesas that sounded like mud and the chick singer who couldn't carry a tune in a bucket (hot though, I love her) should have won. Hmmm.

???

I'm not sure that I ever said anywhere that the "first thing" I noticed with a band was their gear...?
And NO...I'm not ignoring their playing (good or bad) just BECAUSE of their gear...where did I ever suggest that?

Look...a band has a visual quality just as much as they have a sonic quality, though I agree that today, many bands seem to ignore the former...
...how many bands look like they showed up in their yard cleaning clothes? :D :rolleyes:

I've also seen bands that look terrific...and sound like shit...but entertainment and performance is about the total package IMO...so yeah, for the audience, every bit counts...your look, your gear and most of all your playing.
I would think for the player...the gear should be of maximum importance, as good gear leads to more inspired playing quite often...and good gear WILL allow you to hit those finer tonal nuances with greater ease...
...and that all goes towards a better performance.
Don't you think?
 
Meaningless to whom...the audience or the players?

I'm talking about the player's perspective about his gear...but there will also be a few people in the audience who are listening/looking beyond the band's "party" effect...and actually picking up on the finer nuances of the playing AND of the tone/gear guality.

Why "look"? You keep saying that. The only reason to "look" is to prejudge the band based upon your feelings about the quality of their gear. Can you truly enjoy a band that uses all solid state gear? Be honest, can you? Or are you thinking in the back of your mind, "Gee, they would be better with a tube amp"?

Read this article and meditate on it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
 
Why "look"? You keep saying that. The only reason to "look" is to prejudge the band based upon your feelings about the quality of their gear. Can you truly enjoy a band that uses all solid state gear? Be honest, can you? Or are you thinking in the back of your mind, "Gee, they would be better with a tube amp"?

Read this article and meditate on it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

A violin player and a club band are two different animals.
A band is an "act"...putting on a complete show.

And I don't "prejudge" on visuals...but there is NO way to NOT also judge a band visually...unless you happen to be blind.

But this is now going off into smaller and smaller tangents.
My main point was about using gear that makes you play, feel and sound better...VS...using gear that just gets the job done.

If you don't see any difference between the two...then there's no point in going further with the discussion. :)

hey miro, where are you seeing this constant inflow of new club bands?

"constant inflow of new club bands"...???

How did you come up with that...?
I don't recall making that type of statement anywhere.
I was just talking about "bands" that you find in typical local bars/clubs on any given Fri/Sat night.

What is it that you really want to ask/say?
Instead of fishing...just ask/say it. :D
 
What is it that you really want to ask/say:
Instead of fishing...just ask/say it. :D

i'm not fishing for anything. around here, the bands that play out are the same group of people i've know and played with for....

ya know what? forget it. done.
 
i'm not fishing for anything. around here, the bands that play out are the same group of people i've know and played with for....

Right...I guess it wasn't fishing...you just don't know what you wanted to say in the first place with that.

Fine. Done. :D
 
A violin player and a club band are two different animals.

Nope, they are the same. Everyone walked past arguably the best violinist in the world playing one of the best violins ever made, because they prejudged him based upon the venue. You prejudge based on venue too (reread your posts), and you prejudge based on gear. That's so sad.

And I don't "prejudge" on visuals...but there is NO way to NOT also judge a band visually...unless you happen to be blind.

Yes, there is. It's called acceptance. Embrace it. If a band comes out dressed like they are going to play death metal, but does folk tunes instead, I'll be a bit surprised, but I won't mind really.

My main point was about using gear that makes you play, feel and sound better...VS...using gear that just gets the job done.

No, your main point is about using gear that makes YOU feel better, and trying to enforce that preference on everyone else. Tube amps don't make me feel or play better, they just make the notes I am playing sound slightly different.

Honestly, most of the time I play, I'm not plugged in *at all* (my bass has a nice loudish acoustic sound). How do I feel about that? I feel great! Same thing with my guitars, I just like to play them unplugged. Well, when I get around to putting them back together, that is.

I think a band should do a gig with unplugged electric guitars miced up, that would be far more interesting than another Mesa clone (the guitarist as clone, not the amp).

If you don't see any difference between the two...then there's no point in going further with the discussion.

It's a false dichotomy. Here is a real dichotomy: gear that works and gear that breaks. That's the only distinction I really worry about.

You know, there is this amazing thing that happens when I play an instrument, no matter how nice or crappy the instrument and/or its appendages are: I sound like me! The day I realized I had my own sound, I didn't have to chase any sound (and therefore any gear) at all. Tube amp, DI, reamp, modeler; it doesn't matter, I always sound like me :)

Actually crap gear/instruments are much more creative in one sense, in that they have limitations. Let's say you are like most guitarists and you fall into repetition of well-worn patterns. If you play a very high quality guitar, you won't have any incentive to change. But if you play a guitar with a rancid dead spot that is three frets wide, suddenly you have to think of something new.

Every time I play an instrument, I hope I play something I have never played before, and will never play again. Not much of a point otherwise, really.
 
No, your main point is about using gear that makes YOU feel better, and trying to enforce that preference on everyone else. Tube amps don't make me feel or play better, they just make the notes I am playing sound slightly different.

YES...I've said it at least a few times...it makes ME feel better, and I think pods sucks, and I prefer real tube amps, and I don't much care what other people use. :D

What's the debate about then???? :)

I'm not "enforcing" shit on anyone here anymore than all the pod supporters have been trying to prove to me their "value"...or like you're trying to prove to me that a shitty looking band doesn't mean much as long as they sound decent.
Sure...I could listen to them...but the *overall* impact would still be that their stage presence was shitty and that they should work on it to go with their playing.

Sorry...this notion that everyone should just look beyond everything and only listen to the music doesn't really work and hasn't for a very long time...well, like ever since modern Pop/Rock/R&B/etc… hit the streets.
The presentation makes a lot of difference to a lot of people...maybe not to you...but it does to me. :cool:
Even if you do raw Punk...there is a look that works and one that doesn't.


If I just want to listen to good music…I’ll put on an album, but when I go out to SEE and HEAR a band…the presentation (how they look and act on stage) matters as much as the music. I couldn’t be in a band that didn’t care how they looked and acted on stage.
And that doesn't mean all that is more important than the music...it means it's part of the complete package.

How's that saying go...people eat with their eyes first. If the presentation sucks...it never tastes as good. ;)


YMMV…..
 
...I've said it at least a few times...it makes ME feel better, and I think pods sucks, and I prefer real tube amps.

you've said it way more than a few times.

Even if you do raw Punk...there is a look that works and one that doesn't..

really? which one of these is real raw punk rock? :laughings:

The+Clash.jpg


the-clash1.jpg


clash-1981.jpg


Celebrity-Image-The-Clash-250357.jpg



clash.jpg
 
you've said it way more than a few times.

You wanna tell me one more time that pods have a purpose? :rolleyes:


really? which one of these is real raw punk rock? :laughings:

Why don't you tell me...you picked them all out.

Notice how they ALL have a similar look...you could almost say they are wearing the required "punk" outfits. :laughings:
 
I was going to agree with your pick...I think that's why you keep coming back to this thread...
...you want me to agree with you. :)

And why do you keep quoting yourself after you make a post...??? :D
 
I think what we need is a studio modelling box, stick any old $10 mic in front of any old $10 instrument, select studio: Abbey Road, Sun Studios, etc etc. Out pops the sound of the studio.

In fact we could take it further, dial up the engineer you want it to sound like, the producer, the musician, than any old talentless anyone can sound like:

Eric Clapton, on a classic Les Paul, through a vintage fender twin.
Recorded at Abbey Road with a C12 microphone.
Engineered by Alan Parsons and produced by George Martin.

Perfect world.

Alan
:laughings::laughings::laughings::laughings::laughings::laughings::laughings::drunk:
:laughings::laughings:
 
I don't much care what other people use. :D

Sure...I could listen to [a shitty looking band]...but the *overall* impact would still be that their stage presence was shitty and that they should work on it

So . . . which statement is correct? Or do you believe those two statements are internally consistent?

How about these guys, they are wearing regular clothes and the singer likes to turn around and hide from the audience while he mumbles his lyrics? But hey, Fender Twin, so probably they are OK ;)

rem-fables.png
 
Back
Top