Why are so many guitarists afraid of innovation?

[FuzzyAce]

How often do we hear something side by side with what it would have sounded like recorded “for real” vs the shortcut version? I bet if they were side by side it wouldn’t be too hard to notice which one is which.

I’ve been recording in the more compromised “direct guitars, drum samples, MIDI” way for most of my life so I’m not being stuck in the past or anything. It just has limitations and most of the time, sounds more boring than other approaches because it’s a trade off in order to save money or make things easier.

Basically all the rock and metal mixes I reference tend to be from about 20 years ago, every other genre i’m checking new releases each week as to what sounds cool. Just so happens that all those great sounding rock and metal albums happened to be done in great rooms, tracked with ambition and attention to detail.

Black Gives Way To Blue is probably the last “GREAT” reference sounding rock/metal album I can think of. Can you name any that are using modelling and programmed/MIDI drums that sound as good? Why is that?

If you're going for a particular sound or era, I kinda agree, it can make sense to try and capture that with similar gear and techniques. I'm not against it at all, I have a good many mics and preamps if needed.
My main thing is -- if the performance and general production aren't there it doesn't really matter what was used. A lot of modern music may sound great audibly, but could lack something in vibe or arrangement. Doesn't matter if someone played a real recto or model of one. If I didn't like the song I wouldn't care enough to find out.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

My main thing is -- if the performance and general production aren't there it doesn't really matter what was used. A lot of modern music may sound great audibly, but could lack something in vibe or arrangement. Doesn't matter if someone played a real recto or model of one. If I didn't like the song I wouldn't care enough to find out.

Absolutely, but the discussion can veer into different territory if we're comparing songwriting or quality of arrangement. There's plenty of rock+metal albums from 20/30+ years ago that sound dreadful.

I'm all for modelling and samples and modern tech IF the primary goal is creativity and inspiration. If its to make something easier or cheaper, generally the result is worse than what it would have been doing it properly (which is a lot more demanding). I know first hand of pretty huge bands cutting corners these days, using programmed drums, MIDI bass, modelling guitars. And I'm talking about bands from 20+ years ago who've worked in all the best studios with the best engineers and have KILLER sounding records in their discographies. No matter how good the new record turns out. is MIDI bass and programmed drums REALLY going to sound as good as their records from before?

 

[laxu]

I think you sort of answered your own point. A lot of the time the extra switches and modes don’t really make anything better than a simple layout, and more often than not you end up with more bad sounds than good. I think basically every option that needs to exist already does if you want it.

I'd say many of those switchable things end up being pretty subtle changes that ultimately are "eh, just park it to one setting because it sounds best that way". I see them as a different thing than doing something like "my guitar sounds too muddy so I cut the low mids a bit", which you often can't do because the 3-band passive EQ midrange control is not doing the thing you'd need.

I don't think e.g my BluGuitar would be any good if its shared EQ was just a passive tone stack like I had on a JCM2000 DSL50, where it was impossible to balance the channels. Instead the BluGuitar is more like a post-EQ where it doesn't let you adjust the tone stack at all, and the EQ has way more range too. Works quite well across all channels.

I feel like most tube amp manufacturers are very afraid to make anything different. I'm not talking about making amps that have a wholly original sound - we guitarists don't generally want that. I'm talking more about how to make e.g amps that can reach the sounds we want with more flexibility or practicality.

Keyboard players embraced MIDI and modularity, bass players embraced solid-state/hybrid and more complex EQs, but guitarists somehow had this "anti-tech" movement where people went from those MIDI controlled refridgerator racks back to pedals and combos, with no in-between solution that combined the best parts of those until digital modelers got better.

 

[laxu]

And even if it is objectively better, some people still might/will prefer the “worse” one.

I think of it this way: if Fender made a legit Strat that looked and sounded completely identical to a vintage strat, but it perfectly stayed in tune with the vibrato, intonated perfectly up and down the neck, was noiseless, allowed incredibly low action with nothing choking out, etc, etc…. Plenty of people would still rather have the vintage unit with its flaws. Some people think those flaws are charming and like the way it plays out for them musically. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, different strokes and all.

Personally, I avoid the slickest guitar designs because I generally don’t like the way they look. That might be shallow, but I can’t change the way I feel about it I just don’t like them. The bigsby on my Gretsch doesn’t perform remotely as well as a fully locking setup, but I’ve yet to see a fully locking trem guitar that I like the vibe of as much as that Gretsch. It has some flaws though, and I only use it for certain things as a result. My PRS kinda sits in the middle and therefore gets most of the work.

D

It'd hard to argue that non-locking tuners, block heels, sloppy bolt-on neck joints with gaps, or not having the Strat bridge pickup wired to a tone pot are in any way beneficial things.

But I do understand the appeal of old school designs. I love many Gretsch designs, and own a similar style Schecter Coupe hollowbody with a Bigsby. The Bigsby is honestly not much good for anything but a slight warble, but for what I use it, it's not like you need anything more. But if you took it out, the guitar would not look quite right as the Bigsby is somehow inherent to the whole thing.

As much as I loathe the Tune-o-matic and consider it a truly shitty bridge design overall, a Les Paul without one would not look right. Like this ESP/LTD EC-1000 with Evertune is functionally probably great, but it doesn't look "right" compared to the EC-1000 with the usual TOM+tailpiece.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Absolutely, but the discussion can veer into different territory if we're comparing songwriting or quality of arrangement. There's plenty of rock+metal albums from 20/30+ years ago that sound dreadful.

I'm all for modelling and samples and modern tech IF the primary goal is creativity and inspiration. If its to make something easier or cheaper, generally the result is worse than what it would have been doing it properly (which is a lot more demanding). I know first hand of pretty huge bands cutting corners these days, using programmed drums, MIDI bass, modelling guitars. And I'm talking about bands from 20+ years ago who've worked in all the best studios with the best engineers and have KILLER sounding records in their discographies. No matter how good the new record turns out. is MIDI bass and programmed drums REALLY going to sound as good as their records from before?

Yeah, can't deny that cost is a big factor. Studio time, etc. There are more cost effective ways of doing things these days, and I agree, that can make the art suffer. But it's not the tool's fault. It's still the people involved. I think a lot of these older bands are just following trends in production, not to mention trying to get more return on their investment. We've become accustomed to certain elements in modern music that it's hard to shake off because a lot of artists want to remain relevant in current culture, which is understandable.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I'd say many of those switchable things end up being pretty subtle changes that ultimately are "eh, just park it to one setting because it sounds best that way". I see them as a different thing than doing something like "my guitar sounds too muddy so I cut the low mids a bit", which you often can't do because the 3-band passive EQ midrange control is not doing the thing you'd need.

I think this is way too difficult to generalise like that. Some switches are subtle, some aren't, but there's no correlation or trend with that. There's simply too many being used for any number of things.

As far as having different kinds of controls to address different tonal problems, I think there has been lots of different approaches across different circuits, and things just end up back at a simple passive tone stack because its simple and it works. Even with that, there are cathode follower vs plate driven, placing the tone stack in different parts of the preamp, having the master volume before or after, different tone slope values, different pot values, different tapers etc.

There's so many moving parts beyond just the amp that trying to solve every part of the equation with amp controls is going to lead to something crap. If my Fender Champ sounds like ass with EMG's, I don't really want more complex controls to address it, its just the wrong choice of gear. The limitations of simple circuits are just as purposeful and considered as amps with lots of controls, and generally I think the better design is the gear that has less controls. That's not being stuck in the past or traditional, its just good design being good design.

I feel like most tube amp manufacturers are very afraid to make anything different. I'm not talking about making amps that have a wholly original sound - we guitarists don't generally want that. I'm talking more about how to make e.g amps that can reach the sounds we want with more flexibility or practicality.

This makes me think you're being willfully blind to the trends of amps over the last decade. Tell me an amp from 30 years ago that's lunchbox sized with some kind of power scaling or reactive load, and IR's and digital FX. Surely these are the kinds of innovations in flexibility and practicality you're talking about? basically every single new amp design features at least some of these, if not all of them. I'm not personally interested in Marshall's studio series, or a Fender Tonemaster, or a lunchbox ENGL, or anything Victory make but thats where the new products and focus is. What year was it that Marshall made an amp with a digital modelling preamp with a valve poweramp? and it was actually good! Amps are more flexible and practical (as in lower volume if you want it, and portable) than ever. This is 100000% a modern trend and likely sells significantly more than big loud dinasaur amps. Most companies offer lunchbox versions of their amps these days.

Keyboard players embraced MIDI and modularity, bass players embraced solid-state/hybrid and more complex EQs, but guitarists somehow had this "anti-tech" movement where people went from those MIDI controlled refridgerator racks back to pedals and combos, with no in-between solution that combined the best parts of those until digital modelers got better.

I think from the rack trend, we moved towards more complex switching amps. Mark III vs Mark IV, SLO100 vs Dual Rectifier, Diezel VH4's and JVM's vs older Marshalls. These have pretty advanced switching internally to do some pretty complex combinations of circuits as well as better FX loops and features. There's even unique concepts like Diezel's VHX, Marshall's JMD:1 etc.

Prior to Kemper (which is basically a modern tech that guitarists have embraced) the advanced complex stuff were amps like JVM, VH4, Mark IV, Triaxis, as well as the earlier digital amps (which people definitely used - POD's and Vetta's and Flextones all sold an absolute truckload).

I don't feel like I've even scratched the surface of new tech that has come up in my lifetime for guitarists - it feels like a constant stream of tech, some good and some bad, but I don't see it as regressive just because you can still buy a Plexi or Princeton still.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Yeah, can't deny that cost is a big factor. Studio time, etc. There are more cost effective ways of doing things these days, and I agree, that can make the art suffer. But it's not the tool's fault. It's still the people involved. I think a lot of these older bands are just following trends in production, not to mention trying to get more return on their investment. We've become accustomed to certain elements in modern music that it's hard to shake off because a lot of artists want to remain relevant in current culture, which is understandable.

Totally agree - just as a real amp and real kit and nice studio doesn't guarantee a good song or recording, its not the gears fault. But if the song and recording are the best they can be (as in removing that variable from the equation), I'd always rather listen to a real kit or amp than something trying to trick me into thinking its a real one. Digital stuff is generally better when its treading the territory of sounds that simply can't exist any other way, rather than just approximating something else. "Its almost the same" or "you can't tell the difference" is not the same as "this sounds much better" which is really what people SHOULD be striving for.

 

[FuzzyAce]

I'd always rather listen to a real kit or amp than something trying to trick me into thinking its a real one.

Ok, ok. Philosophically I agree with you.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Ok, ok. Philosophically I agree with you.

Sort of.

 

[la szum]

I damn near never watch YT Guitar Influencer content. It's all become
just a bottom-feeding race down to scrape the bottom of the barrel for
"hot takes" that matter literally 0% relative to what I enjoy about playing
music.

I even go to my Buddy's (who watches this kind of content more than
he actually listens to music---DOH!! ) and when he starts telling me
about so and so said this and Yadda Yadda.... my eyes just glaze over.
Not interested. Nope.

These are not people with any valid comments or perspectives that I am
interested in. Period. The end. Good night. Not sorry. Just find it all utterly
irrelevant to acquiring any of the skills needed for making actual music.
Wasn't that the dream/goal once upon a time??

There's so much great content on YT about those skills, and how to use
the tools available to us. I want to learn, not be exposed to one opinion
piece after another from a bunch of raging hosers!

 

[likitlikeyoulikeit]

 

[FuzzyAce]

Hoser. That must be more of Northerner term?
Poser is/was more popular in these parts. Or idiot.

 

[laxu]

This makes me think you're being willfully blind to the trends of amps over the last decade. Tell me an amp from 30 years ago that's lunchbox sized with some kind of power scaling or reactive load, and IR's and digital FX. Surely these are the kinds of innovations in flexibility and practicality you're talking about? basically every single new amp design features at least some of these, if not all of them. I'm not personally interested in Marshall's studio series, or a Fender Tonemaster, or a lunchbox ENGL, or anything Victory make but thats where the new products and focus is. What year was it that Marshall made an amp with a digital modelling preamp with a valve poweramp? and it was actually good! Amps are more flexible and practical (as in lower volume if you want it, and portable) than ever. This is 100000% a modern trend and likely sells significantly more than big loud dinasaur amps. Most companies offer lunchbox versions of their amps these days.

Power scaling has been around for quite a while, we just moved from half power (2 less tubes) and pentode/triode to scaling voltages. I had a Stephenson lunchbox amp with London Power's power scaling back in 2006 already. So the only thing that has changed is how mainstream those kind of things are.

IR support is a nice convenience, though I'd prefer a simpler, cheaper, speaker tapped line-out and internal load for that because then your cab sim needs can grow together with the tech. Just like that original CabClone found on a Mesa Mark V is now dated, the CabClone IR of the VII will be dated eventually.

I think the lunchboxes are very hit and miss. I don't see a whole lot of value in say a Marshall SV20 that is cheaper, smaller and has a 5W mode, when it's still the same impractical 1960s design overall. It doesn't solve the issues of that design (excessive volume if you want overdrive), whereas e.g a Bluetone Plexi 20 does that by having a PPIMV and more flexible power scaling, with better build quality. Victory lunchboxes are also great because they don't try to be "this but smaller" but are build from the ground up for that concept.

I'm all for making amps more portable, some of those insanely heavy combos and heads from the past are just a pain in the ass to move around so it's no wonder they mostly reside in people's basements. I'm even actually considering picking up a cheap, used JVM410 to do exactly that - cram it into the basement of my parents house so when I visit I can crank it up as loud as I can handle.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I think the lunchboxes are very hit and miss. I don't see a whole lot of value in say a Marshall SV20 that is cheaper, smaller and has a 5W mode, when it's still the same impractical 1960s design overall. It doesn't solve the issues of that design (excessive volume if you want overdrive), whereas e.g a Bluetone Plexi 20 does that by having a PPIMV and more flexible power scaling, with better build quality. Victory lunchboxes are also great because they don't try to be "this but smaller" but are build from the ground up for that concept.

There’s plenty of options though that scratch that itch. Like even the 2203 is basically Marshall trying to have a plexi tone at low volumes. Whether or not they achieved it is another matter, but all the evolutions of different master volume topologies, cold clippers, diode clipping etc are to cater for more gain at lower volumes. PPIMV is one method, but a lot of designers prefer having the master earlier in the signal path so the presence control behaves the same at any volume. A lot of the Friedman circuits are going for that “cranked plexi at any volume” thing by doing it in the preamp, and so it pretty effectively.

I’m not even sure how many people ACTUALLY want the cranked plexi thing at any volume either. Some guitarists do but there’s tons of other sounds that people want. The Plexi thing probably appeals more to an older generation of guitarists that younger ones who probably prefer other tones. It’s been solved numerous times in numerous ways.

Another innovation that hasn’t been mentioned is Fryette Powerstations, synergy modules, high voltage preamp pedals, digital “amp in a box” pedals that are actually good, IR loader pedals. There is just so many different products in these days that being overwhelmed on which option to take is more likely than being stuck for choice.

I really can’t believe anyone thinks there is a lack of innovation for guitar products. Even building your own is easier and more viable than it’s ever been.