NAMM 2018

  • You can profile overdrive and distortion boxes right now, but you can't play two profiles in one Kemper.

    Yes, but with questionable results if say, you are getting some distortion from pedal and some from amp. Boost with preamp distorting and distortion pedal with clean preamp are usually ok for me.

  • There’s no reason to expect anything new at NAMM really, which was the point of my previous post. I mean we can’t know for sure but it seems like the Kemper is doing well, it’s feature complete as a product, Christoph doesn’t always show new stuff at these trade shows, and some developments take years. So unless there’s either a needed drive more business right now or a personal drive to explore and excel then I just suspect that Christoph will be looking to the future and Kemper may not yet be ready to show anything.


    Of course there’s many things we’d all love to see, and even a K2 would be a day one purchase. But I agree with @‘billruppert’ and Christoph and his team haven’t actually indicated anything new is in the works which is in itself unusual as they’ve almost always announced big features well in advance. So I just expect standard merch.

    I believe that new verbs were mentioned, but that they would be after the delay engine was revamped. Nothing has been mentioned in some time though.


    As for the idea that the Kemper is "complete", possibly so. I certainly don't feel hamstrung on stage with it.


    I would love to get more free enhancements to my Kemper, but I am quite happy with the incredible tones I am getting right now ;)

  • Reverb, a Boost / OD / Drive / Fuzz master module and a Comp module, all on par with the Delay update, plus a badass top-shelf editor.. then the current Kemper would be "complete". Sure, right now it's capable of incredible, zero-compromise tones. But the software in that box has been hinting at its own better self since day one. I don't think anyone has really been asking for anything that this cool box itself hasn't implied is possible and doable.

  • Computers did not help creating better music during the last 20 years.Maybe they helped to do the opposite.Funny stuff..anyway..

    I think you'll find a ton of people who would say the opposite, for their own purposes. Computers have allowed people to be more creative and experimental from their own home. Digital products have also allowed some people to skip certain studio skill sets that take years, like how to mic instruments, and instead have at least workable solutions at their fingertips so they can spend more time creating and less time moving mic's and wasting tape. Even the KPA, the device you vehemently defend from any slight critique, is also a computer. I guess it's just made things worse in your eyes, then. Or perhaps this is all subjective and arbitrary.


    But computers themselves don't really make music. It's the person controlling the computer. They just have more immediate tools at their disposal for which to make music, good and bad.

  • Well you know, I listen to a tonne of oldies stations on Sirius as well as modern stuff and I've come to the conclusion that computers just make for consistency. In the past you might have had a few fantastic hi-fidelity pristine recordings that stand out, e.g. in the 50's the Buddy Holly recordings sound as clean and in your face as any modern recording, as do several classical recordings from the era, but the vast majority of other recordings were really patchy. Over time things became more polished and consistency rose a little but you can hear two obvious shifts in consistency, the first is in the 80's when digital gear became really popular, a lot of tracks from then were capable of producing the same sounds, so they did, then in the mid to late 90's and early 2000's when finally DAW's became much more mainstream not just as a controller for the tape machine but to actually record with as HDD's dropped in price and convertors improved. Suddenly all records got the same "sheen" on them, everyone had access to autotine, everyone had access to all the plugins.


    So you no longer have surprising recordings, nothing outstanding, nothing really bad and nothing really great either on the pure technique side of things, it's all decent. There's much less exploration and creativity because people are relying on other peoples knowledge and experience rather than their own. DAW's are less abusable than traditional electronics, and I think songwriting has suffered as a result too, not just because of that side of things but also because if anything can be made to sound polished easily, why then put in the effort to make it special? There are almost no limitations of the medium to overcome with either musical skill or songsmithery, so people don't.

  • Quote

    In the past you might have had a few fantastic hi-fidelity pristine recordings that stand out, e.g. in the 50's the Buddy Holly recordings sound as clean and in your face as any modern recording, as do several classical recordings from the era, but the vast majority of other recordings were really patchy. Over time things became more polished and consistency rose a little but you can hear two obvious shifts in consistency, the first is in the 80's when digital gear became really popular, a lot of tracks from then were capable of producing the same sounds, so they did, then in the mid to late 90's and early 2000's when finally DAW's became much more mainstream not just as a controller for the tape machine but to actually record with as HDD's dropped in price and convertors improved. Suddenly all records got the same "sheen" on them, everyone had access to autotine, everyone had access to all the plugins.


    Instead to develop the music the only thing "developed" during the same period of time (late 80s to 90s till today) was technology.Simple example the guys who wanted (late 80s)t to sound "like steve vai" but did not knew about how to programme their H3000 to get the mixolydian/lydian scales-hamonies right..


    Instead to use modern technology to learn more about the roots & rules of music(there are not even really many good youtubes about how to actually use modes in rock music) modern technology and ofcourse most of all processors of all kind (in computers/DAW and effects) have become an end in themselves..and many people think that "better UI" will help them to make better music while super UI without musical knowlwedge will only help to end up faster running against the wall and being frustrated..sounding always the same as any other guy who tries the same stunt out there..myriads..


    Music was always first about the things many guys with their UIs are laughing about:Heart,Soul,practicing,musical education.Technology comes much,much later..

  • That's a straw-man argument. Multitrack recording isn't the same as computers, equating every innovation and technological advance with a specific one is nonsensical, it's false equivalency or chalk and cheese as we used to say, it's about as rational as asserting that the Mellotron also didn't make singing easier. It was never the point of the technology, meanwhile reaching a larger audience by making things idiot proof, easier to use and with lass chance of failure is very much a goal of most computer and software development for the past 30 years.


    Les Paul didn't invent things to make life easier, but to do the impossible and overcome obstacles. It wasn't just about workflow, there literally was no way to make "How High The Moon" before. Multitrack tape machines weren't cheap either. Computers meanwhile are cheap, software is cheap and they solve workflow problems most of the time rather than offering things that were impossible.


    Think about it, even a basic thing like a keyboard arpeggiator that we now all take for granted was only available in very high end synths back in the late 60's and 70's, it's not like anyone had an ARP until companies like CASIO came along and made this stuff available to the masses at affordable prices and suddenly everything was synth based for a while. Samplers likewise had hardware roots, even autotune has it's history in hardware units.


    Computers likewise democratize. They're amazing things but people use them to recreate old sounds, even old computer sounds with chiptune, they haven't really brought innovations in sounds we haven't heard before, just better workflow and safety nets which yeah means modern musicians have it much easier (and cheaper).


    There are great musicians out there today, but where's the great music? Not being promoted is where, because anyone running a record company knows that they can knock this crap out far cheaper by not getting involved in a detail oriented process and instead relying on those who can churn out quantity rather than quality, because at the end of the day computers allow you to maintain a lower end quality that is acceptable for pop music audiences regardless. So it's the twisted return of Tin-Pan-Alley, very few "producers" (rather than writers, so that job's gone too) churning out all the hits with very little studio time required, computers save time which means they save money. Even when people hire a session drummer nowadays if it's for pop out pops Superior Drummer and before you know it there's nothing left of the original track. Guitarists are all but irrelevant in this mix. I can knock out a track on a phone that sounds more polished than anything from the past 70 years of pop music. Musically void? Yes. Polished as heck, god yes. So that (and the "internet effect" of cultural homogenization) is why computers are a big part of why modern music has a tendency to sound the same and why musical talent isn't as relevant to pop music anymore as it once was. It might also be why I've taken to listening to music from a long time before I was born to hear new sounds.

  • Yeah, multitrack tape machines really caused people to become sloppy too...

    Well,this is a little extreme interpretation of what I said.But again maybe it fits into the extremes we are livin since some 15-20 years..more(much more) bass,much more loudness,much more agressiveness..one can call this "development"..I do not,sorry..
    ;)


    ps
    Saying that technology is not as important as love,heart,soul,inspiration is not saying that technology is not important.I just wanted to say this again since you obviously missed that part.Peace!

  • @Per, the point was more about the curmudgeony, old stick in the mud mentality, i.e. blaming advances in technology on a subjective "downfall" of music. All the more ironic to discuss on a forum for a digital modeler.


    It's always interesting to note how common across generations it is that people rail against technological advances simply because it's not what they grew accustomed to during their generation. More or less it's just a way to arbitrarily justify how something is "better", often disguising insecurity over the past becoming more irrelevant. Go back far enough and there are critics who felt the introduction of the saxophone ruined orchestral music.


    In the end it all becomes arbitrary and sort of humorous.

  • Technology is advancing across the board in an exponential fashion. The full ramifications of which remain to be seen. Theoretically AI could eventually replace us all in regards to most work a human can produce - even art and music. I guess we might as well take advantage of what we have now.

  • There are great musicians out there today, but where's the great music? Not being promoted is where, because anyone running a record company knows that they can knock this crap out far cheaper by not getting involved in a detail oriented process and instead relying on those who can churn out quantity rather than quality, because at the end of the day computers allow you to maintain a lower end quality that is acceptable for pop music audiences regardless. So it's the twisted return of Tin-Pan-Alley, very few "producers" (rather than writers, so that job's gone too) churning out all the hits with very little studio time required, computers save time which means they save money. Even when people hire a session drummer nowadays if it's for pop out pops Superior Drummer and before you know it there's nothing left of the original track. Guitarists are all but irrelevant in this mix. I can knock out a track on a phone that sounds more polished than anything from the past 70 years of pop music. Musically void? Yes. Polished as heck, god yes. So that (and the "internet effect" of cultural homogenization) is why computers are a big part of why modern music has a tendency to sound the same and why musical talent isn't as relevant to pop music anymore as it once was. It might also be why I've taken to listening to music from a long time before I was born to hear new sounds.

    Not being promoted because it's easier to sell the stuff you hear on the radio. Which I really don't like either (well, with some exceptions). The music industry has become very consolidated and risk-adverse (thank you Napster), and with less diversity - more of a factory than ever before (I think). But this is NOT because of the advent of computer-based recording. Some genres are obviously both very "computer-based" and simplistic, but hey - there's room for all kinds of music. I wouldn't underestimate the amount of work that goes into making a modern pop hit. I also wouldn't underestimate the talent that goes into those big hits, even if I dislike the genre generally. It's just that they have found a stylistic formula they're staying with.


    Looking back at other decades, the songs from those eras also tend to sound the same. If you're into the aesthetics of a genre, though, you're much more aware and appreciative of the differences.


    Technology doesn't preclude you from making quality music - but ultimately the market dictates what gets the money and the exposure.


    Saying that technology is not as important as love,heart,soul,inspiration is not saying that technology is not important.I just wanted to say this again since you obviously missed that part.Peace!

    No, I didn't miss it, and I didn't misunderstand it either :-)

  • Art always develops. It's individualistic. Not being willing or able to find new art that you appreciate more than the old art you've come to love doesn't mean development stops occurring. It just means you don't like it. No need to extrapolate your preferences as objective realities.


    Not being promoted because it's easier to sell the stuff you hear on the radio. Which I really don't like either (well, with some exceptions). The music industry has become very consolidated and risk-adverse (thank you Napster), and with less diversity - more of a factory than ever before (I think). But this is NOT because of the advent of computer-based recording. Some genres are obviously both very "computer-based" and simplistic, but hey - there's room for all kinds of music. I wouldn't underestimate the amount of work that goes into making a modern pop hit. I also wouldn't underestimate the talent that goes into those big hits, even if I dislike the genre generally. It's just that they have found a stylistic formula they're staying with.


    Looking back at other decades, the songs from those eras also tend to sound the same. If you're into the aesthetics of a genre, though, you're much more aware and appreciative of the differences.


    Technology doesn't preclude you from making quality music - but ultimately the market dictates what gets the money and the exposure.

    :thumbsup::thumbsup: