NAMM 2018

    Quote from mnewse614

    https://youtu.be/l-nwKcSCzf4 I think Joe Walsh does make a good point

    I can agree partly with what he says. Much of the music that gets the exposure today (deliberate choice of words there) is polished to perfection.


    I think it's also just part of the current aesthetic and culture.


    The points he is making about not playing in the room together, but recording in layers, is certainly not something that came along with the "digital age".

    I started on tape and would never want to go back to that; incredibly expensive and unreliable. I say move with the times and embrace technology, as our tools today will look outdated with the next generation.


    The one thing advances have never replaced is ideas and good song-writing. Also new toys often help you to find the inspiration.

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

    Edited once, last by karlic ().

    Like 3

    @michael


    We have to go with what we know.At least I do so.I know that there are not many young bands that unite terrific songwriting,breathtaking virtousity (both of these also based on musical knowledge),the lust for experiments(taking new musical influences form other parts of the world/roots-music) and the right use of technology.We had many(really a lot) of these bands in the 60s,70s & 80s..most of the bands who try to do this today were either formed at least 20 years ago or do not unite all these things I wrote above..so eiter they are good songwriters or lest say very good virtousos..most of these younger guys just sound as some of the older bands only not so good.


    Though I searched I still wait for a young band in their 20s to give me something like "immigrant song" or "lazy" or "tom sawyer" gives me still today after decades..goose bumps..but it is just not there.I guess that most of us will agree on this.


    Meeting with young musicians during the last years from all over europe(and many americans) I observed a huge insufficiency ie music theory and how to use this little amount of theory some have in the right way to make it "music".


    But all of them were champs ie "new technologies",DAW and fx.


    A humans lifespan is not tht big doin "everything" dear friend.Spending most of our time learning "tricks" is the wrong way.I strongly believe that most of the time we have as musicians should be spent for doing our homework.I made the example above with the guys in the late 80s and their H3000..


    No technology will save us if we dont know music.This is a truth.Nothing I or any other "old fart" invented in their whining & desperation about the "good ol´days"..

    This thread took a great turn. The reason modern pop music sounds so similar is because it was all written by the same small group of writers. The same way movies have fought risk with remakes the record companies hire the same few hit writers to make sure songs are familiar to sell. Music really has been proven to have gotten worse in the last 17 years by science.

    @Nikos, you'll never find another "Immigrant Song" or "Tom Sawyer" because those songs were defined by their team and also of their envelope-pushing. The electric guitar was also very young at that stage, not to mention amplification. Nowadays it's hard to make anything "new" or "revolutionary" and when people try, it's so unfamiliar to people who swoon for the "good old days" that they write it off anyway. To expect someone to shake your core like Led Zeppelin is an impossible standard that nobody can meet, not to mention how subjective that is to you.


    And a lot of old rockstars didn't know (and still don't) anything about music theory. Knowing music theory doesn't necessarily mean you make better music.


    By the way, the internet has provided an avenue where you can listen to an endless array of music. If you can't find good new music, that's not really the fault of any computer. Instead of being limited to what a handful of record companies put in front of your face, you now have artists who can make their own music, have full control over it, and don't require a label. Yes, this means that you would have to sift through a sea of horrible crap to find the gems, but that's no different than searching through Rig Exchange for a handful of great profiles in my experience. It requires you to take the time and search it out more than before. Basically, music doesn't really suck more, you just now hear more of the suck. But you also hear some pretty unique things that a label in the 60's and 70's never would have signed because of perceived risk and not understanding there was an audience. I think of bands like Opeth, with long odyssey's featuring a weird mixture of genre's. Without the internet & computers, most people probably would never know who they were.


    @Crimson Ghost, I'd love to see the 'science'. Don't disagree with your assessment of a handful of writers making most radio hits, but that's still a pretty marginal amount of the music available at your fingertips. Or are you channeling your inner Eman Laerton? Perhaps you both read Scientific Proof Magazine.


    @mnewse614, I think Joe is way off by suggesting nobody is making money. It's just not the same formula as before. Artists can sell less of their recordings and make a decent living for themselves because they no longer require a label to "break them" and to take most of their money & own their rights & publishing. More control and the ability to record at your own home instead of paying out the ass for a studio & all the bells and whistles means there are less hands dipping in the cookie jar. I'd also be pretty surprised if Joe Walsh recorded all his records with the band performing at the same time. He records his guitar tracks separate and does multiple takes to the best of his ability like everyone else.

    I'm not really sure how to relate all of this to NAMM except to say that the existence of shows like NAMM is a glimmer of hope that there is still appreciation for musical instruments because the majority of popular music today is more driven by the target markets and dollars with no regards to anything else. Even though this did exist in the past, it was never rooted in every aspect of today's society.


    The age group 10 to 20 years old decide most or the majority of popular music, movies and literature, News have mixed with entertainment that for the most part are selling / promoting sex, crappy music and deteriorated literature (if you can even call it that), Money is how everything is valued and the things that money can't buy are much more irrelevant than they were when the Beatles sang about them.

    I'll have to find the study but music is more and more similar between different songs and artists. There is still great music out there but the corporate pop music is definitely worse and very intentionally so. Like I said lower cost and lower risk.

    I take the responsibilty for taking this thread off topic and I gladly do this..if mods decide this is going to far..


    Quote

    The reason modern pop music sounds so similar is because it was all written by the same small group of writers.

    Well..who should "do it" else;There are no others..these guys are the only ones today who really can "tailor the dress" according to what the "promoted artist" needs..because this artist cant do it her/himself anymore.


    These "few songwriters" have talent and musical education but they sell it for a few bucks(or more than a few) to anyone today.The consequence is that we just diont have "great albums" anymore with 5-7 really great songs,so different in style but all of these songs have the personal stamp/the style of the artists of the group.
    You just dont have this anymore.There is no courage,no knowledge and most of all obviously "no huge market" for this anymore..because it is to demanding..



    Quote

    popular music, movies and literature, News have mixed with entertainment that for the most part are selling / promoting sex, crappy music and deteriorated literature (if you can even call it that),


    There is a lot of great stuff out there.But obviously it gets not enough "likes"..


    Sure there will be some groups out there today who do great stuff against all the BS.And if they stay together for a longer time maybe we will hear from them.


    But this is not the issue.The issue is that there is no "filter" which helps really good music out there.Technology should have already helped us to have these filters.Musicians from various styles all over the internet should have already networks which help talented musicians and bands to get easier to the surface against the ocean of bullshit which is overwhelming us for years.But obviously this is yet not the case.


    We musicians (and specially the ones in my generation) are to blame for this.Sure this is not the fault of technology.

    They are just giving the customer base what it wants. If more complex writing sold better they would surely do it. The industry hascreally learned how to make money but they forgot how to find and cultivate great artists. Which is a hard and expensive process and risky at that. Luckily the internet allows everyone to make and distribute what they wish. This really should be it's own thread. Great discussion. Back to NAMM. I would be thrilled to just get a few more drive pedals. The Kemper is already great why not focus on the editor? A great interface could sway the Helix crowd.

    Quote from karlic

    I started on tape and would never want to go back to that; incredibly expensive and unreliable. I say move with the times and embrace technology, as our tools today will look outdated with the next generation.


    The one thing advances have never replaced is ideas and good song-writing. Also new toys often help you to find the inspiration.

    OMG Yes never go back.
    You would put a snare in and a different sound would come out.
    That's nice!
    And if I could have all the time back I sat through tape machines rewinding I could go to Disney Land!!

    Quote from Nikos

    There is a lot of great stuff out there.But obviously it gets not enough "likes"..

    That's true. And this is also true for the past 40 years.


    Who still knows Bands like:
    Caravan
    Camel
    Eloy
    Nektar
    Birth Control
    Colosseum
    Jane
    Ufo
    The Allan Parsons Project
    and many many more


    At "their" time, they also would not have got many "clicks/likes" compared to the "mainstream Rock Bands" promoted by the broadcast.
    Computers help to find those great stuff via (YouTube, Napster, I-Music a.s.o.)
    But - surely - you also will meet much crap on your journey.


    Have a listen to Martin Miller, currently one of my favourite guitarists.

    Right, otherwise you never would have heard anything at all at that time.
    But more popular were different acts.


    Btw: Today's Birth control are different musicians. I also know "Ludi" as their guitarist. He comes from Mülheim where I also live next to.

    Quote from Hurricane

    Right, otherwise you never would have heard anything at all at that time.
    But more popular were different acts.


    Btw: Today's Birth control are different musicians. I also know "Ludi" as their guitarist. He comes from Mülheim where I also live next to.

    What is next to? I am from Dorsten and i worked nearly 18 years in Mülheim.


    About Namm: I would like to see an editor like the axe fx 8 has.......

    Quote from Eltzejupp

    What is next to? I am from Dorsten and i worked nearly 18 years in Mülheim.
    About Namm: I would like to see an editor like the axe fx 8 has.......

    I am from Essen


    about Namm: I somewhere once read that the KPA in all has about 400 parameters (?!), I'd highly appreciate an editor which had access to the most important of them.