Kemper 2 expectations

  • Keep in mind he still didn't commit to his reason for why he bought the Kemper except to say that he bought it for its plug and play features for when he wants to get good tone faster than with other devices , but then later after I pointed that out, he contradicted himself by saying the Kemper is a pain without an editor even though he specifically keeps it for its plug and play features and how quicker you can get a good tone with it.

    It's not about having the last word, it's about correcting straw men and misinterpretations, such as the above. I never said the Kemper is a pain without an editor, I said it can be a pain if I have to tweak anything, which accounts for approx. 70% of the time in my case.


    You, "you bought it because you find it easier and faster for you to get a great tone without an editor"


    Me, "Yes, if I don't have to touch a knob or tweak anything, but that only accounts for about 30% of the time. The other 70% an editor would come in handy."


    Me, "adding effects and tweaking various settings in the KPA can be a pain" (eg. if I have to tweak stuff).


    Beyond that, I said I enjoy creating presets from scratch sometimes, and other times I like the instant gratification of discovering great profiles on the Rig Exchange. My position is very simple and lucid.

  • Nevertheless only the edge has done something all the others named above did not: Using all the fx not for mostly leadsand playing a few chords in the intro but for the whole song.The delay as part of the rythmical context of the whole groove.Creating a whole popular new approach on a popular instrument.To be heard on all radio stations around the world.

    Radio airplay aside, I'd put Robin Guthrie's tenure in the Cocteau Twins squarely in that category, no question. Personally, I've never understood the high reverence for David Evans playing style or use of effects but that's me. I'm not a big U2 fan in general. The only song I really care for in their catalog is "Where The Streets Have No Name" and I really only like the intro. There's nothing particularly innovative about his use of effects, in my opinion. Gilmour was using delay in far more inventive ways back in the day, in my opinion.


    The Kemper is for sure not for tweakers who want to be more synth players (creating "atmospheres") than guitar players comming from the tube rig world.The Kemper is very "guitar" in the classical way making "rocknroll"..in everything.Sound,feel,UI..

    Creating atmospheres with guitar and being a synth player can be mutually exclusive. Again, Robin Guthrie is a great example. And there are plenty of examples of guitarists using the KPA to create atmospheric music without synth. Many of the new delays demonstrate that the developers view the KPA as more than just a straight ahead standard guitar amp. Again, I yield to CK's comments regarding effects.

  • I'm sure none of us know what's going to happen or when with a KPA- Version 2. But the two NAMM 18 interviews I watched with "Mr. Kemper" himself, did not allude to a Kemper 2, in fact he said that IIRC it would be hard to improve on perfection.

    If you use FRFR the benefit of a merged profile is that the cabinet is totally separated in the profile.


    For my edification only... ;) Kemper/Axe-FX III/ Quad Cortex user

  • I'm sure none of us know what's going to happen or when with a KPA- Version 2. But the two NAMM 18 interviews I watched with "Mr. Kemper" himself, did not allude to a Kemper 2, in fact he said that IIRC it would be hard to improve on perfection.

    I agree. I don't foresee a new Kemper any time soon, and that's fine with me.

  • I got to thinking the other day, maybe it's a context that's lost in translation from an engineering standpoint of functionality in application. In other words, maybe what is being overlooked could be that the profiling algorithm ITSELF in its essence is perfect, but the thing that could be improved upon is additional parameters to tweak the final result of profile. Leave the profiling alone, just finding more ways to further shape the end result within the amp, eq, and cab portions.


    The recipe for the cake is perfect and baked but there are different ways to cut it with different shapes depending on what you have to cut it with, yeah? Or add toppings, plate to serve it on and some scenery to look at.


    Things like better separation of cabs on merged profiles or, a way to make the amp profiles sound more Open Airy. Who wants beer with their cake? (Me, I do)


    Hopefully someone will chime in to help illustrate this. It needs more antlers. It's already a deer but needs more antlers.
    Toodles. :thumbup:

  • Quote

    Personally, I've never understood the high reverence for David Evans playing style or use of effects but that's me. I'm not a big U2 fan in general.


    I am actually also not the bigest fan of the edge..but that does not matter at all when it comes to respect a great musician..he always "was him" and throughout the golden era of "guitar heroes" (throughout mtv/headbangers ball and a further dozen hardrock shows available on british/german etc tv shows every day) this was remarkable..I mean to have a guy who just put some delays in front of two vox playing for his band creating very nice and relaxing atmospheres with no shred-stuff at all..amazing..all loved that.


    What the edge did was indeed playing from the heart.He just looked at what he really wanted and just did it.The rest is music history.How many much "better" guitar players did he left behind;


    Talking about fx and who to implement it one has to make a little research of how this started.


    In the 50s fx was only possible within the studio work.Later in the 60s a few OD/Fzz pedals gave the player a little bit more "sustain" and aggressivness.Later in the 70s the first pedals for delay and chorus appeared while the OD/Fuzz-stuff became "distortion"..and finally the overkill in the 80s with to much,to many,to everything with everyone trying whatever (including the first shitty fx-loops within tube amps)killing a lot of good songs with to much fx of any sort.


    Looking back to all this nothing has really changed.Only a very few guys out there really think about what they want to do "from inside" their heart and what they hear in their visions of how to do things..and hence how to implemet fx.Like the edge,gilmour and a (very) few other did.Tom Morello took the electric guitar to the DJs..great stuff..some other guitar players after him tried to do the same ie techno whatever but most of the younger guitar players just added more distortion and more bass trying to reach Darrel but fail miserably because it is just "not from the heart".The audience is listening..and if they dont "know" they "feel" the difference.. ;) .


    What I want to say is that fx come much after everything else.I talked for example about the modes (more than once actually) but I only know a very,very few guitar players who listen.Some of the modes will give a much better base for fx than the ones most of us use(minor/major/pentatonics) but most who want to make use of exzessive fx dont care.The same guys who adore Gilmour can tell you about what lexicon and how much high cut he uses on this and that song but not which mode he used..most guys who adore steve way and stuff like "ballerina" never tried to integrate mixolydian/lydian scales in their playing..and I will not even talk about guys like Fripp,Holdsworth or Belew..


    No matter how much fx the next "top tier" modeller will include.Some things will never change.

  • I am actually also not the bigest fan of the edge..but that does not matter at all when it comes to respect a great musician..he always "was him" and throughout the golden era of "guitar heroes" (throughout mtv/headbangers ball and a further dozen hardrock shows available on british/german etc tv shows every day) this was remarkable..I mean to have a guy who just put some delays in front of two vox playing for his band creating very nice and relaxing atmospheres with no shred-stuff at all..amazing..all loved that.


    What the edge did was indeed playing from the heart.He just looked at what he really wanted and just did it.The rest is music history.How many much "better" guitar players did he left behind;

    Like I said, I don't think Evans playing style or use of effects is very original or innovative at all, regardless how many people hold it in high regard or whether he plays from the heart. Frankly, I couldn't care less about playing style or use of effects if what's actually written doesn't inspire me.


    In the 50s fx was only possible within the studio work.Later in the 60s a few OD/Fzz pedals gave the player a little bit more "sustain" and aggressivness.Later in the 70s the first pedals for delay and chorus appeared while the OD/Fuzz-stuff became "distortion"..and finally the overkill in the 80s with to much,to many,to everything with everyone trying whatever (including the first shitty fx-loops within tube amps)killing a lot of good songs with to much fx of any sort.

    Whether you think effects kill a lot of otherwise good songs or not is strictly opinion. Personally, some of my favorite bands use a lot of effects. Bands like Rush were at their best when their music was swimming in them, in my opinion. It's sheer preference, though.


    Looking back to all this nothing has really changed.Only a very few guys out there really think about what they want to do "from inside" their heart and what they hear in their visions of how to do things..and hence how to implemet fx.Like the edge,gilmour and a (very) few other did.Tom Morello took the electric guitar to the DJs..great stuff..some other guitar players after him tried to do the same ie techno whatever but most of the younger guitar players just added more distortion and more bass trying to reach Darrel but fail miserably because it is just "not from the heart".

    Again, it's all preference. I love how Gilmour implements effects and I have a lot of respect for his playing and writing style. Whether someone writes from the heart or not means nothing if I don't like what they're playing. I mean, Jimi Hendrix obviously played from the heart but his music did absolutely nothing for me.


    The audience is listening..and if they dont "know" they "feel" the difference.. ;)

    Feeling is obviously subjective, otherwise we'd all agree on what feels good.


    What I want to say is that fx come much after everything else.I talked for example about the modes (more than once actually) but I only know a very,very few guitar players who listen.Some of the modes will give a much better base for fx than the ones most of us use(minor/major/pentatonics) but most who want to make use of exzessive fx dont care.The same guys who adore Gilmour can tell you about what lexicon and how much high cut he uses on this and that song but not which mode he used..most guys who adore steve way and stuff like "ballerina" never tried to integrate mixolydian/lydian scales in their playing..and I will not even talk about guys like Fripp,Holdsworth or Belew..

    Some of the most revered musicians on the planet can't read a lick of music or know scales(eg. Paul McCartney). Music theory is great and all, but many hit songs have been written by people who play by ear and are self taught. Whether you use a heap of effects or not is independent of talent, and talent is independent of music theory. At the height of their careers, neither Michael Jackson, Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen could read music.

  • Some of the most revered musicians on the planet can't read a lick of music or know scales(eg. Paul McCartney). Music theory is great and all, but many hit songs have been written by people who play by ear and are self taught. Whether you use a heap of effects or not is independent of talent, and talent is independent of music theory. At the height of their careers, neither Michael Jackson, Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen could read music.

    When I was in music school my teacher said to me I would never be able to write songs properly because I couldn't finish the music theory classes, I even started skipping them because I had no idea what I would use it for. I have it all in my head :)


    A friend of mine was about to take lessons in classic guitar and he could already play various classic songs (he was taking them out by ear I think) but when the teacher found out he didn't read any music he was like "what? then you dont play them properly!"... What a assbackwards douche. My friend quit the class immideately.

    Also he has a background of playing punk rock makes it more entertaining :D

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    Here's a song with his old band for some perspective :thumbup:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • I can appreciate your thoughts and everything regarding the analytical perspective of theory vs heart and soul…
    The Beatles and AC/DC write the most simple music and yet they are probably two of the most well known bands in the world… if the melody sticks in your head, then it’s good!
    But my goodness, I could not listen to that Baverligan music for over 10 seconds… 8| Yikes!
    I have learned today that I absolutely detest punk rock…

  • I like Mastodon and Between the Buried and Me. Effects, riffs, prog metal retired into prog rock opera lol


    There's a math rock band called Planets , just a bassist and drummer but man the effects and non effects used are really cool.


    Devin Townsend is probably my favorite besides from Intronaut right now. Ahhh, toooooooaaaaaaan!

  • There's a math rock band called Planets

    I just googled them and found this...pretty cool, what happened to them I wonder? Imagine if they had a Kemper LoL =O


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • I just googled them and found this...pretty cool, what happened to them I wonder? Imagine if they had a Kemper LoL =O

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    aww who knows, math rock bands seem like they come and go. Check out 100 Onces and Sketch Orchestra, they are the homies. ;)

  • I agree 100%. I have an old IBM PS/1 with a 386 SX20, it's still a great computer, i don't see what's better on today's computers.;)


    If the purpose of that 386 was to write letters and it was effective, the newer computer wouldn't have an advantage. :D

    The key to everything is patience.
    You get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it.
    -- Arnold H. Glasow


    If it doesn't produce results, don't do it.

    -- Me

  • Like I said, I don't think Evans playing style or use of effects is very original or innovative at all, regardless how many people hold it in high regard or whether he plays from the heart. Frankly, I couldn't care less about playing style or use of effects if what's actually written doesn't inspire me.

    Whether you think effects kill a lot of otherwise good songs or not is strictly opinion. Personally, some of my favorite bands use a lot of effects. Bands like Rush were at their best when their music was swimming in them, in my opinion. It's sheer preference, though.

    Again, it's all preference. I love how Gilmour implements effects and I have a lot of respect for his playing and writing style. Whether someone writes from the heart or not means nothing if I don't like what they're playing. I mean, Jimi Hendrix obviously played from the heart but his music did absolutely nothing for me.

    Feeling is obviously subjective, otherwise we'd all agree on what feels good.

    Some of the most revered musicians on the planet can't read a lick of music or know scales(eg. Paul McCartney). Music theory is great and all, but many hit songs have been written by people who play by ear and are self taught. Whether you use a heap of effects or not is independent of talent, and talent is independent of music theory. At the height of their careers, neither Michael Jackson, Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen could read music.

    Thank you @ColdFrixion.
    You're getting your point across very well, and I agree with you.
    You're clearly a player who from time to time wants to take a different approach to playing, raw sound, and FX. Your points are all valid.
    BTW I really appreciate how you stay calm and on topic even though others here are constantly trying to belittle you.
    I enjoy reading your (always constructive) posts.
    Thank you, Sir!

  • Quote from ColdFrixion

    Some of the most revered musicians on the planet can't read a lick of music or know scales(eg. Paul McCartney). Music theory is great and all, but many hit songs have been written by people who play by ear and are self taught. Whether you use a heap of effects or not is independent of talent, and talent is independent of music theory. At the height of their careers, neither Michael Jackson, Eric Clapton or Eddie Van Halen could read music.


    All I wanted to say was actually that before the fx we as musicians should care about how we "set the mood"..the fx will just amplify this "mood" created by the notes we play.So what I meant was more like "set the right mood,feeling,atmosphere and then let us think about how to "amplify" this.Using the right sequence of notes/tones/sounds to achive a specific result (some call this "scale" or "mode" )is the basic thing for all this.Doing so we have already created the "biggest effect".Adding fx will make "ambient" or "soundscape" kind of feels & moods even more intense.


    As for the modes..and "music theory"..these things do not exist.Yes right.They do not exist.Maybe they do in classical music and some kinds of jazz but thats it.And when I tell you that almost ALL of all the cultures of this earth use "modes" just as a way to describe a certain mood you will maybe understand what I mean.And believe me..most people on earth playing like maniacs this stuff we call "modes" dont even know how to write this word..anyway..


    ps


    What we use and is known as "minor/major"-scale are also modes..actually the two "pure ones" (for a reason).Aeolian and Ionian.Sad & happy.But there are more.And this is where things start to get interesting for everyone who likes to create music with a lot of fx.This is all I wanted to say.


    Peace.

  • All I wanted to say was actually that before the fx we as musicians should care about how we "set the mood"..the fx will just amplify this "mood" created by the notes we play.So what I meant was more like "set the right mood,feeling,atmosphere and then let us think about how to "amplify" this.Using the right sequence of notes/tones/sounds to achive a specific result (some call this "scale" or "mode" )is the basic thing for all this.Doing so we have already created the "biggest effect".Adding fx will make "ambient" or "soundscape" kind of feels & moods even more intense.

    It depends on your approach to songwriting. There are times an artist will develop a song idea on piano or acoustic guitar, the idea being that if it sounds good without embellishments, it will seemingly sound excellent when garnished with the full weight of a studio production. Likewise, the same artist may, at times, hear a fully developed and complete song idea in their head that includes effects and the whole shebang, all without ever having touched an instrument. In those cases, it's simply a matter of transferring what's already in the artists head onto an audible medium. There are also times when a song idea will present itself as a direct result of improvising while using certain effects that the artist may not have come up with otherwise. What you're referring to (ie. the stripped down approach) can be helpful when an artist is hammering out the direction of a song. However, if an artist already has a complete song idea in their head, it's not really applicable. Further, as mentioned, there are times when improvising with effects can open creative doors.