When a band asks me nicely enough for me to listen them for suggestions, one of the things that often gets suggested is dumping the modeling amp until they learn to develop a style. I find that all the possibilities of decent but not great or interesting characteristics available to them, their time for experimenting with playing style, basic musicianship etc is wasted by not focusing on any style that can be uniquely their own.
I don't know of a guitarist who has made it that did not develop their own characteristic style and sonic signature. Same with vocalists but that is another thread. If commercial success is desired, where a fan base is built over a span of time the musician has to realize that a generic sound or "mistakeability"(being ambiguous enough in style as to be mistaken for anyone else) kills all interest by labels or producers to deal with someone, even if they are technically skilled. The investment needed to promote and develop as act is considered too risky of an investment if the group/artist is easily confused with someone else...another brand so to speak.
Modeling amps get in the way of that.
For a lounge act or cover band where the idea is to mimic sounds of others, a modeling amp is an effective tool. They work with any size club or restaurant, cruise ship or wedding party. For original material, it is death until a style is developed, which may never happen if relying on digital short cuts, that anyone can reproduce.
As far as amp active devices are concerned, when played in the more linear portion of the conduction curves, there really is no inherent sound difference. The fact that amps do use the same sort of topography is more signicifcant. Solid state relies on high levels of negative feedback and as a result have lower distortion and flatter frequency response, and almost always are in some sort of AB class of operation. Tube amps can be found that us Class A or AB, have little feedback.
A well set up amp using solid state and a well set up amp using tubes should not sound much different if levels stay within their most linear portion of their curves. The real difference that people talk about when comparing tube and solid state is what happens to the transfer function when overloaded, in a very non-linear portion of the curves. Tubes overload differently and produce a different harmonic spectra than solid state when overdriven.
In recording, SPL is not so important, but playability is, and tone is so often, when the video is produced the whole studio is lined with double stacks...looks good and is what the fans expect made the sound. More often a practice level amp was used for the actual tone generation since it allows great isolation, fewer audible spurious products(rattling hardware, creaking cabinets etc) and Class A can be used when desired.
I do not record any more but the decades I did seem to be a desired goal when people are trying to get a tone, and what software designers are striving for. What made the great tone on many notable records? Mostly playing technique but also a recording team that was highly experienced with the medium, analog recording systems. A typical session might have 100 years or more of accumulated experience in recording. Budgets were high enough to have a concentration of talent on both sides of the glass that just can't be found today except in a very few super session projects. The reason so many recordings now are less than inspiring is partly due to the rush to record(is it almost free to do so, which means songs are recorded before being finished or anyone passing judgement on them). This means most songs just are not worth any more than what is invested in them....nothing. It has never been easy to write great songs, even the best song writers only create a few really great songs in their career. Before, when it was very expensive to record, and usually done with other people's money, only well vetted songs ever got close to a 24 track Studer. That meant that a goodly proportion of recorded songs were actually pretty good, and audiences responded since the majority of major label releases were profitable, even when base recording budgets were around 5 times what they are today. A lot of old recordings set the stage because audiences did not hear the junk, it was never recorded. Now, everything gets recorded because it is free. We made some great recordings because talented teams were involved whereas it is rare to have more than the band or artist involved. Recording, production and support are different talents than song writing or performing so it is really rare to have a good guitarist also be a good engineer and good producer and good second engineer and maintenance person. All those hats worn by the same person usually results in mediocrity. I was never a player, I just did not have the talent or drive or willing to devote every minute to the craft like the great ones did. But they could not do what I could do for the session, so being part of many great sessions as a contributor to the final was more than enough connection for me. I loved the process of recording in the analog days and really never cared much for computer generated music, and have refused to get involved. After doing one early pro-tools session I decided that the joy was gone, and when back to design and repair, first loves from my pre-teen past.
I still listen to guitarists who want my opinion but seldom hear anything to get me excited, feeling it was done better decades before and there is a staleness and lack of creativity in rock and blues, as if it is always trying to relive another period but just not getting it. I find more interesting things going on in jazz and dance music now and spend more time with both.
I don't know of a guitarist who has made it that did not develop their own characteristic style and sonic signature. Same with vocalists but that is another thread. If commercial success is desired, where a fan base is built over a span of time the musician has to realize that a generic sound or "mistakeability"(being ambiguous enough in style as to be mistaken for anyone else) kills all interest by labels or producers to deal with someone, even if they are technically skilled. The investment needed to promote and develop as act is considered too risky of an investment if the group/artist is easily confused with someone else...another brand so to speak.
Modeling amps get in the way of that.
For a lounge act or cover band where the idea is to mimic sounds of others, a modeling amp is an effective tool. They work with any size club or restaurant, cruise ship or wedding party. For original material, it is death until a style is developed, which may never happen if relying on digital short cuts, that anyone can reproduce.
As far as amp active devices are concerned, when played in the more linear portion of the conduction curves, there really is no inherent sound difference. The fact that amps do use the same sort of topography is more signicifcant. Solid state relies on high levels of negative feedback and as a result have lower distortion and flatter frequency response, and almost always are in some sort of AB class of operation. Tube amps can be found that us Class A or AB, have little feedback.
A well set up amp using solid state and a well set up amp using tubes should not sound much different if levels stay within their most linear portion of their curves. The real difference that people talk about when comparing tube and solid state is what happens to the transfer function when overloaded, in a very non-linear portion of the curves. Tubes overload differently and produce a different harmonic spectra than solid state when overdriven.
In recording, SPL is not so important, but playability is, and tone is so often, when the video is produced the whole studio is lined with double stacks...looks good and is what the fans expect made the sound. More often a practice level amp was used for the actual tone generation since it allows great isolation, fewer audible spurious products(rattling hardware, creaking cabinets etc) and Class A can be used when desired.
I do not record any more but the decades I did seem to be a desired goal when people are trying to get a tone, and what software designers are striving for. What made the great tone on many notable records? Mostly playing technique but also a recording team that was highly experienced with the medium, analog recording systems. A typical session might have 100 years or more of accumulated experience in recording. Budgets were high enough to have a concentration of talent on both sides of the glass that just can't be found today except in a very few super session projects. The reason so many recordings now are less than inspiring is partly due to the rush to record(is it almost free to do so, which means songs are recorded before being finished or anyone passing judgement on them). This means most songs just are not worth any more than what is invested in them....nothing. It has never been easy to write great songs, even the best song writers only create a few really great songs in their career. Before, when it was very expensive to record, and usually done with other people's money, only well vetted songs ever got close to a 24 track Studer. That meant that a goodly proportion of recorded songs were actually pretty good, and audiences responded since the majority of major label releases were profitable, even when base recording budgets were around 5 times what they are today. A lot of old recordings set the stage because audiences did not hear the junk, it was never recorded. Now, everything gets recorded because it is free. We made some great recordings because talented teams were involved whereas it is rare to have more than the band or artist involved. Recording, production and support are different talents than song writing or performing so it is really rare to have a good guitarist also be a good engineer and good producer and good second engineer and maintenance person. All those hats worn by the same person usually results in mediocrity. I was never a player, I just did not have the talent or drive or willing to devote every minute to the craft like the great ones did. But they could not do what I could do for the session, so being part of many great sessions as a contributor to the final was more than enough connection for me. I loved the process of recording in the analog days and really never cared much for computer generated music, and have refused to get involved. After doing one early pro-tools session I decided that the joy was gone, and when back to design and repair, first loves from my pre-teen past.
I still listen to guitarists who want my opinion but seldom hear anything to get me excited, feeling it was done better decades before and there is a staleness and lack of creativity in rock and blues, as if it is always trying to relive another period but just not getting it. I find more interesting things going on in jazz and dance music now and spend more time with both.
Comment