Amps And Guitars: Are Some Matches Better Than Others?

[Bogner]

Well, the fact is that your guitar heroes' tracks were cut and pasted together, even when they were recorded to tape, because that's what people did by the late '60s.

Even the "aces" had their tracks cut and pasted, physically with tape, and digitally, when that came along.

People have fantasies about this stuff, but I've worked in the trenches.

If most people really knew how records were made (and by records I mean recordings) they would probably never listen to another one again.

 

[László]

If most people really knew how records were made (and by records I mean recordings) they would probably never listen to another one again.

I'm very glad Bogner brought this up, because it gets to the heart of what art is about! What follows are some general observations - these aren't directed at Bogner, because he totally gets it. They are simply my thoughts that were triggered by his post, that get to the question, "What's art all about?"

For several thousand years, an artist creating a painting, even a great one, doesn't just sit down, paint ad hoc, and say, "It's done." Errors are scraped off the surface, and repainted or painted over. There's a sketch drawn on the canvas under the paint. Let's call these 'edits'. Creating lasting art that people want to see over and over again has often required edits.

In other words, a painting isn't usually a live-performance object (though in modern art, it can be). It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly the artist works. The result is the finished painting, and that's what counts.

Creating a recording is a different type of art than playing live, although live performances are often recorded and released - but they do sound different than studio records. A recording is more like a painting - the idea is to create something that can be separate from the art of a live performance.

Making a great record isn't only a 'musician thing'. It's the result of collaboration between the recording artists, the engineers, the mixer, the mastering house, the producer and their vision, etc. In other words, it's the result of the totality of a collaborative process to create something permanent. In that respect, it's more like a painting, or a film.

When we see a film, what we don't realize is that we're seeing not only the actors' performances, edited many times over; we're seeing color correction, lighting, camera lenses, filters, special effects, and who knows how many other things that aren't real. Reality is manipulated in the creative process. In fact, one might say that most art is only partly a reflection of reality.

Special effects aren't film of real things - people don't fly like Superman, there aren't really space ships fighting in outer space, the CGI and set backgrounds in films like "Gladiator" that make the scenery appear to be Ancient Rome aren't real. Nor are the actors ancient Romans, they're people in costumes.

Nor did real ancient Romans walk around to a soundtrack with orchestras and synthesizers, and sound effects.

Because a film is about other things. Heck, even the script isn't a recording of real ancient people or aliens or whomever saying real things. It's a construct. Unless it's a documentary, which is something different, and its own type of work of art, though even documentaries are edited, scored, have voice-overs, etc.

I don't know about you, but there isn't a voice-over person following me around saying, "Here's Les crossing the street, notice how he walks kind of funny," and even though I'm a musician, there isn't a score timed to my action. But if there was a documentary about me, these things would probably be part of it.

Most people can accept that a film doesn't need to reflect reality. It puzzles me why they insist that a record must be 100% perfect, one-shot, photographs of a performance.

Classical records featuring virtuoso orchestras and soloists are edited. That's not real. It's manipulation. And it's OK.

I can tell you as a composer that composers don't just sit down and a finished work comes out onto paper or into a computer. There's a process involved that has nothing to do with live performance - let's try this chord, how would that part sound with horns, I don't care for that note choice, let's try another, etc.

It takes me at least a week to create a three minute orchestral piece, and usually longer. If I had performed it once ad hoc, and walked away after three minutes, it would be pretty awful. Am I trying to fool the listener into thinking I can write a one-shot classical piece? No. I'm trying to create something that's going to accomplish my artistic goal.

Even the copyright law recognizes a recording as a separate work of art from the song that's recorded, and attaches separate ownership rights to each, similar to a screenplay and a film.

If we can agree that making a record is the creation of a separate, distinct work of art, perhaps it ought to follow that the work of art doesn't necessarily depend on perfect finger gymnastics or a perfect vocal performance. It depends on the end result the artists wish to achieve.

Here's the thing:

There are lots and lots of people with great voices. There are lots and lots of guitar players with blazing speed. However, they don't all make great records. In fact, most of them make crap records because most singers aren't very good songwriters, and most don't know how to 'deliver' a lyric.

Most blazing speed guitar players can copy the pattern of a great solo and cover it, but very few blazing speed guitar players can actually create a great original solo, or a great/memorable hook. Hey, if you think you can do it, don't hold back - let the world know and decide how great you are.

People who value speed and chops over results should look hard at whether they're great improvisers who can create a melody, or a hook. Most can't find their asses with both hands in that department! I know because I've seen it myself ten zillion times.

Yes, speed and chops, and great vocal performances are 'an art' but they are separate arts from the art of making records. However, there are more people who can slay on guitar, or deliver an on-pitch vocal than there are people who can make great records.

There is nothing wrong with using available tools to create a work of recorded art. You can be a great player and make perfectly sh!tty records, and you can be a mediocre player who has very excellent musical ideas, and needs the help of editing, etc., to bring those ideas to life.

Everyone, of course, is entitled to decide what kind of recordings they like, and what kind of recorded performances they prefer. However, just as in film-making, lots of methods are valid, there isn't just one. I honestly think people might be more productive, if not interesting, in the long run if they are able show more flexibility in their thinking about lots of things.

 

[GGJJGG]

My humble observation…

Les needs to restart his forum.

 

[Alnus Rubra]

I'm very glad Bogner brought this up, because it gets to the heart of what art is about! What follows are some general observations - these aren't directed at Bogner, because he totally gets it. They are simply my thoughts that were triggered by his post, that get to the question, "What's art all about?"

For several thousand years, an artist creating a painting, even a great one, doesn't just sit down, paint ad hoc, and say, "It's done." Errors are scraped off the surface, and repainted or painted over. There's a sketch drawn on the canvas under the paint. Let's call these 'edits'. Creating lasting art that people want to see over and over again has often required edits.

In other words, a painting isn't usually a live-performance object (though in modern art, it can be). It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly the artist works. The result is the finished painting, and that's what counts.

Creating a recording is a different type of art than playing live, although live performances are often recorded and released - but they do sound different than studio records. A recording is more like a painting - the idea is to create something that can be separate from the art of a live performance.

Making a great record isn't only a 'musician thing'. It's the result of collaboration between the recording artists, the engineers, the mixer, the mastering house, the producer and their vision, etc. In other words, it's the result of the totality of a collaborative process to create something permanent. In that respect, it's more like a painting, or a film.

When we see a film, what we don't realize is that we're seeing not only the actors' performances, edited many times over; we're seeing color correction, lighting, camera lenses, filters, special effects, and who knows how many other things that aren't real. Reality is manipulated in the creative process. In fact, one might say that most art is only partly a reflection of reality.

Special effects aren't film of real things - people don't fly like Superman, there aren't really space ships fighting in outer space, the CGI and set backgrounds in films like "Gladiator" that make the scenery appear to be Ancient Rome aren't real. Nor are the actors ancient Romans, they're people in costumes.

Nor did real ancient Romans walk around to a soundtrack with orchestras and synthesizers, and sound effects.

Because a film is about other things. Heck, even the script isn't a recording of real ancient people or aliens or whomever saying real things. It's a construct. Unless it's a documentary, which is something different, and its own type of work of art, though even documentaries are edited, scored, have voice-overs, etc.

I don't know about you, but there isn't a voice-over person following me around saying, "Here's Les crossing the street, notice how he walks kind of funny," and even though I'm a musician, there isn't a score timed to my action. But if there was a documentary about me, these things would probably be part of it.

Most people can accept that a film doesn't need to reflect reality. It puzzles me why they insist that a record must be 100% perfect, one-shot, photographs of a performance.

Classical records featuring virtuoso orchestras and soloists are edited. That's not real. It's manipulation. And it's OK.

I can tell you as a composer that composers don't just sit down and a finished work comes out onto paper or into a computer. There's a process involved that has nothing to do with live performance - let's try this chord, how would that part sound with horns, I don't care for that note choice, let's try another, etc.

It takes me at least a week to create a three minute orchestral piece, and usually longer. If I had performed it once ad hoc, and walked away after three minutes, it would be pretty awful. Am I trying to fool the listener into thinking I can write a one-shot classical piece? No. I'm trying to create something that's going to accomplish my artistic goal.

Even the copyright law recognizes a recording as a separate work of art from the song that's recorded, and attaches separate ownership rights to each, similar to a screenplay and a film.

If we can agree that making a record is the creation of a separate, distinct work of art, perhaps it ought to follow that the work of art doesn't necessarily depend on perfect finger gymnastics or a perfect vocal performance. It depends on the end result the artists wish to achieve.

Here's the thing:

There are lots and lots of people with great voices. There are lots and lots of guitar players with blazing speed. However, they don't all make great records. In fact, most of them make crap records because most singers aren't very good songwriters, and most don't know how to 'deliver' a lyric.

Most blazing speed guitar players can copy the pattern of a great solo and cover it, but very few blazing speed guitar players can actually create a great original solo, or a great/memorable hook. Hey, if you think you can do it, don't hold back - let the world know and decide how great you are.

People who value speed and chops over results should look hard at whether they're great improvisers who can create a melody, or a hook. Most can't find their asses with both hands in that department! I know because I've seen it myself ten zillion times.

Yes, speed and chops, and great vocal performances are 'an art' but they are separate arts from the art of making records. However, there are more people who can slay on guitar, or deliver an on-pitch vocal than there are people who can make great records.

There is nothing wrong with using available tools to create a work of recorded art. You can be a great player and make perfectly sh!tty records, and you can be a mediocre player who has very excellent musical ideas, and needs the help of editing, etc., to bring those ideas to life.

Everyone, of course, is entitled to decide what kind of recordings they like, and what kind of recorded performances they prefer. However, just as in film-making, lots of methods are valid, there isn't just one. I honestly think people might be more productive, if not interesting, in the long run if they are able show more flexibility in their thinking about lots of things.

Such wise words Les.

Even this simple drawing started out as a pencil sketch, amended and edited several times -



And it’s all an illusion. The shapes that the eye sees are created by the suggestion of reflections -



And don’t get me started on the skills and abilities of Les’ brother Robert and my Father.

 

[László]

Such wise words Les.

Even this simple drawing started out as a pencil sketch, amended and edited several times -



And it’s all an illusion. The shapes that the eye sees are created by the suggestion of reflections -



And don’t get me started on the skills and abilities of Les’ brother Robert and my Father.

That's such a great drawing.

 

[Alnus Rubra]

That's such a great drawing.

Thanks Les.

 

[Lewguitar]

Inquiring minds want to know. Do some combinations of guitars and amps work better for you than others?

An argument could be made that they do, at least for me.

I just use the amps I've played for the last 50 years. My blackface Fenders and Vox AC30.

Any of my electric guitars sound good through them: PRS, Fender, Gibson...any of them.

I have gravitated to lower wattage amps though, compared to the days when I could crank it up onstage.

I mostly play through my Deluxe Reverb or 20 watt Fender Princeton Reverbs that have been modified with a new baffle board that let's me use a 12" speaker.

Now that I'm getting older, I don't play so loud anymore, especially when I play out.

Club owners won't put up with it anyway.

 

[bodia]

Such wise words Les.

Even this simple drawing started out as a pencil sketch, amended and edited several times -



And it’s all an illusion. The shapes that the eye sees are created by the suggestion of reflections -



And don’t get me started on the skills and abilities of Les’ brother Robert and my Father.

That's such a great drawing.

And it looks great framed, and on my wall!!!!

 

[Alnus Rubra]

And it looks great framed, and on my wall!!!!

You’re so welcome brother.