Complex Jazz-oriented drummers?

No, I was asking whether the Japanese thunder god was traditionally portrayed as a drummer. I think he was.

Yoshida is awesome, that is certain.

Thunderstorms... isn't the Japanese god of thunder a drummer?

BaldFriede wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: This topic is perhaps getting off a bit topic, but in regards to Baldfriede's post, I want to chime in here. I cannot really agree with your statement on newer production reducing the "distorted sound" of guitars in newer recordings. I can name many bands of today that sound far more distorted than say, Yngwie Malmsteen's guitar did back in 1984. Why is this? A lot of it comes down to the actual guitar gear used. Guitarists, like myself and many others, pick their gear (budget dependent though) to please their own quest for what they think sounds good, not what the audience think will be a good tone. Malmsteen's tone is deliberately very clear and clean sounding, yet he using a Marshall Plexi Super Lead Head on 10, combined with an overdrive pedal for more gain, so he is actually using a lot of gain to achieve his guitar tone. Same with Eric Johnson, but even more so, by using a guitar rig that features multiple overdrive pedals, and is highly compressed, yet sounds smooth as butter, and he has sounded like this since the 80s, and sounds like this now with the "newer production". A lot of high gain players, with the exception of the doom metal scene etc, like our high gain, but yet with good clarity, and generally we don't go for the buzzy, "distorted sounding" tones some lower gain players prefer. Well, if this is true, all I can say is: And you guys wonder why so many people say the prog-rock of the 70s was better . I can't for the life of mine understand why someone would want to sound like a toothless terrier. (Shaking my head incredulously).

I wasn't referring to modern versus older prog at all.
I was talking more about the modern high gain guitar tone in general, which has it's applications in metal, shred and jazz fusion (the 3 primary genres that come to mind right now anyway).
Not every modern guitar tone is buttery smooth, there are still many players utilising the more rough edged and mid range scooped tone. The tone goes hand in hand with the musical context.
If you're playing jazz fusion, you're not going to use a molten heavy metal guitar tone, instead you will be using heaps of gain (in the case of the more technically orientated bands anyway), rolling off some high end and it will give it the smooth buttery character. For metal, you can use a smooth lead tone, but when it comes to heavy chugging rhythms, that smooth tone sometimes just doesn't cut it, so you boost the high and low end, cut mid range and that gives the tone a more gnarly harsh feel to it.
"I can't for the life of mine understand why someone would want to sound like a toothless terrier" You won't sound like a toothless terrier, you're just getting the tone you need for the application. You say "I can't understand" but you're exactly right, because you're not the one chasing the tone, we, the guitarists are the ones that can understand what we want to sound like so we chase those tones as a result.
Every serious guitarist can testify they would rather get a tone for themselves rather than who is listening, because in the end if you want to express yourself in the way you want, getting your own tone is what liberates you (the guitarist).

HughesJB4 wrote: This topic is perhaps getting off a bit topic, but in regards to Baldfriede's post, I want to chime in here. I cannot really agree with your statement on newer production reducing the "distorted sound" of guitars in newer recordings. I can name many bands of today that sound far more distorted than say, Yngwie Malmsteen's guitar did back in 1984. Why is this? A lot of it comes down to the actual guitar gear used. Guitarists, like myself and many others, pick their gear (budget dependent though) to please their own quest for what they think sounds good, not what the audience think will be a good tone. Malmsteen's tone is deliberately very clear and clean sounding, yet he using a Marshall Plexi Super Lead Head on 10, combined with an overdrive pedal for more gain, so he is actually using a lot of gain to achieve his guitar tone. Same with Eric Johnson, but even more so, by using a guitar rig that features multiple overdrive pedals, and is highly compressed, yet sounds smooth as butter, and he has sounded like this since the 80s, and sounds like this now with the "newer production". A lot of high gain players, with the exception of the doom metal scene etc, like our high gain, but yet with good clarity, and generally we don't go for the buzzy, "distorted sounding" tones some lower gain players prefer.

Well, if this is true, all I can say is: And you guys wonder why so many people say the prog-rock of the 70s was better . I can't for the life of mine understand why someone would want to sound like a toothless terrier. (Shaking my head incredulously).


Edited by BaldFriede - June 14 2008 at 12:29

Aleister Portier wrote: I believe I understand what you mean about "perfection". A lot of progressive rock bands had those tendacies. They really did add to the rawness of the music though. Now with all of the digital recording equipment, it does have a different, more smooth sound. Personally, I prefer the raw sound.   I had a Presonus Firepod and used it for about a year and now I have an Akai GX-280D-SS, and there is a very noticeable difference in the sound. The Akai, being analog and vintage has that ruff texture to it.

Exactly. There is still a lot of barking going on, but the smoothness takes away the bite. The best example for this are distorted guitars: With the newer production they no longer really sound distorted. Now what is the point of that?


Edited by BaldFriede - June 14 2008 at 04:34

I believe I understand what you mean about "perfection". A lot of progressive rock bands had those tendacies. They really did add to the rawness of the music though. Now with all of the digital recording equipment, it does have a different, more smooth sound. Personally, I prefer the raw sound.

 

I had a Presonus Firepod and used it for about a year and now I have an Akai GX-280D-SS, and there is a very noticeable difference in the sound. The Akai, being analog and vintage has that ruff texture to it.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ then classical music must be horrible for you, since it generally requires a level of perfection which you don't find in any other genre (rock, metal, jazz etc.). I think it's great if musician try to improve their playing technique to a point of perfection. Obviously you can never reach it, but you should try to. It doesn't mean that the recording loses "soul" because of it ... the greatest players manage to combine soul and impeccable technique.

Sorry, Mike, you have not grasped at all what I mean by "perfection". I am not talking about playing techniques. It is this constant going over a recording to eliminate even the slightest imperfection which I criticize. Which is one reason I much prefer live albums to studio recordings, at least when they have not been heavily overdubbed to eliminate those little things I am speaking of. You will find these little imperfections in the best orchestras even, and that is totally ok with me. Human beings are human beings, not machines. If you want "perfection" go and have a robot play the instrument; you will quickly notice how horrible it sounds.


Edited by BaldFriede - June 13 2008 at 07:09

Heh, funny that. Friede might as well be talking about improvisation and Mike about composition.

What makes the 70s music sound so unique, different and, in my honest opinion, "better", are the imperfections of it. Today a band goes into the studio for several days and work on their albums until everything is "perfect". Perfection, however, is sterile; it leaves the listener without a certain longing that I think is an essential part of music. There is nowhere to go after perfection, except downhill.
I highly recommend to read Kurt Tucholsky's little essay "Die Sehnsucht nach dem Schlussakkord" ("The longing for the final chord"), in which he hints at what I mean. In the 70s the bands were glad if they finally got a few hours of studio time to put an album together; they just played, balancing on a knife edge all the time because they knew there would be very little chance to correct mistakes. Don't get me wrong, I am not speaking of obvious blunders, it is those little imperfections that make music seem alive. Most of today's music simply leaves me cold, because that element is missing.

Edited by BaldFriede - June 13 2008 at 05:38

Aleister Portier wrote: Judging by my status as "Newbie" and only having eight posts---I think it is safe to say that, yes, I am new here.

= joke