The problem with the M9 and M13

[John_McEnroe]

Who made that that rule?

 

 

 

No one made it, history has just proven it to be true.

[John_McEnroe]

Bull{censored} idea is bull{censored}.

Of course you think so. Aren't you the guy who goes through gear like dirty underwear?

[tonedover]

Of course you think so. Aren't you the guy who goes through gear like dirty underwear?

Now you ARE {censored}ing trolling.

How about go get one at guitar center with their free gear rental policy -- oops i mean 30 day return policy and try it before you try to convince me of anything.

Also - the idea that limitations make for creativity is baseless in any endeavor especially the arts in my opinion. I was giving u the benefit of the doubt until you got smarmy.

[Phil O'Keefe]

(Originally Posted by Mitchell) People should be able to have too many options, the alternative is far worse.

Not when it comes to writing good music. Most of the time.

Ahh, but that's a different matter - at least for me. While I have a decent studio, as well as a laptop based recording setup, most of the time when I am writing, I don't heavily utilize those - most of my writing is done with pencil, paper and an acoustic piano or a guitar. After I get the writing down, then I move on to the demo and / or arrangement and recording phases... I might be thinking about certain sounds, or the arrangement in general when I'm writing, but it's not my primary focus.

As far as Mitchell's statement, I'm not sure I fully agree with that either. For me personally, in my situation, fewer options is more often than not a negative thing... however, I'm not sure that would be equally applicable to everyone. For those who tend to get bogged down and can't resist trying everything on the menu, or for those who can't stand wading through menus and tons of options, a more limited setup might be a better option. But in general, I would lean towards having more options, as opposed to fewer. With fewer options, you may indeed be able to get creative and use those few items in a new and creative way, but it's equally likely you'll just sound similar to everyone else who has those same limited options available to them. But there's no guarantee that, even with many options available, you'll come up with something that is subjectively "better" either...

Let's look at something limited, and very traditional - the typical 40 piece classical orchestra. Strings, brass, percussion, woodwinds... it's a pretty "fixed" gear list, and although there are some inherent limitations to it, you can do a LOT with an orchestra, depending on how those elements are combined and utilized. Going to an even simpler setup, take an acoustic guitar and a voice... there's still a ton you can do with that, although not nearly as much as you can with the orchestra. But if you're creative with it, and you let your own musical personality come through, you can still do something individual and unique with them. And for some people, those two tools are all they need to realize their musical vision. Others have a broader or more complex vision, or need / want a wider palate from which to paint from. Who am I to say which is "right" or "best" for anyone else? We all have to find what works best for us as individuals.

[NetStar]

No one made it, history has just proven it to be true.

 

 

In your opinion.

[tonedover]

guys, srsly, look how straight up {censored}ing lame and ridiculous this is: http://christopherave.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/iphone-apps-for-music-exploding/

 

 

Oh. So just because you dont like modelers u think line 6 shouldnt try and do weird stuff? Or are also one of those iphone haters too? Perhaps you think im a hipster too for owning one? Your argument is all over the map.

 

- matt (from my iphone)

[Mitchell?]

I have to agree with the idea that limitation can inspire creativity.

 

In my own experience, as a drummer, changing your set-up can inspire new ideas. Limiting myself, by adding, subtracting, or changing the positions of drums and cymbals always inspires new ideas, by forcing me to play differently.

 

But, adding more options also opens up the possibilities of creativity. So, I think, being limited or unlimited can both inspire creativity.

 

Either way, it's not really possible to designate either end of the argument as 'better' or 'more correct'. They're both means to an end.

 

PS: My earlier post was really meant in a more political sense. I was really getting at that we shouldn't be limiting others just because we don't partake in something. Like if you were to ban type of music because you didn't like it. You aren't required to listen to it, so it really isn't any of your business.

[John_McEnroe]

Now you ARE {censored}ing trolling. How about go get one at guitar center with their free gear rental policy -- oops i mean 30 day return policy and try it before you try to convince me of anything. Also - the idea that limitations make for creativity is baseless in any endeavor especially the arts in my opinion. I was giving u the benefit of the doubt until you got smarmy.

Hey I'm not getting smarmy, he said my idea was bull{censored} so I responded in kind. I was also just messing around which is why I put the cop there.

[HeartfeltDawn]

That limitations aid creativity more than infinite options do.

 

 

It's an idea I'd subscribe to within a certain point. I imagine you'd point to the Beatles etc recording on 4 tracks and suchlike compared to the modern Pro Tools systems with unlimited tracks and multiple plug-ins. I'd say that the problem with modern systems is that it's perhaps too easy to get something that sounds good using computers whereas in the past you actually need to be good in order to sound good. Certainly with vocalists it's possible to say for sure that it's easier to make it when you aren't such a good singer compared to 20 years ago, and that is down to pitch correction software.

 

In film, it's fairly true that we've seen incredible effects but the directors have forgotten about great cinematography (see Michael Bay). To me, that's parallel to guitarists throwing great effects into songs but forgetting about songwriting (hello to countless instrumental indie rock bands who usually have lengthy band names etc).

 

Of the music I like, most use computers to record but it seems like they're using older equipment such as a lot of 80s synths and drum machines and using Pro Tools as a recorder and not an 'all in one' solution. They're actually pushing the older technology to get new sounds.

 

I'm writing this whilst listening to The Queen is Dead by the Smiths. I love Johnny Marr. That's the perfect musician for me: someone who is inventive, someone who uses all the studio tricks he could at the time, someone who uses all the technology, be it digital processors or vintage amps, and who comes up with truly memorable music. I bet you he'll use an M13 at some point.

[John_McEnroe]

In your opinion.

 

 

 

 

So tell me about all the great artists who had unlimited resources starting out who made incredible art.

[Fender&EHX4ever]

This thread has gone on for 5 hours now. I would say that HCFX is stifling your creativity, guys. Back away from the computer and go play some guitar.

[John_McEnroe]

It's an idea I'd subscribe to within a certain point. I imagine you'd point to the Beatles etc recording on 4 tracks and suchlike compared to the modern Pro Tools systems with unlimited tracks and multiple plug-ins. I'd say that the problem with modern systems is that it's perhaps too easy to get something that sounds good using computers whereas in the past you actually need to be good in order to sound good. Certainly with vocalists it's possible to say for sure that it's easier to make it when you aren't such a good singer compared to 20 years ago, and that is down to pitch correction software. In film, it's fairly true that we've seen incredible effects but the directors have forgotten about great cinematography (see Michael Bay). To me, that's parallel to guitarists throwing great effects into songs but forgetting about songwriting (hello to countless instrumental indie rock bands who usually have lengthy band names etc). Of the music I like, most use computers to record but it seems like they're using older equipment such as a lot of 80s synths and drum machines and using Pro Tools as a recorder and not an 'all in one' solution. They're actually pushing the older technology to get new sounds. I'm writing this whilst listening to The Queen is Dead by the Smiths. I love Johnny Marr. That's the perfect musician for me: someone who is inventive, someone who uses all the studio tricks he could at the time, someone who uses all the technology, be it digital processors or vintage amps, and who comes up with truly memorable music. I bet you he'll use an M13 at some point.

I agree with everything you just said, maybe we can be friends after all.

[drasp]

Not gonna' read the thread, but I am going to drop my $.02:

I use the M9 @ home & in my band. For the band, you'd never know there was an M9 on my board, or that I even use a board. We play sloppy garage & so when I use it, its for a novelty or a bit of 'verb, etc.

At home, I use the M9 for looping & making noise - its a GREAT tool for this sort of thing where I'm not looking to sound "like" anything.

So - I totally see both sides of the argument. Great point overall - limitations totally = easier to settle down & get to work making music.

[NetStar]

So tell me about all the great artists who had unlimited resources starting out who made incredible art.

 

 

Unlimited resources? M13? Are we even on the same planet?

[John_McEnroe]

Unlimited resources? M13? Are we even on the same planet?

 

 

We were discussing the idea that limitations promote creativity, not sure why you are bringing up the M13 with regards to this particular point. Obviously the M13 does not provide one with unlimited choices, but it does allow for over 20 billion combinations of FX. Which, IMO, is distracting at best, and at worst completely creatively paralyzing.

[IRG]

This is utter nonsense, simply because it's so simple to use. I often find I'm using just 1-2 effects on this thing. I was using the classic distortion tonight (Rat mode) with a little delay after it. GOing for the Model H sound as discussed earlier. Sounded great, and I played in that mode for quite a while. I'm still learning this tool, which is a lot of fun in its own right. It's setup like an actual pedal though. Select a sound, tweak it a bit, done. Just like a regular pedal Nothing paralyzing about this at all.

We were discussing the idea that limitations promote creativity, not sure why you are bringing up the M13 with regards to this particular point. Obviously the M13 does not provide one with unlimited choices, but it does allow for over 20 billion combinations of FX. Which, IMO, is distracting at best, and at worst completely creatively paralyzing.

 

[GuyaGuy]

We were discussing the idea that limitations promote creativity, not sure why you are bringing up the M13 with regards to this particular point. Obviously the M13 does not provide one with unlimited choices, but it does allow for over 20 billion combinations of FX. Which, IMO, is distracting at best, and at worst completely creatively paralyzing.

 

 

What you are assuming is that limitations promote creativity in all cases.

 

limitations can be a great asset, but you can create your own limitations--whether it's only using an acoustic guitar or only writing songs in B flat (Raveonette's debut), only playing acoustic (Nick Drake, Dylan and countless others), only using certain fx, or whatever else.

 

but limitations do no promote creativity as a rule. the Beatles had everything they could possibly want at their disposal for Sgt Pepper and came up with a decent little album.

[Phil O'Keefe]

So tell me about all the great artists who had unlimited resources starting out who made incredible art.

 

 

That "starting out" caveat is a rather large one. I suppose Lennon / McCartney's resources were rather limited when they "started out", but eventually they moved on to somewhat less restrictive limitations... but even at their peak, or even if McCartney records today, he's faced with certain real world limitations.

 

There's really no such thing as "unlimited resources"; everything is finite, whether we're talking gear, budgets, space (as in the size or amount of rooms in your studio), talent, etc. It's all a matter of levels of limitations or the amount of resources... nothing is truly "unlimited".

[John_McEnroe]

 

What you are assuming is that limitations promote creativity in all cases. limitations can be a great asset, but you can create your own limitations--whether it's only using an acoustic guitar or only writing songs in B flat (Raveonette's debut), only playing acoustic (Nick Drake, Dylan and countless others), only using certain fx, or whatever else. but limitations do no promote creativity as a rule . the Beatles had everything they could possibly want at their disposal for Sgt Pepper and came up with a decent little album.

 

 

 

Of course. If you reread my posts, you will see that I said there are always exceptions. I have crap loads of gear. I compose music for a living for film and television and I use all kinds of software, hardware, guitars, synths, drum machines real drums... etc. When I write my own stuff I only use a very limited amount of my equipment because I choose to. I create my own limitations just like you say. Most people who have made great art throughout history though, have certainly not had huge amounts of resources or gear or money or opportunities or whatever criteria you want to use to quantify resources. Most people on this board seem to have the M13 or M9 because they think it can handle all the 'favors' or whatever that they need. What I am saying is that they don't need all these flavors, in fact they would be better off without them.

[John_McEnroe]

That "starting out" caveat is a rather large one. I suppose Lennon / McCartney's resources were rather limited when they "started out", but eventually they moved on to somewhat less restrictive limitations... but even at their peak, or even if McCartney records today, he's faced with certain real world limitations. There's really no such thing as "unlimited resources"; everything is finite, whether we're talking gear, budgets, space (as in the size or amount of rooms in your studio), talent, etc. It's all a matter of levels of limitations or the amount of resources... nothing is truly "unlimited".

 

 

 

I don't think that is true at all. Think of guns and roses. They were never really my thing, but their early material was certainly popular. Then look what happened with Chinese Democracy, the most expensive piece of crap album of all time. I would say his resources were fairly infinite. I would make the same claim with Paul McCartney but on a far smaller scale. He can spend as much time as he wants in the studio, with whoever he wants, whenever he wants. When was the last time he made anything interesting? How about U2? How about Michael Jackson?

[Crxsh]

Of course you think so. Aren't you the guy who goes through gear like dirty underwear?

 

Here's the thing: I've played the M9 rather extensively.

 

I'm going to go wayyyy wayyyy wayyyyyyyy out on a limb here and guess that you haven't.

 

Until then, please refrain from posting this bull{censored}.

[ben_allison]

It was Eno that was most known for the "work with limitations" idea, along with working "fast and cheap." These things force you to think in new ways, which is essential in a creative exercise.

 

Having the latest and greatest of everything or an unlimited budget means two things:

 

1) paralysis by analysis

2) resorting to your default, already been there way of working

 

Now when it comes to production/performance... different story.

 

It's about balance, and realizing doing something other than what's familiar or comfortable can be a catalyst for new ideas.

[John_McEnroe]

Even a band like Mogwai, who I admire, made way better stuff when they were four kids without a clue. Now they equipment coming out their eyes when they are on stage, but they have lost sight of the forest for the trees. Their current shows are nowhere near as exciting or as pummeling as they used to be.


A new band that is really going ot be interesting to watch is The xx. I just saw them perform last week, and they had almost nothing. In fact the guitar player was playing nothing but a small roland keyboard practice amp with an RV-5 plugged into it. They had 1000 people going absolutely ape {censored}. It was truly incredible.

[John_McEnroe]

It was Eno that was most known for the "work with limitations" idea, along with working "fast and cheap." These things force you to think in new ways, which is essential in a creative exercise. Having the latest and greatest of everything or an unlimited budget means two things: 1) paralysis by analysis 2) resorting to your default, already been there way of working Now when it comes to production/performance... different story. It's about balance, and realizing doing something other than what's familiar or comfortable can be a catalyst for new ideas.

 

 

 

Nice post. That is why Brian Eno is an undisputed genius and actually gets stuff done. I am not a huge fan of his work, but I do love his philosophy.

[John_McEnroe]

Here's the thing: I've played the M9 rather extensively. I'm going to go wayyyy wayyyy wayyyyyyyy out on a limb here and guess that you haven't. Until then, please refrain from posting this bull{censored}.