The problem with the M9 and M13

[TheCardiacKid]

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?

 

 

U2? Really? Not interesting? FAIL.

 

You know...Brian Eno has "kinda" worked with U2 a little.

[John_McEnroe]

U2? Really? Not interesting? FAIL. You know...Brian Eno has "kinda" worked with U2 a little.

 

 

 

 

You think no line on the horizon is an interesting album?

 

 

As I said in my previous post, I admire Eno for his methods and his philosophy, not for this output.

[TheCardiacKid]

I think the preceding album, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is very interesting.

[GuyaGuy]

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[/i} 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.

 

 

it seems like you're assuming things about M9 users. instead of assuming them and accusing the users of thinking about their toys it might have been better to pose a question. i can't speak for the others, but the M9 has actually simplified my setup. apart from dirt pedals, i basically use delay, reverb, and trem, and the M9 has replaced the pedals that i used for those effects. so, if you want to view it that way, i've limited my choice to a handful of effects. having all of the ring mods and flangers and doohickeys is a bonus. would doing without the flavors of delay, trem and reverb mean i'm better off? well, it would make the music less spacious. and if i want to make spacious music, it's unnecessarily limiting myself and that can hinder creativity too.

[TheCardiacKid]

although...getting a little off topic here. i do think that your initial point, that using a more limited supply of effects will inspire creativity, is valid.

so is the m9 argument being made by pretty much everyone else in this thread except you.

just taking the u2 thing a bit personally.

[IRG]

I liked Chinese Democracy a lot, so you fail yet again. It was probably a flop sales wise, but what, 15 or 17 years of waiting never helps maintain momentum. The guitar work, although not Slash, had some really good moments.

Most bands that are considered "great" have a short shelf life, often it goes in increments of 3. Three great albums, usually not many more. They may sell continue to be somewhat prolific, but most bands/artists often burn out after three really great records. It doesnt just come with having too many choices creatively, but many other factors. Fans become fans because of a certain sound, or even a moment in time, but most bands don't want to keep rehashing the same thing, that gets boring the night after night they have to play the same stuff. So they mix it up, like a Mogwai or GnR or whoever, and then fans get fickle because it isn't the same as what they're used to.

But it has nothing to do with owning an M9

[John_McEnroe]

although...getting a little off topic here. i do think that your initial point, that using a more limited supply of effects will inspire creativity, is valid. just taking the u2 thing a bit personally.

Hey no worries I am not trying to slag U2 at all.


Hey just so everyone knows.... I would just like to reiterate that I thought this was an interesting topic of discussion. I am not trying to put anyone down for using an M9 or any other multi FX. If it's working for you then great! I just hope people are actually writing and finishing songs, not just starting song ideas and then tweaking stuff and moving onto the next thing without ever producing a finished product. Most of my friends have this very affliction, they endlessly browse presets and fiddle with gear and then at the end of the day they don't really have anything to show for it.

[HeartfeltDawn]

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.

 

 

 

The xx are {censored}ing rubbish and the worst kind of hipster {censored} going. {censored} knows why they are so popular but they are.

 

A band starts out with often their most original ideas/best songs. If they get more popular, they get more cash and get more access to equipment but the originality of ideas is going to be reduced. If the case of Mogwai, you can't make a firm case for the reduced impact of their shows being down to getting their lil' Scottish mitts on more gear.

[tonedover]

i dont get it
you were open as per your OP you said this wasnt a troll thread. maybe you are tired and/or running out of new ways to state your point.

you point is made, i understand your logic, i just dont agree.

id like to say that the m9 is allowing me to "try out" gear i would NEVER have otherwise bought, ala a leslie drum.

seeing as that ive played through a leslie drum i can say that its not an exact sound match, but its in the neighborhood and the m9 has reminded me that hey, guess that sound just isnt for me.

its a great way to try out stuff while on a smaller budget. im glad to know that i dont really care for a mutron after all for example.

plus, you ruin your validity in previous points by not at least acknowledging the fact that TRYING one, a M9 or another decent multi-fx, could be a cool experience.

otherwise i recommend you go to acoustic, and cut 5 of your s trings so you can go back to being super creative.

you're ok in my book, but you are ruining your point by being obtuse about your presentation.

just my 0.02

[IRG]

Not everyone has the same musicial goals in life that you do, having fun while making music whether or not it ever sees the light of day beyound your own castle walls is valid enough for some.

[John_McEnroe]

The xx are {censored}ing rubbish and the worst kind of hipster {censored} going. {censored} knows why they are so popular but they are. A band starts out with often their most original ideas/best songs. If they get more popular, they get more cash and get more access to equipment but the originality of ideas is going to be reduced. If the case of Mogwai, you can't make a firm case for the reduced impact of their shows being down to getting their lil' Scottish mitts on more gear.

Hey I am not implying that correlation is causation, but you can't argue that they are not correlated.

As for the xx, they are incredible. I can see them not being everyone's thing though. I don't see them as being particularly "hipster" but I probably wouldn't know as I'm a bit old to be involved with that crowd. There were quite a few MILFs in the crowd at their concert though.

[John_McEnroe]

i dont get it you were open as per your OP you said this wasnt a troll thread. maybe you are tired and/or running out of new ways to state your point. you point is made, i understand your logic, i just dont agree. id like to say that the m9 is allowing me to "try out" gear i would NEVER have otherwise bought, ala a leslie drum. seeing as that ive played through a leslie drum i can say that its not an exact sound match, but its in the neighborhood and the m9 has reminded me that hey, guess that sound just isnt for me. its a great way to try out stuff while on a smaller budget. im glad to know that i dont really care for a mutron after all for example. plus, you ruin your validity in previous points by not at least acknowledging the fact that TRYING one, a M9 or another decent multi-fx, could be a cool experience. otherwise i recommend you go to acoustic, and cut 5 of your s trings so you can go back to being super creative. you're ok in my book, but you are ruining your point by being obtuse about your presentation. just my 0.02

 

 

 

Hey that's is a really good use for the M9, I have bought a couple of pieces of real gear after liking the from my podxt. I probably wouldn't have bought a RAT if I hadn't liked the pod model of it so much.

 

As for me going to acoustic and only using one string, I am guessing you haven;t read the entire thread (who would really...) I impose limitations on myself when I am writing my own material and I get a lot done. I would be happy to use the M9 for work, but not in my own time.

[Gunner Recall]

You cannot be serious.

[John_McEnroe]

Not everyone has the same musicial goals in life that you do, having fun while making music whether or not it ever sees the light of day beyound your own castle walls is valid enough for some.

 

 

 

 

Hey if people are writing music for fun then all the power to them. My original point referred to bands writing original material, not individuals just playing fr their own enjoyment and nothing more.

[John_McEnroe]

You cannot be serious.

:cop:

[Crxsh]

 

Henceforth, your opinions are meaningless.

[ben_allison]

 

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?

 

 

I think this just reinforces the fact that it's about the player or composer. Apart from someone like Steve Reich, after 30 years of spewing ideas, the well is apt to run dry.

 

But the lack of ideas or interesting work is not a gear thing. It's a brain thing. Having a tube of Cyan, Cerulean, Ultramarine, and Indigo means the painting might be more perfectly realized, but it is within the brain where that painting is first made. Options have their place.

[GuyaGuy]

I think this just reinforces the fact that it's about the player or composer. Apart from someone like Steve Reich, after 30 years of spewing ideas, the well is apt to run dry. But the lack of ideas or interesting work is not a gear thing. It's a brain thing. Having a tube of Cyan, Cerulean, Ultramarine, and Indigo means the painting might be more perfectly realized, but it is within the brain where that painting is first made. Options have their place.

 

 

true. it's just not easy to keep up the momentum started in youth--whether "youth" means teens or thirties. i'm sure there are numerous examples of musicians that have access to stacks of gear as they become popular and use them to make dull music, but there also those who use them to invest their music with new life--the beatles with multitracking and effects, radiohead with electronica gadgets and computers, jimi hendrix with fuzzes and wahs, mogwai with the vocoder, my bloody valentine with lots of studio time and gear, etc.

[ben_allison]

Tools imprint themselves into whatever art they are used to create. The wrong tool can undo the right inspiration.

 

Everything matters.

[houseofglass21]

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.

 

 

Probably been mentioned by now but since this thread is tl;dr I thought I would mention that Johnny Marr IS using an M13 now.

 

You can momentarily see it somewhere in this vid at around 1:08 (great tune):

[YOUTUBE]624iQ2Veaw8[/YOUTUBE]

[Phil O'Keefe]

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.

 

You know, I did an album back in 2002 where we rented some drums - after we finished with them, they were reskinned yet again and immediately went out to the G&R sessions... IOW, they were already working on CD way back then (and had started even before that)... and how many producers did Axl burn through on that record? I think he may have been running out of "big names" who were willing to work with him. There's a "real world" limitation for you right there... no matter how much money you have, if you're difficult to work with, not everyone will say "yes".

 

How many hours of studio time did they spend / waste? Yeah... tons. But I think the results (for better or worse) are not so much due to having unlimited options, it was due to one person's insistence on having things a certain way, and his inability to be satisfied or to make up his mind, and again, to be able to get along and work well with others without the ego getting in the way. Add to that a ton of band membership changes, management changes, disagreements with the label, legal battles, etc... it's actually a wonder it ever got released at all. But it wasn't because he had options and lots of them - lots of bands have similar resources available to them today and could get whomever they wanted to produce or engineer, and could afford to build their own studios and then take their time, using any gear they want to use, to get the artistic result they're after... and lots of bands manage to do it without taking 15 years to accomplish it.

 

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?

 

Speaking of producers who turned Axl down I think The Fireman stuff he did last year with Youth was actually quite interesting.

 

As far as U2, I couldn't really tell you. I loved the band for years, but kind of stopped staying current on them after Achtung Baby.

 

As for Michael Jackson, well... he's not going to be releasing anything new any time soon. But if you want to go back and examine his career in light of your theory, I think a great case can be made for him as an example that runs contrary to your premise that having unlimited resources and options is a creativity damper.

 

A friend and mentor of mine engineered all of Michael's classic albums, including Off The Wall (which was a huge seller and MJ's solo "breakthrough" album). After the success of Off The Wall, they could do pretty much whatever they wanted... and they came up with Thriller, and after that, Bad. That's three pretty hot records all in a row, and certainly the second two were done with virtually "unlimited" options given the technology of the day and the general criteria you seem to be talking about. So why didn't Thriller suck? Like it or not, it's still the best selling album of all time.

 

Another classic example would be Rubber Soul / Revolver / Sgt Pepper. Certainly by the time they had released Revolver, the Beatles could "do no wrong" in the eyes of their label, and so they took the unprecedented step of curtailing all concerts and touring, eliminating those distractions and drains on their time. They were given unlimited studio time and budget and came up with... Sgt Pepper. Which happens to consistently top the polls in terms of best album ever waxed.

 

Again, I'm brought back to my basic belief - it's not so much about the gear (as important as gear happens to be IMHO), or the limitations you have (however limitless your options may appear to be, we all have 'em - no matter who you are or how much dosh you have, you're not going to be able to get Jimi Hendrix to play on your next album), it's about what you do with it; it's about whether or not you utilize those tools in a musical way and manage to connect with and move your listeners in some way.

 

Just because you have fewer limitations than nearly everyone else doesn't automatically mean you'll make better music. Nor does it mean that you'll make worse music. As the G&R, Beatles and MJ examples show, there is no "formula", and it really depends on the individuals and circumstances involved.

[TheCardiacKid]

that was a pretty thorough de-bunking.

[Harry_Manback1]

Most of my friends have this very affliction, they endlessly browse presets and fiddle with gear and then at the end of the day they don't really have anything to show for it.

Entertainment value. Some folks get off on tweaking; others compose; some just wanna have fun.

Different strokes for different folks.

RIP Captain Lou.

[YOUTUBE]WdAYDL8CJy8[/YOUTUBE]

[dkerwood]

First of all, my philosophy when writing my own music is this: a good song should ALWAYS still be a good song when reduced to one acoustic guitar and a voice. The substance has to be there before the bells and whistles or the flash. After that, flash away. I love finding new uses for my effects, but the weirdest weapon in my arsenal is my Digitech RP200A. I have it for two reasons only- to use as an easy church rig and to create weirdness with effects that I don't own and don't intend to (it also brought the unexpected bonus of foot-controllable parameters, which is really cool live). I love having that option when I want it.

 

Options are good when you want them. Simplicity is also good when you want to utilize it. I'm not sure I agree with painting a canvas red just because you got some new red paint and want to use it, but a black and white with just a touch of red... that can be beautiful.

 

That said, I played with the M13 in GC once. Meh. Too much junk in one package for me, and with sounds that don't inspire me to play... at least they didn't in the store (why do they always put the cruddiest SS amps with those effects setups).

 

I'm not sure I'd even have a use for the M9. Only three pedals at a time? Let's assume that one is always some level of dirt, one is going to be reverb/delay, which leaves one for color. Not enough options to be a stand-alone pedalboard, but too many options to justify being on a board with other stuff. Meh. Double meh.

[Phil O'Keefe]

First of all, my philosophy when writing my own music is this: a good song should ALWAYS still be a good song when reduced to one acoustic guitar and a voice. The substance has to be there before the bells and whistles or the flash. After that, flash away.

 

(snip)

 

Options are good when you want them. Simplicity is also good when you want to utilize it. I'm not sure I agree with painting a canvas red just because you got some new red paint and want to use it, but a black and white with just a touch of red... that can be beautiful.

 

 

:phil: :phil: