cheddatom

If you just want to be able to hear what you're playing, putting a 1 x 10" combo up by your ear will work. If you want the whole band to be able to hear (and [i]feel[/i]) you over some fairly loud guitarists, it take a lot of volume IME.

for every fan they're lost i'm sure they've more than offset with new fans. While I don't like their direction I can only respect their attitude - they seem to do whatever they want, rather than trying to reproduce what the fans liked in the first place. At least they're doing something different!

I have a schecter 6 string, there was one on here for less than £500 recently. I think they're great

but how can digital be used for live recording when everyone knows digital sounds lifeless? [/troll]

I love the first two albums, and their B-sides compilation they did. After that they just seemed to start taking the piss out of themselves. Fair enough, they're doing what they want and it's working for them. It's not for me though. Worst of all are the lyrics, just cheesey beyond rediculous.

bought a pedal off Mark, it arrived within a couple of days well packed etc. Very impressed!

I have been able to move the odd kick or snare but other than that, yeh, the bleed is terrible. I'd like to make some "Gobos" or whatever you call them, when I have the money... Anyway back to the OP, I would say that yes, to a certain extent technology is making some people lazy (or enabling lazy people to make music). I guess it's down to producer/engineer types to stand their ground and demand good performances.

I do know a really good DJ actually, i'll see him next week so will mention it. He does scratching on proper decks but it controls samples on his laptop somehow - pretty cool.

I've heard of bitjam, it's on the posters in the bog that's a weeknight so I won't be gigging, I'll deffinitely be there, can't wait! Do you have an MC with you?

[quote name='alstocko' timestamp='1349883302' post='1831776'] Not from mid-late career he didn't. I believe that players do relax into tendencies though, but this is different from learned licks... [/quote] Well that's subjective. Some people have described their "tendencies" as licks. Personally, I'd like to think that everything I do is pure improvisation, but I know full well that's not the case because I record myself and can hear repetition. I don't hear other peoples' licks but then i'm not listening out for them

yeh I go to the rigger all the time, even occasionally play there. I hope I manage to see you, any idea of the date?

Si - yes, it's a massive room. I think the reason I got good at doing that particular band is we would record every practise, and each time when I got home I would tweak the mix slightly. I never changed the recording set up from how it was to begin with so it would improve each time. It's a massive room but very bassy. The bass rig in there has all of the low end taken out and still sounds huge. I think my point was that technology is opening doors to more people, and it's not always a negative thing - in my example I put together a cheap digital recording set up and use it to capture live performances, rather than create ultra-processed pop-mush EDIT: Sorry, forgot about seperation. There is absolutely no attempt made to seperate the amps. We're not using headphones, just set up to practise with a mic ont he guitar cab, DI on bass, 12 mics on the drums/room.

[quote name='thumperbob 2002' timestamp='1349876530' post='1831633'] Sounds pretty good pal- very large indeed. [/quote] ta, probably more to do with the unnavoidable massive reverb in that room. [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1349879706' post='1831701'] What I was trying to say was that we got a great recorded sound pretty much straight away, but the vibe of being able to play all together as a band was lost. As opposed to the single which was recorded live with just some vocal and guitar over-dubs. [/quote] yeh, I see what you mean. What interests me is the effect of mic-bleed when doing live recording. Something about it seems to add to the sound in a good way. One of the songs on the new creepjoint album is recorded all live with loads of bleed, but it doesn't sound any less "professional" than the other songs on the album, and fits well. We just couldn't get the right feel by playing it seperately.

you think they would have played Stoke by now!!

Si - this [url="http://soundcloud.com/kilta/sets"]http://soundcloud.com/kilta/sets[/url] was done live on about 14 channels, no acoustic treatment but a massive room. Obviously the lack of vocal helps a lot, but I reckon it sounds pretty good. Hopefully not what you'd refer to as a demo but i'll defer to your superior judgment [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1349873089' post='1831565'] ...we still had to track the instruments in separate takes which IMO looses some of the vibe that you get from going onto analogue tape... [/quote] Surely the "vibe" you get from tape is all to do with the sound of recording to tape, rather than the performance going on to the tape.

I think that maybe the problem we're describing here is sometimes caused by young musicians themselves. Everyone now has a DAW on their laptop or a USB condensor mic, and they all fancy themselves as producers. One band I had in last year asked me if I had a plug in which could align all of the guitar "chuggs" with the kick drum. Apparently they'd seen it used on a documentary so wanted me to use it. The same band wanted to play to a click and quantize all the drums. Similarly another band asked me to use melodyne on all of the vocals. They didn't even want to listen to it without pitch correction. These bands were pretty much asking me to make them sound exactly like the other bands in their genre, and to force the sterility we're talking about on to their recordings. As an amateur engineer, i'd rather record a performance, then listen back and analyse it. Maybe it needs editing, or another take or whatever, but you don't know what you need until you listen to the performance.

I record most rehearsals close-mic'd onto my computer. Only 8 tracks but more when I can. Normally I wouldn't edit this stuff, maybe just a couple of tweaks here and there. The sound I get is far better than if I was forced to mix on a desk with a couple of bits of outboard straight into a 2 track tape. There's nothing in a computer/DAW forcing you to edit everything until it's "sterile".

It's just an option. Maybe it's being over-used these days, but not on my computer. We listen to everything, leave the "mistakes" we like, and edit the ones we don't. As a drummer in a couple of bands, i'm very very greatful for the option. Imagine you're recording live as a band, everyone nails it except the drummer missed his snare on one beat... If you couldn't replace that one hit you'd be gutted

"nice bass sounds, shame you're using a Peavey amp" "sounded great but I couldn't hear the bass" "I thought you were great but I think you need some covers to get the rest of the audience interested"

Yeh I'm not consciously copying anyone else but I copy myself all the time! My licks are boring me

but that doesn't have a clean blend on top of the two loops right?

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1349688904' post='1829012'] Neat, he'll be over in my neck of the woods next month to support one of our projects at work. I'll see if I can grab some time with him. [/quote] It'd be ace if you could do a bass-themed interview for Basschat!

well I've heard of fussy fuzzes but never a chorus!

you're saying that putting the tuner before the chorus affects how the chorus sounds? That's very weird. I can only imagine it's some weird effect of the difference in impedence.

I've never heard of any rule stating chorus should be after compression. You have it set right now!