"Modern Sound"

[seaneldon]

Yes, this is a topic that's probably been beaten like a gaggle of dead geese for probably 25-30 years. I know. And yes, Mr. Kahrs' commentary on the overhead mic thread (http://www.movethemics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220) spawned this thread. Moose, I'm not bashing you/your tastes/anything like that. I am genuinely curious about this and have never seen the "other side of the coin". Maybe that's just me being stubborn. Who knows...

So, let's discuss. I'll leave it open-ended but with a few key points/questions:

- How do you define the "modern sound?"

- Do you go for a "modern sound?"

- If you do, is it due to client request or sheer force of habit? Why not go for a "great sound" or the "right sound" instead?

- Do you find the "modern sound" to be great?

None of my favorite recordings sound "modern"...they sound timeless. They're a representation of a moment in time, yes, but it's a moment that I can't pinpoint.

[Mixwell]

- How do you define the "modern sound?"


It has to sound Old

[seaneldon]

It has to sound Old

Do we need a "Pimpslap Mixwell" emoticon?
btheadbtheadbtheadbthead

[Mixwell]

____

[Battlefrost]

Yes, this is a topic that's probably been beaten like a gaggle of dead geese for probably 25-30 years. I know. And yes, Mr. Kahrs' commentary on the overhead mic thread (http://www.movethemics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220) spawned this thread. Moose, I'm not bashing you/your tastes/anything like that. I am genuinely curious about this and have never seen the "other side of the coin". Maybe that's just me being stubborn. Who knows...

So, let's discuss. I'll leave it open-ended but with a few key points/questions:

- How do you define the "modern sound?"

- Do you go for a "modern sound?"

- If you do, is it due to client request or sheer force of habit? Why not go for a "great sound" or the "right sound" instead?

- Do you find the "modern sound" to be great?

None of my favorite recordings sound "modern"...they sound timeless. They're a representation of a moment in time, yes, but it's a moment that I can't pinpoint.

Well Sean,

I would define the "modern" sound as a very clear production with a lot of hype on the high end and a decreased dynamic range to do heavy limiting on the master.

Yes, I do go for a modern sound.

I go for the modern sound due to client requests and client expectations. If I ever get to produce or engineer anything for myself, I will most likely go for a different sound, but just like a mechanic never works on his own car...

I find the modern sound to be exciting for the first 5 minutes of listening. After that, I seem to be able to pick out such depth and character in older recordings once I switch songs. Of course if I have had a few vodka and cranberries, I don't really notice...ha. (I only do that when listening for pleasure... sadly this happens less these days).

Just a lowly wannabe engineer's opinion...

-Charles

[seaneldon]

Charles, your profile reads as if you probably prefer music production and metal at the same time.

Do you feel like you've never had the opportunity to make a metal record that didn't sound very much like 90something% of every other metal record that's happened in "modern times" (how long ago did "modern times" start, by the way?)

Is that entirely the fault of the client? Is the listener to blame or is the listener ready for something else?

[jessepaul]

I would define the "modern" sound as a very clear production with a lot of hype on the high end and a decreased dynamic range to do heavy limiting on the master.

I find this "modern sound" a giant excuse to not work at sounds but to slap compressors or limiters across everything, why work on a good stereo image when its just going to be played on mp3? Its sad but some Engineers and mixers are getting lazy cause they can get away with it. Sure mp3 is a shit format but you can still give the listeners a great experience.

This generation is going deaf from blaring their ipods in search of dynamics.

[moose]

Its cool man... I know you want to have my baby... :D

Its funny but when I think of "modern" sounding records I don't automatically go to the overblown, over-sampled, overtuned, over-limited, dropped on a grid stuff that permeates the airwaves.

Records can sound both 'modern' AND 'classic' if you can dig it.

Like Wilcos "Sky Blue Sky"... that's a great sounding record. Totally classic yet it doesn't sound like 1970 either. To the contrary... I'd call that a 'modern' production.

For me one of the things that makes a record 'modern' or 'not modern' is frequency response. How's it all hitting? What's the top like? The bottom? How was the midrange put together? What sort of effects were used or not used? What's the panning like? Layering?

Eh?

[jessepaul]

Its funny but when I think of "modern" sounding records I don't automatically go to the overblown, over-sampled, overtuned, over-limited, dropped on a grid stuff that permeates the airwaves.

I dig what your saying Moose all i'm saying is that when I think "modern production" I do think top 40 music with heavy limiting.

For me one of the things that makes a record 'modern' or 'not modern' is frequency response. How's it all hitting? What's the top like? The bottom? How was the midrange put together? What sort of effects were used or not used? What's the panning like? Layering?

I'm sorry Wilco's sky blue sky sounds like it could of been made 1970's, it could of been made almost any decade. It could of been done on tape or pro tools but when I hear it I don't think about any of that its good songs. I would not call it modern classic, your adding the modern cause the year it came out. When I hear a modern record I notice the production in a bad way, I feel it taking away from the song. Go take a listen to Metallica's Death Magnetic. If you can listen all the way through that well your a better man.

When everyone is using the same plugins the same way, compressing the same, limiting the same way thats when you know you have a modern record... your not thinking about the songs your thinking what everyone else did to their tracks and you need to do that too.

[Sandyrb]

When everyone is using the same plugins the same way, compressing the same, limiting the same way thats when you know you have a modern record... your not thinking about the songs your thinking what everyone else did to their tracks and you need to do that too.

This is a very good point indeed. Notice for example how many guitar/bass/drums/vocals bands sound like Nickelback (whether they want to or not haha) since that lot achieved success. I've observed that a lot of 'modern' records are more about getting a certain sound than about presenting a good song, played well.

So, to agree with some, I find the 'modern' sound is all about autotuning, clipping, in-your-effing-face sounds, sampling drums and all that bananas BUT I would also suggest that, to me, a modern sounding record is one that lacks distinctiveness because they all sound the same. Because certain recordists can, as noted, get away with more these days doesn't necessarily mean that they should. Personally I'm a lot more interested in getting a great performance of a really good song BUT on the other hand I do have the tricks 'n' toys at my disposal just in case. :)

Cheers,

[moose]

I'm sorry Wilco's sky blue sky sounds like it could of been made 1970's, it could of been made almost any decade. It could of been done on tape or pro tools but when I hear it I don't think about any of that its good songs. I would not call it modern classic, your adding the modern cause the year it came out.

Since when does the year of release have anything to do with frequency response & how its all put together? (sort of a trick question)

Sky Blue Sky certainly doesn't come across & hit the same spots as Foghat or Black Sabbath... and its certainly more hi-fi then say, Hotel California. I think its also more 'modern' sounding then say, AM or even Yankee Foxtrot to keep it in Wilco land...

But what about stuff like Peter Gabriel's "So" which IMO is a 'modern' sounding record that's now what? 25 years old?

Or to stay current, what about some Gov't Mule or the Black Crowes?

To me, Superdrags "last call for vitriol" isn't very modern sounding even though it was released in 2003 or whatever.

I don't really think of the 'Nickleback' stuff when someone tells me they want it to sound 'modern' because I'm really detached from that world. It doesn't even register... not really anyway.

[seaneldon]

To me, Superdrags "last call for vitriol" isn't very modern sounding even though it was released in 2003 or whatever.

This album is what happens when you let your drummer record and produce poorly written songs.

Whole 'nother topic.

[pauly]

im not really getting this thread, records sound great to me or not, i have new records that are recorded at facilities with the latest and greatest gear from today and yesterday, it is a modern record. but the whole modern sound thing i dont think really exists. if a band asked me for the modern sound, its most likely because they dont really know what their chasing or they cant hear what they want in their head.

anyone smell what i'm stepping in?

[jessepaul]

Since when does the year of release have anything to do with frequency response & how its all put together? (sort of a trick question)

You are completely missing my point in my thinking of a modern record. When someone plays me a cd and I say thats a very modern sounding record i'm talking about the lack in dynamics and often the fact that I can't tell it apart from another recent cd because its all done the same way.


So, to agree with some, I find the 'modern' sound is all about autotuning, clipping, in-your-effing-face sounds, sampling drums and all that bananas BUT I would also suggest that, to me, a modern sounding record is one that lacks distinctiveness because they all sound the same. Because certain recordists can, as noted, get away with more these days doesn't necessarily mean that they should. Personally I'm a lot more interested in getting a great performance of a really good song BUT on the other hand I do have the tricks 'n' toys at my disposal just in case.

The real point of making music is to capture a perfomance and as engineers that job is given to us. Sure we sprinkle alittle magic sometimes to make things sound bigger or more dynamic but its for the sake of "the song". When that whole point is lost and your dialing in your nickel back bass and making sure your vocals sound pitch perfect and you finish it off by squishing the shit out of it for radio.... That is the Modern Sound. Sure eveyone was chasing similar sounds in the 80's and 90's but it was always still varied. Since DAW's have gotten so good we've entered this realm were you can get it exactly the same.

[pauly]

i find it funny that most are associating the "modern sound" with over compressed, autotuned, everybody's using the same shit sounding records. how about not lumping in all that shit in with the thousands of records that sound great, that are well written songs that people identify themselves with.

have a listen to a michael brauer record, even if you dont like the music his records are BIG. his work is a modern recording, but he uses vintage and new equipment alike making the message of the artist come through. i would also bet if you asked him his sound is not modern.

[Battlefrost]

Charles, your profile reads as if you probably prefer music production and metal at the same time.

Do you feel like you've never had the opportunity to make a metal record that didn't sound very much like 90something% of every other metal record that's happened in "modern times" (how long ago did "modern times" start, by the way?)

Is that entirely the fault of the client? Is the listener to blame or is the listener ready for something else?

Yeah Sean, I do prefer metal. I have been a metal head since early childhood, so naturaly that is what I am most comfortable producing and engineering.

I live in San Diego, CA so most of my clients are early twenty somethings that want to sound like thier favorite records. In my area, a genre called "Grindcore" is what is very popular with these kids right now. Personally, Grindcore is not what I like doing but I take these jobs because my kids need to eat...ha ha ha.

I have had one opportunity to make a metal record that sounds different than everything else out there right now, but the vast majority is the same sounds rehashed over and over. I have no control over what my clients pay for.

I am not sure when "modern times" started to be exact, in my area of production I would guess the early 2000's.

[Battlefrost]

I find this "modern sound" a giant excuse to not work at sounds but to slap compressors or limiters across everything, why work on a good stereo image when its just going to be played on mp3? Its sad but some Engineers and mixers are getting lazy cause they can get away with it. Sure mp3 is a shit format but you can still give the listeners a great experience.

This generation is going deaf from blaring their ipods in search of dynamics.

Maybe some engineers are getting lazy, I don't know so I cannot make that judgement. I do know however that I am anything but lazy. I work hard to try and get things the way the client wants. I try and educate them about dynamics and how important they are, but in the end the client is most concerned with "Is my recording going to be as loud as (insert name of favorite artist's CD). So I have to deliver what they want or they will go to someone who will.

In my case, since 95% of everything I do is some form of extreme metal, it is almost expected that I make a recording as modern and hot as I can.

But I thrown in an old Judas Priest record and they sound HUGE and great. I throw a song from them into my DAW to do an analysis and I see that they have DYNAMICS and they are not clipping the red constantly. I truly wish I can get away with doing a record like that, but these damn kids today...ha ha ha.

[seaneldon]

i find it funny that most are associating the "modern sound" with over compressed, autotuned, everybody's using the same shit sounding records.

Really?

how about not lumping in all that shit in with the thousands of records that sound great, that are well written songs that people identify themselves with.

Nothing's been "lumped in" from where I'm sitting. A Wilco record was mentioned and we got two conflicting opinions about it.

I prefer the vinyl master of that album, anyway. Limited, yes, but because of LIMITATIONS of the release format.

I love a LOT of music that's happened in the last decade. Most of it doesn't sound "modern" to me. It does sound timeless to me.

However, I can point to a few examples where wonderful collections of songs have been ruined (for me) by a certain "modern" sound that simply does not fit the picture. Last couple Sleater-Kinney records come to mind. The last Polvo record is REALLY compressed. Neither band ever had a "hi-fi" or even traditional sound to begin with...

I understand that these are examples that most folks aren't familiar with, but this is music that I identify with and have loved it since I was very young. I can't listen to more than a couple songs on these later albums in a row without turning it down and temporarily paying attention to something else.

That fucks me up. I don't like that. I'd rather listen to the whole album and enjoy it as one piece.

have a listen to a michael brauer record, even if you dont like the music his records are BIG. his work is a modern recording, but he uses vintage and new equipment alike making the message of the artist come through. i would also bet if you asked him his sound is not modern.

Some would argue that guys like Michael Brauer, no matter how good his work is (and it is), are the ones who STARTED this whole thing!!!

Equipment doesn't have much to do with this discussion, in my opinion. The equipment has no idea how it's going to be used or who is going to use it.

[pauly]

Equipment doesn't have much to do with this discussion, in my opinion. The equipment has no idea how it's going to be used or who is going to use it.

your right equipment has nothing to do with it, some people have stated that the the modern sound is because everybody is using the same stuff. to some extent they are. and yes some would argue brauer is one of the ones who started this. i just thought he is a good example of sounding good while having to compete on the the charts.

[pauly]

Really?


i find it funny because modern is being associated with crap. we have more opportunity to create new and interesting sounds with the wealth of options today more than ever. if people are making bad sounding records don't give them the honor of being modern sound. the modern sound, if exists, can be anything we say it is, it doesnt have to be garbage.

[Sandyrb]

i find it funny because modern is being associated with crap. we have more opportunity to create new and interesting sounds with the wealth of options today more than ever.
But therein lies the problem, don't you think? IOW recordists AREN'T using the modern toys to do something new and interesting; they're often using the plugins and gadgets to make cookie-cutter records which are formularized crap. I think the technology has A) made some lazy and B) given some others all the tools they need to be perfectly as bland and repeatable as the next guy. Heck, we've all heard anecdotes about would-be young recordists grabbing a certain software because "...that's what uses". You [I]never hear people say they want a certain software/gizmo because they want to create something unique.

Now, you show me a record where they're actually using all these wonderful technologies to do something novel, interesting and perhaps even unique and I'll definitely give it a listen. :) (Recently I was pleasantly surprised to discover "Shpongle" which is obviously Pro-Tools'd to death, mastered to extinction and all synths 'n' samplers but nonetheless inventive, musically interesting and quite enjoyable)

if people are making bad sounding records don't give them the honor of being modern sound. the modern sound, if exists, can be anything we say it is, it doesnt have to be garbage.

Pauly, I definitely don't disagree with you but sadly it frequently is garbage and not just for the reasons expressed above. I mean, sure, there are some really great-sounding records out there too. But in general I think we're seeing a dumbing-down of standards and a loss of sonic excellence. When I listen to some of the typical reference CDs that bands leave here ("we want to sound like this") I am apalled at how vile and - worse - similarly vile they sound. What can I say? My trying-to-be-unbiased observation is that records simply sounded better when I was a youngster. :(

Cheers,

[Tomasz]

Perhaps the "MODERN SOUND" can be more simply stated as less of an actual representation of what the band actually sounds like, and more like a "recorded work". A soundscape record, if you will.
The 80's had a huge influx of stuff that IMO sounded like ass, and nothing like what the artist would really sound like. Maybe then we could consider today's hyper-compressed, drumagogued, auto-tuned, snapped to the grid sound an "evolution" of that. For better or worse.
And Sandy, while I agree that alot of records may have sounded better when you were younger, I'd add that this may hold true for pop-rock (including today's "country" [WESTERN?]music), or whatever it is that permeates the airwaves, sells product, and lowers the standards for us, there are still plenty of great sounding records being made today.

[Halfway Competent]

Sandy, check out John Mayer's album, "Battle Studies". Released last November. I particularly enjoy the mix on the track, "Edge of Desire". The album sounds modern... Yet has this nice, kinda gritty tone to it.

On the other hand, tonight's playlist has been early-80s Michael Jackson, 60s Tony Bennett, and Kind Of Blue. I'd venture to say that, for example, "If I Love Again" by Bennett (1962) is fantastic not just because it's a great recording, but because it's a stellar vocal performance. The more I do this and the more music I listen to, the more I'm coming to appreciate the MUSICIANSHIP of some of these greats who didn't have all this technological "assistance".

[Sandyrb]

The 80's had a huge influx of stuff that IMO sounded like ass, and nothing like what the artist would really sound like.

There were three terrible things that happened in the eighties.... 1) Digital recording, 2) Digital reverb and 3) Digital synthesizers. D'ya think there's a commonality? ;)

The more I do this and the more music I listen to, the more I'm coming to appreciate the MUSICIANSHIP of some of these greats who didn't have all this technological "assistance".

How very, VERY true!!

And thanks for the John Mayer suggestion; I'll look it up. :)

[Mixwell]

Cgkft2olapw&feature=player_embedded

[Fletcher]

The "modern" sound is the sound of the first record that sells like crazy and ushers in a new era of people trying to make records that sound like that record... in the 60's it was Sgt. Pepper until the '70's when it was "Dark Side of the Moon" which was replaced by "Hotel California" in a few years.

In the 80's it was "Let's Dance" until that was replaced by [favorite Mutt Lange Record name here] which was replaced in the 90's by "Nevermind"... which was indeed the benchmark until Lenny Kravity "5" record taught us that Pro-sTooling something to death while using massive amounts of "vintage" gear was the way to go... until "Godsmack" decided that that insipid Bogner/Dual Rectifier guitar tone was all that was important.

Now I guess its kinda that "Green Day" compressed to death thing that's in vogue... but that's really more of "Godsmack" sound of blah with better songwriting.

What's next?

Who knows... I just wish to hell it would happen sooner than later!!

[pauly]

Now, you show me a record where they're actually using all these wonderful technologies to do something novel, interesting and perhaps even unique and I'll definitely give it a listen. :) (Recently I was pleasantly surprised to discover "Shpongle" which is obviously Pro-Tools'd to death, mastered to extinction and all synths 'n' samplers but nonetheless inventive, musically interesting and quite enjoyable)

sandy here are a few records that are fairly recent, all are going for a louder record but are interesting to me, all are using the new and the old, in a what i think good ways, hope you like.

arctic monkeys- whatever people say i am, thats what im not
jimmy chamberlin complex-life begins again
people in planes-as far as the eye can see

[pauly]

sandy this is a neat one, pet genius and the album is also pet genius, this dude in salem mass. named kurt ballou has been making some pretty hip recordings for a number of years now. his studio is called god city, and he's coloring with all 64 crayons.

[CaptainHook]

The real point of making music is to capture a perfomance and as engineers that job is given to us. Sure we sprinkle alittle magic sometimes to make things sound bigger or more dynamic but its for the sake of "the song".

I dunno. I do photography also. There's times when documenting events are
appropriate, and other times when creating something surreal is the goal.

In both fields, i prefer to work with the surreal. And that actually starts with
capturing the best performance possible (as you say), but being creative with the
capture/presentation of the event. Sometimes as an engineer, my art is restricted
a bit more to the craft side, but if i have any say about it i definitely do
this gig for the artist endeavors.

I'm not so much into recording with accuracy someone else's art unless i'm
more involved with creating it. Producing is a great outlet for that.

If that put's me into the 'modern sound' camp, cool. Don't care.
Music either affects me or it doesn't. There are 'modern' productions i love.
And 'classic' productions also. But in full disclosure i also LOVE the 80's
(probably the most) so fuck you all. :)

[pauly]

ok, this is what i think the modern sound is, feel free to bash the crap out of me if you disagree. to say modern sound is the sound of the hottest selling new release is too narrow, and to say over compressed, auto tuned, limited to death is still just an opinion of what sounds good or bad, but also too narrow. i would say that from 1958 to present is the modern sound, because 1958 is when the first stereophonic phonograph discs were available. and stereo is still the format for music. when the standard is 5.1 or something we dont even know about yet that could be the post-modern sound. the engineer and the format used and the plugins, compression etc its all just shading and is a very small small little dot on the map that makes a good song timeless..

[Sandyrb]

I guess before attempting to explain our views on the "modern sound" we should probably delineate what we mean by "modern". :-)

[Spectacular G]

For me This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pony_Express_Record

Should be The modern sound. EPIC is rite.

Or this maybe.http://www.myspace.com/goebelboys

G.

[moose]

But therein lies the problem, don't you think? IOW recordists AREN'T using the modern toys to do something new and interesting; they're often using the plugins and gadgets to make cookie-cutter records which are formularized crap. I think the technology has A) made some lazy and B) given some others all the tools they need to be perfectly as bland and repeatable as the next guy. Heck, we've all heard anecdotes about would-be young recordists grabbing a certain software because "...that's what uses". You [I]never hear people say they want a certain software/gizmo because they want to create something unique.

Now, you show me a record where they're actually using all these wonderful technologies to do something novel, interesting and perhaps even unique and I'll definitely give it a listen.


Some musicians as a whole (demographically speaking) are reluctant to move ahead and married to whatever happened or whatever tools were used a long time ago. We'll find guitarists that don't want to use anything but pre-CBS Fenders with a Fuzz Face and Echoplex into a Marshall made past 1973... and that's cool... I love all that stuff, but I'm not married to it and Christ man, its two-thousand and freaking 10!!! Lets move on eh? The rest of the world has...

Its those same reasons I think that people just "have to have" a specific piece of software or plug-in or whatever their widget of choice is... its the fear of using something different and being rejected because its different. And to some degree maybe their right... being unique isn't very marketable in a world where the powers that be want to be able to stuff you into the little box of whatever their mold is.

Some great music sneaks through anyway but its nothing that'll you'll hear on MTV or in the mainstream... like they even play music anymore anyway.

One of the coolest artists I've heard in the last few years is RJD2... he smashed some barriers and achieved quite a bit of success without the mainstream.

[iCombs]

Some musicians as a whole (demographically speaking) are reluctant to move ahead and married to whatever happened or whatever tools were used a long time ago. We'll find guitarists that don't want to use anything but pre-CBS Fenders

Because they are way better than the crap that CBS put out...

with a Fuzz Face

Not my cup of tea...but an original one is one helluva distinctive sound...

and Echoplex

Because they really do have a sound all their own between the amplifier sections and the tape itself...

into a Marshall made past 1973

I'd have thought it was Marshalls up until about then...they really got bright and stringy and nasty...

... and that's cool... I love all that stuff, but I'm not married to it and Christ man, its two-thousand and freaking 10!!! Lets move on eh? The rest of the world has...

I bet they'd be more willing to move on if there were legitimate replacements for this stuff...but I'll tell ya...you gotta LOOK and SPEND to get new shit that sounds like that old shit...

There's no replacement for the right tool...and when that shit works and works right, it is the right tool.

[Mo Facta]

We'll find guitarists that don't want to use anything but pre-CBS Fenders with a Fuzz Face and Echoplex into a Marshall made past 1973... and that's cool... I love all that stuff, but I'm not married to it and Christ man, its two-thousand and freaking 10!!! Lets move on eh? The rest of the world has...


I think you'd be surprised to find how those old, seemingly classic pieces of gear will be used to achieve a "modern" sound. To paraphrase a certain somebody from a certain other forum on the other side of the tracks, it has been common practice to use 35+ year-old guitars through 25+ year-old amplifiers to supply us with that "modern" sound.

Modern, to me, means actually being bold enough to shun the cliche's of what it means to be modern, and break some boundries. That's the only way new sounds are born. I mean look at distorted guitar. The very first amps were not originally designed to be overdriven. It was only discovered later that if you scare the shit out of the input section of a tube amp and turned it up loud the whole thing, speakers and all, would clip and distort in a very pleasing manner. It was the same contemporary and conventional gear being used in unconventional ways.

I can also imagine that there were those who, when they heard distortion for the first time, were put off by it and considered it an abomination to the establishment. Hell, that's why we have rock and roll. But it was groundbreaking and went on to become a sonic basis for countless records throughout history because everyone's ears opened up to a new sound that was exciting, loud and expressive.

So now it's passe and everyone and his dog has a distort-o-matic behemoth guitar amp. How do you take that amp and make it work in a groundbreaking way? How do you break the mold. They irony is that it's been designed to mimick the sound originally created using amps that weren't designed to be distorted. One, these days, definitely needs to be more creative if you want to make records that sound "modern" and stick around.

Everything else is an emulation.

Cheers :)

[Mixwell]

There's an old story about the white lab coat brit's complaining to Hendrix that they couldn't get the distortion out of his amplifier.

This thread made me subscribe to Modern Sound Magazine.

[moose]

I think you'd be surprised to find how those old, seemingly classic pieces of gear will be used to achieve a "modern" sound.


Likely not.

I'm guessing you've never seen the collection of instruments and stomp boxes that are on-hand or available with a quick phone call. One of my friends has at least as many fuzz pedals as Eric Johnson...

I'd rather not deal with the old stuff and use new stuff. Like a FoxRox silicon fuzz rather then a fuzz face. It doesn't freak out and stop working on a 105 degree outdoor stage.

Its funny...

I said that a Wilco record, to me... sounds "modern" and people disagree.

Now we're saying that old fuzz faces and '60s Marshalls are modern.

WTF?