Indeed. You could argue that artists like Claypool, Flea, and that guy from Muse are all relentless in their pursuit of tone, yet the tones they achieve are pleasing to many.
That's kind of my point. If I (for example) get a GK rig because I want that GK sound; that is completely defeated when a soundman says to me "Just plug into this DI". It's then an illusion and it's patronizing. It's an illusion because no one else will hear your voice as you as an artist intended and worked for. It's patronizing because it in essence is saying that you can go ahead and have your little fantasy world onstage where you think you have your tone, but I know better and will make it sound they way it should.
The blend issue is a red herring. Guitarists OFTEN have a tone that creates blending problems for soundmen and the band. They are never expected or asked to sacrifice what they consider to be an essential component of their voice. Worst case scenario,
maybe they are asked to go direct, but still will all the FX and electronic tone shaping they want.
Even such a proponent as fokof agrees "In cases where the tone comes from the amp , like a rock band with a SVT , or old genuine stuff , a mike is de rigueur". Even the most vocal proponents of "DI only is best" usually agree with such a statement.
OK, let's follow this logic. Where is the line drawn? OK, a guy with a grindy SVT tone may get the mic...who else? How much coloration I am allowed to have from my rig before I'm denied that consideration?
Eden, GK, Thunderfunk, Aguilar...? Where is that line drawn? And who decides? The soundman? OK, why?
If the argument is that the soundman should be the ultimate authority of what you tone is in the house...the thinking being that he is in the best position to make that call, OK. If that is true should not his authority extend to all matters affecting my tone?
If he is in the position to tell me that no matter what
I may want my tone to be, he makes the call then should not he also be able to tell me what kind of pickups I use? Those can have a HUGE impact on tone. How about strings? Also a huge impact. Playing technique, fingers, pick. What if I like to roll my tone control fully counterclockwise to get my voice, but that makes it muddy in the house...is his authority such that he can tell me I can't do that, even if it's "better for the mix"?
Of course you're going to say that's silly and I agree but the question is
precisely why is that silly?
Why is the soundmans authority absolute once the flow of electrons passes the threshold of a 1/4" jack, but zero before that? Bill Dickens once had a bass with FX built into the instrument...it was part of his voice (at that time). Is that OK, or does the same hardware in an external casing somehow negate that right?
I could just as easily send a signal flow flow the post DI on my amp. "That sound may not work in the house!" Sure, it might present some difficulties; I'm not denying that. But so could many other things before that magic threshold of the output jack. I could do things with a passive bass and playing techniques that could present FAR bigger problems for the mix that simply using a post DI (especially with minimal to no EQ, which is how I generally go), yet it would be absurd to suggest he's allowed to tell me I can't do that. Why is this then? If it's not about the tone in the mix (if it is, the soundman's authority should be absolute over all parameters) then...
I can respect just about any position that is logically consistent with itself. This argument is not, I submit. My contention is that saying that the signal flow must be interrupted at the 1/4" jack is completely arbitrary (and easy) and if you step back and look at the situation it cannot be supported logically, only historically.
