This video, by Tijn Berends, a member of the Netherlands-based folk duo Itchy Fingers, was recorded in May 2013, obviously at home. Berends has a nice touch on the harmonica; the lines are played swiftly and cleanly, with ornamentation suited to the style. (Love those little triplet touches.) His light breathing helps plenty; it’s tough to play loud and fast at the same time, and he doesn’t make the mistake of trying. These pieces fly by, with plenty of feeling when it counts on the big notes.

Irish music is going international, the way the Blues did in the second half of the 20th century. I used to marvel when I heard some great playing in this style from a band based in Oslo or Barcelona. I don’t anymore. And I say: it’s all right! Some of the coolest harmonica playing is coming from the most unexpected places on the planet, maybe because the kids in those places don’t know that you’re not supposed to play harmonica on whatever styles they like the most. No tradition? No problem. They’ll borrow one or make it up.

More great music with harmonicas in more places in the 21st century? I’ll drink a Guinness to that.

I just saw this Audio Fanzine article on the upcoming Digitech RP360 and RP360XP. Here are a few first impressions.

First, the number of amp, cab, and FX models is exactly the same as it is for the current RP355. It’s possible that they are in fact the same; we don’t know yet if this device uses something different than the AudioDNA2 chip that powers the RP150/155/250/255/350/355/500/1000. UPDATE 9 December 2013: Digitech tech support has confirmed that the RP360/360XP is based on the AudioDNA2 chip.

What’s obviously different is the user interface. The rows of lights and dials that have been common to RPs since the first days of the RP100/200/300 have been replaced with an LED display that’s more like the Zoom G3, where you see a horizontal row of FX devices in the order that you’ve chained them, and can turn each on or off as you choose. (UPDATE 12 December 2013: unlike the Zoom G3, you won’t be able to chain multiple modulation FX–pitch shift, chorus, flange, etc.–in a single patch, but you will be able to put your FX in any order you like, which is a welcome change from the fixed FX order of the RP355.) There are three rotary dials, which means they are probably multi-functional, but since there are only three it should be manageable. The fact that there are fewer rotary encoders than there are on the RP255 and up means that there’s also less real-time control from the front panel, but I wonder whether many RP users actually use all the real-time control that they’ve got.

Another difference is that the XLR outs from the RP355 have been dropped–it’s 1/4″ I/O all the way, mono or stereo. I suppose most RP355 users never used the XLR outs, especially since the implementation was so odd–no mono XLR out? I doubt most RP355 users upgrading to the RP360 will care. I won’t.

The RP360 uses metal footswitches instead of the plastic footpads that are another RP tradition. This is clearly a change for the better, and will allow for much more precise control over patches in performance. However, Digitech still uses the two-button-at-a-time approach to start or stop certain functions, one of which appears to be the looper. We’ll have to see how that works. Ideally you just use the two switches to put the device in looper mode, not to actually start the looper. If you have to hit two buttons at once to get a loop started, that’s very, very, bad. Precise timing matters with a looper; it will not be easy to hit two buttons together at precisely the right time.

Digitech is also following Zoom’s lead in offering this device with and without a footpedal controller. I would never recommend to anyone that they buy an amp modeler without a footpedal, unless it’s a backup, but if that’s what you want to do, you can. Did I mention that I would never recommend that? A footpedal controller adds a lot of expressive power to one of these devices. Don’t get a device without a footpedal if you can avoid it.

Digitech is apparently releasing new software called Nexus to support the RP360. Nexus is the name used for the app that controls their iPad-based multiFX unit, the iPB-10, so perhaps the RP360′s computer support will resemble that app.

That’s all we know for now; stay tuned for more info as it becomes available. Note also that the current generation of Digitech devices are really great-sounding devices, especially when they’re equipped with our patch set for Digitech RP, and that’s not going to change because of the RP360 etc. (UPDATE 9 December 2013: given that the RP360/360XP runs the AudioDNA2 chip, just like the other RPs, it’s very likely that it will sound very much the same.) It’s likely that big deals will be available soon on remaining Digitech RP155/255/355 inventory, so if you’re thinking about buying, wait a little while.

You can also check out an interesting discussion of the RP360 at TheStompBox.net if you’re so inclined.

Mackie TH15A on left, Peavey KB2 on right. Click on the photo for a bigger and wider image.

I was given a Mackie Thump TH15A powered speaker this Christmas, and I’ve replaced my Peavey KB2 with it in my rig.

The Mackie is louder, deeper, and lighter-weight than the Peavey. The Mackie has 400 watts divided between the woofer, which is a 15″ compared to the Peavey’s 10″, and the tweeter, which in the Peavey is integrated into the woofer; the Peavey’s output is in the neighborhood of 50 watts. In other words, the Mackie has a bigger pile of watts pushing the speakers, and the bigger woofer and horn together move lots more air at both the low and high ends of the frequency spectrum. (Of course, that’s not critically important to most harmonica players, who are playing an instrument that mostly occupies the mid-to-high-frequency spectrum; in other words, the Peavey coupled with an amp modeler like the Digitech RP has plenty of power and range for a traditional player. But when you use multiple instruments in loops that occupy a much wider range of frequencies, as I do, you need every bit of frequency range you can get.) At 29 pounds the Mackie is about five pounds lighter than the Peavey (34 pounds); either is easily carried in one hand.

The Mackie only has one XLR input (plus an XLR thru), as opposed to the Peavey’s one XLR and two 1/4″ inputs. The lack of 1/4″ inputs on the Mackie was a momentary problem for me, particularly because I was giving the Peavey a mono 1/4″ feed from the Digitech JamMan Stereo looper, which is the last device in my FX chain, and which possesses no XLR outs. Then I remembered that I had a battery-powered active direct box on the shelf. The solution was to run a 1/4″ mono output from the JamMan Stereo, whose own mixer combines the outputs from my voice and instruments, to the direct box, and then run an XLR cable from the direct box to the Mackie.

The Mackie includes a nice EQ with high, low, and middle bands, and the center frequency for the midrange band is movable. The Mackie also includes a rotary volume control on the back panel, which is very useful, though not conveniently placed for access during performance. These are minimal controls, but important ones, and their presence is welcome. The Mackie seems to make more self-noise than the Peavey, which is audible mainly when using the speaker at lower volumes; at higher volumes it just sounds big and loud, with a lot of low-end information that the Peavey just can’t produce.

The Peavey has a signficant advantage in terms of I/O options, though; counting the FX return, the Peavey has 5 inputs (channels 1-3, the FX return, and the Monitor input), as well as an FX send, a monitor send, and a balanced line out. The Peavey even has a headphone output, which is very useful for apartment-dwellers who’d like to be able to practice their instruments without offending the neighbors. For all these reasons, if you’ve got lots of inputs, you may want to stick with a keyboard amp. On the other hand…

I mentioned above that the Mackie weighs significantly less than the Peavey, and to me this is a very strong argument for the powered speaker: the power-to-weight-ratios and power-to-price ratios are both much better. (One might argue that Mackie’s main intention with the lightweight plastic cabinet was to keep the price of the Thump down–i.e., lower price at the cost of quality. Plastic is of course less durable than wood, but it is certainly lighter, and this cabinet feels substantial, so if Mackie saved some manufacturing costs and passed the savings on to me, I’m satisfied with the deal.) The Mackie’s 400 watts just blows the Peavey’s 50 watts away, with much less distortion at high volumes and an extended frequency range. The Mackie retails at $350 new, while the Peavey retails for about $260 new; but that extra $100 buys a whole lot of power in a lightweight package. Anyway, mine was purchased used at about $250 including shipping and a one-year warranty, which is not a unique deal, and that puts the Mackie in direct price competition with the KB2.

As of now, I suggest that players who want lots of loud with their amp modeler and don’t need more than one input should seriously consider a powered speaker. A powered speaker has all sorts of uses, from amping a single instrument to functioning as all or half of a self-powered PA, and it’s got a very high loudness-to-dollar ratio. Keep in mind that if you want more than one input, you’re going to need a mixer, and if the output from the mixer to the speaker doesn’t have an XLR connector, you’re going to need a direct box to make the connection. I’m using a 4-input mono mixer from Nady that cost $25 new, and a direct box that cost around $35. I’m purposely avoiding a stereo setup at the moment, but if I wanted one I’d need to add a stereo mixer for starters, preferably one with XLR outs.

I’ll post some clips of this setup soon.

Digitech has officially released the RP360/RP360XP, and it’s an interesting box. A few highlights:

1) This thing runs the AudioDNA2 chip that’s built into the RP155/255/355/500/etc., so the basic sound engine is the same. However, Digitech’s included some of the most harp-friendly amp models from the RP500 into this device, such as the Gibson GA40 and the Digitech Blues. So in that sense, it’s got a little bit more for harp players under the hood than the RP355 (though not the RP500). it’s also got a few more modulation FX, e.g. a new chorus model or two. The reverbs and delays are the same as in the previous generation of RPs, meaning pretty damn good, and certainly as good or better than dedicated stompboxes selling for as much as this device.

2) The new operator interface, which is graphical (with icons representing amps and FX) is probably a lot easier for most people to use than the matrixed lights-and-dials interface on the older RPs. Ditto the new metal footswitches.

3) You can now use an external volume or expression pedal to control just about everything you can control with the 360XP’s built-in expression pedal. If you’ve already got a volume or expression pedal with a 1/4″ jack on it, you can use it with the RP360 to control any parameter of any effect that you like. You can also add an FS3X footswitch to control the RP360′s looper, so you can use footswitches to control patch selection, FX level, and the looper, all at once.

4) It’s got tap-tempo for the delay. (About time, I’d say, and the pun is intentional.)

5) It’s got the same dual-EQ setup that the RP500 has–an amp-modeled bass/mid/treble EQ, and a semi-parametric EQ with movable center points and slopes for the low, mid, and high ranges. That is a VERY nice EQ setup–it allows you to tune the amp model for the response you want, then use the parametric EQ to make it sit in the mix.

I haven’t put together a patch set for this box yet, but obviously it’s a priority for me. That said, the big question for a lot of RP users is going to be: should I replace my current RP with this thing? My short answer is “no” for most current owners. The sound engine is the same, so the 360 isn’t going to make you sound any different for the most part. The new amp models are useful, but not enough to justify spending $200 to replace a perfectly functional RP that ultimately sounds very much the same.

However, the new features are attractive enough in my opinion to make this box the preferred choice for new RP buyers, especially if you don’t want to go all the way to an RP500 (which is a bigger, heavier, more expensive device, admittedly with some of the series’s best performance features). Digitech’s packed some of the most useful models and performance features of the RP500 into a smaller, lighter package. It’s a good choice of features at a good price point; not a giant evolution upward from the RP355, but a well-thought-out update that addresses many of the areas for improvement in that device. However, you may want to keep your eyes open to see whether anyone starts liquidating new RP355s at half price, which is the kind of opportunity that comes with manufacturer model changes.

Stay tuned for more info as I pull the patchset for this thing together.

My RP255 died the other day. I plugged it in, and nothing lit up. I tried a different power supply. Same thing.

This is the RP255 that I famously plugged into a 220 volt socket in London, at which point the power supply got hot and failed. The RP255 worked the next time I plugged it into a 120 volt socket in the USA, so I thought all was well. Alas, though it was not dead, the thing’s encounter with London electricity must have left it mortally wounded.

So now I have to get the thing serviced or buy a replacement, at least if I intend to keep developing sounds for it. Alas. I was kind of hoping to keep using that one.

Anyway, life is a cycle, innit? My Peavey KBA100 keyboard amp has been dead for a while now, ever since I took it apart while trying to clean the VERY scratchy pots on its front panel, and never put it back together again. I never succeeded in cleaning the pots well enough to make it worth bothering, or so I thought.

So a couple of days ago I was trying to figure out what to do with it. A fifty-pound paperweight has few uses in my house. I finally decided to just put it back together and take it down to the local Guitar Center to see what they’d give me for it in its non-functional shape. (Hey, the cab and the speaker are still fine.) So I connected the speaker leads back to the amp circuit board, fitted the amp back into the cabinet, plugged the power in, and turned it on. And it worked.

Yes, it lit up and got loud through all three of the front panel inputs. And when I turned the rotary pots, they barely made a sound. I sprayed them all with contact cleaner anyway. Three times. They’re definitely not scratchy now.

Gear dies and is reborn. You can fix something by taking it apart and putting it back together again, even if that’s all you do. Amazing.

I may even try it with the RP255.

I’ve completed initial setup of the first set of 50 patches for the Digitech RP1000. My RP500 v17 set is my current benchmark for excellence in RP sounds, and I’m aiming to make the first RP1000 set sound very much the same.

The RP1000 has a MUCH hotter output than the 500, and I expect to need to deal with that somehow during testing. The 1000 is as loud with master volume set to 11 out of 99 as the 500 is with master volume set to 64. How the hell did that happen, Digitech? I guess somebody had a spare wall at the factory and decided they needed something loud enough to knock it down…

In the meantime, we’re getting closer to the official release for this set, which will be priced at US $50 (one dollar per patch). And then comes the set for the new RP360/360XP. So many devices, so little time.

The Digitech RP1000: it’s big, it’s bad, and it’s coming to you soon with our patches in it

This tip’s message is simple. You’ve got an expression pedal. It makes the RP more expressive (as you might expect from a pedal whose name includes the word “expression”). So use it on every patch to express something.

On every RP from the 250 up, you can assign the expression pedal to control just about any parameter of an RP patch. Two of my favorites for this purpose are delay level or reverb level. If I’m running a rotary speaker or vibrato patch, I might assign the pedal to control rotary speaker speed, or vibrato depth, either of which add a lot of emotion (um, expression?) to the basic tone and effect. (Change in a sound equals emotion; a sound that is unchanging is also unfeeling, or at least unvarying in its feeling.) Another favorite is using the pedal to control the Whammy pitch-shifting effect.

What do the Digitech RP500, RP1000, and RP355 have in common? An expression pedal. And we’re glad.

But whether you take the lazy route and use the pedal to control volume, or get more creative and use the pedal to introduce a range of changes to the sound, USE IT. Make sure you take advantage of one of the simplest and most powerful performance features of the RP.

To program the expression pedal:

I repeat: you’ve got a pedal. Know how to use it. You can do amazing things with it that can’t be done any other way. Get on it, man.

Boris Plotnikov of Ekaterinberg, Russia has featured on this site before. (About 4 or 5 times, in fact. Just type “Plotnikov” into the search window in the upper right corner of this screen and see what comes up.) Boris has just released his first full-length recording with his band Vinnebago, which Boris describes as a “very uncommon mix of modern production, jazz harmonica solos and Russian hip-hop lyrics.” I haven’t heard the whole thing yet, but the video teaser has enough killer stuff on it to make this record a top priority for my spin stack. The harmonica sounds brilliant, as expected, and it’s pretty cool to hear someone rap in Russian–the rhythms and the attitude come through even if you don’t know a word of the language (like, uh, me).

Check it out, then get the record on iTunes. Yeah, you heard me: CHECK IT OUT, THEN GET THE RECORD ON iTUNES! That’s right.

I’ve had my Digitech RP360XP, the latest in their RP line, for about a day now, and two things are clear: the box sounds great, and the software for patch configuration and management, to put it bluntly, is plain not good enough.

The RP360XP: great sounds, s— software

On the second point, Digitech has inexplicably chosen to make the Nexus software that supports patch editing and management in the RP360XP LESS functional than the barely-good-enough Xedit application that it replaces. Nexus is Not Good Enough. Not nearly. Not if we’re talking about solid support for a working professional who needs to reconfigure the device quickly for specific performance situations.

Xedit had its problems. It was kind of clunky to look at, and you couldn’t even start the application unless an RP was plugged into the computer via USB. But Xedit did allow for quick reconfiguration of the order of patches in the device via drag-and-drop. If you wanted to move a patch from one place to another, all you had to do was left-click on the one you wanted to move, drag it to the desired location, and release the mouse button; Xedit would then drop the selected patch into its new slot and helpfully move everything else up or down in the stack as needed to make room for it.

Pretty good stuff, right? Guess what? No more of that, pal. Nexus won’t do drag-and-drop. If you want to move a patch without overwriting some other patch, which you very well might want to do in order to construct a sequence of patches for a song, you have to export EVERY patch that you need in the sequence, then re-import those patches, one by one, into their new locations. If your new sequence of patches starts in user location #1, that means moving 99 patches, one by one. Can you spell “bull—-?”

The absence of drag-and-drop patch movement on an application of this type in 2014 is incomprehensible to the point of ridiculousness. It is even more incomprehensible given that this feature was available on Xedit, which application Digitech has been supporting since the mid-2000s. And of course, the much-vaunted Nexus app is now revealed to be a less-functional version of Zoom’s Edit&Share software–all the pretty pictures, without the one feature that really matters most. (Did I forget to mention that Nexus forces you to move the mouse in order to change numeric values for parameters, meaning that you can’t just click and type a number in? Now that’s a feature designed to reduce productivity to the bare minimum, and it certainly succeeds on that score.)

I sincerely hope that someone at Digitech realizes quickly how much value the absence of drag-and-drop patch movement removes from Nexus and the RP360XP, and fixes it. It wouldn’t hurt if they also made it possible to type numeric parameters into Nexus instead of forcing the user to try to get an accurate value by moving a mouse. And in general, it’s about f—ing time that Digitech figured out that they’re really in the business of wrapping hardware around software, which means the software better be pretty damn good. Which–in case I haven’t said it clearly enough yet–it’s not.

I spent a few hours converting my RP500 patches to the RP360XP last night, and I discovered another serious design flaw in the Nexus software. This is beginning to look like a trend, huh?

Here it is: using Nexus, you can order effects within the RP360XP’s FX chain, but you can’t use Nexus to determine whether an effect is placed BEFORE or AFTER the amp/cab model in the chain. Digitech clearly notes in their user manual for the RP360XP that you can use the RP360′s front panel controls to place an effect anywhere you like in the chain, but YOU CAN’T DO THAT FROM WITHIN NEXUS. (Yes, the caps in this case represent me shouting.)

So what’s the big deal? Well, an effect that’s placed AFTER the amp/cab model sounds very different from one placed BEFORE the amp/cab model. In order to experiment with said effect placement, the RP360XP user MUST use the 360XP’s front panel to edit the FX chain. In other words, the user has to switch back and forth between the 360′s front panel and the Nexus software just to find out how placement of an effect before or after the amp/cab modeling will affect the sound. Yes, you heard that right: you can’t accurately program this device unless you literally have one hand on the hardware and the other on the mouse. (UPDATE March 4 2014: as per my updated comments at the bottom of the page, this is true if you are in fact using the Nexus software to edit the RP360; however, the RP360′s front panel functions are capable of accurate editing without the software, so the user has a viable alternative. See below for more information.)

Where I come from, we call that Stupid with a capital S. Digitech’s Xedit software solved this problem elegantly by using a simple switch in the Chorus/FX section to determine whether the modulation effect was placed before or after the amp/cab model. (It’s a measure of how frustratingly bad Nexus is that I am now using the word “elegant” to refer to Xedit’s barely-acceptable functionality.) How come I can’t do that in Nexus? There is no good answer to that question–I guess somebody just forgot to put it in.

Further, and even more frustrating, Nexus doesn’t follow Windows conventions for common program functionality. In other words, functions that are handled in the same, consistent way in almost every piece of Windows software–functions like save, copy, paste, and so on–are handled uniquely in Nexus, and in ways that make the program uniquely difficult to use. Why, for example, does this software use the words “import” and “export” for functions that are named “open” and “save” in every other piece of Windows software? Why, when I right-click on a patch name, do I not see a list of options (copy, paste, etc.) for that patch?

Copying a patch from one location to another should be a simple 2-step process; certainly that’s how it worked in Xedit. But in Nexus, if you want to copy a patch from one location to another, you have to:
1) left-click on the patch name in the patch list
2) Move the cursor to the other side of the screen and click on the menu bar item “copy.”
3) Move the cursor BACK to the patch list and click on the location you want to move the patch to.
4) Move the cursor back AGAIN to the other side of the screen and click on the menu bar item “paste.”

Do that a few times, and you can really get pissed off at the designers of this software. Digitech has managed to do the near-impossible: they have made a software application that is significantly less flexible and functional than the hardware it supports. Wow. Is there an award for that? Oh, and by the way, did I mention that the typeface used on the various FX images is unreadably small on my 13.5″ laptop screen?

The weakness of this software, coupled with the very minimal front-panel feature set, make this a much more difficult device to program than any multiFX box should be–indeed, much more difficult to program than any previous Digitech RP. (And I’ve owned them all, my friends.) This, along with the fact that Digitech doesn’t even have a Sound Community page up on its site for the RP360 yet, makes me wonder why–or whether–they thought they were really ready to release this thing.

I will continue to develop patches for this device, and I’m still converting my RP500 v17 set to it, but as of right now I cannot in good conscience recommend this device over an RP500. Prospective buyers please take note; used RP500s sell for less than new RP360XPs, and they do a lot more to make it easy for users to get the most out of the device.

UPDATE March 4 2014: I’ve discovered that editing the RP360 from its front panel is in fact a functional approach to programming the machine. I apologize to all concerned for my previous overstatements in this regard, and I advise those considering a new 360XP that editing its sounds from the front panel is a reasonably efficient and effective approach, meaning that the RP500 is not necessarily the preferred device. However, my comments regarding the usability of the 360′s software remain valid: it’s crap, and unworthy of the device it purports to support. Someone else, not me, needs to apologize for that.

I’ve given up completely on editing the RP360XP via the Nexus software–it’s just impossibly bad crap, and it creates more problems than it solves.

Fortunately, it turns out that editing the RP360XP via its front panel works fine. What a surprise. The front panel in the previous generation of RPs was okay for minor tweaks, but it would start to go flaky if you edited more than a few patches at a time. The RP360XP’s front panel editing is fully functional, stable, and very precise.

So I’m making good headway now on this device, and I’ll probably finish initial setup on the first set of patches this week. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, Digitech, if you’re really serious about software support for your devices, try making software that works. It can’t be that hard. After all, your competitors have been doing it for years.

Yup. It’s here. If you’ve been waiting for the Huntersounds patch set for Digitech RP1000, wait no longer. $50 gets you fifty killer original harp-ready sounds. Just go straight to our store and pick it up.

The Digitech RP1000: You can load it with our patches starting now

Last night I completed installing the first set of 50 Huntersounds patches on my Digitech RP360. I immediately backed up the set to my computer using Digitech’s crippled Nexus software. I’m glad I did, because if I hadn’t all that work would have been lost, maybe forever.

It took five starts and exits for my latest editing session before Nexus recognized the RP360XP that was attached to my computer via USB. Oh well; I suppose I should be grateful that it didn’t take longer. When I succeeded, on the sixth try, in getting Nexus to recognize the device, it promptly advised me that a firmware update was available, and told me to back up my presets before proceeding–which I had already done, of course.

The firmware update was a very slow process, even on my cable Internet connection. (Charter’s cable internet service is supposed to be the fastest in the USA.) About 10 minutes into the process, the RP simply froze, saying that it had lost contact with the host. (I presume the “host” in this case is Digitech’s servers.) After another half hour, I went to sleep. (It was late, and I do sleep occasionally.) When I woke up this morning, 6 hours later, the device was still frozen. I unplugged it and restarted it. When I did, the following messages immediately appeared on the RP’s screen:

RP 360 Upd V2.0.0.0
IN UPDATER: WAITING FOR HOST…

I started up Nexus and connected the RP to the computer via USB. Nexus immediately advised that I should do a firmware update. I told Nexus to start the process.

That was about 45 minutes ago. For all that time, the messages on the RP’s screen haven’t changed. Nexus is displaying a message that says “DOWNLOADING FIRMWARE.” That’s comforting, huh? But the RP still thinks it’s waiting for the host, or so it tells me. I really don’t know what this thing is thinking. At this point, I doubt that it thinks very clearly.

I’m going to continue to run the updater until something changes, or until 2 hours have passed, whichever comes first. If the RP hasn’t come back from its apparent suspended animation by then, it goes back to Sweetwater in the box it came in, and I’ll take my refund. I haven’t mentioned to this point that I discovered during the process of creating my patch set that the device apparently has some instability in its memory, because certain patches in the set I’ve created have exhibited changes in their parameters between editing sessions, without input from me. Maybe that’s what the firmware update was supposed to address. But of course the firmware update has created a whole ‘nother level of problem.

I’ll summarize my brief experience with the RP360 to date as follows: it sounds great, when it’s working, which it seems to do until you decide to change something inside it. The software that supposedly supports it is incapable of fully editing the sounds in the device, and apparently capable of rendering the device completely non-functional. Anyone who buys this thing with the intention of installing their own sounds in it should be aware that the device can’t be relied on for that purpose. Anyone who tries a firmware update, whether or not prompted to do so by the Nexus software, should be aware that a lot of trouble may result. In other words, in my experience to date this device is a broken toy. If my experience so far is representative of what any buyer can generally expect, the RP360 is completely unsuitable for professionals or moderately advanced amateurs–that is, anyone who wants to create their own sounds, and who intends to be diligent about keeping the device updated.

Or so I think at 7:45 AM Eastern time on March 7, 2014, about 8 hours after I started the firmware update recommended by Nexus. We’ll see what I think in another hour and fifteen minutes, by which time my patience will either have been rewarded, or run out completely.

I had to power the device down and up again 6 times, with Nexus running on my computer, before the firmware update worked. The first 5 times, the update started, took a few shaky steps into the RP’s flash memory, then shut down. The sixth time, it went all the way. And to my great relief, the backup I’d saved of the 50 presets in my Huntersounds v17 patch set loaded on the first try.

The RP360XP: maybe it’s working now?

And Digitech, if you’re reading this, would you please fix this s—? I own one of almost every RP you ever made, starting with the RP200. I’ve been programming the RPs for 10 years. And if I didn’t have that history, I would have thrown this thing into the trash on Day One, because so far it’s the buggiest piece of gear I’ve ever bought from anyone. And you must know it, because it’s pretty amazing to see the first firmware rev less than two weeks after a device becomes available for sale. It makes me wonder whether that rev was underway even before the device went public, i.e. whether you knew the thing had some serious issues when it was released. Did you?

I’ve been pissing and moaning a lot about my RP360XP the last few days. I think it’s only fair to note that the folks at Digitech Tech Support (support@digitech.com) are the best I’ve dealt with just about anywhere. They are unfailingly prompt, polite, to the point, and accurate in their advice. When I have a problem I can’t solve, I go to them with full confidence that they’re going to help. Every time.

It’s easy to forget stuff like that when you’re struggling with a series of problems such as the ones I’ve had with the RP360XP in the last few days. So let it be said: Digitech’s tech support gets it right.

Now back to pissing and moaning…

I’m doing a gig in Milan, Italy at Spazio Teatro 89 on April 5 with Ed Abbiatti and his band Lowlands. It’s an all-acoustic show in (I’m told) a big theatre, and it’s going to be recorded and video’d, so there should be some cool stuff to see and hear afterwards (like an “Unplugged” DVD). I’m spending a few more days in Milan after that to record a few more songs with Ed and Lowlands for the next record. I’ve been on just about every record Ed’s made with this group, and it’s cool to be part of that history.

I’m bringing the Digitech RP360XP with me on this trip, not the RP500. I ran the two boxes side by side tonight, comparing identical patch setups, and the RP360XP sounded better overall–the same vivid tones as the 500, which after all is based on the same chip, but bigger and more detailed somehow. Like Bill Clayton at Digitech tech support told me: subtly better.

That wouldn’t be enough to get me off the 500, which has very, very superior performance features compared to the 360XP, except for two things:
1) The 360XP runs on Euro standard wall power as well as US standard, and the 500 doesn’t. So I’d have to drag a transformer to the gig with the 500. Much simpler with the 360XP. Also…
2) With this band, I won’t be doing the rapid tone changes I use on my own stuff–for the most part I’ll stick to one basic sound per song, and use the expression pedal to modulate the sound. So the performance features of the RP500 aren’t so important this time.

And oh, yeah: if you’re flying a long way, every extra pound and cubic inch in your luggage matters. The 360XP is a lot smaller and lighter than the 500, and that makes a difference here. (However, I have to carry a direct box with the 360XP, because there are no XLR outs.)

The other big difference for me is that the RP500 is programmed with all the tailored sounds I use for my own repertoire, as well as the v17 patch set I offer in my store. The RP360XP only has the v17 patch set in it, and even a few of those patches need some tweaking. (Did you wonder why I haven’t released a set for the RP360 yet? That’s why.) However, I don’t think I’ll miss the customized tones on this gig. Most of them are variations on the v17 sounds anyway, with EQ adjustments for the layered arrangements I do in my solo work. So I don’t expect to miss the repertoire-specific sounds, which is a good thing given that I don’t have time to program them into the RP360XP before I get to Milan, either.

The biggest problem I may have is convincing Ed to let me use the RP–it’s an Unplugged gig, after all. But I’ll work on it. Stay tuned for more details on the gig. See you in Milan.

I published most of this post in a response to a question posted in the comments here. I figured that it was worth publishing as a post in its own right. So here are a half dozen things I think about when I’m choosing between a Digitech RP360XP and an RP500.

1) If you intend to change sounds in performance–or to add and remove elements of a sound, such as distortion or a modulation effect–frequently, I strongly recommend the RP500 over the 360. It sounds very good, it’s larger than the RP360 but not too large for a shoulder bag, and its dedicated footswitches make it very, very easy to manage lots of changes to your tone in performance. There are dedicated footswitches for tap tempo for your delay, for compression/FX/delay/reverb on and off, etc., all of them very useful when you’re on stage and want to create a dramatic moment or two. There’s even a dedicated button for turning the amp and cabinet modeling on and off. In my side-by-side tests of the RP500 and the RP360 running the same patch setups, the differences in sound are very slight, often unnoticeable, and in my opinion not enough to force the decision one way or the other.

Digitech RP500 at top right

2) If you don’t change sounds frequently in the middle of a song, are willing to spend (plenty of) time programming footswitches patch by patch for the 360′s “stomp” (stompbox) mode, or are happy to mainly use the expression pedal to change a particular aspect of your sound in performance, such as the speed of a rotary speaker effect, the RP360 will work well for you. However, let it be known that editing the RP360 must at this point be done mostly from its front panel; Digitech’s Nexus software is a very poor option for editing the device’s setup, adding time and pointless repetition to the task instead of making it easier. Whether edited via the front panel or Nexus, stomp mode footswitch settings can be made only on a patch-by-patch basis. The RP500′s on-off switches dedicated to compression, distortion, FX, delay, and reverb cover most of the really dramatic facets of the sound, are easier to learn (because they’re the same for every patch), and don’t have to be programmed patch by patch, which saves a lot of time when you’re setting the device up for performance.

The RP360XP: great sounds, s— software

4) If price is very important, the RP360XP wins out, because it’s two-thirds the price of the 500. However, in the USA at least used RP500s in very good condition are widely available at or even below the price of a new RP360XP. (And of course there are no used 360s on the market at this time–give it 6-12 months and there will be.) I bought my 500 used for about half the price of new, and it’s been working fine for over two years. So price may not be a real differentiator.

5) If you intend to do a lot of sound design, the 500 wins hands down, because its software (Xedit) is far, far superior to the crippled excuse for a patch editor that Digitech has supplied with Nexus. Digitech’s history where its software support for the RPs is concerned is pretty discouraging in this regard, and I wouldn’t count on them to fix Nexus anytime soon. They might, but they very well might not, too.

6) Finally, the RP360XP runs on both Euro and US-standard wall power–220 volts or 110 volts. Pretty cool if you play gigs on multiple continents.

That’s my list of decision points, summarized here:

I’ve left out factors that might matter a lot to some people. I haven’t figured the looper on the 360XP or the 500 in to the equation, because I use an external looper in my chain that’s more capable than the looper in either box. (The Digitech JamMan Stereo, to be exact.) So add in any additional factors that matter to you.

Since I own both devices, I’m currently making my decisions on a gig-by-gig basis. I’m taking the RP360XP to my gig in Milan next week, but I’m still using the RP500 as the go-to device for my solo performances, where I need as much flexibility in shaping the sound in real time as I can get. So for me it’s horses for courses. If you’re only going to get one, go with the course that’s most important to you. (And if having my patch set in your RP matters to you, then either get the RP500 or wait a few months until my patchset for RP360XP is available.)

I performed last night (5 April 2014) with Lowlands in Milan, and it was a great gig. The venue, Spazio Teatro 89, is a very nice theatre that seats about 250, and the place was packed. The acoustics in the room and onstage were wonderful. I could hear every detail of my own and the band’s performance without straining. The band—which actually consisted of a core unit of Ed Abbiatti (guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter), a keyboardist (on piano, organ, and accordion), a drummer, a mandolinist, augmented by a range of performers (including me, a cellist, a horn section, a lap steel guitarist, and two bassists, one standup, one electric) who played on some tunes but not all (I played on 17 tunes, which shows you how long the set was)—was in fine form, and the audience went nuts basically from the first piece through the end of the show. Very cool.

The whole band takes a bow at end of show; Ed Abbiatti in center with arm raised, me to the right next to the bearded guy in the black shirt and jeans

The band plus assorted friends hanging out on a break during soundcheck

Like Bob Dylan’s, Ed’s music is simple but not simplistic. The song structures include subtle turns and changes; the measures usually add up to 4/4, but they might be structured as a 2+6 instead of the 4+4 that you’d expect. Ed’s lyrics are often dark, but he’s not afraid of beauty, and there were a lot of moments in this show that were frankly beautiful in ways that most rockers wouldn’t dare to try. Rockers mostly like it tough, tough, tough, and I think many of them are scared that they’ll look soft if they openly embrace beauty. (Sting is the exception to the rule among the top tier; maybe he’s consciously using the beauty as emotional counterpoint to his anything-but-sentimental lyrics.) Ed doesn’t have that hangup, and I reveled all night long in the sheer gorgeousness of the sound, especially in the first half of the show, when I was paired with the core band of acoustic guitars, mandolin, keys, drums, and acoustic bass, a setup that gave me lots of freedom to contribute lines and colors.

The stage viewed from the audience; the harp setup is just right of center

Two Chains Running

I used a setup for this gig that included two mic chains. The gig was billed as an “unplugged” show, but Ed read my blog post about using the Digitech RP360, and he let me carry it onstage. (Phew.) I brought my Radial Tonebone ABY box to the show, and it’s a little-known fact that while this device is designed to send one input to either or both of two outputs, you can also turn it around and use it to switch between two inputs with a single output. That’s what I did here; I set it up to take one input from the house-supplied mic, an Electro-Voice Raven dynamic (about which more later), and one from the Digitech RP360 with input from my Audix Fireball. The ¼” output from the ABY box went to my own passive direct box, and from there to the main board via XLR cable. I had to supply a lo-z to hi-z transformer for the house mic cable to get it to work with the Radial ABY box, but I carry at least two such transformers with me to every gig, so no problem there. Take a look at the picture below to see what the chain looked like on the floor. (And take a look at the photo of the bass player’s pedalboard to see how simple my rig is by comparison, even with two mics.)

My rig, view from front of stage. L to R: big harp case, small harp case with Audix Fireball, RP360, ABY pedal, direct box, mic stand for Raven mic.

The bass player’s rig: it’s more complex than mine

You learn a lot by doing side-by-side comparisons, and what I learned on this gig was that I need to do more work on the RP360 patches that I’ve set up for “acoustic” tones. My current clean patch setups on the 360 use a Clean 2101 preamp model with a fair amount of gain plus EQ settings that are designed to take out a lot of high-frequency content (because harp is not short on high frequencies, and it can get pretty zingy out there when they’re amped). It’s a very nice sound, but it’s also a big, wide, mid-rangy sound that came off as “ampy,” not acoustic, in comparison to the Raven mic. The Raven had a beautiful, crystal-clear but warm sound that I couldn’t match with any of my RP360 setups, and I didn’t really want to hold up the sound check while I programmed and tested changes in the 360 setup, so the best solution was to use the two-mic setup with the ABY box. (I’ll have to do something about the RP360 setup when I get a chance.)

Of course, some of the difference in sound probably was the result of hand-holding the Audix mic that fed the 360; when you hold the mic in your hand, the hand absorbs some of the high frequencies. That was just more reason not to try to duplicate what I was hearing from the stand-mounted Raven.

Simple, Effective Changes in Performance

I used the footswitch on the ABY to choose between mics on a song-by-song basis. To keep things extra simple, I restricted myself to one mic per song, and to one sound from the RP360 when that was the selected chain. (It’s not wise to complicate your setup choreography when you’re already trying to stay in sync with a band that you met for the first time 6 hours before the show.) This was easy enough to manage in performance, though we did we have one freakout moment before the show when I accidentally reset the input switch on the direct box from “instrument” to “speaker” (the latter of which is appropriate when you’re using the direct box between an amp and a recording device), which effectively killed the output from the Raven mic and clouded up the output from the 360. Fortunately, we got it sorted before the show started, and once we had the audience in front of us, everything worked fine.

The show began with Ed’s song “The Last Call,” which is about death, and I used my MA_4D patch from the v16 and v17 Huntersounds RP patchsets, which has a Matchless Chieftain amp model enhanced with a pitch shifter that adds a perfect 4th down to the original pitch. It’s a deadly, otherworldly sound, especially in minor keys. I played a CX12 chromatic, which bends more deeply and easily than any other chromatic in my kit, on this song and on two other pieces; the rest of the time I used various diatonics, including a Lee Oskar natural minor in A, a Seydel 1847 in Eb that is the most responsive harp in my kit, a Suzuki Manji in E, and a pair of Seydel Session Steels in A and G respectively. (Like most singers, Ed prefers certain keys above others, which means that I needed to rely on a small set of harps.) The only other RP360 sound I used on this gig was my Huntersounds v17 GA40 patch, which pairs a Gibson GA40 amp model with a GA40 cabinet model. (And that’s why we call it “GA40,” as opposed to “Amped Up and Raw,” which is an equally accurate name.) On one tune I played the first two forms on the CX12 (in the key of E), then switched to the E Manji in first position to close it out. Charlie Musselwhite does that kind of thing a lot; the subtle changes in tone you get that way help to add some juice to a tune, and in this case it allowed me to go from a single-note approach to some very sweet chords.

The setups and instruments did the job. I felt utterly confident in my sound all night long, enough to take some big chances in my solos. At various points I augmented the horn section with harp, playing their lines on both chromatic and diatonic, and I was able to match their dynamics without strain. The saxophonist who led the horn section went out of his way to tell me how much he enjoyed playing with the harp that night. (Most musicians have very low expectations of the harmonica, based on the less-than-stellar players they’ve already encountered, so they’re blown away the first time they hear you play a single note clearly with a controlled volume ramp. Before the show, you have to be patient with them, keeping in mind that they need to hear you play before they can get over whatever first impressions they got from the usual lot. Alas.)

About that Raven

For most of the show, I used the Raven mic straight to the board, and I loved the clarity, beauty, and detail in the sound. The Raven is a very moderately priced dynamic mic that acts like a condenser, with a fairly low proximity effect. Because it’s a dynamic, it doesn’t need phantom power, which is a plus for setup onstage. It’s directional enough to exclude sounds from the sides, but not so directional that the sound changes dramatically when the angle of the instrument to the mic changes slightly. It’s no longer in production but available used, and it may very well be the next addition to my mic locker. I wouldn’t use it as a handheld, which would make it less suitable for recording in crappy-sounding rooms like the ones where I do a lot of recording (e.g., in a hotel room or my kitchen), but for acoustic live shows I think it’s da bomb, especially since I can pair it with my electric rig so easily and give the soundman a single feed to the board, which is very nice when inputs are in short supply. It’s also a pretty cool-looking mic; see the photo below. That tear-droppish shape is familiar and dear to harp players, of course, but I think anybody would find it to be a very cute piece of kit.

The Raven: it’s one cute and clean mic

Coming Soon to a DVD Player Near You

This show was professionally recorded to video and audio, and the audio recording setup was a full-blown Pro Tools HD rig with more than enough inputs for every instrument on the stage. When I wasn’t playing, I hung out backstage observing the recording, and the levels looked good. I have no doubt that the show will look and sound good when it’s all mixed and mastered, and I can’t wait to tell everyone where to get the DVD. So stay tuned for news on where to find it. In the meantime, I’m still buzzing from one of the most enjoyable gigs I’ve ever played.

This is the story of how I recorded the most emotionally shattering harp part I’ve ever laid on a track. Like Ringo said: you know it don’t come easy.

I arrived at Gain Studios in Pavia, Italy last night (9 April 2014) at about 6:30 PM to record the last of four tracks with harmonica for Ed Abbiatti’s new Lowlands album, “Love &tc.” We’d done the other three tracks the night before. I’d had a long (though rewarding) day, which immediately got longer when I called my wife in the USA and learned that my son had experienced serious distress a couple of hours earlier and was being admitted to hospital. That’s rough news when you’re 3000 miles away.

After I talked to my wife, I sat down to listen to the track. (What else? I couldn’t go to the hospital.) It had only been assembled in the previous hour, when Ed’s voice and guitar were matched up with a cello part emailed in by Nashville session player David Henry. The emotion in the track, called “Cover the Distance,” was obvious practically from the first note, even before the lyrics kicked in. It was the story of a friend who’d died suddenly one morning: beautiful, sad, and utterly appropriate to that moment in my life.

I told Ed that the cello was my anchor for the piece, and I would play chromatic harmonica, mainly in the second octave and up, which would frame the voice and guitar in the midrange between the harp and the cello. (As I’ve said on a number of occasions, when it’s time to break someone’s heart, pick up a chromatic and play a ballad.) The cello part was played in half-notes, slow and hushed, which I would match on the chromatic. Because the piece was in C, the key of my chromatics, I could use chord voicings as well as single notes to fill out the textures. A natural sound was obviously called for, and I had the engineer set up an Electro-Voice Raven mic, the same one I used at the concert in Milan on April 5. At the previous night’s session we ran two chains in parallel–the Raven straight to the board, and an amp modeled chain through the Digitech RP360—so we could capture two sounds at once, but for this song an acoustic chain was all we needed. We set the levels so I could stand back from the mic and use my hands to shape my tone.

Under Pressure

My son’s situation was ever-present to me, despite my efforts to shove those thoughts into a box in my mind and close the lid. Adding to the pressure was the fact that the studio doubled as a rehearsal space, and a heavy metal band would arrive to start rehearsing in another room at 8 PM, after which all bets were off where recording an acoustic harp into an open mic was concerned. (Some sound levels are damn near impossible to contain, and that’s where heavy metal bands live.)

It didn’t help that the valves on my CX12 chromatic began popping slightly on the attacks of quiet notes on the very first take. I realized that the relatively cool temperature in the studio was making the moisture in my breath condense on the valves, a problem I don’t encounter frequently in the studio. I knew I could cure it by heating up the harp, but how? I didn’t have an electric blanket, the harp player’s preferred solution to this problem, with me.

The engineer on the session pointed out that there were plenty of tube guitar amps in the studio, and a tube amp is handy when you want heat. He turned on a big 100 watt guitar amp head and laid it face down on top of a speaker cabinet to expose the tubes. The tubes glowed orange, and a few minutes later I parked both the chromatics I’d brought with me on the grill over the tubes, with the open backs of the harps facing down to let the heat in. Before long the harps were working perfectly, and we were ready to record again.

By then the clock was at half-past seven. We tried a few takes, each of which I stopped before finishing the piece. In my efforts to focus on anything but my son, I was blocking my emotions, trying to force perfection, and in the process losing track of the subtle complexities of the harmonic structure Ed had created, not to mention stifling the song’s emotion along with my own. Ed’s songs are simple, but the harmonic rhythms are his own, and there was a quiet “wow” moment in the piece where the harmony shifted from C major to E major. I struggled to remember those changes on take after take, growing more and more frustrated as I tried to hit my marks and maintain the mood of the piece.

Breaking Point

I must have done a dozen partial takes in quick order. None of them was really what I or Ed wanted, though they all contained moments that worked well. The process helped me find the right approach, which was anchored on a gorgeous open fifth on C and G in the second octave, held for four measures, that brought out the stark beauty in the slow-moving cello part. (Open fifths are one of my favorite harmonica textures; they sound like eternity. With a cello under the harp, they sound like eternity in heaven.) I was making good use of hand articulations, including a deep hand vibrato that put a symphonic string feel on my part. But I couldn’t nail the whole take, try as I might.

Chris Peet, the producer Ed brought in from Wales for this project, took over at the console to smooth out that end. We did another few takes.

“We’ve got all the pieces we need for the track,” Chris said. “We can pull them together. How are you feeling?”

“I’m freaking out,” I said, not very calmly. It was true. It was five minutes to eight. The coach was about to turn into a pumpkin. All the pressure I’d felt since I called my wife was coming to roost. And I hadn’t nailed the part, not the way I wanted to.

In that moment Chris did what a great producer does: he helped me find the performance.

“D’you want a moment?” he said.

“Yes.”

I stood at the mic, eyes closed, breathing deeply, allowing myself to feel the sadness in the song and my life.

“Okay,” I said. I put down the CX12 and picked my second chromatic, a Seydel, off the back of the hot tube amp. The Seydel’s tone is a little lighter than the CX12, and I worried for an instant about whether it would be easy to match it to the takes I’d already done, but I was looking forward now. I didn’t want to have to fight the harp, and I knew I wouldn’t have to fight the Seydel. It was warm in my hand, and it played perfectly when I tried a few of my lines on it.

Cover the Distance

“All right,” Chris said. “I want you to take the whole song now, one pass. Just let it flow.”

I nodded, letting his words sink in.

The track began to roll. I felt my sadness flow into it, no longer straining to contain my emotions. The harmonica and the cello together made a peaceful, glowing texture that was heartbreakingly beautiful. My hand vibrato sounded like quiet sobbing. I made a few minor errors—an entrance here or there that was a split second late, a chord that was slightly muffled—and I knew as they were happening that it didn’t matter. The engineer could easily shift those few notes in Pro Tools, or not. Either way, I was inside the heart of the song. (Or so I thought. I might be wrong, no matter how much I loved it. You can decide for yourself when the record is released.)

A few minutes later, at eight o’clock, just in time, the last take was done.

Listening to the playback in the control room, I thought it was one of the best things I’d ever recorded. From the looks on Ed’s and Chris’s faces, I knew they thought so too.

“Give me your address,” Ed said. “I’m going to send you that Raven.”

It Don’t Come Easy

I arrived in Milan last Friday and played one of my best shows ever with Ed on Saturday. Last night I recorded one of the best takes of my musical life on a song that’s going to make some people cry, including maybe me the next time I hear it. In between I did a lot of work with a lot of people, some of it as moving and inspiring in its way as the session I played last night. But the high point of this trip was the last five minutes of my last recording session of the week.

And you know it don’t come easy. It wouldn’t mean much if it did.

I watch American Idol, and have every year since season one. If you want to start snickering, start now. If you don’t want to stop, you can skip the rest of this post, because it’s all about Idol.

If you’re still reading, here’s why I watch American Idol. First, for a while there they had some pretty interesting talent. They don’t now, which is what most of this post will be about. Second, my wife loves it, and I love my wife. Third, I’m fascinated by the business model they created for this show. They’ve dramatically altered the supply chain for talent. Instead of a producer finding an unknown talent, grooming the talent at the producer’s expense, and then launching the talent into an uncaring void–the model for the industry for at least decades, maybe centuries–with a so-so chance of success, the show offloads the risk and expense onto advertisers. The competition builds an audience for the talent week by week, grooming the unknowns in public, and by the time the winner is picked the best of the lot has an audience numbering in the millions, ready to pay for more. It’s all pretty amazing.

But the thing that makes it worth watching is amazing talent, and this year’s show, even more than last year’s (which was pretty dismal) has talent that is simply not amazing. The biggest talents in the room are behind the judges’ desk, and they’re not producers, they’re artists. By the way, I’m referring to Keith Urban and Harry Connick Jr. when I say “talents.” Jennifer Lopez isn’t a singer, she’s a star. Her appeal has very little to do with her voice. If it did, she wouldn’t have any appeal at all, because she’s barely got any voice at all. But she’s got star power, and maybe that’s the problem. When you think you need a mega-star behind the desk to get people to tune in, you’ve basically admitted that the talent on the stage isn’t good enough to do the job. You’re inviting the audience–and maybe the performers–to forget that the point of the show is the contestants, not the judges. The judges this year aren’t horrifying assholes like Nicky Minaj, but they thoroughly overwhelm the poor contestants.

Maybe that explains how Idol can audition 100,000 people and wind up with a bunch of bar singers who seem to sleepwalk through every performance. I don’t know. Something must explain it. When you’re down to the top 6, and Ryan Seacrest and the judges are practically yelling at the contestants after every performance to get it on, for God’s sake, do something great, you know the show has gone terribly wrong. The show’s producers aren’t on-camera, but if they were we’d probably see them tearing their hair out and screaming for someone, ANYONE, to turn in a killer performance.

In previous years, you didn’t have to beg the talent to blow your mind. 100,000 people auditioned every year, and out of those 100,000 there would be one or two–in a great year, three or four–who called down the lightning with every song. The first time I saw Fantasia perform on Idol, singing “Let’s Give Them Something to Talk About,” the hair literally stood up on my arms. Adam Lambert practically tore the set apart with every performance, as if no stage was big enough to contain him. Kelly Clarkson threw down with everything she had, every time. Jennifer Hudson brought every song to a spectacular boil, en route to an Oscar-winning performance in “Dream Girls” that made Beyonce look like a nice kid doing a guest spot with a wedding band. It was amazing to see how much better than very, very good the best were, year after year. It was an object lesson in the rarity of real brilliance.

This year’s crop don’t exactly suck. But there’s nothing especially exciting about any of them. They’re nice kids playing rock star to the best of their abilities, following the directions of their coaches in every particular. They’re not doing what it takes to tear your heart out with every word they sing. They don’t know how.

What happened? How can you run out of brilliance? Maybe it’s the predictability of it all. Everything runs on rails: the staging, the backup musicians, the pop repertoire that by now has been played and sung to death on a million bazillion stages worldwide. Surprise has been engineered out of the show. The performers are doing their damndest to play out a scenario that’s been played out too many times already. They can’t excite us because we know all the moves they’re going to be advised to make, and the only question is whether they can make those moves more or less perfectly than everyone else who’s trying to do the same. You can measure the individuality of these performers only by how far they fall short of what’s required.

Whatever the reason, there’s less chance this year that you’re going to see something amazing on Idol than there ever has been. And without that amazement, the whole thing falls apart. which is what we’re seeing this year, and why neither my wife nor me really feels compelled to keep watching. If this keeps up, Idol is a goner.