Type of amp you learn on and feel

Sandvich

Paolo_M wrote: »

His technique and sense of rhythm were sublime.
His us of palm muting for picked rhythm parts produced a unique sound, his use of raggae style stabs blended with punk rhtyhms.
He had a pretty unique pick attack and could coax pinched harmoniques from a sqeaky clean amp.
He had an understated sense of phrasing which sat perfectly in the context of the music.
For me his playing is quite like John Frusciante in the sense of knowing when to shut the f*ck up.

He would sound like Andy Summers on an acoustic.

He is actually a poster boy for how effects can enhance an already excellent technique.

Well, he's not an entirely effects driven player so his technique would show up on an acoustic.

But I don't like the implication that how you can play on an acoustic is sort of the measure of how good you really are on guitar; like a piano being to how good you are on a synth.

Correct. If you don't have the technique etc., effects won't help you all that much, you would still be exposed.

I hate the idea that people "hide behind" effects, when many people are guilty of hiding behind learned by the book blues licks and vintage tube amps.

Tube amps are still a very specific effect, people forget.

I think the problem is people don't really have the capability to see themselves as being closed minded to textural guitar as it's not something that gets much exposition.

Even albums like "Siamese Dream" would not have been the same without the walls of fuzz. Sure they had some good solos too but the main thing was the kind of feel and power given by having a big **** off wall of sound.

Tonal quality can be as important as technique depending on what you're playing. Now quality in how expensive your Dumble is, but as in timbre as many genres of electronic music for example rely on manipoulating timbre as much as pitch almost.

If you don't like the idea of doing that with guitar, fine, but it's an awful lot of fun for those of us who prefer doing that to blues licks.

I would LIKE to be technically more competent just so I could show people I'm doing it out of choice, but realistically I don't need to be able to go up and down loads of scales.

Paolo_M

Sandvich wrote: »

But I don't like the implication that how you can play on an acoustic is sort of the measure of how good you really are on guitar; like a piano being to how good you are on a synth.

I hate the idea that people "hide behind" effects, when many people are guilty of hiding behind learned by the book blues licks and vintage tube amps.

Tube amps are still a very specific effect, people forget.

I think the problem is people don't really have the capability to see themselves as being closed minded to textural guitar as it's not something that gets much exposition.

Even albums like "Siamese Dream" would not have been the same without the walls of fuzz. Sure they had some good solos too but the main thing was the kind of feel and power given by having a big **** off wall of sound.

Tonal quality can be as important as technique depending on what you're playing. Now quality in how expensive your Dumble is, but as in timbre as many genres of electronic music for example rely on manipoulating timbre as much as pitch almost.

If you don't like the idea of doing that with guitar, fine, but it's an awful lot of fun for those of us who prefer doing that to blues licks.

I would LIKE to be technically more competent just so I could show people I'm doing it out of choice, but realistically I don't need to be able to go up and down loads of scales.

I wasn't implying, but now that you bring it up I would say that playing on an acoustic is a true measure of you as a guitarist.

I never mentioned blues. You can't hide behind a valve amp. Good valve amps are very unforgiving of poor technique because of their dynamics and punch.

A clean valve amp would not meet most peoples definition of an effect.

I'm not close minded to textural guitar. I quite like it. I'm open to a lot of non traditional guitar playing like what's on the The Fragile by the Nine Inch Nails.

Siamese Dream is another example guitar technique driving an album.
All of those songs work great on an acoustic and I've played many of them at parties. No-one has ever said "Quiet is missing the fuzz, it just doesn't sound right" for example. They're simply well written and arranged songs, performed very well, excellent phrasing on guitars.
If the riff to Cherub Rock is not performed exactly in the pocket timing wise, done using down strokes only with correct slides in the right place then it turns into a wall of mush. The amount of effects used require it to be even more precisely performed than might otherwise be necessary.

Again never mentioned blues and have nothing against creating interesting sound scapes with guitar.

I think you're missing the point here:
You can be an excellent guitarist and not make good use of effects.
You can be an ok guitarist but have a real ear for effects and how to use them.
Some more gifted people are excellent at both.

Quattroste

Keep it up lads. Eventually you will learn that different people have different opinions, and the best part of it is that when we learn to accept the differences and work together to make music, then that is when the differences actually MAKE a difference.

I'm enjoying this thread and I agree with all of you

Sandvich

Paolo_M wrote: »

I wasn't implying, but now that you bring it up I would say that playing on an acoustic is a true measure of you as a guitarist.

I never mentioned blues. You can't hide behind a valve amp. Good valve amps are very unforgiving of poor technique because of their dynamics and punch.

But this depends on poor technique. It can actually be quite easy to learn some of the typical blues, rock and metal techniques and most of it just involves varying velocity and the angle of your pick in a fairly straightforward way.

A clean valve amp would not meet most peoples definition of an effect.

From a signal theory perspective(more the background I'm coming from), it certainly is. A lot of the way a tube amp sounds the way it does is because it's pleasingly **** at recreating sound; limited range speakers, saggy voltage converters. It's part of why Dumbles are so amusing.

A clean full range SS Amp would not be an effect, as it would not manipulate the tone enough to constitute any kind of effect. But a Valve amp will always have some distortion and has a specific EQ. And also, most of the tube like dynamics you only get by overdriving a valve amp anyway(picking harder makes it more distorted rather than just louder, etc., and softer picks sound less fuzzy than on a crap SS amp).

I'm not close minded to textural guitar. I quite like it. I'm open to a lot of non traditional guitar playing like what's on the The Fragile by the Nine Inch Nails.

Siamese Dream is another example guitar technique driving an album.
All of those songs work great on an acoustic and I've played many of them at parties. No-one has ever said "Quiet is missing the fuzz, it just doesn't sound right" for example. They're simply well written and arranged songs, performed very well, excellent phrasing on guitars.

Look at it this way. Would "Soma" have been as effective without the big booming wall of fuzz and crazy sound on the solo?

Sure you can play acoustic versions of it. But they're cover versions, and people expect and even prefer them to be different to the song.

Would Soma, as it is, be only vaguely inferior if it didn't have that wall of fuzz? I really doubt it.

It might sound good on an acoustic, but it's not the same song. There are plenty of songs I'd be very interested to hear arranged differently; without "Hiding behind" the instruments and effects they use. But the point is, it's not quite the same song. It's a different version thereof, a remix, whatever. Metal songs might sound great played on spanish guitars, but it's not "metal" without the distortion.

Some things are strong in both composition and tone, and that's the "ideal song". But there's nothing wrong with doing some mostly atonal droning now and again if that's what gets you going.

I'm a fan of the Touhou Project; who's music gets covered to crap and back. And while it's the same "song", by varying the kind of instruments and sounds used you get some very different effects. To me the original game soundtracks don't compare in the same way to vast orchestral arrangments with choirs that still more or less keep to the same music.

They're still nice tunes no matter how they're played; that's obvious. But on the flip side of the coin, different covers almost being like different songs largely due to the tonal pallette also shows how important that is.

I'm not saying you're closed minded to "alternative" guitar, though some people in this thread really seem to be; but I think it's wrong to say the true measure of a guitarist is how good he is on an acoustic. Perhaps most guitarists, but not all.

I think think the true measure of a good guitarist is how good their music is, no matter what they use to create it(as long as a guitar and perhaps some vaguely guitar like sounds are involved).

If the riff to Cherub Rock is not performed exactly in the pocket timing wise, done using down strokes only with correct slides in the right place then it turns into a wall of mush. The amount of effects used require it to be even more precisely performed than might otherwise be necessary.

Well, it's like a million tracks of cranked Big Muffs through JCM800s lined up together, if one or two were out of time you probably wouldn't notice, it'd jsut add to the effect .

Also; there isn't much difficult about that album in a sense. When you're going through a Solid State Fuzz box like the Big Muff; there's not much room for "Tube Dynamics"(though bizarrely Fuzz Faces can be quite interactive).

That album was compositionally competent; which is different from just outright technique, which is different from manipulating tube like dynamics in a traditional guitarist style. There's also a reason why Siamese Dream is often favoured over the other album, as they quit using the Big Muffs since they couldn't get them to cut live(which was kind of a cop out in my opinion, given how many acts have used them, and that they started using them again anyway towards the end of the 90s, someone must have schooled Billy in Fletcher Munson curves).

Again never mentioned blues and have nothing against creating interesting sound scapes with guitar.

I think you're missing the point here:
You can be an excellent guitarist and not make good use of effects.
You can be an ok guitarist but have a real ear for effects and how to use them.
Some more gifted people are excellent at both.

There are some people that are only interested in going Guitar -> Tube amp, and that's a perfectly valid use of guitar. But so is using a guitar as a controller for synth like effects, using it to control ambient textures rather than, as with the Smashing Pumpkins, adding effects onto already well composed music.

You can have stuff that's simple and rather unimpressive compositionally sound amazing because of the tones use, that wouldn't necessarily sound better with "Better" composition. Again, as well as varying pitch, varying tones can work a lot especially in electronic genres where they "drone" the same pitch but vary filters.

A lot of the guitar work on My Bloody Valentine's stuff is like that; using guitars for "drone" effects which is compositionally unimpressive but works fantastically in the context of the song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DEnwUAzPG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chaYm2TqfHM&feature=related

(Forgot how much I liked MBV - couldn't stand them at first and went straight for the "Lighter" shoegaze acts like Lush, now it's kind of the opposite).

Are Kevin Shields and Belinda Butcher not "valid" guitarists? Should they practice some more like I was told to? Many of those sounds are still obviously made by guitars while at the same time being quite non traditional(pitch shifters and reverb will do this).

Daniel Ash is kind of similar; he's said Solos bore him in this day and age, and prefers to wail on a few notes making unearthly sounds. He's said specifically he rarely ever "practices" as that's not what interests him, he just plays.

I think the idea in general that there should be a specific measure of a true guitarist for me is a little worrying, and the main issue I have with this thread.

The kind of "feel" the OP talks about isn't something that everyone uses in their music.

Personally I do play quite a bit of traditional rock, blues and metal licks because it does personally interest me to play and quite frankly, it is easier than planning out how to use effects. Obviously, our musical interests are actually quite similar, but the bits that differ seem to matter when it comes to this argument.

But as I Said when it comes to music making, it's not really what gets me going. I think it's acceptable not to learn how to manipulate tube dynamics if you're primarily using effects heavy stuff, it's not necessary.

Composition is a different matter; and should always be "good" in a sense, but again, sometimes it's okay to drone too. Talking specifically about electric guitar/tube amp traditional technique; it is not a necessity and contrary to what the OP thinks there are too many people getting into that if anything, I'd love to hear more shoegaze, goth rock, alt rock kind of stuff nowadays.

I've heard chiptunes that were magnificently composed that have no real dynamics at all. They can take advantage of certain effects(like fast arps) and how stuff tends to sound at different pitches in general(like the coin sound effect in SMB) but that's mostly it. Of course, since they're tonally rather simple too Chiptunes don't necessarily interest me a ton and can be quite harsh on the ear; when I've made stuff like that I nearly always end up using filters(which the C64 had I believe).

There is a lot of atonal stuff around bizarrely; which isn't so much my cup of tea(depending on the act, one or two were quite good) but the fact it has a following shows there are people who do disregard traditional composition completely in favour of manipulation of timbre. Some of it rubs me as more than a bit pretentious, but I can still see the appeal in stuff like that to an extent. There were some guitarists there; would it have been appropriate to tell them to "practice better" and stop making waily noises? Not really. Though I did wonder why they needed fancy Orange amps...

IMO, there needs to be less emphasis on technique in rock/blues/metal and more emphasis on genuine "feel". Which is kind of what it was about to begin with...

Blackhorse Slim

Sandvich wrote: »

A clean full range SS Amp would not be an effect, as it would not manipulate the tone enough to constitute any kind of effect. But a Valve amp will always have some distortion and has a specific EQ. And also, most of the tube like dynamics you only get by overdriving a valve amp anyway(picking harder makes it more distorted rather than just louder, etc., and softer picks sound less fuzzy than on a crap SS amp).

Any guitar amp would count as an effect just as much as a valve amp. Guitar amps are designed to colour the sound, even ss ones. A guitar plugged directly into a PA would be "effectless", and sounds ****e.

Sandvich wrote: »

Look at it this way. Would "Soma" have been as effective without the big booming wall of fuzz and crazy sound on the solo?

As effective? Probably not. But still beautiful.

Sandvich wrote: »

Sure you can play acoustic versions of it. But they're cover versions, and people expect and even prefer them to be different to the song.
Would Soma, as it is, be only vaguely inferior if it didn't have that wall of fuzz? I really doubt it.

When Soma is played through a good valve amp, by a good guitarist, with glassy shimmering cleans for the clean parts and tube-driven overdrive for the heavy parts, it sounds fantastic. Different, but still great.

Sandvich wrote: »

I'm not saying you're closed minded to "alternative" guitar, though some people in this thread really seem to be; but I think it's wrong to say the true measure of a guitarist is how good he is on an acoustic. Perhaps most guitarists, but not all.

Personally I'm certainly not closed to alternative guitar, I began playing MBV/Pumpkins/Spacemen3/Loop etc back in the late 80s/early 90s. I then got out of practice for a few years, before returning to guitar around 2000 playing mostly blues and blues rock.

Sandvich wrote: »

I think think the true measure of a good guitarist is how good their music is, no matter what they use to create it(as long as a guitar and perhaps some vaguely guitar like sounds are involved).

I think this is where many guitarists would disagree, myself included. IMO you are confusing composing music on a guitar with being a guitar player.

Sandvich wrote: »

There are some people that are only interested in going Guitar -> Tube amp, and that's a perfectly valid use of guitar. But so is using a guitar as a controller for synth like effects, using it to control ambient textures rather than, as with the Smashing Pumpkins, adding effects onto already well composed music.

I agree they are both valid, but one requires greater mastery of the instrument to really work.

Sandvich wrote: »

Are Kevin Shields and Belinda Butcher not "valid" guitarists? Should they practice some more like I was told to? Many of those sounds are still obviously made by guitars while at the same time being quite non traditional(pitch shifters and reverb will do this).

Daniel Ash is kind of similar; he's said Solos bore him in this day and age, and prefers to wail on a few notes making unearthly sounds. He's said specifically he rarely ever "practices" as that's not what interests him, he just plays.

I think the idea in general that there should be a specific measure of a true guitarist for me is a little worrying, and the main issue I have with this thread.

The kind of "feel" the OP talks about isn't something that everyone uses in their music.

Kevin Shields and Daniel Ash are two guitar players that I like (Bauhuas that is - never really liked Love and Rockets). As musicians, as composers they deserve a lot of credit and respect. But as guitarists, with regard to feel and technique, I don't think either can be compared to SRV or Billy Gibbons. Billy Corgan however, is a lot closer to those "old guys" in terms of guitar technique and ability.

That's not to say everyone has to worship SRV, or even like listening to him. I am frequently amazed by the technique and ability of metal guitarists such as John Petrucci, Yngwie Malmsteen or Herman Li, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to them. They are not to my taste. I would rather listen to Bauhaus than Malmsteen any day of the week, but who is the better guitarist? IMO Malmsteen. And I can't stand him.

The point that not everyone uses "feel" is valid imo.

Sandvich wrote: »

IMO, there needs to be less emphasis on technique in rock/blues/metal and more emphasis on genuine "feel". Which is kind of what it was about to begin with...

Genuine "feel" requires technique - but also a lot more. Being able to create interesting sounds and use them creatively to create new music is not what most guitarists mean by feel. I'd like to compare Johnny Marr, for example, to Billy Gibbons. I am a huge fan of both. When it comes to feel, Gibbons is streets ahead, but when it comes to composition Marr wins hands down. In terms of technique, they are both excellent but I'd probably give Marr the edge (not The Edge! - sorry).

The op maybe goes too far in saying every guitar player should learn on a valve amp before progressing on other effects, but I think that was tongue in cheek. The way I see it is an electric guitar and an amplifier together constitute a musical instrument. As a guitar player you need to understand instinctively how your fingers affect your tone as produced by an amplifier, and that is more pronounced (and more rewarding) using a valve amp.

There is for me something wonderful about being a good acoustic guitar player, and there is some beautiful primal force unleashed by an electric guitar and a good, loud valve amp. But beauty can also be achieved in other ways.


EDIT; A couple of examples of my own;

Ionstorm No real technique, just effects and imagination.
The Thrill is Gone Blooz feel.

Grolschevik

Paolo_M wrote: »

I wasn't implying, but now that you bring it up I would say that playing on an acoustic is a true measure of you as a guitarist.

Coincidentally, I was about to add to this thread again, based on the second or third post in, that I also regret not being able to play acoustic to my own satisfaction. And by the words "my own satisfaction", I mean playing with comparable skill to say, Dick Gaughan. My self-teaching developed in a different way. There is so much that I can't do. Whether I can do so in the future depends on my willingness to start from scratch with a different approach.

Sandvich wrote: »

But this depends on poor technique. It can actually be quite easy to learn some of the typical blues, rock and metal techniques and most of it just involves varying velocity and the angle of your pick in a fairly straightforward way.

Yeah. My pick came with a 60-page manual to that effect.

Sandvich wrote: »

There are some people that are only interested in going Guitar -> Tube amp, and that's a perfectly valid use of guitar. But so is using a guitar as a controller for synth like effects, using it to control ambient textures rather than, as with the Smashing Pumpkins, adding effects onto already well composed music.

But why not just use a midi controller, a laptop, or a synth? Is it because guitars are cool? And why are they cool?

Sandvich wrote: »

Daniel Ash is kind of similar; he's said Solos bore him in this day and age, and prefers to wail on a few notes making unearthly sounds. He's said specifically he rarely ever "practices" as that's not what interests him, he just plays.

And one of my favourite guitarists of the old school is Neil Young. Hardly the most technically proficient lad around... But a great songwriter/soundsmith.

Sandvich wrote: »

think the idea in general that there should be a specific measure of a true guitarist for me is a little worrying, and the main issue I have with this thread.

A tad defensive there? Make your music in peace, brother. I'm not doing the proselytising here. That's your job, it seems...

Sandvich wrote: »

The kind of "feel" the OP talks about isn't something that everyone uses in their music.

But I do, ok? Or want to. Or would like to be able to. Or think it'd be interesting to see how my playing would have developed differently.

Here's a newsflash: not every mention of feel, tube tone, the blues, or Billy Gibbons is a dig at your own musical choices. You bought your Bandit after much public cork-sniffing and you weren't labelled a heretic. Good for you. Now get over it.

Sandvich wrote: »

Talking specifically about electric guitar/tube amp traditional technique; it is not a necessity and contrary to what the OP thinks there are too many people getting into that if anything, I'd love to hear more shoegaze, goth rock, alt rock kind of stuff nowadays.

I said nothing along those lines. And who are you (and El Porn) to say that "too many people" are getting into "that sort of stuff".

Oh, wait, gotta stop typing: the theme from "Pac Man" just came on the radio and I have to concentrate on how those Japanese computer programmers came up with those soulful "toanz"...

Sandvich wrote: »

IMO, there needs to be less emphasis on technique in rock/blues/metal and more emphasis on genuine "feel". Which is kind of what it was about to begin with...

Yep, it was. Welcome to a discussion.

darrenw5094

Sandvich wrote: »

But I don't like the implication that how you can play on an acoustic is sort of the measure of how good you really are on guitar; like a piano being to how good you are on a synth.

I hate the idea that people "hide behind" effects, when many people are guilty of hiding behind learned by the book blues licks and vintage tube amps.

I would LIKE to be technically more competent just so I could show people I'm doing it out of choice, but realistically I don't need to be able to go up and down loads of scales.

Playing on the accoustic is raw. No cover ups there. What you play, is what people hear, and if you are bad, people will know you are bad. Because they can hear it.

People hide behind blues licks and vintage amps. WTF?

What has going up and down scales got to do with technique?

Sandvich

Genuine "feel" requires technique - but also a lot more. Being able to create interesting sounds and use them creatively to create new music is not what most guitarists mean by feel.

But see this is why I think guitarists are wrong. I think guitarists are often mistakening something for feel that is just marketed as feel, mostly so companies can continue to make expensive tube amps to bring out the tone in people's fingers.

I think if you listen to some real atmospheric electronica, like Black Tape for a Blue Girl, or some Brian Eno(though he's a good overall composer too), you'll see what I mean.

http://www.box.net/shared/vjk099oqud

To me, these sort of atmospheric sounds are "feel".

But why not just use a midi controller, a laptop, or a synth? Is it because guitars are cool? And why are they cool?

There's any number of reasons. For a start they provide a more natural and variant waveform than a synth that you have direct control over by manipulating the strings. Guitar and other string instruments are probably the best in that sense as you actually directly contact the strings.

Also; most if not all textural guitarists also play some degree of vaguely "traditional" guitar, it's just not their focus, and bluesy feel is rarely a part of it.

Please stop accusing other people of being preachy, when this thread is in it's essence preachy and you posted it, even if it was intended to be "tounge in cheek", it's still knocking guitarists for not following the techniques of old.

I think the SOLE reason you're doing this is that you're being preachy, and want to hide that fact by accusing someone else of being so.

Here's a newsflash: not every mention of feel, tube tone, the blues, or Billy Gibbons is a dig at your own musical choices. You bought your Bandit after much public cork-sniffing and you weren't labelled a heretic. Good for you. Now get over it.

What? I never bought a Bandit I advised someone else to... I actually have a tube amp...

Oh, wait, gotta stop typing: the theme from "Pac Man" just came on the radio and I have to concentrate on how those Japanese computer programmers came up with those soulful "toanz"...

Wow. You just said you weren't blasting anyone for the kind of music they made; yet you go and blast this. Do you even care about being a hypocrite? Chip tunes are HUGE at the moment.

I think you're becoming massively defensive(and offensive) now since you realised you said something maybe you shouldn't, and are pinning the blame on others...

Playing on the accoustic is raw. No cover ups there. What you play, is what people hear, and if you are bad, people will know you are bad. Because they can hear it.

Technically playing through distortion or a compressor shows up your mistakes more; I've noticed when playing on really clean sounds or acoustics the "Little" mistakes you make don't get noticed. But of course then you lose a lot of the dynamics you get with an overdriven amp.

People hide behind blues licks and vintage amps. WTF?

Yes; they really do. What I mean by that is that other guitarists tend to be receptive of these things, so pulling out your Fender Twin and playing some SRV on it is likely to get you "cred" as a guitarist, instead of doing something new which is what a lot of these guitarists were originally doing. You don't have to much as much thought and effort into it, when you have the shield of "technique" that people automatically respect as talent. I remember in the other thread people were like PROOF TONE IS IN THE FINGERS when his tone and his playing were a bit naff. But because it was "well played" blues riffage, people associated it with being good.

It reminds me of when I was playing a Muse album(sorry El Pr0n :P) when my Aunt was over. One of the louder songs on the album, probably Showbiz was on, and she didn't like it. THen when of the acousticy/clean tracks came on, and within a few seconds she was "ooh I like that" in her ditzy lancashire accent.

It was impossible to tell at that stage if it was a good song. But it sounded like a soulful ballad from the first couple of notes. That's the way the marketing machine latched onto her. It made the direct association of "good song" without checking all the other flags it normally would to allow someone to genuinely enjoy it. I've seen people who consider themselves into music and are still like this.

So much of pop music is based on the same concept, and it's why it's tossed aside after a while - it can't last since people aren't engaging it on any real level. It's a weak facsimile, and so are a lot of the guitarists you see going around.

Now if that's what you want to do, and it's your hobby - that's absolutely fine too. Not everyone has to be a big innovator, and who knows, maybe they will discover something interesting regardless. But knocking on other people, telling them they need to practice when you don't even begin to understand what kind of music they're actually into or trying to do when you're knocking out stuff from overexposed artists is really a bit much.

People tend to be responsive to certain things - just like if you compare two amps, people will tend to say the louder one sounded better. Our brains make the assumption that the louder one is of a higher quality. People often don't respond well to my music because it's not something that's coming from what they're familiar with, but will respond well to blues lickage because that's what they've been raised to consider as "good" music.

So because of this; it's quite easy for some people who have a certain degree of technical ability to learn off some scales and techniques that gets them considered a good guitarist without ever challenging themselves or the instrument. I'm guilty of this myself because I can play some wanky solos if I try hard enough, but my chord theory is **** and as I said I need to work on the atmospheric, ambient and funky effects use.

I really want to continue the instrument in the way many of it's innovators would also have wanted it to go, and that unfortunately for some people means you can't really nark on people for not learning traditional technique.

rcaz

This thread is really interesting.

Regarding the 'why not use a MIDI controller' argument - I do that too, I use Ableton and use it for pattern-based electronic stuff, usually to fit in with standard rock instrumentation as well as some glitchy drums and synths. And it's great and I love that kind of music, but it's TOTALLY different to playing 'textural' guitar.

As Sandvich said, touching the strings is a huge part, you'll never get that sort of connection and expression from a synth. You could get very good expression from a very expensive keyboard or an Analogue Systems French Connection, but it wouldn't be the same.

Also, since you'd be building your sounds from scratch with the usual synth elements, they'd probably sound very cool, but they'd lack that degree of familiarity that the guitar gives that makes them so interesting to hear and play.

People can definitely hide behind 'licks'. You could get someone who understands music and knows theory and can jam some great solos along to a band with the progression in mind, and you could get someone who can play a few really really good solos off by heart after learning them from tab. And all that guys mates would probably tell them how great they are, but at the end of the day, what musical ability do they have? They have the physical ability to put their fingers in the right place at the right time, sure, but that's it.

Interesting points about Siamese Dream. What do you all think of Loveless or Clouds Taste Metallic or OK Computer? These albums are ones that I think, the guitarists on here can't 'shred' solos and impress people that way, but they went a long way to creating their own sound. And when I'm into music like that, and I listen to some other stuff where the band is so lazy and playing the same drawn-out Mr. Rock Guy stuff, I can't stand it. Some people get far enough in the music business to release albums, and don't stop to think, 'What can I do to make this stand out?'.

Grolschevik

Sandvich wrote: »

Wow. You just said you weren't blasting anyone for the kind of music they made; yet you go and blast this. Do you even care about being a hypocrite? Chip tunes are HUGE at the moment.

Fair enough. I got annoyed!

Just as you get annoyed by my apparent implication (which I really didn't mean) that you should play a certain way, I get annoyed by your apparent implication that I shouldn't want to play that way if I could...

But personally, I find that Japanese programmers' tones, while definitely better than the Mexican programmers' tones, don't match up to the US Custom Shop programmers' tones.

Anyway: anyone up for rebooting this thread along the lines of "nobody can be a good guitarist if they can't play the acoustic to a comparable standard as Dick Gaughan?"

rcaz

Grolschevik wrote: »

Anyway: anyone up for rebooting this thread along the lines of "nobody can be a good guitarist if they can't play the acoustic to a comparable standard as Dick Gaughan?"

How about John Williams?

Blackhorse Slim

El Pr0n wrote: »

Interesting points about Siamese Dream. What do you all think of Loveless or Clouds Taste Metallic or OK Computer? These albums are ones that I think, the guitarists on here can't 'shred' solos and impress people that way, but they went a long way to creating their own sound.

What is it with this thread, everyone picking my favourite guitarists, bands and albums? I love all three of those albums. But I like guitarists who can do both, create a soundscape and solo with feeling, such as Billy Corgan (already mentioned) and Dave Navarro. I find Navarro as someone particularly interesting, as a guitarist who can shred but always chooses to go with the right sound for the song - listen to Jane's Addiction's "Three Days" for an example.

Sandvich

El Pr0n wrote: »

This thread is really interesting.

Regarding the 'why not use a MIDI controller' argument - I do that too, I use Ableton and use it for pattern-based electronic stuff, usually to fit in with standard rock instrumentation as well as some glitchy drums and synths. And it's great and I love that kind of music, but it's TOTALLY different to playing 'textural' guitar.

As Sandvich said, touching the strings is a huge part, you'll never get that sort of connection and expression from a synth. You could get very good expression from a very expensive keyboard or an Analogue Systems French Connection, but it wouldn't be the same.

Also, since you'd be building your sounds from scratch with the usual synth elements, they'd probably sound very cool, but they'd lack that degree of familiarity that the guitar gives that makes them so interesting to hear and play.

People can definitely hide behind 'licks'. You could get someone who understands music and knows theory and can jam some great solos along to a band with the progression in mind, and you could get someone who can play a few really really good solos off by heart after learning them from tab. And all that guys mates would probably tell them how great they are, but at the end of the day, what musical ability do they have? They have the physical ability to put their fingers in the right place at the right time, sure, but that's it.

Interesting points about Siamese Dream. What do you all think of Loveless or Clouds Taste Metallic or OK Computer? These albums are ones that I think, the guitarists on here can't 'shred' solos and impress people that way, but they went a long way to creating their own sound. And when I'm into music like that, and I listen to some other stuff where the band is so lazy and playing the same drawn-out Mr. Rock Guy stuff, I can't stand it. Some people get far enough in the music business to release albums, and don't stop to think, 'What can I do to make this stand out?'.

Johnny Greenwood is a great guitarist. I think he can do quite a bit of "shredding" though it just sounds a bit odd. Graham Coxon is kind of similar. He has some great sounds, and he does some crazy soloing like on "Bugman".

Sandvich

Grolschevik wrote: »

Fair enough. I got annoyed!

Just as you get annoyed by my apparent implication (which I really didn't mean) that you should play a certain way, I get annoyed by your apparent implication that I shouldn't want to play that way if I could...

Actually, you skipped over this bit -

Now if that's what you want to do, and it's your hobby - that's absolutely fine too. Not everyone has to be a big innovator, and who knows, maybe they will discover something interesting regardless. But knocking on other people, telling them they need to practice when you don't even begin to understand what kind of music they're actually into or trying to do when you're knocking out stuff from overexposed artists is really a bit much.

But personally, I find that Japanese programmers' tones, while definitely better than the Mexican programmers' tones, don't match up to the US Custom Shop programmers' tones.

Here's a chip tune I made that had plenty of "feel" -

http://www.box.net/shared/74z6akis47

This one's kinda nice too -

http://www.box.net/shared/uxbv78fzxs

It does use some trickery but it still uses basic waveforms with little dynamics.

and also Chiptunes are awesome, which I already posted in the thread.

Grolschevik

Sandvich wrote: »

Actually, you skipped over this bit -

Quote:
Now if that's what you want to do, and it's your hobby - that's absolutely fine too. Not everyone has to be a big innovator, and who knows, maybe they will discover something interesting regardless. But knocking on other people, telling them they need to practice when you don't even begin to understand what kind of music they're actually into or trying to do when you're knocking out stuff from overexposed artists is really a bit much.

Yep, missed that. And I think telling you to practice when it was clear you were just messing with a pedal was a tad out of order. Even if it did sound like Jimmy Page in 1969!

It comes down to a paraphrasing of the old cliche misattributed to Voltaire:
"I don't really like your stuff, but I'll defend your right to do it."

And that should cut both ways.

That said, phrases like "Not everyone has to be a big innovator" and "knocking out stuff from overexposed artists" are a tad judgemental and/or condescending, don't you think?

Sandvich

Grolschevik wrote: »

Yep, missed that. And I think telling you to practice when it was clear you were just messing with a pedal was a tad out of order. Even if it did sound like Jimmy Page in 1969!

It comes down to a paraphrasing of the old cliche misattributed to Voltaire:
"I don't really like your stuff, but I'll defend your right to do it."

And that should cut both ways.

That said, phrases like "Not everyone has to be a big innovator" and "knocking out stuff from overexposed artists" are a tad judgemental and/or condescending, don't you think?

I think they're fair given the level of exposure that kind of music gets especially on every gear demo ever. When people start playing MBV and **** more often, then it might be the other way around

darrenw5094

Sandvich wrote: »

Here's a chip tune I made that had plenty of "feel"

http://www.box.net/shared/74z6akis47

Doesn't sound like any guitar though.

Grolschevik

Sandvich wrote: »

I think they're fair given the level of exposure that kind of music gets especially on every gear demo ever. When people start playing MBV and **** more often, then it might be the other way around

I think I may have had an epiphany.

Is it possible that you're assuming that those of us who talk about "feel" and the tones Gibbons gets (etc) all play primarily covers as a hobby at weekends? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there may be a bit of inverted snobbery involved...

Sandvich

Grolschevik wrote: »

I think I may have had an epiphany.

Is it possible that you're assuming that those of us who talk about "feel" and the tones Gibbons gets (etc) all play primarily covers as a hobby at weekends? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there may be a bit of inverted snobbery involved...

No, that would be even more awful... it's that style of music in general when guitar can be used for an awful lot more.

Sandvich

Ahah. I just found out that Billy Gibbons uses Devi Ever pedals. While I'm not the biggest fan(a lot of them have iffy EQ structures that don't cut well), I find this rather hilarious. You can't get much further away from tube dynamics than that.

Paolo_M

Sandvich wrote: »

Ahah. I just found out that Billy Gibbons uses Devi Ever pedals. While I'm not the biggest fan(a lot of them have iffy EQ structures that don't cut well), I find this rather hilarious. You can't get much further away from tube dynamics than that.

Billy Gibbons also uses solid state Marshalls, and has used some what I would consider questionable guitar choices in the past.

Isn't the fact that he sounds good no matter what gear he uses simply proof of the "guitar technique first" camps point?
Your examples here seem to work against you all the time.

Blackhorse Slim

Also I think most Billy Gibbons fans would agree that his "legendary" guitar tone was mostly pre-Eliminator (or at least pre-Afterburner), on the likes of Tres Hombres, Fandango and Deguello, when I believe he was still using primarily Rio Grande valve amps and Marshall Plexis, with his trusty Les Paul. Since then he has experimented hugely with effects, amps and guitars to get a much harsher, drier tone.

But either way, there is no doubt that he learned how to play on a valve amp - a Fender Champ.

Sandvich

Paolo_M wrote: »

Billy Gibbons also uses solid state Marshalls, and has used some what I would consider questionable guitar choices in the past.

Isn't the fact that he sounds good no matter what gear he uses simply proof of the "guitar technique first" camps point?
Your examples here seem to work against you all the time.

Not really - Devi Ever pedals tend to be square wave fuzz which remove most dynamics. SS Marshalls might be less than desirable but still have a lot of the traditional dynamics.

The point of the OP's tone was that tube like dynamics and playing like the old greats leads to more soulful playing, not just tone is in the fingers(which I also think is silly). People should be more like Billy Gibbons and learn to play on a tube amp. Does that also mean people should be more like Billy Gibbons and use pedals that practically make your guitar into a squarewave synth?

darrenw5094

Sandvich wrote: »

The point of the OP's tone was that tube like dynamics and playing like the old greats leads to more soulful playing, not just tone is in the fingers(which I also think is silly). People should be more like Billy Gibbons and learn to play on a tube amp. Does that also mean people should be more like Billy Gibbons and use pedals that practically make your guitar into a squarewave synth?

If you don't have it in the fingers, you don't have it.

Sandvich

darrenw5094 wrote: »

If you don't have it in the fingers, you don't have it.

Oh come on that's even more meaningless than usual

Grolschevik

Sandvich wrote: »

The point of the OP's tone was that tube like dynamics and playing like the old greats leads to more soulful playing, not just tone is in the fingers(which I also think is silly). People should be more like Billy Gibbons and learn to play on a tube amp. Does that also mean people should be more like Billy Gibbons and use pedals that practically make your guitar into a squarewave synth?

The point of the OP's post was:

a) That the gear we learn on influences our playing style;

b) Learning on a relatively simple set-up such as guitar into small valve amp means that, as part of our learning process, we may also develop the sort of techniques (pick/finger dynamics, volume/tone pot manipulation etc) that lend themselves to what I would call expressive playing;

c) Billy Gibbons, especially on the song mentioned, exemplified that to my ears and he learned to play as in point (b);

d) I like his expressive style and can't play comparably expressively; therefore, I wondered whether I would play more comparably expressively if I had learned to play on a similar set up.

"Playing like the old greats", in terms of playing the same notes, leads, riffs and licks, doesn't come into it and I never said it did.

"Playing like the old greats" in terms of their consummate ability to command the sort of sounds they get out of a simple guitar and amp does come into it.

Paolo_M

Sandvich wrote: »

Not really - Devi Ever pedals tend to be square wave fuzz which remove most dynamics. SS Marshalls might be less than desirable but still have a lot of the traditional dynamics.

The point of the OP's tone was that tube like dynamics and playing like the old greats leads to more soulful playing, not just tone is in the fingers(which I also think is silly). People should be more like Billy Gibbons and learn to play on a tube amp. Does that also mean people should be more like Billy Gibbons and use pedals that practically make your guitar into a squarewave synth?

Ok, here-in lies the problem I think.

My uinderstanding of the OP is that guitar technique should be learnt, perfected, explored and individualised before the exploration of effects and the possibilities there.
I believe he was saying that getting into effects before that process is at least someway in complete can dilute the players potential abilities.

If your points have all been to do with tube dynamics and emulating old blues players leading to soulfull playing then you have been debating a different sudject than me, and the the other guys I suspect.

darrenw5094

Surely the OP meant that people should practice as much on a small valve amp to build up enough technique and feel before you dive into effects. But some people on here, aren't interested in that aspect, and are more intersted in making music.....with effects.

Orando Broom

Sandvich wrote: »

Oh come on that's even more meaningless than usual

Meant to ask, earlier, have you any non effects stuff recorded? I love to hear what you sound like playing guitar.

I am reading this thread with interest, I like the clash of opinion here. I'd tend to fall on the side of a guitar sound like a guitar myself.

I am of the opinion that the measure of a guitarist is what he can do with the acoustic. Everything else after that is window dressing. The acoustic forgives no errors. Tone, feel, effects, amps, valves pedals the whole lot is all BS if you can't pick up an acoustic and drop jaws with it.

for me the mark of a great song/songwriter/muscian is one where the creation transfers straight back to the acoustic format. Sigur Ros Hoppipolla is one that springs to mind immediately.

Sandvich

The thing is I'm not saying that the traditional school of guitar is inferior, that's ridiculous. Effects heavy, synth like playing of guitar is obviously going to be in somewhat of a minority but I wish there was more of it. Most of the musci I Listen to has "traditional" guitar, and an awful lot of what I play is traditional guitar.

for me the mark of a great song/songwriter/muscian is one where the creation transfers straight back to the acoustic format.

I obviously have to disagree, being a primarily electronic musician.

http://www.box.net/shared/vjk099oqud

I can't imagine this sounding the same if everything was played on an acoustic.

Again, given the wide range of Timbres that are available on guitar even using some of the more traditional effects. And then getting into some of the crazy stuff on the M9...

And again, a lot of "electric guitar" technique does not transfer over when not using an amp with distortion, pinch harmonics for example do not come out well on an acoustic.

If your points have all been to do with tube dynamics and emulating old blues players leading to soulfull playing then you have been debating a different sudject than me, and the the other guys I suspect.

I don't think so. The OP was particularly comparing Billy Gibbons to Matt Bellamy from Muse. Both use "technique" but one has the more traditional "soulful" technique.

"Playing like the old greats", in terms of playing the same notes, leads, riffs and licks, doesn't come into it and I never said it did.

See I'm not talking about recycling the same notes and riffs. I'm saying that there are certain Clichés, like the Eric Clapton bend, that people tend to regard as good technique.

I think what a lot of people are forgetting was that the OP was really putting down another guitarist which I think is really unfair. That's what I really take issue with. Personally I find a lot of modern rock music tired, but not for the same reasons as others. I don't see anything wrong with what Matt Bellamy does, and again, the difference between Matt Bellamy and Billy Gibbons in terms of technique IS "traditional" style technique.

I think the real issue is that the OP backstepped from what the said originally due to the offensive nature of the post, and people seem to have forgotten.

I was thinking "man, does Billy Gibbons coax some really sweet, soulful tones out of his fingers and gear -- it'd take me a year to cop the feel and tone on Blue Jean Blues".

And with Muse, I was thinking "nice, but not-subtle-at-all over-gained flashiness that, if I put my mind to, I could copy in an afternoon because it's all fingering, no feel".

Whether you agree with that or not, I reckon our (classic) guitar heroes' tone is something we aspire to because they learned to play -- and play the amp as an instrument too -- and got their feel from playing the likes of old Fender Champs, etc.

Basically, BIlly Gibbons actually learned to play the guitar, and Matt Bellamy didn't. And again this is very much pushing traditional technique as style.

Now I think everyone's entitled to his opinion, but if it's an unfair opinion, then people should call him out on it. And I think it is.

I don't think it's fair to trash modern guitarists for not playing the same old as guitarists. Personally I'm most interesting in the composition of a song more specifically than the technique of a partiuclar instrument, and I think Muse have quite good composition to a lot of their songs.

Sandvich

Orando Broom wrote: »

Meant to ask, earlier, have you any non effects stuff recorded? I love to hear what you sound like playing guitar.
.

I don't really record much as I find micing and mixing awkward.

http://www.box.net/shared/x52rs3vjai

The tone in this lacks low end for whatever reason.

I also recorded that practice session earlier but that was kind of a joke :P

Paolo_M

Sandvich wrote: »

Basically, BIlly Gibbons actually learned to play the guitar, and Matt Bellamy didn't. And again this is very much pushing traditional technique as style.

Now I think everyone's entitled to his opinion, but if it's an unfair opinion, then people should call him out on it. And I think it is.

The transfer to acoustic will not sound the same of course.
However the quality, if present, will come through in this naked format. I mean quality as in the Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance quality, and not some pre-conceved notion of a blues player or shredder.

Matt Bellamy did learn guitar and pretty well too. I think their songwriting is aweful, hate his voice, hate the sound of the band and have no time for their arrangement but I can hear obvious talent and he has nailed all the basic techinques. I'll bet their music would translate to acoustic with non problems.


Edit:
In fact here's one I found earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9MHNnQ2yi8&feature=related. There's a bunch more on there if you care to look.

Here he is displaying an obvious mastery of accurately picking an arpeggio patern, while using a consitant pedal. There's some interesting chordal voicing in there. He also uses a pretty good downbeat emphasis during the chorus to make up for the lack of drums.
Again, not a fan, but I can hear obvious talent and this song would be nothing without these skills, no question about that.

Once again your examples are simply supporting the technique first point here.


Edit: I just re-read the original post, and I see some of your point. I joined gthe conversation when it appeared that it was about the technique versus effects.
Again, while I hate Muse with a passion, I can appreciate that the guy has talent and is capable of expressing himself on his instrument (*schooboy guffaws*), effects or no effects. I don't like what he's expressing but that's where personal taste comes in, isn't it?

Sandvich

Hah yeah. There was obviously a disconnect somewhere

Personal taste is important but he was kinda pushing a more global idea of what being a guitarist means, which did annoy me a little as it was infringing on that territory for some of us, as our taste may include older guitarists like Jeff Beck(though he uses sometimes some less traditional technique and sounds these days) but also more effect orientated guitarists like Daniel Ash or Dean Garcia. Of course effects are no replace for technique. But there are times when technique is no replace for effects, and I've heard renditions of songs that sound "dry" for want of a better word, even if the music carries quite well over. I think what you're talking about is a bit more on the "composition" side than technique as a lot of overdroven electric guitar "feel", if not most doesn't transfer over the same way on acoustic; you get different kinds of dynamics. There's a reason people use acoustics for writing songs though, to lay down the composition(though personally I don't find it much easier, since acoustics are often harder to play).

In interviews Daniel Ash usually says he's not that interested in the electric guitar as an instrument, but in the overall composition of a song. I think he probably exagerrates his views a bit, but I kind of get his overall point; he's just basically saying that a lot of guitar is too much about the guitarist rather than the song. Personally I think both schools are fine, even though they often have unpleasant things to say about one another.

Personally I do like Muse, but I've gone off them a bit on recent years. Listening back to their albums they're not quite as creative as they first seem. I think though with Matt's voice, a lot of people who don't like the voice but do like the music(most people I know that like Muse), often don't realise that a lot of the instrumentation is fairly typical indie rock stuff, but his weird voice contrasts with it in such a way that gives it the "Muse" sound, even if you don't like the vocals as an isolated element.

Muse don't tend to use a lot of effects and stuff so it's not surprising they'd transfer well onto an acoustic. However, the ripping fuzz riff at the start of New Born is undoubtedly pretty iconic.

Their latest album was quite naff indeed. I'd still like to see them live though as I never got to when I was a big fan. That could also be a lot to do with how much of a conspiracy nut Matt Bellamy is too though that can sometimes be entertaining

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp80T9H-QIo&feature=related

lol

Grolschevik

Sandvich wrote: »

I don't think so. The OP was particularly comparing Billy Gibbons to Matt Bellamy from Muse. Both use "technique" but one has the more traditional "soulful" technique.

Sandvich wrote: »

I think what a lot of people are forgetting was that the OP was really putting down another guitarist which I think is really unfair. That's what I really take issue with. Personally I find a lot of modern rock music tired, but not for the same reasons as others. I don't see anything wrong with what Matt Bellamy does, and again, the difference between Matt Bellamy and Billy Gibbons in terms of technique IS "traditional" style technique.

Jaysus, lads. I must check with my mother to see whether English really is my first language, because my original post seems to be most misunderstood...

Yes. I compared Bellamy to Gibbons. But I wasn't putting down Bellamy, unless you're reading "I can sound like Bellamy" as "Bellamy must be shi'ite". I have more respect for myself as a player than that. I'm the best guitarist I personally know!

Bellamy is good. I play in a similar way to him. Because I found my style with a particular SS amp. I cannot play like Gibbons on "Blue Jean Blues" (though I can on much of ZZ Top's other stuff).

Summary:

a) Bellamy = good player
b) But I can already sound like that
c) Gibbons = good player
d) But I cannot sound like that

Hypothesis: Is that because of the gear I learnt on?

Sandvich wrote: »

I think the real issue is that the OP backstepped from what the said originally due to the offensive nature of the post, and people seem to have forgotten.

I have "backstepped" from nothing. I have repeatedly attempted to clarify what I mean. And in what way was it offensive? Unless Bellamy is God and my suggestion that I could do what he does is blasphemy?

Sandvich wrote: »

Basically, BIlly Gibbons actually learned to play the guitar, and Matt Bellamy didn't. And again this is very much pushing traditional technique as style.

Now I think everyone's entitled to his opinion, but if it's an unfair opinion, then people should call him out on it. And I think it is.

I don't think it's fair to trash modern guitarists for not playing the same old as guitarists. Personally I'm most interesting in the composition of a song more specifically than the technique of a partiuclar instrument, and I think Muse have quite good composition to a lot of their songs.

Nope. You have not read me correctly, nor apparently understood anything I have been saying in this nightmare of a thread. I hope you're not in college, because your lecturers will hate you. And probably fail you.

Paolo_M wrote: »

Matt Bellamy did learn guitar and pretty well too. I think their songwriting is aweful, hate his voice, hate the sound of the band and have no time for their arrangement but I can hear obvious talent and he has nailed all the basic techinques. I'll bet their music would translate to acoustic with non problems.

I can appreciate that the guy has talent and is capable of expressing himself on his instrument (*schooboy guffaws*), effects or no effects. I don't like what he's expressing but that's where personal taste comes in, isn't it?

I agree with you entirely.

Sandvich wrote: »

he was kinda pushing a more global idea of what being a guitarist means, which did annoy me a little lol

I'm assuming that by "he" you mean me. I presume that you've a different idea now.

Sandvich

a) Bellamy = good player
b) But I can already sound like that
c) Gibbons = good player
d) But I cannot sound like that

Hypothesis: Is that because of the gear I learnt on?

No, probably not.

Matt Bellamy is the son of a famous musician so very likely he did learn on a decent amp.

Yes. I compared Bellamy to Gibbons. But I wasn't putting down Bellamy, unless you're reading "I can sound like Bellamy" as "Bellamy must be shi'ite". I have more respect for myself as a player than that. I'm the best guitarist I personally know!

You said that Gibbons had much more/more complex feel on his tracks.

Nope. You have not read me correctly, nor apparently understood anything I have been saying in this nightmare of a thread. I hope you're not in college, because your lecturers will hate you. And probably fail you.

Wow.

Grolschevik

Sandvich wrote: »

Matt Bellamy is the son of a famous musician so very likely he did learn on a decent amp.

Whether he did or not is beside the point. The point was about the merits of learning with just a guitar, lead, and dynamically responsive amp.

Sandvich wrote: »

You said that Gibbons had much more/more complex feel on his tracks.

Nope. Just that one track I mentioned. Listen to it, why don't you?

And, in another cork-sniffing moment, I can testify that it actually does sound better on vinyl...

Sandvich wrote: »

Wow.

Yep. I'm drunk and in the mood for ad hominems...

Nick Dolan

darrenw5094 wrote: »

But if some guys don't bother and go straight into effects, then go for it.

I dont agree with the less effects = better player. Hendrix didint just stick his strat into a marshall he had Wahs, fuzz pedals and octavers. You cant just stomp on a delay pedal and go "hey i can play just like the Edge now". It takes as much practise and effort to use effects. It just irritates me when older players in particular believe the way they play is "proper" playing but ill have to admit to a bit of bias, because most of my friends think all the good music was made in the seventies and it been downhill since. Nonsence i say!

Grolschevik

This is probably against the rules. But make sure you have good speakers for it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYJTy3alWfA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xconExqNbZs

Sandvich

Grolschevik wrote: »

Whether he did or not is beside the point. The point was about the merits of learning with just a guitar, lead, and dynamically responsive amp.

I don't know, as someone who started out on ****ty SS amps, I appreciate a good tube amp a lot more now.

I think for that reason it might be better starting out that way...

Sandvich

Grolschevik wrote: »

This is probably against the rules. But make sure you have good speakers for it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYJTy3alWfA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xconExqNbZs

It's not a bad song but in this day and age it does sound a bit generic, it does feel a bit like the stereotypical stuff myself and El Pr0n get narky about. Also does he play it the same way every time live? I doubt it, and that would be kinda boring if he did.

A lot of why it's hard to replicate the feel could be because there's a spontaneous element to playing. I'd say a lot of Hendrix's stuff was, and he tended to play things different live(which is something I really like and don't think there's enough of these days). Then again, Matt Bellamy does tend to do weird improv breakdowns at the end of various live songs.

Sandvich

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I dont agree with the less effects = better player. Hendrix didint just stick his strat into a marshall he had Wahs, fuzz pedals and octavers. You cant just stomp on a delay pedal and go "hey i can play just like the Edge now". It takes as much practise and effort to use effects. It just irritates me when older players in particular believe the way they play is "proper" playing but ill have to admit to a bit of bias, because most of my friends think all the good music was made in the seventies and it been downhill since. Nonsence i say!

Yes, it's very true.

But I wouldn't entirely disagree music has gone down. I think there's a lot about the 60s and 70s we miss out on today. We do have new things, but IMO, in the 90s we both new and old things. The 00s seems stale, especially since there seems to be a resurgence in guitarists doing things the old way, though I could be wrong, it'd make sense given the feedback loop effect of the internet.

Paolo_M

Sandvich wrote: »

I don't know, as someone who started out on ****ty SS amps, I appreciate a good tube amp a lot more now.

I think for that reason it might be better starting out that way...

I started out on an old Fender JAM. Absolutely terrible SS amp.
I remember spending hours on unison bends because I kept thinking I was doing it wrong. They sounded crap on electric but good on acoustic. Turns out it was simply that amp sounded so band that anything using overdrive with more than a single note sounded harsh and kind of out of tune.
I tried out a JCM800 in Danny McHughs up in Blackrock without having the slightest what a valve was, I was 15, and the rest is history!!

Learning lead on an acoustic really helped me with string bending and general technique. Kind of like using weights if you a gym guy I guess.
I would still advocate a simple set up, either acoustic or guitar => any amp to learn on before getting too far into effects.

Originally Posted by Nick Dolan
I dont agree with the less effects = better player. Hendrix didint just stick his strat into a marshall he had Wahs, fuzz pedals and octavers. You cant just stomp on a delay pedal and go "hey i can play just like the Edge now". It takes as much practise and effort to use effects. It just irritates me when older players in particular believe the way they play is "proper" playing but ill have to admit to a bit of bias, because most of my friends think all the good music was made in the seventies and it been downhill since. Nonsence i say!

But that's the point that the "non effects for learning" guys are making.
Hendrix plied his trade with Isley Brothers first. He had his chops perfected on a simple set up before ever exploring the wonderfull world of FX.
The Edge is also a good guitarist. He has perfected a technique that perfectly compliment his band. If he had not perfected his timing then the amount of modulation effects he uses would sound aweful.

A good guitarist should sound good whether he using FX or not, it's as simple as that.

That's not advocating any style, saying you must sound like SRV or play super complex Andy McKee style acoustic pieces. You simply must sound good.

I'd kind compare it to a really good looking girl. She's still good looking without the make-up. Luckily guitarists can learn and are not stuck the way they are.

darrenw5094

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I dont agree with the less effects = better player. Hendrix didint just stick his strat into a marshall he had Wahs, fuzz pedals and octavers.

Hendrix could pick up a 12 string acoustic and blow everyone away.
Some of his best stuff was with no fuzz, wah or octavers.

Nick Dolan

Maybe a better way of putting it is that the non FX using players see effects as extras or toys whereas FX using players see them as tools equal to the guitar or amp. Im defo in the second camp, and if your gonna go down the "dont use effects" route well wave goodbye to your tube amp distortion, reverb, plectrum, infact your electric and we will all have to be playing fretless classicals. ok im stretching that a bit, but this idea you have to "learn to play properly before effects" is like saying you have to learn black and white photography before you can take pictures in color

Paolo_M

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Maybe a better way of putting it is that the non FX using players see effects as extras or toys whereas FX using players see them as tools equal to the guitar or amp. Im defo in the second camp, and if your gonna go down the "dont use effects" route well wave goodbye to your tube amp distortion, reverb, plectrum, infact your electric and we will all have to be playing fretless classicals. ok im stretching that a bit, but this idea you have to "learn to play properly before effects" is like saying you have to learn black and white photography before you can take pictures in color

You completely mis-understood what I'm saying.
I use FX, in fact I can't think of a single guitarist who doesn't with the exception of some flamenco and classical players.

The non Fx using guitarist group you refer to doesn't doesn't exist.
The group you are refering are people that believe that solid technique is more important and should be learnt first before the application of FX.

A good guitarist sounds good with or without FX. Simple as.

Can you please address this simple statement and your opinions on it.

darrenw5094

Effects and also excessive amounts of distortion can cover up bad technique. The OP idea is to practice for as long as possible to build up as much feel and technique as possible. This will give you a far better base to work with when you make or record music.

Surely to god, your music will be better if you have better technique etc. when you record with or without effects.

Nick Dolan

no i disagree using your effects is as much part of your technique as picking accuracy etc. try playing the solo to parisian walkways on a nylon guitar (You know, the face melting bit ) or half of Tom Morellos output without the effects. Now, maybe Im coming across a little to aggresive and i agree taking away dirt reverb etc leads more mistakes being apparent ,but that will improve your technique in stuff like tradional rock leads and bending etc. But thats not going to improve your playing in areas that need effects units. I think they are two different disciplines and one isnt a foundation for the other.

darrenw5094

Practice with no effects has to be the first foundation.

Nick Dolan

no i dont think so . Its the very same as "You have to learn on acoustic" Theres advantages and disadvantages to it, but its not essential.

Paolo_M

A good guitarist is good with or without FX.

Could you address this statement please (Nick, Sandvich and ElPron). That is the point here, the implication being that technique is more important to master first..
Nick you keep giving answers like politician.