Type of amp you learn on and feel

Nick Dolan

I can shout too!

The Edge is not noted for his smooth clean jazz legato licks. Give him some delay pedals and a chorus pedal and he will produce some of the most brilliant music ever heard.

As Gerry himself would say NO NO NO (Oh wait........)

Paolo_M

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I can shout too!

The Edge is not noted for his smooth clean jazz legato licks. Give him some delay pedals and a chorus pedal and he will produce some of the most brilliant music ever heard.

As Gerry himself would say NO NO NO (Oh wait........)

Yes you can, but you can't answer a simple statement that's been put to you over and over. I nearly feel like Jeremy Paxman now!!
You're just rehashing the same old waffle that has nothing to do with anything here.

And at this point I give up, I have to assume that you realise this statement is true, that doesn't suit you and you're just refusing to answer it.

Best of luck with your guitar playing.

darrenw5094

To master technique and feel takes hours and years of obsession.

To master a delay pedal......er, slightly less work involved.

Nick Dolan

hey i answered it. I just didnt agree with you. That is an old fashioned way of thinking about effects, learn to play then whack a flanger on it. Effects are integral to players technique.

Sandvich

Paolo_M wrote: »

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.

If I a guitarist bases his sound around effects, then I don't think so. Again it's like saying a synth player is a good synth player on a piano when a lot of synth players just make cool noises and do so quite well.

It's "generally" true but it's not true in all cases. Some great electric guitarists might be mediocore on acoustic. I think everyone's different and I don't find it unbelievable that a good guitarist can lose that spark if they can't use FX.

Sandvich

This thread is really turning violently against effects based players so I think I'll stop replying.

A good player should be one who can do what they set out to do well for their genre of music. If they're mediocore without effects, that doesn't necessarily make them a bad guitarist if they're good with them. As long as what they're making is good music with a guitar that entertains people, anything else is really genre snobbery. Ideally every guitarist should be good with or without effects, but again, you can play effects as much as you can play the guitar if you're very clever.

The "Hiding behind effects" Darren loves to push is really unfair especially since what I said about hiding behind blues licks is very true too(and we all do it to some extent).

darrenw5094

I think this thread is coming to a conclusion.

Seziertisch

You don't see Billy Gibbons having a go at the Cocteau Twins for not being technically accomplished, nor do you see Mogwai dissing Stevie Ray Vaughan. Why? Because any and all approaches are justified, whatever you think best expresses who you are, then get on with it, thinking that you're way of doing things is more correct/better than someone else's is just bs. Music is supposed to be about communicating a feeling to others, if you feel that awesome vibrato is necessary to do that then go for it, if you feel that chaining a bunch of effects pedals up together is the way to go then that is similarly valid.

Sandvich

Seziertisch wrote: »

You don't see Billy Gibbons having a go at the Cocteau Twins for not being technically accomplished, nor do you see Mogwai dissing Stevie Ray Vaughan. Why? Because any and all approaches are justified, whatever you think best expresses who you are, then get on with it, thinking that you're way of doing things is more correct/better than someone else's is just bs. Music is supposed to be about communicating a feeling to others, if you feel that awesome vibrato is necessary to do that then go for it, if you feel that chaining a bunch of effects pedals up together is the way to go then that is similarly valid.

Exactly.

Every form of music that's any good is valid. It'd certainly be nicer to hear a bit more invention these days, but there's nothing wrong with whatever you do as long as and/or others enjoy it.

Sandvich

One thing I notice is that you never seem to sound as good when you're playing. When you're playing next to a guy who can really play, you often feel really inferior. But sometimes if you listen back to your playing(though your ears can still be biased), you might realise it's a lot faster/tighter/more expressive at first. When you concentrate on playing, it can be harder to concentrate on listening as an appreciator of your own music.

I think a lot of people probably mistakenly rate a lot of "classic" guitarists higher than themselves for that reason.

rcaz

Paolo_M wrote: »

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.

Sandvich addressed it pretty well, I'm not sure what I'd add.

If all I'm interested in playing on guitar is interesting sounds and textures, then I'll lack a lot of technical proficiency, which I suppose would make me a 'bad' guitarist.

But you could get a 'good' guitarist, give them lots of effects, and they might not know how to work them, or they wouldn't know where to start to find new sounds or how the pedals interact, and their playing might stay the same or get worse because they don't have any imagination to make effects work.

So no, I don't think a good guitarist is good with or without effects. I think a purely effect-focused guitarist would be a bad guitarist, and a traditionally 'good' guitarist doesn't necessarily know anything about pedals, and could make some awful sounds.

I do think, however, all guitarists should have good theory. If you know how music behaves, you can figure out a way to get your fingers to make the appropriate sounds. I think a guitarist should be defined by their knowledge of theory.

landsleaving

My way of looking at it is that your tools should be appropriate for what you want to create.

The great renaissance artists were technically amaxing, creating almost photo realistic, incredibly detailed painting on a canvas. Someone today, like Banksy or Damian Hirst, create entirely different pieces of art, but brilliant in their own way.

If you handed banksy a brush and some oil paints and said paint a perfect portrait he'd probably be lost and make something rubbish, but give him some spray paint and tools to make stencils and he makes art (you might not like it, but it is art)

What benefit would it have been to him to learn on a canvas with a brush? What he wanted to make required a different approach. Same with a guitarist, you learn based on what you want to create. If you want to emulate the greats (Da Vinci, Picasso, Hendrix) you use traditional tools, but if you want to do something different you pick up some spray paint, or some effects pedals, and try to do something unique.

As El Pr)n says, in both cases you need to understand the theory (art history/music theory) but you don't need to be constrained by what others have done in the past. You may never learn to paint a portrait, or play a really fast solo, if you learn a different way. But you can still make something great with the skills you learn, and probably something unique and interesting.

Simply put, if you want to make different sounds, why bother learning without effects and on a specific amp? you should be learning what you want to learn based on the art you intend to create. Being technically impressive is all well and good, but if you can do something unique, new and special, that's far more impressive. To me anyway.

rcaz

landsleaving wrote: »

If you handed banksy a brush and some oil paints and said paint a perfect portrait he'd probably be lost and make something rubbish, but give him some spray paint and tools to make stencils and he makes art (you might not like it, but it is art)

What benefit would it have been to him to learn on a canvas with a brush? What he wanted to make required a different approach. Same with a guitarist, you learn based on what you want to create. If you want to emulate the greats (Da Vinci, Picasso, Hendrix) you use traditional tools, but if you want to do something different you pick up some spray paint, or some effects pedals, and try to do something unique.

Such a good way of putting it!!

Sandvich

I do think, however, all guitarists should have good theory. If you know how music behaves, you can figure out a way to get your fingers to make the appropriate sounds. I think a guitarist should be defined by their knowledge of theory.

I think a knowledge of sound and signal theory can be important too. Obviously if you're doing some kind of atonal stuff, that's the main theory that will be of use to you

IMO using effects can be quite awkward a lot of the time as I have to plug extra stuff in. I'd quite like to have an amp that has a somewhat "unique" tone off the bat but that's really hard to find.

Sandvich

Also to point out Jimi Hendrix did use one or two things that aren't in common use anymore, like through zero flanging, and the Uni Vibe w/expression pedal(I guess Chorus and Phasers replaced it). Octavia is mostly the realm of fuzzy alternative rock bands these days too. A lot of classic rock type bands are actually using less cool stuff which I think is kind of sad in some ways.

I kind of want a Fender amp now though haha. A Bassman would be nice.

Actually, one of my favourite classic "feel" heavy bluesy **** tracks was often played live on an SS amp; Frank Zappa's "Black Napkins". ****ing amazing track.

http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/search/songs/?query=black%20napkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dXTifyOu3Y

Banjo

For every Banksy that picks up a spray can and creates a masterpiece, there'll be 10,000 people who's magnum opus will be to scrawl "Grove St. Fo' Life" on the northbound wall of the M50. Some people have a natural aptitude for expressing themselves through various media, but most people are *not* exceptional; They need to work at it.

Besides, you could argue that Banksy is working with a medium that on the surface is incredibly limited, and it's those very limitations (both in what the materials can do and what people expect of it) and finding creative ways to break out of them that makes him a remarkable artist. Which is exactly (at least as I interpreted it) what the original poster was talking about - learning how to get as much as you possibly can out of a limited setup would arguably make you a more fluent and adaptable player when you decide to up the complexity. A "better" guitarist, no matter what type of music you want to play, because you'll be better able to express yourself through the instrument.

I don't see it as an argument against the use of effects so much as an arguement against multi-effects. The unexceptional person is more likely to get creative if they have, say a guitar, looper and amp than a guitar, 32 distortion models, 40 effects, 16 amp models, 4 million speaker models etc etc. because they're going to run out standard settings and out-of-the-manual ideas more quickily, and have to start thinking for themselves.

Sandvich

I don't think restricting people necessarily encourages creativity. To me it's kind of like saying you should start out on a 4 string guitar like the guys from Soulfly have. But of course that's not traditional...

Personally I prefer to have a single good useful amp than a modeler though. I think modelers are very handy to get a good idea of what different amps sound like and how they react(now they've mostly gotten that part right), I think everyone should own a decent modeler at some point(and maybe keep it for backup).

I'm unsure it's an issue of being less "creative" with more tools, but it can result in a level of indecision when you have a lot of different amp models, none of which are quite perfect(or if they were perfect, it might be even harder).

I think it depends heavily on the guitarist, not just how exceptional they are.

Paolo_M

Sandvich wrote: »

I don't think restricting people necessarily encourages creativity. To me it's kind of like saying you should start out on a 4 string guitar like the guys from Soulfly have. But of course that's not traditional...

Personally I prefer to have a single good useful amp than a modeler though. I think modelers are very handy to get a good idea of what different amps sound like and how they react(now they've mostly gotten that part right), I think everyone should own a decent modeler at some point(and maybe keep it for backup).

I'm unsure it's an issue of being less "creative" with more tools, but it can result in a level of indecision when you have a lot of different amp models, none of which are quite perfect(or if they were perfect, it might be even harder).

I think it depends heavily on the guitarist, not just how exceptional they are.

The "creative" here is refering to creative as a guitarist and it's a valid point.
That is different from being a creative musician which is how I would consider the "average at guitar but able to make great use of effects and write some great music" category.

Kurt Cobain fell into this category IMO.
Noone would attempt to say he was a great guitarist, however I consider him a great musician because of the music he created with his guitar and some of the interesting sounds he created.

Andy Timmons is both a great guitarist and a great musician IMO. He has his technique mastered, know his theory so well that he can improvise freely, has a great touch and feel on the guitar. He also creates some beautifully expressive music while he's at it which makes him a great musician in my opinion. You may not like his music but I do.

An average guitarist who can use effects well can be an exceptional musician, however they are still and avergae guitarist.

Being a great guitarist does not immediatley imply that you you are a great user of effects or a great musician, just as being a great user of effects or even a great musician doesn't imply that you are a skilled guitarist.

To that end restricting access to effects will improve a guitarists skills as they are forced to improve their guitar skills in order to sound good.
It would not necessarily improve them as a musician however, as I don't believe that being skilled on your instrument means you will produce good music. Michael Angelo Batio anyone?

When listening to any guitarist there are two qualities:
Quality of guitar playing and
Quality of music
and these are not really related IMO and that's where, certainly my, opinions here are coming from.

darrenw5094

A crap guitar guitar player that can make good music.......is still a crap guitar player.

An amazing guitar player that makes total rubbish............is still an amazing player.

Sandvich

To that end restricting access to effects will improve a guitarists skills as they are forced to improve their guitar skills in order to sound good.

I suppose I get what you're getting at, and I'd have a broader definition of "guitarist".

There are effects of course that very much react to your playing, such as compressors, auto-wah/filters, and also regular wah that you control with your foot. These are things you definitely have to control with "technique". It's hard to match Hendrix's of the wah.

Good point on Kurt Cobain.

Seziertisch

darrenw5094 wrote: »

A crap guitar guitar player that can make good music.......is still a crap guitar player.

but is also someone who can convey a meaning/feeling to people who don't play guitar with their music.

darrenw5094 wrote: »

An amazing guitar player that makes total rubbish............is still an amazing player.

but ultimately their music is probably only of interest to themselves or other guitar players.

Sandvich

Here's a good example of a song that just isn't the same without effects(IMO). Ironically played on Acoustic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew6P_KoEPzc

The album version is nice, but just isn't near as atmospheric and cool.