Electric guitar => Stale?

Rigsby

El Pr0n wrote: »

I definitely agree with you on your last point, but even then, how many scales and progressions do you have to study and practice, and for how long do you have to work, before you can play a convincing solo in a jazz tune? It's totally improvised, but I don't think it's totally spontaneous. The soloist will know exactly when the next chord is coming and where it's going to go, what scales will be appropriate and which intervals are most important.

Granted there is nearly always a rough sketch ( as in chords etc) for the jazz musician to interpret. As I said, the spontaneity comes in how a soloist brings his own original ideas, in this case, to a chord progression. A lot of times, a band leader/writer will trust the musician's intuition and experience to do his music justice.

rcaz

Kinda starting to think I started this thread too soon after deciding what i thought on the subject. Didn't think it fully through or set out my points very well...

I know this isn't to do with the guitar itself. I suppose the thing that bothers me most is that a lot of the people that pick the electric guitar and bring it to huge heights in popular music are boring musicians? And there's no accounting for that

Also, I know plenty well that the music always comes before the means, I'm not suggesting anyone gets such a complicated setup that they're distracted from the tunes. All this thinking was just inspired by realising how much technology there is out there that nobody seems to be taking advantage of.

strobe wrote: »

I think your overlooking something fairly obvious Pron. Not everyone can afford to splash out on a load of gear to experiment with. In fact 99% of guitarists can afford themselves a half decent guitar and ok amp and maybe a one or if they are lucky two effects pedals. So if a guitarist and band get signed then they are signed by the label to create the kind of music the label heard them playing when they signed them. Which in 99% of cases is the lead guitarist playing with a bit of distortion and delay and maybe a wah pedal at the absolute most.

I often see people listing their gear out and sometimes if you added up the cost of the stuff they list you are talking thousands of euros worth of kit. These people often don't realise they are a tiny tiny minority.

So when you think about how few guitarists get a break in the industry and then how few of the ones that do ever had the opportunity to play around with anything beyond the most cut and dry basic technology and gear in their lives you realise why so few guitarist emerge that have the knowledge of or experience in the tech to develop their sound using it.

I don't really agree with this either. I'm with quicklickpaddy, if you know what you're doing and you have reasonable standards, and it's the thing you really love to do, equipment isn't expensive. Some of it can cost a lot of money, but if it's the right thing for you, it's a reasonable cost. I've also rarely paid full price for something - Mexican Telecaster off Adverts, 2nd hand Marshall AVT from Musician Inc., pedals bought off friends and other second hand websites like adverts, maybe half my pedals came from birthday and christmas presents from family over the last 4 years. This stuff really does add up. It never feels like I get a lot of gear, because I get things infrequently and keep it all. In retrospect I have a very nice setup for what I want to do, and it's all well within my means (I'm 20 too, working part time since I was 15 or so and keeping up studies the whole time).

Really, I don't think people need guitars and amps worth thousands of euros when they're finding their feet musically. Sure, I'd love a 60s Jazzmaster and a 60s AC30, but I know I don't need them, and maybe one day if I can afford it I'll consider paying out for some really top-class gear like that. But it's not necessary.

quicklickpaddy

I've got beef with all of the below, but just as a general point regarding the whole topic - trying to make new sounds and exercise creativity in the sounds
as well as/instead of the melody isn't about proving to people that you're a great guitarist. I don't think guitarists capabilities are really what we're talking about here. It's not "cheating" or "taking shortcuts". There's more to creativity than minimalism - it really does not have to be just a guitar and an amp. Why limit yourself?

darrenw5094 wrote: »

I am not against technology or pedals etc., but sometimes these new pedals cross a line in my view. There can be a fine line between playing the guitar and not playing the guitar. Sometimes pedals make the guitarist cross that line. The pedal is doing 95% or the work and the player is doing the bare minimum.

I agree on a point earlier, that a genuinely great guitar player can do the business with no pedals. That takes time, tedious practice and discipline. Probably an unhealthy obsession at times.

Again, why is it about a showcase of your technical guitar ability? Or, if to suit your taste more - why can a new and interesting sound just not be a part of your repertoire? Are you saying that just because you strive to get an interesting sound you can't be a genuinely great guitar player? Or that if you were one, there is no need to improve/experiment with your sound?

Rigsby wrote: »

Nothing wrong with following new technology in your quest for originality, but this is supposed to come from within the musician, and no amount of technology can make up for that. IMO the "only" way to find originality is through perseverance and dedication.

I've seen people get very very creative/original with pedals. Just because there's computers used in no way means that it's ready made to just plug in and play. If you hadn't said it so nicely people could take offence to that! They (I) spend a lot of time and effort trying new things. I dedicate myself to it and I persevere with it... I don't see the logic in claiming that there is no originality to it if the whole point is trying something that hasn't really been done before?

Rigsby wrote: »

That's one way of looking at how to play, listen to, or generally approach music. Another way is the spontaneous approach. A natural musician should not have to plan in advance what he "says" through music. Music is supposed to be a language, and we dont plan in advance what we are going to say tonight, when going out to meet friends. This happens spontaneously in conversation... like any good music should.

Problem here is a clash of genres. You are very much fixed on Jazz here. Improv jazz at that. There are very few other genres that take the spontaneous approach, especially nowadays. If a band walked into a studio in that mindset they'd be shot.

I genuinely don't mean to sound like a prick but as much as you seem to care about originality you don't seem very open minded at all to broaden your scope of music appreciation!

ceekay74 wrote: »

Really? Is it not a shortcut to a perfect performance?

Not at all! I have to practice with my pedals to get it right. At some stages I'm just tap dancing on the pedalboard turning on and off the right pedals for a part in a song - something which would be No. 1 on the list against all this playing around with pedals. In my opinion, it's just adding to the performance. Adding more to what you have to do.

Rigsby wrote: »

I never said there was anything wrong with it, merely that the spontaneous approach was another way of interpreting music.

Lets go back to the jazz saxist or musician for a minute. Over a four night concert, he might play the exact same "songs" each night. But because of the "conversation" he is having with the other musicians in the band (i.e. listening and responding to their musical ideas ), each piece of music will sound different from the previous night, and these musicians are using the language of western tonality. To me that is far more rewarding.

Granted jazz is unique this way, but IMO if more musicians from other genres adopted this approach, even in a small way, it would be more rewarding for both performer(s) and listeners alike.

Ok, lets say the musician was Jazz master. If he had that credibility under his belt and then started playing with his sound would you look down on it the same way? Wouldn't that be more rewarding for performers and listeners too?

/rant.
Phew! Sorry about that lads...

darrenw5094

quicklickpaddy wrote: »

I don't think guitarists capabilities are really what we're talking about here. It's not "cheating" or "taking shortcuts". There's more to creativity than minimalism - it really does not have to be just a guitar and an amp. Why limit yourself?

I didn't say limit yourself, but sometimes the sounds created from the pedals, don't involve guitar playing. But new pedals sounds can be cool.

quicklickpaddy

darrenw5094 wrote: »

I didn't say limit yourself, but sometimes the sounds created from the pedals, don't involve guitar playing. But new pedals sounds can be cool.

But why does that matter?

darrenw5094

quicklickpaddy wrote: »

But why does that matter?

It matters to a lot of people who spend hours practicing at home, but i suppose it doesn't matter to other musicians.;)

quicklickpaddy

darrenw5094 wrote: »

It matters to a lot of people who spend hours practicing at home, but i suppose it doesn't matter to other musicians.;)

I have spent hours practising at home. I can sweep, play Malmsteen and Satch and all that lark. Pretty sure I'm sensing a bit of snobbery here but don't look down your nose at an aspect of guitar playing that you've just completely disregarded

Irish Guitarist

People want guitars to sound like guitars. I like effects and all but I still like to be able to tell that it's a guitar I'm listening to. If you don't like the sound of guitars why not play synthesiser instead?

rcaz

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

If you don't like the sound of guitars why not play synthesiser instead?

Now that's being too simplistic about it. I do like the sound of guitars, but there's so much more you can do with a guitar than what gets done a lot of the time. I'm wondering why so much potential is left largely untapped. Did you read the thread?

quicklickpaddy

Looks like we're on our own here Pron... At the same time at least it answers your question though! :rolleyes:

bad2dabone

Great thread btw, very interesting points being thrown across both sides of the debate.
I think we're conditioned to appreciate certain sounds and tonal qualities from the guitar, within a certain range of course. And that's what appeals to most guitar players and guitar music fans. I watched the first youtube vid you posted Pron and it sounded like an amusement arcade, like 100 pac-man machines being played at the same time. It didn't appeal to me in any way.
However I do agree that the guitar is an incredibly versatile instrument and still has vast untapped potential for creativity beyond what we currently value as being appealing musically. I've got a Boss ME50 multi-effects pedal and a Zoom g2.1u and I'd consider learning how to use those, or mess about with them, like learning another instrument. I'd imagine that over time guitarists who think like yourself and question the status quo will be the ones to push the boundaries of what the Guitar as an instrument can achieve and inspire future generations to produce new and innovative musical styles.

Myself, I just enjoy rocking the sh1t out

Irish Guitarist

El Pr0n wrote: »

Now that's being too simplistic about it. I do like the sound of guitars, but there's so much more you can do with a guitar than what gets done a lot of the time. I'm wondering why so much potential is left largely untapped. Did you read the thread?

I get your point but I think there's a certain stage where when you get too radical a guitar just stops sounding like a guitar. That's just not what most people want to hear (or play).

I do think a lot of guitar playing nowadays is boring. I don't necessarily think you need to use a load of effects to sound interesting though. My favourite guitarist is Syd Barrett. He had a very non-traditional approach to guitar playing, and most of it was done with just one effect (echo). I also like guitarists that experiment with tunings.

Grolschevik

To be honest, I’m not really sure what the issue or problem is.

If the OP wants to create novel, unique and experimental soundscapes, using the guitar as a MIDI tool or whatever, for then fair play to him. But why worry about the fact that others don’t want to do so, or try to inflate the issue into some “state of the discipline” dilemma?

To an extent, it does actually come across as a sort of (inverse?) snobbery, and the talk of “blues wankery” and the implied pejorative connotations of the phrase “overdriven minor pentatonic” bear this out.

That said, I think that the history of guitar playing shows that radical changes in how a relatively simple instrument can sound and what it can do happen all the time. Maybe not in the last few years, but it will happen. And the fact that the OP is questioning this can only be a good thing for the guitar. Remember, for some in the ‘40s and ‘50s, amps were newfangled things that were not to be trusted...

However, the thing is, live and let live. Why worry about the fact that some guy gets his rocks off playing bad AC/DC covers in Ballyhaunis? I often bemoan the fact that cover/wedding bands make truckloads more money than me gig-wise, but I have to acknowledge the fact that (a) there’s a demand for them, (b) they have put the time and effort into (sometimes) perfecting what they do, and (c) I wouldn’t be interested in doing that myself and (d) I’m not in this for the money. So I say, fair play to them. Even while I bemoan them. But I play what I can play, and I have fun doing it, and I like what I do. That’s enough for me. But that doesn’t deny the right of the next guy to go crazy flanging his ring modulator.

I’ve used the example of Jimmy Page and his theremin usage before on these pages. Innovative at the time? Check. Novel soundscapes? Check. But how many of us actually look forward to that middle bit in "Whole Lotta Love", or the ridiculous “violin bow” bit in the live version of "Dazed and Confused"?

My point has been made before by previous posters: it’s about the song, the tune, and the context of both. Innovative sounds, outside the context of a song that you like, come close to being just noise, albeit noise that might be quite interesting. Sabbath did this on a couple of albums. But would you press replay?

Keith Richards apparently said that there are only two types of music: good and bad. He was wrong. There are two types, but they’re music you like and music you don’t, with a grey area of transition in between. Why get upset if someone likes the music you don’t? Or vice versa?

If every guitarist in the world was doing the new, interesting and innovative soundscape thing, then it wouldn’t really be new. It’d just be the current orthodoxy, and there’d be underground clubs where nerdy men got together to play minor pentatonics through non-modelling amps...

To my mind, karaoke phenomena like the X-Factor are more pernicious to the public acceptance of musical creativity than some guy who just wants to play 12-bar boogie that even Quo would be ashamed of.

In sum, the guitar is just a tool.

Shakespeare + quill = something we want to read again.
Capote + typewriter = something we want to read again.
Cecilia Ahern + word processor + severe editorial intervention = ah, you get my point...

BumbleB

I can't believe Johnny Marr hasn't got any mention here. I personally love Marr's playing ,which comes straight from his fingers and amp plus some effects.

Many people who have effects dont even use them to their full potential at all for example ,the wah , most people cannot actually use a wah properly,the norm is too rock it forward and back with the beat .Rocking the wah is actually an art form in itself ,one that Jimi perfected.

I recently used a strange device from pigtronic which was mindblowing never heard anything like it before ,would love to buy one but its expensive.

In general pop music has gotten very stale. When you go into a music store a guy is there playing dimebag licks or playing the box patterns which is fine but everybody is doing the same thing.

I see this so often it turned me against rock and metal so I started leaning towards funk and jazz.Marr said he bought a fender jaguar to get him out of the blues box mentality.

Really when is a band going to come up with something as genius as "how soon is it now".

BumbleB

quicklickpaddy wrote: »

I have spent hours practising at home. I can sweep, play Malmsteen and Satch and all that lark. Pretty sure I'm sensing a bit of snobbery here but don't look down your nose at an aspect of guitar playing that you've just completely disregarded

But can you play an E.:)

quicklickpaddy

BumbleB wrote: »

But can you play an E.:)

Yep. I'm in an Alt/funk band

ceekay74

El Pr0n wrote: »

Hmm, if I get you right, you mean doing a track with Autechre methodology is a little like cheating? I know what you mean, it could be like that, but if you look into just how far Autechre in particular are pushing things, I don't think so at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwtVJ6OFlR8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OvHLdnRI8

In that second one, no rhythm pattern is ever repeated. That kind of super-intense programming is what I'm talking about. I think the first one has some generative programming to it as well.

And of course, with respect to guitar;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK2dCNacvNU

I've never heard Autechre before. Didn't like it personally, but that aside, can an intense mess like that be performed live?

rcaz

ceekay74 wrote: »

I've never heard Autechre before. Didn't like it personally, but that aside, can an intense mess like that be performed live?

You say an intense mess, but you've never listened to it before now. In that same way that someone who's never listened to hard bop or free atonality or serialism wouldn't be able to get it first time. If you stick with it you start to understand it more.

And of course it can be performed live.

ceekay74

El Pr0n wrote: »

You say an intense mess, but you've never listened to it before now. In that same way that someone who's never listened to hard bop or free atonality or serialism wouldn't be able to get it first time. If you stick with it you start to understand it more.

And of course it can be performed live.

I take your point, but first impressions last, at least with the vast majority of people.

Call me ignorant, but couldn't all that be performed 'live' with the touch of 1 button while the artist looks busy?

rcaz

ceekay74 wrote: »

Call me ignorant, but couldn't all that be performed 'live' with the touch of 1 button while the artist looks busy?

In the same way that every other kind of music could be, yes.

**Vai**

Honestly I skipped thru that first track, waiting to hear guitar playing. Its not my type of music at all but each to his weird drummy sounding own

Furthest out Ive gone is free style jazz and stuff like John Zorn. And Im not a big Zorn fan, specially the stuff with basically no music in it. Personally Id prefer to hear a guy and an acoustic instead of music that sounds like noise just for the sake of it. Doesnt need to be all sweepy and technical (or just plain strange) long as it sounds nice.

All music is beautiful when u think about it tho

damonjewel

Firstly, the reason why the pentatonic is so used is that it is very easy for the listener. Apparently its short cut through the Diatonic scale removing the tritone (4th and 7th) makes this so. As we all know you can squeeze a lot of feeling out of them five notes. I think its familiarity is comparable to 4/4 time (e.g. how many tunes are out their in 3/3 or 5/4) and hence its popularity.

Saying that I prefer guitarists who go out of the pentatonics, and use modes or change dynamically to the scale relative to the chord they are playing. But I think that non-musicians might not get the technical aspects that I would.

As for effects: I am more a guitar to amp kind of player. I use to be big into effects but as I got older, I kind of got bummed off with replacing batteries, noise, setting up (call it laziness perhaps, thank roland for modelling amps!). I think the point of effects should shape the sound to how the player wants, I don't think effects should be used to mask technical deficiency but enhance what skills the player has. I am neither for or against the use of effects, used well they can convey the absolute maximum impact that may not have otherwise been achieved, the Johnny Marr How soon is now example is right on the money.

Two of my favourite guitarists Robert Fripp and Vini Reilly get the balance right for me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kM90i0dTW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kcuqIqmIU

speaking of fripp you may be interested in the league of crafty guitarists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeHjnYivmT4

cheers

Damo

Seziertisch

I don't think stale is the issue with guitar playing, only whether or not it speaks to people on some level.

There are plenty of traditional players/bands who I really like because they do what they do well, it ain't (re)inventing the wheel but it conveys "something" which appeals to me.

There are plenty of experimental guitarists who also convey "something" albeit a different sort of "something" from more traditional approaches.

And then there are those players, they can be either traditional or experimental in their approach, who don't manage to convey anything. Some of these guys post on forums saying how a particular approach to the instrument is fundamentally bogus/no longer valid (depending on whether they are traditional of experimental). This isn't a snipe at anyone who posted here, but rather just a general observation about guitar forums and their posters.

If people worried more about how to express "something" in what they are doing, something which other people (including non-guitarists) find cool, rather that about which kind of "something" is better or worse, the world would be a better place.

Ash.J.Williams

Grolschevik wrote: »

To be honest, I’m not really sure what the issue or problem is.

If the OP wants to create novel, unique and experimental soundscapes, using the guitar as a MIDI tool or whatever, for then fair play to him. But why worry about the fact that others don’t want to do so, or try to inflate the issue into some “state of the discipline” dilemma?

To an extent, it does actually come across as a sort of (inverse?) snobbery, and the talk of “blues wankery” and the implied pejorative connotations of the phrase “overdriven minor pentatonic” bear this out.

That said, I think that the history of guitar playing shows that radical changes in how a relatively simple instrument can sound and what it can do happen all the time. Maybe not in the last few years, but it will happen. And the fact that the OP is questioning this can only be a good thing for the guitar. Remember, for some in the ‘40s and ‘50s, amps were newfangled things that were not to be trusted...

However, the thing is, live and let live. Why worry about the fact that some guy gets his rocks off playing bad AC/DC covers in Ballyhaunis? I often bemoan the fact that cover/wedding bands make truckloads more money than me gig-wise, but I have to acknowledge the fact that (a) there’s a demand for them, (b) they have put the time and effort into (sometimes) perfecting what they do, and (c) I wouldn’t be interested in doing that myself and (d) I’m not in this for the money. So I say, fair play to them. Even while I bemoan them. But I play what I can play, and I have fun doing it, and I like what I do. That’s enough for me. But that doesn’t deny the right of the next guy to go crazy flanging his ring modulator.

I’ve used the example of Jimmy Page and his theremin usage before on these pages. Innovative at the time? Check. Novel soundscapes? Check. But how many of us actually look forward to that middle bit in "Whole Lotta Love", or the ridiculous “violin bow” bit in the live version of "Dazed and Confused"?

My point has been made before by previous posters: it’s about the song, the tune, and the context of both. Innovative sounds, outside the context of a song that you like, come close to being just noise, albeit noise that might be quite interesting. Sabbath did this on a couple of albums. But would you press replay?

Keith Richards apparently said that there are only two types of music: good and bad. He was wrong. There are two types, but they’re music you like and music you don’t, with a grey area of transition in between. Why get upset if someone likes the music you don’t? Or vice versa?

If every guitarist in the world was doing the new, interesting and innovative soundscape thing, then it wouldn’t really be new. It’d just be the current orthodoxy, and there’d be underground clubs where nerdy men got together to play minor pentatonics through non-modelling amps...

To my mind, karaoke phenomena like the X-Factor are more pernicious to the public acceptance of musical creativity than some guy who just wants to play 12-bar boogie that even Quo would be ashamed of.

In sum, the guitar is just a tool.

Shakespeare + quill = something we want to read again.
Capote + typewriter = something we want to read again.
Cecilia Ahern + word processor + severe editorial intervention = ah, you get my point...

You've just said it all!!
The true legends of guitar didn't have limitations, they had an idea in their head of what sound was required, then through hard work, experimentation and trial and error they got that sound.
I'll just let pink floyd explain!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J08mjAl-yw
The equipment is extensions of what is inside the head!

Dord

Personally I feel more inspired by musicians with a "stripped back" sound than those with an abundance of effects. Not that some of that stuff isn't impressive... it is, just in a different way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwrCUEMl76U

Ash.J.Williams

Dord wrote: »

Personally I feel more inspired by musicians with a "stripped back" sound than those with an abundance of effects. Not that some of that stuff isn't impressive... it is, just in a different way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwrCUEMl76U

good choice!
I'd go with the Roger Waters opinion in that a musician should be in control of his effects and not hide behind them. I'm all for using the right effects (none at all if that's what the piece requires) but behind them there must be a musician playing his heart out.

damonjewel

Dord wrote: »

Personally I feel more inspired by musicians with a "stripped back" sound than those with an abundance of effects. Not that some of that stuff isn't impressive... it is, just in a different way.

For me this is the ultimate in Guitar, clever lines, clean sounds, just magic. I actually emailed Richard Lloyd on his set up, and its simple as it can be. he opens his pots up fully, he uses dimarzio noiseless virtual vintage pickups and uses the pickup selector for different sounds. His only pedal was a tubescreamer (which was lost on a flight) and so he now uses a Boss OD-1.

ceekay74

El Pr0n wrote: »

In the same way that every other kind of music could be, yes.

Yeah. Of course. Best of luck with all that.

darrenw5094

El Pr0n wrote: »

In the same way that every other kind of music could be, yes.

Then that would be miming. Not actually playing live.

Grolschevik

On a related note, there's an interview with Joe Satriani in the November issue of Guitarist (there's a surprise!), but he mentioned something that sounded interesting.

Apparently he used that Auto-tune pitch correction device/programme. But what he did was set it up for "maximum correction" in standard tuning, then play an alternatively tuned guitar in a sloppy fashion through it, thus forcing some weird noises out of it. Dunno what it sounded like., though...