If you look around the web, it seems like the majority of guitar makers have some kind of custom shop.

I've yet to encounter anyone doing custom order pedals.

So...does anyone here know of any custom pedalmakers?

I'll make you one.. what do you want? It'll cost you, of course.

It's probably because there's pretty much everything under the sun out there in pedals - including some boutique pedals.

I think you would run into the same situation as guitar makers-it depends on what you mean by `custom`. There are premade `custom` pedals which have features the standard models don`t include. If you want some one to build a pedal for you it shouldn`t be that hard to find, if cost is not a concern.
Try www.guitarsite.com -or another maker database, I`m sure you`ll find someone.

There have to be five or six just in Pittsburgh. There was a guy about a block from my studio doing it. What is the point? What is it that you want? They are mostly doing more or less the same thing from the same set of schematics and available parts. The guys who are really doing something better tend to rise to the top.... and there you have Kesey, Fulltone, analogman, etc.

Many of the boutique pedal guys have a number of trim pots inside their boxes, allowing you to, with a little experimentation, customize a quality pedal to get 'your' sound.

I had a custom built effects rack back in the 70s, made by one of the Bradshaw competition. Nice enough, but the custom aspect and the 'one box' aspect made it difficult to service and of course, I lost the whole rig just to fix one thing.

So, what are you looking for? I'll bet that the pedal gurus here can point you towards it without you're having to incur the cost of custom work.

JHS does custom pedals...http://www.jhsmods.com/JHS_Pedals/Home.html

I had an idea for a pedal that I've not seen on the market...which doesn't surprise me since it would be pretty nitch-ey. What it does is include what so many electronics in the music industry try to exclude.

Since its (AFAIK) unique, I'm a bit loath to discuss the idea. But since its something of limited appeal, whatever market there is for it is bound to be small.

So...

Essentially what I want is a pedal that allows the user to incorporate an external signal- broadcast or prerecorded- into your signal.

I envision its overall appearance & gross mechanics being similar to the Fender Fuzz-Wah or one of the Boss dual-pedals.

Internally, it should pick up AM/FM radio and support some kind of Aux jack. (Who knows, maybe if its cheap enough, broadcast TV as well...)

One pedal (or one axis of movement if going the Fuzz-Wah route) controls the volume of the signal that gets mixed in, from zero to just barely audible. Maybe a bit beyond.

The other pedal or axis controls dialing up or down the AM/FM band or a scan type effect for the Aux jack.

Simple selectors would let you select which signal- if any- was active.

Well, if it is just grabbing off-the air signals and combining them with what you are playing (and we won't go into the legalities of that...), there are several simple answers. Off the top of my head, a volume pedal and an FM radio would give you the ability to bring FM into your amp. If your FM radio has a standard shaft tuner, there is a pedal that has a connector to screw onto a pot shaft to allow you to scan the dial. So you'd have two pedals, one controlling the volume of the FM signal, and one to scan the FM band. That is easy, relatively inexpensive, and doesn't require a custom-anything.

While true, its hard to find a radio with a scan button I could easily trigger with my size 10.5s.

Plus, I'd need one for FM, one for AM and something for the Aux source or sources.

And each one with its own pedal? And switching between them?

That's why I'm looking for an all-in-one.

"While true, its hard to find a radio with a scan button I could easily trigger with my size 10.5s."

Haven't you seen that pedal with the flexible shaft that can be attached to any standard pot? Push the pedal, it rotates the pot?

Sure, you need a lot of stuff to get every aspect that you want. But it would not be expensive to work with just FM radio to start with to test the viability of your idea, and you could DIY.

One thing you might consider is AM radios suck inside certain buildings...probably due to overhead wiring, lights, etc....you would probably need to run wires to the outside and set up a car antenna in the alley???

And sometimes FM doesn't work either...which is yet another reason why I want 3 options (AM/FM/Aux) minimum.

Hmmmm...option 4: Shortwave?

Just read an article in November GP interviewing Billie Joe Armstrong on page 72 & 74 where they were using FM radio to make sounds/effects like a station fading in and out in the studio (mostly for vocals), don't know if the info would be useful to you but you might check it out with regard to the concept of setting up a guitar pedal???....you might think of taping some radio broadcasts and putting them on a looper, then kick it on whenever you want the sound of the radio broadcast, I could do it with my Jam Man by Digitech easily and control the volume...just an idea?

"you might think of taping some radio broadcasts and putting them on a looper, then kick it on whenever you want the sound of the radio broadcast, I could do it with my Jam Man by Digitech easily and control the volume..."

yeah there are a bunch of ways to do that, including a laptop with a dozen or more tracks already recorded, stepping through the tracks via a MIDI (or other ) switch, and controlling the volume with a regular volume pedal. And this would be legal, if you created the content yourself to sound like radio.

Kind of a Bloody Red Baron thing coming in and out of the song from some old radio broadcast and each theme can be a different patch (up to 99) on the Digitech Looper...so you could do all sorts of snips and make up your own....and the volume pedal and looper can be used seperately for general use as well...

It is still not kosher to rebroadcast.

It is if I pay my fees.

You would have to get a different kind of permission to rebroadcast a radio station. I don't know how you go about getting such permission, because it has never come up for me before. Maybe they have some kind of modified site license, I don't know. So now you need to pay the fees to the bands for the use of their copy written material and the stations for the re-broadcast of their signal, and then, how do the inevitable commercials come into play (as, among other things, the guys who write the music for commercials get paid by the number of times the commercial is used...)

To me, it just looks like a stupid complicated licensing morass, when you can create exactly what you want to have on your own, to have random stuff to playback, and never have the possible technical problems that you face with reception issues, beyond the legal ones.

Actually, I'm not sure it would even be a true "rebroadcast" if I'm just modifying live signal. (And I'm an entertainment attorney- how embarrassing!)

After all, all I'd be doing is turning on a radio...and screwing up its sound. Really, I'd be turning on a bad radio.

I'm not sure there's any case-law on point on this one. It might take a performance or 2 to find out...if/when I get sued!

That said, my gut feeling is that given its distortion through all of the active effects on the signal at the time- especially if I did it while using the radio's "scan" mode- it may well be considered "Transformative" and thus, fair use.

In addition, since the sampled signal would be 1) barely audible and 2) indistinct, and 3) sampled in small chunks and thus, virtually unidentifiable, its probable I could also win on the grounds that the use was de minimis. (See Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 1998).)

Heck- I'd be surprised if anyone could ID their stuff at all.

Add to all of that the facts that I"m not likely to ever be a performing musician...and that the overall effect of all this might be too unmusical to be practical...well...

Again, only a court case would let me know for sure.

I'm sure that there is case law that would apply. If nowhere else, then in the language that covers bars and other venues rebroadcasting the radio or TV. I'm also sure that it is using someone elses work without their permission in a way that they have not approved.

On top of that, you are mixing it with your own work. That was covered when (I think it was...) Two Live Crew, who tried to use "Gangster of Love" samples in with their song about beating women.

Anyway, if you are an entertainment lawyer, then you KNOW this is not kosher.

Well, bars and the like are allowed to turn on a tv/radio broadcast as long as they pay their fees. If a court actually decided that my use of this device I've proposed required, so be it- I'd pay, no question.

As for the 2 Live Crew thing (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , 510 U.S. 569 (1994: http://supreme.justia.com/us/510/569/case.html)...it doesn't mean what you may think it means. The band used identifiable samples- huge chunks of the work sampled- and had sought to license the samples but was denied. The District Court found for 2 Live Crew. The Appeals Court reversed and remanded (they ruled for ARM). But the Supreme Court agreed mainly with the District Court's analysis. The case was settled when the band agreed to pay the licensing fee for the sample- the same fee Acuff-Rose would have gotten had they approved instead of denied Campbell et alia a license in the first place. One of the main reasons for the settlement was that the Supreme Court's analysis was leaning towards granting them an exception based on parody. Had the cases not been settled, ARM would likely have lost the case, as well as the license fee.

The case I sited in my previous post- Sandoval- concerned using copyrighted material (photographs) in a movie. The photos in question had not "been cleared"- no permission given, no licensing fee paid.

The Court sided with the movie-maker, stating that the use was of a duration, type and nature that it didn't rise to the level of infringement- it was "de minimis" use. This is, in the eyes of the law, constitutional fair use.

(The text of the Sandoval case can be found here: http://openjurist.org/147/f3d/215/sandoval-v-new-line-cinema-corp )

I'm not talking about using enough of a broadcast- in duration or in volume or clarity- to infringe. Think less Beatles or Satriani radio samples, and more Helios Creed lead vox.

It might not even be readily identifiable as a particular work after it goes through all my distortions, flanges, phases, trems and so forth, which gets into the area of a second form of constitutional fair use, "Transformational works."

Personally and professionally, I think I'm in a fairly safe harbor.

"I'm not talking about using enough of a broadcast- in duration or in volume or clarity- to infringe."

There is no time limit. I used to get rappers in all the time who wanted to use all these recognizable clips, because they were less than 30 seconds long. Not kosher.

"It might not even be readily identifiable as a particular work after it goes through all my ..."

That is another problem. You still can't use someone elses work, and when you start to modify it, you've crossed other boundaries.

Oh, it was the Getto Boys/Steve Miller that I was thinking of.

I'm sure that we can both find opposing judgments covering the same ground... you, as a lawyer have more access than I do; though when my wife was with K&L Gates, they had quite an extensive in house law library.

But still and all, and you know this: if it ain't yours it ain't yours to use. Granted, unless and until someone sues; you're free to do what you want to do.

True.

Time is just a factor the court considers. There is no hard & fast rule on how much or little of a sample it takes to infringe. Each case is a unique thing and must be evaluated thus.

However, the de minimus standard exists for a reason. In the Courts, if your use is legally declared de minimis, you have not used enough of the underlying copyrighted work to infringe.

Its sort of like obscenity laws: there is no hard & fast rule as to what is obscene, but the court knows it when it sees it.

Similarly, there is a certain point below which unlicensed use of intellectual property is not infringement by legal definition. It isn't a "bright-line" test, but its a test nonetheless.



and



I know this: neither statement is true- that's not what the law says at all.

US Copyright law as well as Berne and the other international copyright treaties all recognize certain uses of another's work as fair use. De minimis, Parody/Transformation, Education and other specifically defined uses are perfectly legal uses of another's copyrighted material that do not require compensation of that material's creator/owner. Transformation is one way in particular to avoid an IP lawsuit.

As for Geto/Ghetto Boys v Steve Miller? Again, they used huge sections of music and there was no attempt to license, attribute or credit. You simply can't take a song's entire hook, chorus or identifying drum lick and hope to get away without paying for it.

That's not what I'm intending to do. Not even close.

"However, the de minimus standard exists for a reason. In the Courts, if your use is legally declared de minimis, you have not used enough of the underlying copyrighted work to infringe."

But as you are basing this affects ability to do what it does by using other peoples work, don't you think that the courts would consider an aggregate usage of material under copyright as germane? After all, you as the designer have no control over how the end user might use or misuse the pedal. Your assurances or intentions are rather beside the point.

"...certain uses of another's work... "

Still undefined. Fair use has always been a slippery slope.

Side issue: I think that it is interesting that the Beatles work was pretty much kept from being used for commercials (with a couple of exceptions...) and that even after MJ bought the rights, we still didn't hear the Beatles used in commercials..... until now. I don't know who is in charge of his holdings at this moment, but I saw a commercial backed by a Beatles tune last night.

In a sense, your last statement is 100% true. My assurances and intentions don't matter at all.

As the law stands right now, if you can use a technology in an infringing and non-infringing way, you're not going to get the tech outlawed by the courts. See Cassette tapes, VHS, DATs, CD-RWs and so forth.

All that matters is the actual use in a given lawsuit before the court.

So, as long as I never use the pedal in an infringing manner, I'll never get in trouble.

If, OTOH, I use a pedal like this to do the same kind of sampling like some early DJs did, I'll lose in exactly the same fashion they did.

As for the Beatles in commercials- actually, one of MJ's first acts as owner of the Beatles's catalog was to start using their music in commercials..."Revolution" in a 1987 Nike commercial. Such a ruckus was raised that he didn't do it again for some time. I think Lennon's "Imagine" got used in the 1990s...and that was about it until recently.

"..."Revolution" in a 1987 Nike commercial."

Yes. And that was when Paul raised all the noise about how they never let their music be used for commercial purposes, etc. I thought that this was an interesting position to be taken by a guy who owns such a large catalog, himself. But the whining worked... at least, until recently.

Well, with his lovelife/legal woes, he might be happy to get a little extra royalty revenue to refill his coffers.

Except he still wasn't getting anything other than scant performance royalties until MJ actually died, because MJ did actually will his percentage ownership back to Paul.

Of course, that's still in probate...

Bill - I think I get where he's going with this, and, while it's a thin line, I think he might have a point.

That said, I recommend to the OP to have a listen to Queens of the Stone Age Songs For The Deaf - quite a number of songs lead in with radio samples that they self-produced to avoid potential legal issues.

If you need some help with the technical aspect of making it "sound like" a radio broadcast, I or Bill (or several others here) could probably give you some pointers regarding equalization and compression on the samples to make them sound "radio".

...so you could do all sorts of snips and make up your own...[quote]

part of the suggestions was to create your own broadcast, thus you have original work that you can copywright and avoid any claims against you with the legal issues...in the studio there are all sorts of sound effects used in movies and fake radio broadcasts....so create your own, load your pedal and avoid all the legal mumbo jumbo, royalty issues, commercial issues, etc....kinda like the first chatty cathy doll...pull your own string...

I love that QOTSA album, and its not just them: the Beatles (used actual radio broadcasts), Satriani (used something- don't know which), Mötley Crüe (ditto) and many others have used radio effects, real and simulated. They're still far more articulate than I'm looking to include.

Have you ever heard Helios Creed's vocals...say...circa his Lactating Purple album? Or perhaps the album by Bill Laswell's project, Chaos Face Doom Ride? Its clear that there are vocals, but the vocals are indecipherable.

That's the kind of sonic quality I'm aiming for to a certain extent...and that said, its still in chunks larger than I'm wanting to do. My use would be more akin to Trevor Rabin's "bursts of sound" from some of his work with Yes, maybe a few seconds at a time at the max.

In addition, part of the rationale behind the sampling of live broadcasts- especially with the scan feature- is randomness. No use of the pedal would ever result in a repeatable effect. The only way to hear the same thing would be for someone to record it.

Again, this would be similar to some of what the Beatles did in the recording of "I am the Walrus" which featured a dramatic reading in the mix towards the end of the song- a few lines of Shakespeare's King Lear (Act IV, Scene VI)- which were added to the song direct from an AM radio receiving the broadcast of the play on the BBC.

Except that I'd be doing this live. And distorted, manipulated, etc.

the Digitec Looper is a recorder (up to 2 gigs) and it will play back the same thing (or 99 other broadcasts) exactly each time and even let you overdub on the fly and save or erase the overdubs, used with a volume pedal during recording even the fade ins/outs will be the same....