Somtimes we obsess too much, sometimes pedals get in the way

[musicalhair]

In this forum I tend to respond to more "effects" questions and theory questions and when ever I see a Rivera amp is a possible answer. That means a lot of threads I stay out of when I don't really feel I have any expertise or insight. Since pedals-- even the most expensive-- are cheaper than amps, I've piled up a lot of pedals so I can jump in with my view on a lot of them. Too some that might look like I'm implying pedals are important. It may look that way for a lot of us in that it is easy to pile up pedals. Many of us in our late 30's or older probably has a mountain of pedals. They are tools and for artists tools can also mean inspiration, so in that sense they can be-- and all of Picker's posts in this thread go right to the best way to see "pedal usage".

 

When I first started I had a little Fender Havard Reverb II, an Elite Series Tele, an Ibenez Chorus, a DOD phaser and a Rat. I used them all sparingly. A few years later a freind found an old Ibanez multi-effects pedal-- UT 303 or something-- in the garbage dump in town. He pulled it out and gave it to me. I'd play with a generally "dark" somewhat Santana tone mostly usin the chorus and phaser for "clean" stuff.

 

When I got my Rivera Knucklehead I spent a lot of time tweaking it, just guitar and amp. For weeks I sat their at rather low volume and a Fender Jaguar (at the time anyway) really just listening. I fell in love with the clean unadorned tone. I may have helped that I was working on "chord melody" style, and really digging the Brand New Heavies. For years I played with no effects but I also wasn't getting gigs that way-- I was playing bass and playing gigs as a bassist so it didn't matter to me that much. I went so far as eventually making use out of the "slap" of the way you attack a note, and eshewing any sustain to further emphasize that slap and the phrasing I was developing.

 

When I finally felt I had to start playing guitar more and wanted to put the bass down, I found so many rock gigs almost needed effects. I didn't play "heavy" rock and I guess if I did an overdriven Rivera would have done the job, but for what I was auditioning for and for the people I was playing I got a lot better reception when I brought along, and eventually bought more, effects.

 

To anyone that can't imagine playing much guitar without an effect (reverb, overdrive, etc): I suggest you just take the time to get to know your guitar and amp alone. If you've got good stuff, I'm sure you'll fall in love deeply if you aren't already.

 

To anyone that can't stand effects: man what a phaser can do to nice "clean" arpeggios and to overdriven guitar sounds can be just amazing, a properly tweaked evelope filter is soo cool, a fuzz tone can add a snarl that sometimes just hits the spot better than the tube overdrive, a chorus can add an airness that can complement what your doing, a Flanger can be so much more than it's cliche signature sounds, a killer Teese or Fulltone Wah gives you a sound you'll just not get elsewhere, there are so many more colors and shades to paint with. Use them all, correctly.

[Warthog]

I tend to stick with as few pedals as possible. I have 5 and feel like there are maybe 1 or 2 more to go. I'd still like a Holy Grail and a Chorus Pedal and that would about do it. Beyond that I'd like a looper.

 

When I get too many pedals going I spend a lot of time tweaking them and hoping my tone is ok rather than letting the guitar and amp do the job and just play.

[Chipotle]

Originally posted by picker:

Look at the signal chain he used and tell me Jimi Hendrix wasn't a "real" guitar player....

Back in '69, '70 it was probably very cool and interesting to work a wah pedal or get a high gain sound with a fuzz face. In 2005, it might be a little cliche at worst or retro at best. I like effects, but 99% of the time not from pedals. Pedals strike me as kind of gimmicky; I get sick of them really quick whether it's me using them or somebody else. Just my opinion, of course.

[BluesWithoutBlame]

In the hands of someone that can play, effects can be awesome.

 

I got to thinking, remembering, in the old (like 1600's) days of italian master painters, apprentices spent something like 5 YEARS!! using NO color. They were to learn shading, light, etc. all with variations of gray...only after that were they allowed to start using color, and even then muted colors to begin with.

(I had this comical image of some apprentice, year 4, and you give them some cadmium red...and they freak out!).

 

Point being, I just jammed with some really, really, new beginners that had a hard time keeping the beat, the chords, using any technique, but both had PEDALS...

 

That, to me, is pointless. You gotta learn how to play before you start washing it all in delays, heavy distortion, etc.

 

No rules, just seems like many folks just think pedal means instant guitar god.

 

You gotta be able to play.

 

But even then, I at least gotta watch out for getting hooked on pedals. It's good to go "bare" once in a while, maybe a long while just to get back to basics.

 

But there are legitimate uses for pedals when used right.

 

Even a wah (which as someone pointed out, is kinda old hat) you don't have to make it go "WAAAAH" you can make it do lots of stuff other than that....even use it to get really nasty tones, or use only the middle to get a less obvious "wahhh" on like one bent note in a solo. It is the less obvious uses of just about all pedals that I find most interesting.

 

Slight delay is actually a tone enhancer more than a delay. Slight tremolo (and I mean almost not noticeable) can give extra movement in a chord or solo. Slight Chorus, likewise, but different.

 

It's all useful.

 

It's very similar to songwriting, in that when you record a demo of a song you might arrange the hell out of it, add synth, and twenty guitars all playing the hook, and have echo on the vocals, etc, and it might be really great...but the true test of the song is, can you play and sing it alone on an acoustic and still have it be interesting.

 

Lots of (especially ameteur...like me) songs actually rely on the effects to make it interesting and that is a mistake. The base underneath the effect has to be worthwhile, then if an effect is added, and it is right, it can make it even more compelling.

 

Same thing with a solo. A solo that depends on an effect MIGHT be still valid sometimes...like a struck chord that echoes in time with the beat might sound just weird without the echo, but usually not so much...and if you are using echo on lots of solos...maybe it is too much.

 

Like I started this thread with, I just realized we can get all hung up on the whole thing (get hung up even on NEVER using effects) but it is easy to get this kind of "gotta have the next effect, THAT one will make me sound great!" is probably false and better spent practicing chops.

[BluesWithoutBlame]

You know...let me hijack my own thread here a little and see if I can't get this back to what I was REALLY after with my original post.

 

When I was young, and had very few pedals (a vol pedal and a fuzz/wah I think...even the Fuzz wah came later) this is how it usually went when I played with a band, or out gigging.

 

I used to set my Ampeg VT-22 (4x10) at a "normal" start point. I ALWAYS was aware of "tone" but in my mind at the time, I set the amp mostly flat, with a little adjustment, and got tonal differences by pickup choice, tone control on the guitar, and picking technique. I played. I was in a musical state of mind, and there was no obssessing about it, if I thought, "need a little more bass" I adjusted a little and got back into playing. Throughout the night, maybe adjsut volume on the amp and VERY minor adjustments on the amp. It seemed to work fine.

 

NOW: I have lots of pedals, I think ahead like "this song needs really overdriven leads in one part and nice cleans on the rythm part" and may tweak a little. With SO many pedals, I find it gets complext sometimes, and only when I start playing the solo do I hear how it is sounding that night. It may be off, maybe the right tone but too low, etc, etc.

 

The thing is, I feel like I am monitoring the signal path WAY more, using the guitar tone much less, adjusting, adjusting, adjusting the pedals.

 

As I write this, I see that the answer is to go back to basics for me. That I need to drop most of them for a time and get back to the thinking I had before with simple signal paths. I can build up again essential pedals for what I want to play/hear, but take it one at a time so it becomes instintive. Because thinking all the time about the amp settings (tone, vol, channel, reverb) effects (what is on, what is set where if I want to turn it on, levels, etc) and guitar (which pickup) is sort of logical brain stuff...whereas I want my head in creative (yeah there Is logic involved there but much beneath the surface, mainly I am wanting to think creatively).

 

That is the crux of it for me. To much realtime analyzing, instead of opening up for the actual artistic. It gets in the way sometimes for me.

 

 

One other small point. For folks that feel the answer to reproducing someone elses sound, like SRV, Hendrix, etc.

 

I think a good trick is, try playing without even an amp, along with them. Get it to STILL sound as absilutly close to that sound as possible. Like if Jimi is using an Octavia on "Who Knows" and you want that, practice even without an amp, but with picking technique try and get that raunchiness, and even hints of octave...then when you do play with the pedal, you have all things in agreement, both the real effect plus the technique!

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

Even a wah (which as someone pointed out, is kinda old hat) you don't have to make it go "WAAAAH" you can make it do lots of stuff other than that...."

I like using mine as a sort of slow "phaser" thingie when I'm strumming rhythm chords. It comes out as a very "techno" type sweep. I really like that.

 

 

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

Lots of (especially ameteur...like me) songs actually rely on the effects to make it interesting and that is a mistake. The base underneath the effect has to be worthwhile, then if an effect is added, and it is right, it can make it even more compelling.

That's a bit of a messy point.

 

I used to have this song that relied on a digital delay. The "base" was a simple bass arpeggio but the slow delay made it go back and forth like the sea it was meant to be portraying. It was quite a boring piece on its own because it was written around the DDL.

 

I think maybe we should take a page from the old mono synth ppl and find songs to go with the effect rather than use effects as a sort of all purpose, MSG like, flavour enhancer.

[BluesWithoutBlame]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

Even a wah (which as someone pointed out, is kinda old hat) you don't have to make it go "WAAAAH" you can make it do lots of stuff other than that...."

I like using mine as a sort of slow "phaser" thingie when I'm strumming rhythm chords. It comes out as a very "techno" type sweep. I really like that.

 

 

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

Lots of (especially ameteur...like me) songs actually rely on the effects to make it interesting and that is a mistake. The base underneath the effect has to be worthwhile, then if an effect is added, and it is right, it can make it even more compelling.

That's a bit of a messy point.

 

I used to have this song that relied on a digital delay. The "base" was a simple bass arpeggio but the slow delay made it go back and forth like the sea it was meant to be portraying. It was quite a boring piece on its own because it was written around the DDL.

 

I think maybe we should take a page from the old mono synth ppl and find songs to go with the effect rather than use effects as a sort of all purpose, MSG like, flavour enhancer.

I think in that post you quoted, specifically mentioned there are some exceptions...some songs (for some reason, especially with delay and echo this happens more I think) that just the one chord would not sound right without the delays...but even then, I bet any guitarist that had a good imagination COULD actullly recreate an effect with only an acoustic. I mean, you can mimic a delay...you play the same thing over and over while lessening the attack,

 

Hell...I can make my guitar mimic a chicken "bwok-bwok-bwoik-bwok-bwwwwaaakkk" for gods sake.

There are other ways to make the same "general" effect if it is integral.

 

But I think my point still stands, that the SONG has to be strong enough on it's own. Listen to "won't get fooled again" acoustic...no overdrive, no signature organ, just Townsend and his guitar...the song stands up. Claptons "unplugged" Layla, no piano, no slide.

 

I know they aren't always considered effects, but they really are (OD and slide)...

 

I stick with what I said. Most cases (and nothing is iron-clad rules) the song better be able to stand up as a good song without ANY effects, but that effects can be used to good "effect" and can add spice and become integral to a song.

 

I think about "Us and Them" and that song could certainly stand up on a simple piano or acoustic, but MAAAAN...what a beautiful soundscape they made with effects...

 

Dat's wat I'm talkin' 'bout!

 

 

But hey...you messed up me trying to hijack my own thread!

 

Tricky!

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

I bet any guitarist that had a good imagination COULD actullly recreate an effect with only an acoustic. I mean, you can mimic a delay...you play the same thing over and over while lessening the attack,

Yeah, I had to do that once, when I turned up to the gig and realized I'd left my delay at home. It was a hoot!

 

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

but MAAAAN...what a beautiful soundscape they made with effects...

 

Dat's wat I'm talkin' 'bout!

Well, I've always had this secret, unfulfilled longing to be in some Sigur Ros type band and do all that "textures" stuff. Like the Cocteau Twins or whatever.

 

Unfortunately I'm just not ethereal enough.

[BluesWithoutBlame]

Originally posted by Vince C.:

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

I bet any guitarist that had a good imagination COULD actullly recreate an effect with only an acoustic. I mean, you can mimic a delay...you play the same thing over and over while lessening the attack,

Yeah, I had to do that once, when I turned up to the gig and realized I'd left my delay at home. It was a hoot!

 

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

but MAAAAN...what a beautiful soundscape they made with effects...

 

Dat's wat I'm talkin' 'bout!

Well, I've always had this secret, unfulfilled longing to be in some Sigur Ros type band and do all that "textures" stuff. Like the Cocteau Twins or whatever.

 

Unfortunately I'm just not ethereal enough.

Oh...you're PLENTY ethereal...trust me :-)

 

All depends on who you ask, to me your so ethereal you are just disembodied electrons, racing through the ether, forming back on my screen to a coherent (sometimes) mass :-)

 

How's THAT for ethereal.

 

Course, it's all points of view...ask your wife if you are "ethereal enough" and she's likely to tell you to shut up and go take out the trash.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by BluesWithoutBlame:

Course, it's all points of view...ask your wife if you are "ethereal enough" and she's likely to tell you to shut up and go take out the trash.

Uhmm... no. She's sort of used to that type of question from me

 

Seriously though, I've always wanted to do something cerebral and tinkly and well... ethereal (with lots of effects, 'natch) but I find that guys who are into all that Creation Records/Shoegazing type stuff usually think I'm a yob. And I find them a bit wimpy, to be honest.

 

And... just to show that I'm not hijacking the thread, I'd like to point out that THAT sort of music can't really be done on an acoustic guitar.

[Guitar Slingin Woman]

Well boys, this is a lively discussion!

 

A whole lotta frettin' (pun intended) over whether to pedal or not!

 

Pedals just add a little bit of spice is all. You can spice up a chile dog or you can spice up filet mignon...and let's face it, sometimes it's a bunch of fun to just munch on a souped up chile dog!

 

http://www.lauriemorvan.com/avatars/lauriemorvan_200x379.jpg

[skipclone 1]

I`m wondering if it might be useful to separate spicing up a song-with lyrics, a structure, etc.,

from a wider idea of music composition. In that case there`s a better argument for effects being essential to the identity of a piece-case in point, a guitarist in N.Y.-I was listening to some of his music the other day. He uses a delay to build up a rhythmic soundscape and then riffs on it, almost like an electric raga. Couldn`t do it without the effect

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

I`m wondering if it might be useful to separate spicing up a song-with lyrics, a structure, etc.,

from a wider idea of music composition.

Yes, that is a very valid point. Some things just aren't songs (as such) and have to be considered on their individual merits.