# Musical Fallacies



## bostjan (Jul 20, 2017)

What are some of the craziest bits of misinformation you've seen spread around about the music business?

I'll kick off with:

I have heard more than one person argue that jumbo frets are only supposed to be for bass.

I have heard several people explain that light strings are only for beginners, then pro's use heavy gauges.

I heard one guy say that he doesn't trim the excess string off past the tuning post, because the extra string length gives him better sustain.

I heard a guy once claim that all the tabs in book come from the actual artists who performed the song.

And probably the biggest one was that I heard a guy saying that local bars here in Vermont were paying bands $600 for a three hour set.


----------



## Rawkmann (Jul 20, 2017)

"Bolt-on neck guitars are 'cheap' and only for beginners, but neck-thru is always better and pro quality"

"You MUST be able to sight read music if You want to be considered a REAL musician"


----------



## TedEH (Jul 20, 2017)

Some some gold to be found if anyone wants to dig through this thread:
https://www.talkbass.com/threads/lets-spread-some-musical-misinformation.1018403/

Last time I was in one of the bigger music shops downtown, I overheard something along the lines of "nobody would ever record with EMGs, everyone knows that they sound terrible in the studio".


----------



## iamaom (Jul 20, 2017)

Anything regarding tone comes up when I search forums for information about certain aspects of guitar:

-Any wood/metal affects tone in an audible way, surely you can hear if your selector switch is made out of aluminum or brass, and its obvious that flame maple sounds bright and quilted maple improves sustain. You can hear it can't you? And if you can't hear it then your wrong; my uncle bob/local luthier/guitar center salesman/random internet person taught me everything about guitar tone and no amount of reason or evidence will prove otherwise.

-The micron thick wood finish affects tone, obviously old guitars sounded better because of the nitro finish, guitars sound like shit now because of polyurethane; also all oil finishes seep into the guitar and either dampen or improve sustain, depending on who you're talking to. And anything that is not certified for luthiery and is from home depot will make your guitar sound horrible.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 20, 2017)

iamaom said:


> Anything regarding tone comes up when I search forums for information about certain aspects of guitar:
> 
> -Any wood/metal affects tone in an audible way, surely you can hear if your selector switch is made out of aluminum or brass, and its obvious that flame maple sounds bright and quilted maple improves sustain. You can hear it can't you? And if you can't hear it then your wrong; my uncle bob/local luthier/guitar center salesman/random internet person taught me everything about guitar tone and no amount of reason or evidence will prove otherwise.
> 
> -The micron thick wood finish affects tone, obviously old guitars sounded better because of the nitro finish, guitars sound like shit now because of polyurethane; also all oil finishes seep into the guitar and either dampen or improve sustain, depending on who you're talking to. And anything that is not certified for luthiery and is from home depot will make your guitar sound horrible.



I heard plenty of stuff like that before, but my favourite was a dude at guitar center who kept going on and on about how red paint sounds more "alive" than the other colours of paint, so he only played red guitars, since the others all sounded dull and lifeless to him. The sales guy to whom he was talking kept making subtle jabs at him, but I think that the guy thought the salesman was agreeing with him.


----------



## mnemonic (Jul 20, 2017)

A# and Bb are the same note


----------



## bostjan (Jul 20, 2017)

mnemonic said:


> A# and Bb are the same note


----------



## mnemonic (Jul 20, 2017)

Hey, if the guy above me can mention tone woods, I'm allowed to mention enharmonics. 


Also, that fretboard isn't real is it?


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Jul 20, 2017)

Passive Pickups are terrible for metal
Thin bodies don't sustain
Thin bodies have thin tone, the thicker the body the thicker the tone
Chambering kills tone and sustain
Bolt-ons cut sustain and tone
Bolt-ons are cheaper to manufacturer/build
Exotic woods sound dull
Exotic woods can't be used in necks
Oil finishes are bad longterm and let the tone/sustain escape the instrument 
Reverse Headstocks are weak and will snap under tension

^Thus the Blackmachine was born.

The one I hate the most is when Ed Roman spread that stainless steel frets are harsh and ear-piercingly bright to undermine Parker Guitars. Which would then be quoted by guitar techs for years so they don't damage their tools working them and frets that don't wear are bad for business. One well known tech around here even claiming they your strings will be dead and covered in black grooves in under an hour. 



bostjan said:


> I heard a guy once claim that all the tabs in book come from the actual artists who performed the song.



Oh man I used to hate hearing that one. Even as a beginner I couldn't wrap my head around how an "Official" Tab Book could be packed full of mistakes. I remember some magazine or company that used to boast "Artist Approved Tabs" which actually just meant the artist allowed them to tab their music.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 20, 2017)

Oh, and of course there is the old one that reverse headstocks increase string tension.

If any of those are true*, it'd be the part about chambering killing sustain.*

* Chambering _can_ increase resonance. Resonance + Sustain = Energy. If energy is held constant, and resonance is increased, sustain decreases. Of course, the electric guitar has very little resonance anyway, and there is also the fact that the acoustic energy of the strings can be affected substantially by feedback, which makes sustain of electric guitars a fruitless discussion anyway...

I've never heard that one about oil finishes. I would have said, years ago, that I had heard them all, but I still keep hearing new ones.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 20, 2017)

I've definitely heard some people claim that all metal or heavy music has already been done by Black Sabbath. All of it. No exceptions. They've already done it.


----------



## Sumsar (Jul 20, 2017)

People that claim that the wood does not affect the tone, and even worse when they come up with all kind of "science" explanations. As someone who has a masters in physics those take a lot of facepalming to get through.

People that claim that learning music theory will take away their creativity and their "unique" (hmpf..sh!tty hmpf) song writing skills.

Buying expensive recording/mixing gear will make your mixes sound better.

The standard SSO would be something like: "you/I need a custom made 18" - 43" fanned fret 9 string guitar with pickups made from magnets from unicorns' horn (which is apparently magnetic) in order to be creative/record music"

Also on threads / youtube vids on true temperament frets, where people actually think that you tune the guitar to a different temperament (basicly having different frequency intervals between notes) due to the somewhat poor naming which brings peoples minds to the "well temperamented piano", which was a new temperament from way back.

Singers stating that cupping the mic makes them sound better


----------



## NickS (Jul 20, 2017)

One of my idiot co-workers/friends, and many other people throughout the years, saying that all the metal I listen to, from a talent and technical standpoint, is just "easy to play power chords and all you have to do is play fast." Versus his friends southern-pop-rock-meets-emo band, that is immensely talented

"Just listen to all those different chords and voicings they use. They have so many different sounds. All metal sounds the same."

Sincerely,

Stupid People


----------



## Humbuck (Jul 20, 2017)

There are so many I can't even think of where to start!


----------



## Dayn (Jul 20, 2017)

Not sure if it's a fallacy, but it's something I vehemently disagree with. And that's "You should start learning to play guitar on an acoustic. Your technique and finger strength will be better."

Only the first statement is correct, and only if they want to play acoustic guitar. I say that for two reasons:

Pressing harder on strings is just going to fuck you over when you switch to playing an electric. You need different technique because it's a different instrument. You may as well start off playing a ukulele; the same skills will transfer over.
If someone wants to play electric, and has no musical background, why bother telling them to play a different instrument? I'd rather they have fun playing what they want. I can't think of a better way of turning someone off music by telling them you can only play what you like if you play something else entirely. Keep it fun!
That's why I think that's a fallacy, anyway. Which brings up another point.

Thinking you need to 'graduate' from an acoustic to playing an electric. Likewise, thinking you need to 'graduate' from playing a 6-string guitar to a 7-string, and then an 8-string. You went from 0-string to 6-string - just play the goddamn thing and enjoy it!


----------



## budda (Jul 20, 2017)

Surprised "You can't buy nice gear if you aren't good" hasn't come up yet.


----------



## Syphon (Jul 20, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> People that claim that the wood does not affect the tone, and even worse when they come up with all kind of "science" explanations. As someone who has a masters in physics those take a lot of facepalming to get through.
> 
> People that claim that learning music theory will take away their creativity and their "unique" (hmpf..sh!tty hmpf) song writing skills.
> 
> ...


Wow man you go straight to the throat.

I try to explain to people how a wave of energy is either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. Different materials have very different properties for all three of those possibilities. The actual "wave" of the string is a reflection of the pick energy into the string, then into the wood, then back. At every step, there are some frequencies that are either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. The end result is an electro-mechanical transfer function as the strings interact with the pickups. 

Electro-mechanical topics are very hard for people to understand or even simplify for conversation as evidenced by the amount of hate that goes into this topic on the internet. 

However, the fundamental point is just basic, basic frequency based energy transfer. I've explained this on will's guitars youtube channel but he doesn't respond lol. I guess I'm too stupid for him to reply to. Don't even get me started on Scott Grove. 

Of course, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a MSEE. NEver thought to burden my coworkers with physics degrees with this. I don't think they'd really care if they didn't play guitar.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jul 20, 2017)

My fav is that you can't have matching finish/paint on the headstock of a Strat, because it kills the tone/sustain.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jul 20, 2017)

Well, let's kick it off with the one that was mentioned in the other thread:

1. "The more technical the better." S'cuse me, Eddie Van Halen called, he just wrote a solo on one string and it sounds awesome. Just because you choose to over-complicate, it doesn't make you better. Sometimes less is more- cliche but true.

2. "Musicians should be all about the art, not the money!" Heh! Good luck with that!

3. Tone in general. Yes, there are tones which would be either a detriment or an enhancement for what you're going for. Yes, there are subtle differences between certain tones which people may or may not notice at least subconsciously and it's good to fine-tune to get what sounds best. If you're so deep down the rabbit hole that you're seriously telling me "Vai has great tone. Not like Satriani- his tone sucks!" (as if there's THAT noticeable a difference) I think you're missing the point.
Get tone that's decent for what you're trying to play and then focus on writing music- AKA the thing most human ears will be paying attention to.


----------



## Leviathus (Jul 21, 2017)

That you can't be heavy on a 6-string in standard tuning.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Jul 21, 2017)

Syphon said:


> Wow man you go straight to the throat.
> 
> I try to explain to people how a wave of energy is either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. Different materials have very different properties for all three of those possibilities. The actual "wave" of the string is a reflection of the pick energy into the string, then into the wood, then back. At every step, there are some frequencies that are either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. The end result is an electro-mechanical transfer function as the strings interact with the pickups.
> 
> ...



his argument has never been that wood doesn't affect the sound of the guitar...it's that species doesn't matter for shit.

when swamp ash can be 3-7 pounds for a back species generalizations don't matter.


----------



## Sumsar (Jul 21, 2017)

Let us just leave that tonewood thing for now, instead of messing up this perfectly fine thread, shall we?


----------



## Edika (Jul 21, 2017)

mnemonic said:


> A# and Bb are the same note



They're not buy in modern Western music they're used as the same interval. A lot of popular intruments can't replicate the actual # or b interval, like piano and fretted string instruments, and Western music, even from great composers, is not treated or meant to use the intervals with their actual values.
So in a sense, now days it's true.



Dayn said:


> Not sure if it's a fallacy, but it's something I vehemently disagree with. And that's "You should start learning to play guitar on an acoustic. Your technique and finger strength will be better."
> 
> Only the first statement is correct, and only if they want to play acoustic guitar. I say that for two reasons:
> 
> ...



I've heard that mainly from older people. When I got tired of the violin and was into heavy music and wanted to learn the electric guitar my mom said that to me. Start with classical guitar and then go to the electric aftet a few years. My reply was no because I didn't want to learn classical guitar. There were no places that taught electric guitar back then in my country or knew someone that did private lessons.

Going to an opposite direction from technical to popular music, I've heard so many people claim to love listening to music but when asked what do they like to hear they'd quote whatever is popular on the radio. When speaking with them and mentioning slighlty more challenging genres they immediately reply with that they want to enjoy music and not overthink it. Which is fine, even though most of them do the same about other areas of their life and for other serious events unfolding around them, but telling someone you love music and you only listen to whatever garbage is on the radio or trending on youtube and social media is a musical falacy in my book.


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Jul 21, 2017)

The better the gear the better the player...


----------



## Syphon (Jul 21, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> Get tone that's decent for what you're trying to play and then focus on writing music- AKA the thing most human ears will be paying attention to.





diagrammatiks said:


> his argument has never been that wood doesn't affect the sound of the guitar...it's that species doesn't matter for shit.
> 
> when swamp ash can be 3-7 pounds for a back species generalizations don't matter.


I've heard both of them directly state that tonewoods don't matter. I assume you're talking about scott, as will has gone on multiple 30 min video tirades "explaining" how the wood contributes nothing to the tone. 

Quality control of species is definitely something that's overlooked, but all of my similar species guitars are within 100g of each other so I feel like that might be overstated. Of course, I've got a small sample size (that's what she said).


----------



## Go To Bed Jessica (Jul 21, 2017)

*I don't want to learn music theory because it will cramp my style. I don't need anyone telling me what to play.
*
Ugh, I HATE this. Play whatever you want. Music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. It saves you having to grunt at your bandmates while angrily pointing at your fretboard.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Jul 21, 2017)

Syphon said:


> I've heard both of them directly state that tonewoods don't matter. I assume you're talking about scott, as will has gone on multiple 30 min video tirades "explaining" how the wood contributes nothing to the tone.
> 
> Quality control of species is definitely something that's overlooked, but all of my similar species guitars are within 100g of each other so I feel like that might be overstated. Of course, I've got a small sample size (that's what she said).



that's never been will's point. Will's point has always been that the entire instrument matters and once the instrument is complete wood is very low on the list. You only need to look at wild wood's distribution of les paul weights to see how much mahogany can differ. Variance is over 2 pounds.

That's not to say you shouldn't buy pretty and fancy woods if you want too.


----------



## Syphon (Jul 21, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> that's never been will's point. Will's point has always been that the entire instrument matters and once the instrument is complete wood is very low on the list. You only need to look at wild wood's distribution of les paul weights to see how much mahogany can differ. Variance is over 2 pounds.
> 
> That's not to say you shouldn't buy pretty and fancy woods if you want too.


It amounts to saying "tonewood" doesn't matter whether or not Will can clearly state his point. He seems to move the goal post from "insignificant" to "too hard to control" which is another issue altogether.

That being said, each species has its own statistical distribution of weights. Therefore it still makes sense to talk about them. 80% of les pauls are probably going to be +- 8 oz. Outliers don't disqualify this.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 21, 2017)

mnemonic said:


> Hey, if the guy above me can mention tone woods, I'm allowed to mention enharmonics.
> 
> 
> Also, that fretboard isn't real is it?



Yeah, I don't know who owns it now, but it was made by Sword guitars.



TedEH said:


> I've definitely heard some people claim that all metal or heavy music has already been done by Black Sabbath. All of it. No exceptions. They've already done it.



I've actually heard that one once before. 



Sumsar said:


> People that claim that the wood does not affect the tone, and even worse when they come up with all kind of "science" explanations. As someone who has a masters in physics those take a lot of facepalming to get through.



I honestly think some people simply don't discern differences in timbre as well as others. I think the only really definite way to convince people might be to record a ten second clip of an eBow on two guitars made of different wood but with the same pickups and same brand of strings, then to perform FFT on the clip and compare the relative strengths of harmonics.

I did the above and posted it on the Parker forum and on an AOL guitar group back around 2001 or so, but I used a pick, and some people immediately dismissed the comparison simply based on the variation of picking techniques.



Sumsar said:


> People that claim that learning music theory will take away their creativity and their "unique" (hmpf..sh!tty hmpf) song writing skills.



Another one that really hits me right where it counts. The thought that knowledge is disabling. But, there are quite a few folks who fervently defend this position.



Sumsar said:


> Buying expensive recording/mixing gear will make your mixes sound better.
> 
> The standard SSO would be something like: "you/I need a custom made 18" - 43" fanned fret 9 string guitar with pickups made from magnets from unicorns' horn (which is apparently magnetic) in order to be creative/record music"



...and want that guitar for $400. 

Expensive gear sometimes has its merits, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as most of us pursue it. I think it reflects on the colloquial "law of diminishing returns," where a $200 guitar is 100% better than a $100 guitar, but a $400 guitar is only 50% better than a $200 guitar and so on, until you gain nothing really by spending more on a $2000+ guitar, besides status.



Sumsar said:


> Also on threads / youtube vids on true temperament frets, where people actually think that you tune the guitar to a different temperament (basicly having different frequency intervals between notes) due to the somewhat poor naming which brings peoples minds to the "well temperamented piano", which was a new temperament from way back.



True temperament/fretwave/etc. are cool ideas, but there is so much misinformation, it's depressing. The most common one I hear is that these systems provide a better mechanical means to represent 12-equal divided octave.



Sumsar said:


> Singers stating that cupping the mic makes them sound better



"Better" is a vague enough term that it usually leaves room for justification. In that case, though, I agree with you. Cupping the mic just makes the vocals sound less intelligible and less dynamic.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 21, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> The standard SSO


Just get a used MiJ Prestige Ibby. They're everywhere for like $100, right?


----------



## marcwormjim (Jul 21, 2017)

How many posts did we get before a rager started throwing ad hominems around in a fallacy thread?


----------



## iamaom (Jul 21, 2017)

Syphon said:


> It amounts to saying "tonewood" doesn't matter whether or not Will can clearly state his point. He seems to move the goal post from "insignificant" to "too hard to control" which is another issue altogether.
> 
> That being said, each species has its own statistical distribution of weights. Therefore it still makes sense to talk about them. 80% of les pauls are probably going to be +- 8 oz. Outliers don't disqualify this.



No idea who you guys are talking about but my 2 cents on tonewood:
Does wood affect the sound? Yes.
Does it affect the sound in a meaningful way like so many people think? No.

Yeah I'm sure some of the energy from the strum enters the wood and finds its way to the string, but considering it also has to transfer through the metal bridge and the nut I'd say its already pretty minimal. Now combine that with all the other factors that determine the tone: pick material, picking force, string type, nut material, pickup type, amplifier, any effects you're playing with, your ear, and then your subjective sound experience produced by your brain, colored with all sorts of biases. I really doubt that during a blind test any of you would be able to listen to a guitar and tell me what type of wood its made out of, or even if its made of wood (Aristides). That's not to say wood doesn't factor into the sound at all, but to specifically reject or accept a guitar based on the wood's alleged tone profile alone is to greatly exaggerate its effects. There are plenty of snobs who will reject a wood like Agathis because it's not a "tonewood", or insist that they can't put certain pickups in their guitar because the ebony fretboard would make it sound too bright. I reject the legitimacy of these claims. The tonewood mythos is perpetuated by traditionalism, the guitar industry, and confirmation bias.


----------



## EmaDaCuz (Jul 21, 2017)

I am surprised! I haven't seen "You can't play metal on a Strat"! I am just recording a brutal death metal EP with my Strat mounting a DiMarzio BC-2 in the bridge...


----------



## auntyethel (Jul 21, 2017)

Hope I phrase this correctly, but I've heard people say to beginners that you should play in a way that makes you 'comfortable'. I get that one shouldn't put unnecessary strain in the wrong way, but correct technique is, more often than not, not the most comfortable thing in the world for a beginner. Only through repeated practice does it become comfortable, or natural which may be a better word.

Mentioning this as I've seen people play really sloppily due to bad technique, but say they don't want to play 'properly' as it is uncomfortable.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Jul 21, 2017)

Syphon said:


> It amounts to saying "tonewood" doesn't matter whether or not Will can clearly state his point. He seems to move the goal post from "insignificant" to "too hard to control" which is another issue altogether.
> 
> That being said, each species has its own statistical distribution of weights. Therefore it still makes sense to talk about them. 80% of les pauls are probably going to be +- 8 oz. Outliers don't disqualify this.



I dunno man, lots of tests have been but none of them have been really that scientific. I don't think it really matters but I build my guitars just in case it does matter.

The way I think about it that if you had a luthier build 2 exact guitars except with different woods, one using all bright woods and all dark woods, if you tried to control for weight...how different would they really sound?

I think the tone wood contingent would like to say that if they sounded even a bit different then wood matters a lot but I'm still unconvinced it would make a difference in my purchasing decisions.

Get pretty wood if you want, but i'm always wary of shops saying their super rare pretty woods is going to sound so much better. A good guitar is a good guitar.



auntyethel said:


> Hope I phrase this correctly, but I've heard people say to beginners that you should play in a way that makes you 'comfortable'. I get that one shouldn't put unnecessary strain in the wrong way, but correct technique is, more often than not, not the most comfortable thing in the world for a beginner. Only through repeated practice does it become comfortable, or natural which may be a better word.
> 
> Mentioning this as I've seen people play really sloppily due to bad technique, but say they don't want to play 'properly' as it is uncomfortable.



ya this one seems weird to me. it's all uncomfortable when you are starting out.


----------



## Syphon (Jul 21, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I honestly think some people simply don't discern differences in timbre as well as others. I think the only really definite way to convince people might be to record a ten second clip of an eBow on two guitars made of different wood but with the same pickups and same brand of strings, then to perform FFT on the clip and compare the relative strengths of harmonics.



Strandberg did this already and the results were very clear.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jul 21, 2017)

Can we save the tonewood debate for a different thread we know will be locked? lol


----------



## Syphon (Jul 21, 2017)

USMarine75 said:


> Can we save the tonewood debate for a different thread we know will be locked? lol


Yes and I feel responsible.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jul 21, 2017)

Stage presence and image are just "cheap gimmicks" to cover up mediocre music, and they're an "unnecessary distraction." Dress casually and just stand there in the same spot for the whole set. "Let the music speak for itself."

If that's how you're comfortable, more power to ya... but don't give people shit for trying to be entertaining. It's a show- half the battle is visual- there is no shame in trying to give people a reason to watch you.


----------



## stevexc (Jul 21, 2017)

Cargo shorts mean you're a lousy musician.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jul 21, 2017)

stevexc said:


> Cargo shorts mean you're a lousy musician.



No... they just mean you're a lousy human being.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 21, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> Stage presence and image are just "cheap gimmicks"


I had an interesting conversation not too long ago about the parallels between being a stage actor and being in a band where you have a certain "stage character". I definitely have a face/character that I put on while on stage that - while I wouldn't go as far as saying it's "not genuine" or something like that - it's definitely not my usual everyday character.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jul 21, 2017)

TedEH said:


> I had an interesting conversation not too long ago about the parallels between being a stage actor and being in a band where you have a certain "stage character". I definitely have a face/character that I put on while on stage that - while I wouldn't go as far as saying it's "not genuine" or something like that - it's definitely not my usual everyday character.



I mean, that's basically just your personality in the context of being in the entertainer mindset, playing music, having a good time, and getting pumped. It's like being drunk- it's just you but without some of the boundaries you put up in your everyday life. 

Which actually reminds me of some advice (given half-jokingly I'm sure) I got from a sound guy once:

I'm usually pretty quiet and timid in my everyday life, and it came as a shock to this guy to find I was essentially my band's frontman. 
My keyboardist: "Don't worry, he goes into Rockstar Mode as soon as the show starts."
Sound guy: "...Dude, you should be in Rockstar Mode all the time!"
Me: "No I shouldn't! Because that would be really fucking obnoxious!"


----------



## Dayn (Jul 21, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> Stage presence and image are just "cheap gimmicks" to cover up mediocre music, and they're an "unnecessary distraction." Dress casually and just stand there in the same spot for the whole set. "Let the music speak for itself."
> 
> If that's how you're comfortable, more power to ya... but don't give people shit for trying to be entertaining. It's a show- half the battle is visual- there is no shame in trying to give people a reason to watch you.


Oh man, this. You go to a "show", not a "listen". I think Meshuggah's music speaks for itself, which is why they're my favourite band. But then I saw them live a few months ago.

That light show. Holy fuck, what a show. I've never seen music translated into something visual so clearly. That was a hell of a show.


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 22, 2017)

sorry to be about tonewood, but this is a classic.

Rosewood fretboards sound warm, mapple/ebony ones sound bright and snappy.

Yet if we go by wood hardness: mapple<rosewood<<<ebony


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Jul 22, 2017)

lol...just saw this thread and am gonna read it in its entirety later.

i bought a guitar from a guy a while back and it only had the top 3 strings on it. when i asked him about it, he said...

those strings got in the way and it made it way easier to play... and that most rhythm guitars like himself didn't need or use them.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Jul 22, 2017)

M3CHK1LLA said:


> lol...just saw this thread and am gonna read it in its entirety later.
> 
> i bought a guitar from a guy a while back and it only had the top 3 strings on it. when i asked him about it, he said...
> 
> those strings got in the way and it made it way easier to play... and that most rhythm guitars like himself didn't need or use them.




I mean you only need the bottom three strings for djent.


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 22, 2017)

when I was a teen the singer/guitar player of a friend's punk band used to do that. Plus tunning in dropD meant only bar power chords all day long. One finger baby


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jul 22, 2017)

Please tell me "One finger baby" was the name of said Punk band.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Jul 22, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> Please tell me "One finger baby" was the name of said Punk band.





A-Branger said:


> when I was a teen the singer/guitar player of a friend's punk band used to do that. Plus tunning in dropD meant only bar power chords all day long. One finger baby



was is emmure?


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 22, 2017)

"A jack of all trades will be a master of none". 

I clocked my 10,000 hours on guitar by 19 years old  Branching out into a self-producing singer/songwriter and multi-instrumentalist with a mind for arrangement and band dynamics is so much more fulfilling and useful to me than "mastering" guitar, whatever that means. Life is long, music isn't that hard, learn whatever you want, you have time.


----------



## Screamingdaisy (Jul 23, 2017)

Boosted mids.

I totally understand why scooping out all the midrange is a terrible idea... but at some point the internet came up with this idea that anything less than obnoxious amounts of midrange and your guitar won't cut, which is demonstrably false.

Interestingly, I think the boosted mids obsession probably spawned a couple of genres...


----------



## marcwormjim (Jul 23, 2017)

JohnIce said:


> "A jack of all trades will be a master of none".
> 
> I clocked my 10,000 hours on guitar by 19 years old  Branching out into a self-producing singer/songwriter and multi-instrumentalist with a mind for arrangement and band dynamics is so much more fulfilling and useful to me than "mastering" guitar, whatever that means. Life is long, music isn't that hard, learn whatever you want, you have time.



Is this some Swedish conspiracy to make Yngwie seem humble?


----------



## auxioluck (Jul 23, 2017)

"Without Led Zeppelin, metal wouldn't exist."


----------



## El Caco (Jul 23, 2017)

You need scale lengths longer than 25.5" if you want to tune down.


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 23, 2017)

marcwormjim said:


> Is this some Swedish conspiracy to make Yngwie seem humble?



Haha nah, more a way for old musicians to make themselves feel better about their limited skills by telling 15-year olds what they can't aspire to.



Screamingdaisy said:


> Boosted mids.
> 
> I totally understand why scooping out all the midrange is a terrible idea... but at some point the internet came up with this idea that anything less than obnoxious amounts of midrange and your guitar won't cut, which is demonstrably false.
> 
> Interestingly, I think the boosted mids obsession probably spawned a couple of genres...



Then again, the midrange is so huge that you can say practically anything about it and be right and wrong at the same time. Scooping or boosting "the midrange" is just a terribly unspecific way to talk about it, hence all the confusion and debate.


----------



## MrBouleDeBowling (Jul 23, 2017)

"- Nobody should EVER downtune. If you downtune, it's 100% because you can't play or write a good riff. Guitars should ALWAYS be in standard E. Anything lower than E or Drop D is talentless garbage!!!!."

- Yeah, no. While I get your point you don't NEED to downtune and you can indeed be heavy in E, I just prefer how my songs sound in standard C#. Tuning don't really matter, you should play what you like. It's how the riffs are written that matters.

- That's because you suck and you can't play real metal like Metallica!"


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 23, 2017)

multiscales are only for dowtunings.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jul 23, 2017)

El Caco said:


> You need scale lengths longer than 25.5" if you want to tune down.



Also, never tune any lower than Eb standard on a 24.75" scale guitar! 
Huh? Amon Amarth? Never heard of 'em...


----------



## El Caco (Jul 23, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> Also, never tune any lower than Eb standard on a 24.75" scale guitar!
> Huh? Amon Amarth? Never heard of 'em...


Or Arch Enemy? 
They would have a fit if they knew I tuned a 20.5" KH-Jr as low as B standard. I have it in C standard at the moment just because I can.


----------



## Sumsar (Jul 24, 2017)

"Lars Ulrich is the worst drummer ever"

While I agree that his playing is not on the top anymore (far from it), he recorded some amazing albums back in the day, recording to tape - no time align, no samples, no bullshit, just really good playing, and he is probably one of the drummers that's responsible for most rock/metal drummers starting to play back in the day.

Yes I also jump on the "let's make fun of Lars" once in a while, but I think it is a bit sad how much shit he gets, but I guess that's the internet for you.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 24, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> I mean, that's basically just your personality in the context of being in the entertainer mindset, playing music, having a good time, and getting pumped. It's like being drunk- it's just you but without some of the boundaries you put up in your everyday life.


(I'm a little late on the reply, but-) I think for some people it's like that, but I don't really think of it that way for me, not entirely. Being drunk is, as you say, sort of taking your usual character but changing your frame of mind so that your inhibitions/limitations/boundaries are different than what they would be- but it's still you. My stage character is very different than that, at least lately. It used to be just sort of "ok, party mode engaged" and see what happens, but more recently, it's been a very deliberate, almost practiced set of movements, actions, facial expressions, etc. that I find are more comparable to acting than being drunk.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 24, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> "Lars Ulrich is the worst drummer ever"
> 
> While I agree that his playing is not on the top anymore (far from it), he recorded some amazing albums back in the day, recording to tape - no time align, no samples, no bullshit, just really good playing, and he is probably one of the drummers that's responsible for most rock/metal drummers starting to play back in the day.
> 
> Yes I also jump on the "let's make fun of Lars" once in a while, but I think it is a bit sad how much shit he gets, but I guess that's the internet for you.



I think the Lars hate is a product of three factors:

1. Metallica hate. People my age will likely remember Metallica as that thrash band that changed their sound in the mid-90's to become more commercial and alienated their earlier fanbase. While it was a smart move career-wise, and the band became a household name with tons of presence on hard rock radio and on Mtv, the move expectedly generated massive amounts of criticism from metal fans.
2. Napster. Lars was a key opponent to internet music sharing. Legally in the right, his vocal stance drew a lot of fire from young people at the time Napster was being shut down.
3. General drummer hate. Drummers just generally take a lot of flack for being drummers. Lars was getting picked on before the other two factors were in play, just because he was a drummer. ...you know it's sad but true-ooo-wah.


----------



## auxioluck (Jul 24, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> "Lars Ulrich is the worst drummer ever"
> 
> While I agree that his playing is not on the top anymore (far from it), he recorded some amazing albums back in the day, recording to tape - no time align, no samples, no bullshit, just really good playing, and he is probably one of the drummers that's responsible for most rock/metal drummers starting to play back in the day.
> 
> Yes I also jump on the "let's make fun of Lars" once in a while, but I think it is a bit sad how much shit he gets, but I guess that's the internet for you.



Agreed. I'm not a big Metallica fan, haven't really liked anything since the Black album, but I will give all the credit where it's due. If nothing else, Lars has his own sound and absolutely has inspired generations of rock and metal drummers. He's a great testament that sometimes, less is more.


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 24, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> ...he recorded some amazing albums back in the day, recording to tape - no time align, no samples, no bullshit, just really good playing...



Not sure how far back into their catalogue you're going, but editing tape in the 80's was plenty sophisticated, you could do pretty much anything you can do now. MoP took 4 entire months just to track, and they went all the way to Denmark to get the right studio and producer, which in turn is peanuts compared to the Black Album. So not bagging on Lars, just saying those albums were quite time-consuming and expensive projects, plenty of "bullshit" was needed to get that sound.


----------



## BornToLooze (Jul 24, 2017)

auxioluck said:


> Agreed. I'm not a big Metallica fan, haven't really liked anything since the Black album, but I will give all the credit where it's due. If nothing else, Lars has his own sound and absolutely has inspired generations of rock and metal drummers. He's a great testament that sometimes, less is more.



I've seen videos with other people sitting in for Lars (think Joey Jordinson?) and while they were technically a better drummer, it didn't fit in with Metallica. So while I don't think Lars is the best drummer, I do think he is the best drummer for Metallica.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Jul 24, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> People that claim that the wood does not affect the tone, and even worse when they come up with all kind of "science" explanations. As someone who has a masters in physics those take a lot of facepalming to get through.


Haha, I was waiting for someone to post that joke. Well done, almost bought it...


----------



## Screamingdaisy (Jul 24, 2017)

El Caco said:


> Or Arch Enemy?



Black Sabbath?


----------



## USMarine75 (Jul 24, 2017)

El Caco said:


> Or Arch Enemy?





Science_Penguin said:


> Also, never tune any lower than Eb standard on a 24.75" scale guitar!
> Huh? Amon Amarth? Never heard of 'em...



Or In Flames... or Trivium... or Alter Bridge... or Brendon Small...


----------



## BornToLooze (Jul 24, 2017)

USMarine75 said:


> or Trivium...



Nope, this isn't a real guitar, not possible.


----------



## USMarine75 (Jul 24, 2017)




----------



## Science_Penguin (Jul 24, 2017)

Another common claim disputed by well-known musicians:

"Basswood sounds awful! Never use it! You will never get good tone out of it!"
Eddie Van Halen (his name is coming to mind a lot as I read this thread...) Petrucci, Satriani, and Bulb beg to differ.


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 24, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> Petrucci,


well by the time you take the top off, the neck trough part, and all the cavities that his guitars required, theres like 10% left of the original guitar hahaha


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jul 25, 2017)

Not sure if this applies to the thread topic, but people focus on tonewoods way too much, whereas construction [body thickness, shape, etc] and scale length are more important, to me at least.


----------



## ElRay (Jul 25, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> People that claim that the wood does not affect the tone, and even worse when they come up with all kind of "science" explanations. As someone who has a masters in physics those take a lot of facepalming to get through. ...



Nobody claims that wood doesn't affect tone (straw man fallacy). The claim and reality is that "tonewood" (picking certain species of wood for specific noticeable tones) is a myth. And since you're throwing degrees around (argument from authority fallacy), I have a Masters and ABD (All But Dissertation) in Biomedical Engineering, and my thesis was on auditory signal processing.

Show me one case where wood species can be identified by "tap tones" or spectral analysis. You'll get difference between any two test boards, but show me where all boards of a given species produce sufficiently similar spectra to be reliably sorted by their frequency response.

Show me one double-blind study where listeners correctly identify the body wood species by listening to a guitar being played. We'll even give them bonus points for identifying the fretboard wood, neck wood(s), size, material and number of frets, number of plys, body thickness, body shape, "left side chambering", finish, phase of moon when the wood was harvested, bolt-on/set-neck/neck-thru, trussrod material, nut material, saddle material, bridge material, toneblock material, insulating material on wiring, any gold-plated connectors, pick-up brand and model, pick material, pick shape, instrument label used, effects used, amp used, speaker cabinet material, speaker brand and model, etc., etc., etc.

Another prime counter example are all the "That can't be mahogany, it doesn't sound right.", "No way that's basswood, basswood sucks toan.", "I normally hate alder, but this guitar just sounds killer." comments.



Syphon said:


> ... Electro-mechanical topics are very hard for people to understand ...Of course, I'm looking at this from the perspective of a MSEE. ...


And the realities of biological/psycho-acoustic systems are very hard for many "pure" scientists/engineers to understand.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> Not sure if this applies to the thread topic, but people focus on tonewoods way too much


Agreed. It's easy to A/B two known qualities (complete with all the subjective and conformation biases), but to extrapolate that out to actually being an perceivable and identifiable difference is not.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> whereas construction [body thickness, shape, etc] and scale length are more important, to me at least.


Thickness & shape are hard to argue that they produce an identifiable difference. Scale length I'll give you, because that quantitatively and qualitatively affect the overtones, etc. It also allows different gauges be used for the same tension, or different tensions for the same gauge, which also quantifiably affect overtones.


----------



## JohnIce (Jul 25, 2017)

"Famous player xx is overrated, youtuber/clinician/teacher guitarist yy is way better"

This bugs me cause it's always comparing people who've done a lot more than just sit at home playing guitar, to people who just sit at home playing guitar.



marcwormjim said:


> Is this some Swedish conspiracy to make Yngwie seem humble?



I just now realized what you meant, that my post seemed a bit cocky... I didn't mean it like that, I revised it to keep it short.

My point was, I don't like this advice of "Stick to what you're good at" and that learning other stuff is wasting precious time that should be spent "mastering" your main instrument. Life is long enough for anyone to become pretty good at a lot of things. If you're a great bass player but want to begin learning to play drums at age 28, why would that make you a lesser bass player? You know how to practice, you have experienced ears, with that head start give it 2 years and you'll probably be an above average drummer too. I've met so many people who actively try to discourage that though, and can't comprehend that a person can be good enough at multiple things.


----------



## Dcm81 (Jul 25, 2017)

bostjan said:


> I heard a guy once claim that all the tabs in book come from the actual artists who performed the song.



For Cherry Lane you are completely right! BUT since the PTH boys started up Sheet Happens Publishing, most (if not all) of their tabs do.


----------



## Sumsar (Jul 25, 2017)

ElRay said:


> Nobody claims that wood doesn't affect tone (straw man fallacy). The claim and reality is that "tonewood" (picking certain species of wood for specific noticeable tones) is a myth. And since you're throwing degrees around (argument from authority fallacy), I have a Masters and ABD (All But Dissertation) in Biomedical Engineering, and my thesis was on auditory signal processing.
> 
> Show me one yours, I'll show you mine, etc., etc., etc.



\begin{Sarcasm}
Well I did my thesis in condensed matter physics on phonons, so my argument is more valid than yours. I have also had courses in audio (and image/video) signal processing, so my pen!s is at least as big as yours, probably even bigger.
\end{Sarcasm}

I guess no one of us has actually made the investigation in woods and sound, so no one of us can really claim to be experts in the field, regardless of how fancy pancy titles we throw around. (And if you actually did I would be very interested in reading that thesis/paper).

My point was more that in the discussion of tonewoods, people come up with all kinds of weird physics arguments, regardless if they think wood makes a difference in tone or not.

I think the youtube vid made by Ola Strandbergs son atleast shows that there can be big differences between woods. It is a shame he did not measure the same species of wood with different samples. So whether or not the species makes a difference, hopefully we can agree that the wood has an impact on the tone.

I totally agree with the statement that people care to much about tonewoods, especially in the large picture (in a mix) it doesn't really matter, since bass and drum sounds are more important IMO.


----------



## tedtan (Jul 25, 2017)

ElRay said:


> Nobody claims that wood doesn't affect tone (straw man fallacy).



Right here on SSO, I've read people claiming that wood doesn't matter and only the pickups affect the tone of an electric guitar; the rest is all amp and FX. They may not be the majority of people to whom you are referring, but they are pretty common around here.




ElRay said:


> The claim and reality is that "tonewood" (picking certain species of wood for specific noticeable tones) is a myth... Show me one case where wood species can be identified by "tap tones" or spectral analysis. You'll get difference between any two test boards, but show me where all boards of a given species produce sufficiently similar spectra to be reliably sorted by their frequency response.



Agreed. There is too much variability from one piece of wood to the next for this to be realistic.

The luthiers I am familiar with (and I am thinking classical and acoustic guitar builders here) will use the tap tone to A) help determine the density and strength of a piece of wood at a given thickness, and then B) take that given piece of wood down to the desired thickness for a top or a back based on how it sounds when struck. So their use of the tap tone is very different from what you are suggesting.

For what it's worth, those same luthiers also state that the wood species doesn't matter very much and that the instrument's voice will be primarily determined by what they do in building the guitar (e.g., how thick the top is, how they design the bracing for the top, etc.).




ElRay said:


> Show me one double-blind study where listeners correctly identify the body wood species by listening to a guitar being played.



If you mean just have someone listen to someone else play a random guitar and then identify the body wood, that is not a proper double blind test, it is a set up to fail.

A proper double blind test isn't really possible because there are too many other variables which cannot be controlled for. Otherwise this would have already been put to bed and the arguments wouldn't exist any longer.


----------



## El Caco (Jul 25, 2017)

Those people here and other places that claim wood doesn't effect tone significantly would be right when talking about non tonewoods. Certain materials that don't transfer vibrations well and that do not ring out acoustically on their own can still be used to build a good guitar and will produce consistent results. I have guitars like this, they work fine but there is nothing special about them. On the other hand tonewoods that have their own acoustic sound and that transfer vibrations so well you can hear your trem springs and even the string ends between the nut and tuning posts, these woods can have a dramatic impact on tone. There might be an argument for these dead sounding woods being better for studio guitars IDK.

But I can't tell an Alder guitar from an Ash guitar. Once upon a time I swore Mahogany had a sound, it didn't always sound the same but every guitar I liked was made from Mahogany with a Rosewood fretboard and I even noticed the ones I liked the most even had a Mahogany neck. I even listened to certain songs and identified a tone that was exactly like the tone I preferred and said that sounds like a Mahogany guitar through an Engl and sure enough when I looked it up it was which only served to enhance my bias. Then I ended up with 2 Loomis guitars that I didn't care for tonally at the time once again adding to my bias. Later my tastes changed and I realised the Loomis guitars sound awesome and are possibly my most pleasing sounding guitars. 

At some point I worked out that with EQ changes you could make 2 guitars sound so similar that I couldn't tell you which one was playing. Not too long ago I even watched a video where I couldn't tell a Strat apart from Les Paul. And at that point my mind was opened to the possibility that not only is the truth of tonewoods different to what I once perceived but pickups are also not as critical or complex as I thought they were.

The other day I decided to give my natural finished guitar a birthday because I had neglected it and hadn't played it for a while. So when I re-strung it I decided to re-oil it too. But when I plugged it in I was disappointed, I didn't remember it sounding like that, so dark, so dead. My amp didn't have enough EQ, all my other guitars sounded better, had my tastes changed that much? Knowing pickups can fix things I started swapping pickups, I got it a bit better but compared to my other guitars it was disappointing. Then I saw a video of Paul Reed Smith talking about moisture and Resin content of tonewood and suddenly I remembered Dan telling me all those years ago not to oil my guitar, did I f'k my guitar? It's been a few weeks and I'm enjoying that guitar again. It is still darker than my other guitars, it always was, I'm not a massive fan of the bridge pickup I put in it, it's a bit noisy, but I think the guitar sounds less dead than it did the day I oiled it.

In a stark contrast to what I perceived many years ago I now have a PRS Tremonti that is Mahogany and Rosewood and LP shaped that sounds nothing like my other Mahogany Rosewood LP shaped guitar and with the standard pickups the Tremonti is not a nice sounding guitar at all. Really bright, really sterile, really thin. It has plenty of range in the controls but it always sounds lacking compared to my other guitars.


----------



## CrazyDean (Jul 26, 2017)

As soon as I read the first page of this thread, I knew it would end in an argument over tonewood. Your opinion of what sounds good is just that: your opinion! If you think wood matters, then learn what sounds best and stick with it. If you don't care what wood your guitar is made of, then I guess you get more selection or something. If there truly was a "best" in music, we wouldn't have so many musicians. We'd just be singing "Everything is Awesome" all day, every day.


----------



## El Caco (Jul 26, 2017)

I might have missed something but I don't think anyone is arguing one sounds better than another. I think there is mostly either agreement that wood can effect the sound, wood doesn't effect the sound enough to worry about or wood doesn't effect the sound at all. Because sound is subjective it would be foolish to argue one is better.

But of course there is disagreement on tonewood in a musical fallacies thread because tonewood is a subject that people tend to think if you disagree with whatever they believe you are wrong.

There are plenty of other good posts in this thread not relating to tonewood.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jul 26, 2017)

I think wood affects the sound, but I think there are other things that bare more precedence in the overall tone of an instrument.


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 26, 2017)

heres one out of the tonewood debate that I often see a lot even in this forum.

If you are gigging, you NEED a 100w amp with a 4x12 cab, or some humongous bass rig with 8x10 or something like that.


you dont need a huge rig to gig at any place. Unless theres 0 PA system, you only need something enough to listen to yourself. I did all my gigging life as a bass player with a 50w Crate combo amp with a 1x12


----------



## El Caco (Jul 26, 2017)

If there is no PA then you are balancing your output against an acoustic drumkit, how much amp do you really need to keep up with an acoustic drumkit?


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 26, 2017)

I used my 50w rate combo for band practices for a lot of time in different band context, with Latin/Jazz/Metal/Prog. Unless we were on a reharsal studio. How many times at a practice someone says "can everyone turn down", and as much it hurts on your ego, you actually do and everything sounds better

Unless you are playing on a small bar type scenario wheres only PA for the voice, then you would always have some sort of PA system, and even then chances are the PA wont be enough and you would be forced to play "softer". And if you are playing stuff like a small food court on campus Like I did with my Jazz band few times, then chances are you arent playing metal, so you dont need that much output since the drummer wont be breaking the kit. My guitars players both had small-ish combos and were fine. (I think they had some mics too since we had a 8 track mixer?, so dont really need it to be a bigger amp)

On a Metal (b00tral \m/ ) type of scenario, where the drummer have hammers as hands, unless you are playing on a house party, chances are you would be mic on stage, so you only need for you. And whatever your bandmates need bit extra they can get it from the monitors. IF you are a "pro" and you got the cash/time/crew/bandmates then fair enough, but when you are "starting" you dont need something that big.

went to see a mates metal gig recently, on a good small stage with few other bands, barely any ppl (like any other starting band gig), and he had some MArshall 100w(I think) big head with a 4x12. I could hear him directly, the PA (which was a proper venue PA) was barely doing anything. It actually sounded worse to me, and was giving him feedback problems as to be that loud that close to his amp. He could had easily get away with a medium sized combo at a more workable levels

I get it to play with a huge rig and the beauty of the sound of it, and all the extra headroom you have to crank it more and the feeling of finally being able to flip the power switch to full. But you dont "need" a huge rig to gig, you would be amazed and how much you can get away with a small amp. You would push it tho, but it can be done, and the saving of space and time/effort to carry the thing around its priceless too. I wouldnt imagine myself carrying a head+huge bass cab (specially one that needs two people) around the way I did with mine and the frequency and the type of places I took it to.

and before the "a 4x12 sounds better than a 1x12" argument comes by.... No one in the audience is going to notice the difference. 

it almost breakdowns to another easy mistake of people who are starting. "you dont need to be loud to be good"


----------



## El Caco (Jul 26, 2017)

It was more of a rhetorical question. I think 50 watts is more than enough. I have a ID260 2x60watt combo with 2x12's, it would be overkill for any situation I can think of. The high gain channels lack a bit of bottom end thump but when I turn it up on a clean channel the windows rattle so hard the kids have said a couple of times it seems like I'm going to blow them out and my son said the other day when he was waiting for his bus on the other side of the block it sounded like I was playing right next to him. His words were actually more like "I could hear every note you missed perfectly as if you were right next to me". I bought this amp for the stereo but now that I have it I realise I should have got the ID60 head.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 26, 2017)

I used to practice in an attic with a battery powered bass amp against a full drum kit (with a not-so-loud drummer) just so the guitarist and singer could use all of their effects pedals and I wouldn't hog the one outlet I would otherwise need for plugging in an amp.  I never had any issue being heard. I've also jammed on bass with a 400w 410 stack and couldn't be heard at all. It all depends on the drummer. If your drummer plays like he's trying to beat a rhinoceros into confessing to murder, you will need to move a lot more air to compete. If your drummer is playing as if he's drumming on grandma's best china, then you will need to tone down your amp quite a bit. My , of course...

I think people like to offer advice. I know I do. But, often times, we like to advise people about something after a singular experience, and I think that is where odd-sounding advice like "you need a 100W guitar amp to play out" comes from. On the surface, it's not horrible advice, just rather hasty. I mean, 100W amp should allow you to handle pretty much any situation where your volume requirements are moderate or higher, which is typically what a person would need during a gig. It would be assumed that if you were playing a brunch gig at a jazz club, you would be aware that the typical rock band bar room gear would not be appropriate. 

But, going beyond that point, I have seen plenty of guitarists gig out at bars or whatnot with tiny practice amps mic'd into the board, and it sounded fine. I've even experimented with that myself, in trying to get a more natural tube overdrive, using a little 12W practice amp at a gig and opening it up to get some really raunchy warm overdrive. This sort of tone can work for classic rock/blues/dadcore very well.


----------



## TedEH (Jul 26, 2017)

I think the other bit that gets ignored is that the room makes a huge difference. A good, dry, possibly treated room is going to let you get away with less power since everyone's not going to be struggling to be heard. Our current jam room isn't very good acoustically so the drums sound INCREDIBLY LOUD, and as a result, we end up turning up more than we used to.


----------



## mnemonic (Jul 26, 2017)

Headroom is an important factor when it comes to heavy guitars and metal. A 30 watt amp may be totally fine if you want power tube saturation, but it's not ideal if you want a tight bottom end. 

There's a reason mesa makes a 150 watt triple rectifier and diesel makes a 180 watt Herbert. That extra headroom and bigger transformer also affects the sound. 

The crowd may not hear a difference or may not care, but let's be real guys. If what the crowd hears was our main priority, we would all buy HD500's, go direct, and never visit this forum again.


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 26, 2017)

yeah I know, and tru that, but you dont "need" it. IF you can afford it and deal with carrying the thing around, then go for it. But its not essential to have it to gig around like some people like to advice and some beginers like to think. "if you are going to gig then you have to buy that amp!!"... chances are that person when it said "gig" was reffering to their local pub, and it could have been fine with a 25-50w combo they can carry themselfs, rather than waiting on someone to give you a hand with the cab (that doesnt fits in your car)

if you have the experience and the knowledge, time, money, and like to be picky with your tone on a live situation do whatever you want. My comment is aimed to what beginners tend to believe and what some people tend to wrongly say to them (as this tread is about)


----------



## USMarine75 (Jul 26, 2017)

Friendly reminder... 100 W is barely louder than 50 W. 

And wattage is a poor representation of loudness anyways. My 50 W Soldano was WAY louder than my 120 W Peavey 5150 or my 300 W (lol) Line 6 Vetta II. It hurt my ears and gave me a headache at a 6 and I never went any higher. And my Fender Bassman 410 combo is painfully loud as well, and I think that is 45 W.


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 26, 2017)

^ yup. And 100% guilty of that. One thing Im not aware of. But good thing to know

Is there a way to fully know how loud an amp can be?. Because I know the size of the cab (or number of speakers) is not, thats just affect how it would sound. And double the speakers, 3dB increase


----------



## laxu (Jul 27, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> ^ yup. And 100% guilty of that. One thing Im not aware of. But good thing to know
> 
> Is there a way to fully know how loud an amp can be?. Because I know the size of the cab (or number of speakers) is not, thats just affect how it would sound. And double the speakers, 3dB increase



It's complex. Speaker efficiency, number of speakers, speaker enclosure, amp wattage, amp and speaker frequency response as well as the room. Frequency response because our hearing is more sensitive to certain frequencies so despite reading the same on a decibel meter, the perceived volume could be higher.

Just buy an amp and cab that sounds the way you like and can be heard over your drummer. A 1x12 or 2x12 cab is just fine for most people. 4x12s and bigger were originally made for big stages before PA systems became common, overdrive pedals or channels weren't a thing so people played really loud to get the sound they needed.


----------



## EmaDaCuz (Jul 27, 2017)

mnemonic said:


> The crowd may not hear a difference or may not care, but let's be real guys. If what the crowd hears was our main priority, we would all buy HD500's, go direct, and never visit this forum again.



Fellow Cestrian, I think many of us have indeed taken this route. Not only you can "please" the crowd, but it also spares you from carrying around bulky amps and cabs.
And let's be honest, in small venues there is no way you can play a tube amp at a "satisfying" volume, and in most cases you will hear yourself through the floor monitors. Or at least this is what I experienced in the last 20 years.


----------



## El Caco (Jul 27, 2017)

The thing about Watts when dealing with power amps is clean poweramp headroom. So while you hear the accurate argument that 100W is not twice as loud as 50W as far as clean headroom goes it might be perceived as twice as loud. 

I know it is apples to oranges but it is kind of funny. The perceived clean headroom of my SS Blackstar 2x60W is at least 3 times that of my Tube Mesa 20/20, maybe more. But it is very different. The Blackstar poweramp is ridiculously noisy when the volume is turned up, and the poweramp in that doesn't behave exactly the same way the tube amp does in that I can get the poweramp in the Blackstar to break up with a guitar plugged directly into it once the volume on the poweramp is turned up enough but the Mesa will stay clean. However if I run a preamp into the Mesa the poweramp starts to break up and get more saturated much earlier than the Blackstar. This is changed depending on what TVP tube type I select. I haven't yet tested the EL84 setting in this way.

To take that a step further my Blackstar is now much louder after updating it than when i first bought it and you might be surprised when I say I think I wish i never updated it. With that increase in volume has come a massive increase in noise and it is hard to be sure now but at first I thought there was a change for the worse in the way it sounds. I'm contemplating returning it because I have been unable to restore the original firmware but restoring that firmware means I must give up the loop. I bought it because I knew that the update would add the loop and the loop is an important feature to me. The problem is the loop effects the performance of the amp so I'm just not sure at this point if I want to work around the issues and hope for an update to fix them or if I want to return it as unfit for purpose.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 27, 2017)

We had another thread about a week ago with much of the same discussion.

I think there is a lot of trouble to get oneself into when talking about amplifier power rating in Watts and perceived loudness in general terms.

First off, the way Watts are measured when a speaker or amplifier is rated for maximum power input is difficult to understand, and it certainly does not relate directly to loudness.
Secondly, the perception of loudness is very difficult to understand.

It's like an even more nuanced audio version of engine power in sports cars.

But even for all of its complexity, a 100W amplifier delivers roughly twice the electrical power, on average, of a 50W amplifier. If you don't use that power to drive twice as many speakers, then you don't really get to take advantage of that. 

Or you could just get an amp that goes to eleven...


----------



## Screamingdaisy (Jul 30, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Not sure if this applies to the thread topic, but people focus on tonewoods way too much, whereas construction [body thickness, shape, etc] and scale length are more important, to me at least.



IMO, most people focus on looks. They find a guitar they like the look of, then learn the specs afterwards and use them to justify their decision rather than to make their decision.


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jul 31, 2017)

One that bothers me a lot is the misuse of the phrase "60 cycle hum". 

When people use it (even big guitar manufacturers), they really just mean "noise" or "hiss". I think it is because of the word, "humbucker", but you see a lot of people talking about how humbuckers will keep 60 cycle hum out of your signal. 

60 cycle hum is that low 60/120hz drone that comes from the AC power lines. You pretty much only ever hear it if your amp has a bad power section or a bad grounding problem. Single coils, humbuckers, neither will really pick that up. It is too low frequency to travel easily through the air. 

Tl;dr:
People say "60 cycle hum" instead of "hiss" and it annoys me.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 31, 2017)

LiveOVErdrive said:


> One that bothers me a lot is the misuse of the phrase "60 cycle hum".
> 
> When people use it (even big guitar manufacturers), they really just mean "noise" or "hiss". I think it is because of the word, "humbucker", but you see a lot of people talking about how humbuckers will keep 60 cycle hum out of your signal.
> 
> ...



Huh? 60 Hz buzzing *is* a thing. Single coil pickups will most certainly pick it up and it absolutely will travel through the air. The damping factor in air is very low, because air is a decent dielectric at low frequencies.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jul 31, 2017)

I love how his complaint starts with onomatopoeia. Like, he acknowledges that it's the 60/120 Hz mains noise you encounter in the US - But if it isn't Homer Simpson going "Hmmmm", then it should be called "hiss" or "noise"; and not "hum"...even if it's still a 60/120 Hz tone? For me, it's more of a "buzz" - Specifically, Kevin McCallister's older brother.








And what of the 50 Hz hiss/noise/buzz/nothum other countries encounter?


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jul 31, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Huh? 60 Hz buzzing *is* a thing. Single coil pickups will most certainly pick it up and it absolutely will travel through the air. The damping factor in air is very low, because air is a decent dielectric at low frequencies.


Really? I've never actually encountered it in the wild (again, other than with grounding problems or bad filter caps).

I guess I was wrong! Carry on, then.

Edit: I've got no problem with the word, "hum". I know what 60/120 sounds like - it sounds like hum, but you can call it whatever you want. I just have never honestly heard it from a guitar amp coming from anything other than the amp itself. So naturally I assumed nobody else did either. 

But maybe my understanding of 60 cycle him is wrong. Is are there more frequencies in the signal than the 60 fundamental and the 120 hz from the rectification? I suppose you end up with a saw wave - esque shape after rectifying, so that's gonna be more complex than just two frequencies. Hmm. Learn something new every day I guess.


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jul 31, 2017)

(double post)


----------



## bostjan (Jul 31, 2017)

FFT of mains hum.


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jul 31, 2017)

bostjan said:


> FFT of mains hum.



Picture doesn't work but I looked it up. Wow. So maybe what I have always assumed was random radio/wifi/lighting noise might actually be mains hum. I always assumed it was that low drone you get with bad filter caps.


----------



## Leviathus (Jul 31, 2017)

lol @ buzz's gf, woof!


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jul 31, 2017)

You fools, everyone knows 60 cycle hum is the result of ghost bees. True singles just constantly pick up EVPs, but all the human ghosts are drowned out by the countless dead bees filling up the afterlife.


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jul 31, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> You fools, everyone knows 60 cycle hum is the result of ghost bees. True singles just constantly pick up EVPs, but all the human ghosts are drowned out by the countless dead bees filling up the afterlife.


There's a concept album somewhere in there.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jul 31, 2017)

LiveOVErdrive said:


> There's a concept album somewhere in there.



Someone get Merzbow on that.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 10, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> \begin{Sarcasm} ...\end{Sarcasm}


As I said, I wasn't the first to whip-out the degree and use the "argument from authority" fallacy. I just provided the info as counterpoint to the condescending "argument from authority" fallacy that was used.


Sumsar said:


> ... I think the youtube vid made by Ola Strandbergs son atleast shows that there can be big differences between woods. ...


And that's all it shows. Different boards produce different FFTs. Big whoop. The problem is that the tonewood fanatics use it to prove that the tonewood myth is true. It doesn't show that in the least. Show me a way to map an FFT into a species of wood in that controlled experiment, and I'll say there's been progress to proving the tonewood myth. That said, identifying the species of wood in a controlled experiment like that is still a long way from saying that specific species of wood consistently and predictably produce specific tones in a finished electric guitar that are identifiable to a listener.


tedtan said:


> ... A proper double blind test isn't really possible because there are too many other variables which cannot be controlled for. ...


 My point exactly. Arguing in favor of the tonewood myth is like arguing that Chevron-branded gas produced in a Chevron plant produces a noticeable decrease in your commute time over the Chevron-branded gas produced in a Shell plant. Or that you can identify a car that used U.S. Steel over one that used imported steel as it drives by.

Yes, with a priori knowledge that different woods are being used, people notice a difference in tone. But to claim that wood species produces a uniform, identifiable difference to a listener is a stretch.

One classic example is the single-blind test of Stradivarius violins. They had a team of TRAINED LISTENERS listen to eight (four Stradivarius and four modern) violins and attempt to identify the Stradivarius. The success rate was 50%. Not only was the success rate equal to random guesses across the violins, but there was as many false positives as false negatives for each violin. There was not even one violin that was universally identified correctly or incorrectly.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 10, 2017)

"Sampling rate only needs to be twice the highest frequency you want to record."

The worst distortion of what the Nyquist Frequency really represents.

The sampling rate needs to be twice the frequency of the highest frequency PRESENT in the signal to avoid aliasing (production of frequencies that are NOT present in the original signal), but if you low-pass and then sample at twice the highest frequency passed, you'll only get two samples per cycle of your highest frequency, and if the samples are out of phase, you'll face attenuation too boot. In fact, if you hit all the zero crossings, it can appear that there is no signal at that frequency when there actually is a large signal component.


----------



## marcwormjim (Aug 11, 2017)

I appreciate what you're doing, but fear your understanding is wasted on their belief. No matter how convoluted the mental gymnastics of the tardwood rebuttal, it's only going to amount to "nuh-uh!" I don't know that there's any fighting that.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 11, 2017)

I think the main problem lies in the limited understanding of the term.

The term "tonewood" refers to the concept that certain species resonate with different characteristics, making some species more suitable for a pleasing tone from a certain type of instrument than others.

The predicate of the term is certainly true. Some might argue that it is not, but the experimental results posted here strongly support that idea, and the idea is firmly ingrained in our discussions here already.

The last clause of the term is probably where you get into some heated arguments. I think with guitars, this is especially complex, since there has never really been a standard formula of materials to build a guitar. Does cedar yield a more "guitar" sound than spruce? Certainly not. But, keep in mind that the idea is not stemming from guitar building, but rather, all instrument building in general... so, a traditional violin is build a very specific way (which actually, is dissimilar from the methods Stadovarius initially employed), whereas guitar is one of the least specified instrument. There is little tradition in guitar building that goes back before the 19th century, really, which is why the violin has a spruce top with maple back and sides and ebony fingerboard and hardware, yet the classical guitar can be made of dozens of different materials and yet still be considered just as traditional.

We get people on the extreme edges from time to time here, which I cannot support their statements neither that wood does not make any noticeable difference in tone, nor that one particular species of trees produces objectively superior tone over others.

So, I guess, in order to have a defensible stance, it's necessary to clearly define your stance.

But ultimately, what's the point? The only reason anyone would want to prove that rosewood makes the best fretboards would be if you were in the business of selling rosewood, and the only reason anyone would want to prove that tone is not affected at all by wood species would be trying to look smarter than everyone else who believes otherwise. I think it's perfectly fine to acknowledge that the truth is somewhere in between those two extremes, that you can make a guitar out of _[insert material here], _and it'll still sound pretty much like a guitar, but also that a guitar made of hard maple will sound different from a guitar made of pine.

I think the car analogy is a little poorly fit, since cars are not built to sound a certain way, nor to reduce the amount of traffic on a morning commute. Your analogy would make more sense if the car was tested at the race track for maximum performance with different fuels. In those conditions, fuel quality and frame material would play an important role, yet any high quality fuel and high quality frame materials should work more or less equally.


----------



## arasys (Aug 12, 2017)

Here's an article about Stradivarius violins I read few months ago about quality of sound and how aging process have some effect on the tone; and there's some more explanation

"Aside from the performance of the musician, the quality of the sound can be affected by the rigidity of the connections between bridge and the panels, the shape and size of the panels and the material they are composed of. "


https://phys.org/news/2016-12-scientists-uncover-stradivarius-violins-special.html


"you can't start playing electric guitar if you don't know how to play acoustic" always been my least favorite when I started playing.


----------



## ElRay (Aug 12, 2017)

bostjan said:


> ... I think the car analogy is a little poorly fit, since cars are not built to sound a certain way, nor to reduce the amount of traffic on a morning commute. Your analogy would make more sense if the car was tested at the race track for maximum performance with different fuels. In those conditions, fuel quality and frame material would play an important role, yet any high quality fuel and high quality frame materials should work more or less equally.


 This probably is a better analogy. An unrealistic, overly simplified, not really testing what needs to be measured experiment (fuel economy of a vehicle on a racetrack) being used to justify a seemingly related measurement (total weekly expenditure for retail fuel purchases).


bostjan said:


> ... The only reason anyone would want to prove that rosewood makes the best fretboards would be if you were in the business of selling rosewood, and the only reason anyone would want to prove that tone is not affected at all by wood species would be trying to look smarter than everyone ...


Here I'll slightly refine, and disagree. Yes, selling "toanwood" to justify a higher price, corksniffery over what you've purchased, or brand loyalty, etc., has a value to the people that refuse to understand reality and continue to believe the myth. It also gives people a way to justify opinions, or supply a seemingly simple answer for a complex and variable issue. As for those that disagree, it's not trying look smarter, it's more of a lack of tolerance for BS passed as fact. Ignoring BS spread as fact has gotten us the sharp increase in creationists, anti-vaxers, flat-earthers, moon-landing deniers, free energy, 'A' should equal 432 Hz., Dr. Oz supporters, BS justification of anti-LGBTQ politics and Trump in office. Even on more mundane levels, how many people think Columbus proved the world was round, or that water goes down the drain in the other direction south of the equator, or think that tremolo tailpieces actually do tremolo?


arasys said:


> Here's an article about Stradivarius violins I read few months ago about quality of sound and how aging process have some effect on the tone; and there's some more explanation


Again, something that seems to make sense, and has a HUGE amount of a priori knowledge that leads to conformation bias, but doesn't hold up to reality. When trained experts can't identify Stradivarius violins better than random chance, and they can't even agree on which ones sound like or don't sound like Stradivarius violins, the claim not only hasn't been proven, it's been demonstrated false. It's back to "That can't be a basswood guitar, it doesn't sound like crap." and "That's can't be mahogany, it's too bright." and "Wow, that's an Alder body? I usually don't like alder." statements.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 12, 2017)

Leviathus said:


> lol @ buzz's gf, woof!


GOT A SISTER!? RUFF RUFF!

Extra points awarded if you know the reference.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Aug 13, 2017)

wait are we doing tone wood again.


----------



## KailM (Aug 13, 2017)

This may have been touched on already, but "Tube amps must be cranked to sound good." Or, "A 100 watt tube halfstack is way too much volume for home use."

This isn't the 70's anymore. Modern high gain amps rely almost completely on preamp gain. My 6505 and 6505+ sound amazing at low volumes.

Also, the trend in mini-heads that can be reduced to 1-5 watts for "bedroom" playing with "better tone." A lot of these heads are designed with metal playing in mind, and truthfully don't sound better than a high-watt version simply turned down to the same volume level.


----------



## laxu (Aug 13, 2017)

KailM said:


> This may have been touched on already, but "Tube amps must be cranked to sound good." Or, "A 100 watt tube halfstack is way too much volume for home use."
> 
> This isn't the 70's anymore. Modern high gain amps rely almost completely on preamp gain. My 6505 and 6505+ sound amazing at low volumes.
> 
> Also, the trend in mini-heads that can be reduced to 1-5 watts for "bedroom" playing with "better tone." A lot of these heads are designed with metal playing in mind, and truthfully don't sound better than a high-watt version simply turned down to the same volume level.



I agree. This depends a lot on the amp in question though. For example pick something like most Marshalls and they still sound best cranked somewhere around 5-6, which is not suitable for anything but arena gigs. There are better master volume designs but often they are not found in more mainstream amps. Metal amps are the exception because they are heavily based on a clean poweramp and tons of preamp gain.

I don't like the mini heads because I feel that they have a low end that is pretty flubby. The higher wattage amps even when turned down have more punch and clarity. Power tube type surely plays its part here as most low wattage amps are 6V6/EL84 and higher powered ones EL34/6L6 or variants of those.


----------



## JohnIce (Aug 13, 2017)

"You can play such-and-such scale over such-and-such key and all the notes will sound good".

Not a blatant fallacy, but a misleading over-simplification. Some notes of the scale will clash with some chords in the key. In the C major scale you have 1/2 steps between E and F as well as B and C. You can do some damage if you land on an F note over an Em chord, or a C note over a G chord. So knowing your arpeggios is a good idea, even if you're an adult and don't plan to use them for sweeping.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Aug 13, 2017)

JohnIce said:


> "You can play such-and-such scale over such-and-such key and all the notes will sound good".
> 
> Not a blatant fallacy, but a misleading over-simplification. Some notes of the scale will clash with some chords in the key. In the C major scale you have 1/2 steps between E and F as well as B and C. You can do some damage if you land on an F note over an Em chord, or a C note over a G chord. So knowing your arpeggios is a good idea, even if you're an adult and don't plan to use them for sweeping.



It's decent enough advice if you're wanting to learn how to improvise, but, yeah, not if you go in expecting ALL the notes will sound right ALL the time. 
It's better to say, "play such-and-such scale over such-and-such key and over time, you'll learn to use your ears and get a feel for the notes that DO work."


----------



## JohnIce (Aug 13, 2017)

Science_Penguin said:


> It's decent enough advice if you're wanting to learn how to improvise, but, yeah, not if you go in expecting ALL the notes will sound right ALL the time.
> It's better to say, "play such-and-such scale over such-and-such key and over time, you'll learn to use your ears and get a feel for the notes that DO work."



Yeah, it's a starting point for sure. I think once you know the scale, the best advice would be "Use the scale to find the juicy chord tones, then fill in the blanks with the rest of the scale tones for flavour". I'm a little pissed it took me the better part of two decades to figure that out


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 13, 2017)

JohnIce said:


> Yeah, it's a starting point for sure. I think once you know the scale, the best advice would be "Use the scale to find the juicy chord tones, then fill in the blanks with the rest of the scale tones for flavour". I'm a little pissed it took me the better part of two decades to figure that out




Just don't use that shit like Vinnie Vincent. He thinks everything works.


----------



## odibrom (Aug 13, 2017)

Ok, this is not a fallacy, it's more of a joke I make within my band that I hope to say it enough times so it becomes a true and time proven statement, and therefore a fallacy:

"No body hears the bass guitar..." 

... this usually comes up when the bass player hits some wrong notes... When it is my turn on the _nails _to the song, I blame the amp...


----------



## TedEH (Aug 13, 2017)

KailM said:


> A lot of these heads are designed with metal playing in mind, and truthfully don't sound better than a high-watt version simply turned down to the same volume level.


To be fair, lots of those small amps sound good if you consider them to be their own thing. Friend of mine has one of the small EVH heads and it sounds great. I've got the Mark V:25 but also a Mark IV, and the IV's lead channel clearly blows anything the 25 can do out of the water, even at low volume BUT- the 25 has some tricks up it's sleeve that the IV doesn't quite pull off.


----------



## Jobam-Martins (Aug 13, 2017)

"Dude, You need to get a scalloped neck guitar. It makes You play faster"

No joke, I heard this one from many guys back when I started playing guitar. Mostly Malmsteen fans. I think that's why they came up with this idea.


----------



## Ebony (Aug 13, 2017)

odibrom said:


> "No body hears the bass guitar..."
> .



Unfortunately, especially in extreme metal, this statement is very often true.

It is comical to listen to alot of these bands where the bassist has crazy chops, a good sense of musicality and thousands of hours of practice on his back, and then the instrument is completely inaudible save a few farting sounds mostly caused by string buzz and superfluous distortion.

The most insane example I have is when I saw Origin live a few years ago. Mike looked like he was going to have a heart-attack, alot of sweat and passion but you'd have better luck hearing someone flush the toilet at the next-door bar than you'd have hearing anything of what he played.


----------



## KailM (Aug 13, 2017)

Ebony said:


> Unfortunately, especially in extreme metal, this statement is very often true.
> 
> It is comical to listen to alot of these bands where the bassist has crazy chops, a good sense of musicality and thousands of hours of practice on his back, and then the instrument is completely inaudible save a few farting sounds mostly caused by string buzz and superfluous distortion.
> 
> The most insane example I have is when I saw Origin live a few years ago. Mike looked like he was going to have a heart-attack, alot of sweat and passion but you'd have better luck hearing someone flush the toilet at the next-door bar than you'd have hearing anything of what he played.


 
While what you're saying is not untrue, I think the best bands figure out a way for the bass to be heard in the mix. Even in black metal. I used to not care about bass at all, but as I got further and further down the rabbit hole of home recording I've come to realize that the bass guitar sometimes can make the whole song come to life. I've begun to branch away from just playing the same riffs as what the guitars are doing and that's really opened my eyes. And after coming up with the parts, I'll be damned if they aren't audible in the mix!


----------



## diagrammatiks (Aug 13, 2017)

KailM said:


> This may have been touched on already, but "Tube amps must be cranked to sound good." Or, "A 100 watt tube halfstack is way too much volume for home use."
> 
> This isn't the 70's anymore. Modern high gain amps rely almost completely on preamp gain. My 6505 and 6505+ sound amazing at low volumes.
> 
> Also, the trend in mini-heads that can be reduced to 1-5 watts for "bedroom" playing with "better tone." A lot of these heads are designed with metal playing in mind, and truthfully don't sound better than a high-watt version simply turned down to the same volume level.



But the mini heads are so light. They should just market them as easy to carry for old folks. That's why I buy them.


----------



## odibrom (Aug 13, 2017)

Ebony said:


> Unfortunately, especially in extreme metal, this statement is very often true.
> 
> It is comical to listen to alot of these bands where the bassist has crazy chops, a good sense of musicality and thousands of hours of practice on his back, and then the instrument is completely inaudible save a few farting sounds mostly caused by string buzz and superfluous distortion.
> 
> The most insane example I have is when I saw Origin live a few years ago. Mike looked like he was going to have a heart-attack, alot of sweat and passion but you'd have better luck hearing someone flush the toilet at the next-door bar than you'd have hearing anything of what he played.



I must say that I'm playing in a Bass+Drum+Guitar instrumental trio, so the BASS GUITAR MUST be heard. This to remind the previous idea being a joke...




KailM said:


> (...) I've begun to branch away from just playing the same riffs as what the guitars are doing and that's really opened my eyes. And after coming up with the parts, I'll be damned if they aren't audible in the mix!



...and that's what I ask the bass player to do... *and he likes it!*


----------



## Sogradde (Aug 14, 2017)

Ebony said:


> Unfortunately, especially in extreme metal, this statement is very often true.


Man, if you're into mathcore-ish kind of music, you should total listen to these guys. By far my favourite bass player of all times and very audible!


diagrammatiks said:


> But the mini heads are so light. They should just market them as easy to carry for old folks. That's why I buy them.


I'm not old and I still love my 5153 LBX to death.


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 14, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> But the mini heads are so light. They should just market them as easy to carry for old folks. That's why I buy them.



Exactly. I have to post something every other week on here about this! A Peavey 5150 head turned down won't sound any better with an attenuator and turned up to 6. The amp design, along with many other "metal amps" (Engl, Diezel, Fryette/VHT, etc) does not rely on powertube distortion to get its sound. Nearly all of the perceived distortion comes from the cascaded preamp section slamming the powertube section. 

Now, if you have a Fender Princeton it's a different story, because they get their distortion via the power amp section. 

Not only this, but a 50W is not that much quieter than a 100W amp FFS.







But you are spot on, ain't nobody got time to be carrying 50 lbs amps and 100 lbs 412 cabs anymore! Give me a 112 combo and some pedals these days lol.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 14, 2017)

No, the amp won't -- you're right, but the speakers might. If the speakers are only getting an 8:00 signal from the volume control, it might not sound the best because the speakers have to push more air to sound their best. I'm not saying it needs to be at 1:00, but more like 9:30-10:00.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Aug 14, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> No, the amp won't -- you're right, but the speakers might. If the speakers are only getting an 8:00 signal from the volume control, it might not sound the best because the speakers have to push more air to sound their best. I'm not saying it needs to be at 1:00, but more like 9:30-10:00.




This isn't true regardless of wattage though. The only consideration is whether or not the power section is going to distort at the point where you think the speakers are pushing enough air.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 14, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> This isn't true regardless of wattage though. The only consideration is whether or not the power section is going to distort at the point where you think the speakers are pushing enough air.


The speakers need to move and push air. You aren't pushing much air at 8:00 bedroom volumes, and as such, the tone isn't going to be as good as it could be.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Aug 14, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> The speakers need to move and push air. You aren't pushing much air at 8:00 bedroom volumes, and as such, the tone isn't going to be as good as it could be.



right but this is regardless of how much wattage your amp has.

eff it. i meant this is true regardless in my first post.

derp derp derp derby derp


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 14, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> right but this is regardless of how much wattage your amp has.
> 
> eff it. i meant this is true regardless in my first post.
> 
> derp derp derp derby derp


Okay, I misunderstood then.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 14, 2017)

^ If anything is a sort of a failing of mini-amps, I think it's that a lot of them are still "at their best" when loud, for all the same reasons we like to hear normal amps really loud- the speakers being a big part of that.


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 14, 2017)

USMarine75 said:


> But you are spot on, ain't nobody got time to be carrying 50 lbs amps and 100 lbs 412 cabs anymore! Give me a 112 combo and some pedals these days lol.



Stereo Triple Rectifier with EVM-12L loaded 4x12's rig for life


----------



## sezna (Aug 14, 2017)

A lot of people I have encountered think that if you love music enough, it is a requirement for it to be your career.

I have witnessed lots of friends attempt this path and become disenfranchised with music, the industry, etc., and it rarely ends in a success story. I, personally, chose to keep it as a hobby. I am a programmer. Lately, I have had more time to write and play music than my friends attempting to "make it" as a full time band because they are so engulfed in music politics and trying to scrape together funding and whatnot. I also can afford the gear I want (usually). 

I think it should go without saying that if you love music, that doesn't mean it has to be more than a hobby.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 14, 2017)

sezna said:


> A lot of people I have encountered think that if you love music enough, it is a requirement for it to be your career.


I think that's a sort of overall "life fallacy", not just in music. Too many people get hung up on not having that ONE THING that they're super passionate about that they, for some reason, must turn into a career, even if it's not realistically viable. I'm in the same boat- I don't place the expectation of financial success on any of my hobbies, and instead have a software job to pay the bills. (Although to be fair, I really like my job too, so.... win for me, I guess?) I've been involved in something like 6 releases so far, and I have zero expectation of making a living off of any of it. Same thing with the time I spend learning how to mix/master/produce/etc. I'd love to have my own little project studio, but I don't ever expect that to become my job. Maybe when I "retire", I can fall back on recording locals for some extra spending money and to keep busy. I also sometimes make little indie game projects, but I can't reasonably place the expectation of "making the next minecraft/flappy bird/fez/whatever" on it and hope I can turn that into a career either. Unrealistic expectations just suck the life out of any personal projects. Enjoy it because it's enjoyable.

I hear a lot of "I haven't decided what I want to do yet" from people who are mid-to-late 20s and struggling to make ends meet. It doesn't matter what you want to do. There is no "one right thing" for you to do. Pick one, out of a hat if you must, and run with it. The more time you spend "deciding" (by which I mean, doing nothing), the less progress you make towards accomplishing the thing you would have otherwise decided to do.


----------



## sezna (Aug 14, 2017)

TedEH said:


> The more time you spend "deciding" (by which I mean, doing nothing), the less progress you make towards accomplishing the thing you would have otherwise decided to do.



I like this. I think the idea of having a true calling has been romanticized. Whether this is due to a less competitive economy in previous generations or just a cultural shift, people are now willing to pursue a calling even if they are certain it won't pan out into gainful employment because it is their "calling". 

A second point, hobbies should be hobbies. As soon as you turn a hobby into your work, it very well may ruin what was once precious to you. If it doesn't, I'd say you're lucky.


----------



## Demiurge (Aug 14, 2017)

sezna said:


> A lot of people I have encountered think that if you love music enough, it is a requirement for it to be your career.



I met someone who had kind of worked backwards from that position, that one isn't a "real" musician unless it is their career and primary source of income. Even people who gig consistently with non-music jobs on the side: dilettantes in his opinion. I respect people who can grind it out, but the smugness and, to an extent, contempt bubbling under the surface of that affectation was breathtaking.


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 14, 2017)

mnemonic said:


> Stereo Triple Rectifier with EVM-12L loaded 4x12's rig for life



Totally unnecessary... and totally awesome!


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 15, 2017)

The absolute worst is

"Sure he can play fast, but can he play Smoke on the Water?"

.....As if by playing a slower song automatically means you have "feeling", and just because you can shred it means you dont play with any feeling or emotion. Thats probably the worst accusation. No one can possibly know if someone else is playing with emotion or not. I think the people who say that just see guitar videos on youtube of players making faces; biting their lip and squinting their eyes while they play the same chuck berry 10 times over again "wow that guy is really feeling it!"


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> The absolute worst is
> 
> "Sure he can play fast, but can he play Smoke on the Water?"
> 
> .....As if by playing a slower song automatically means you have "feeling", and just because you can shred it means you dont play with any feeling or emotion. Thats probably the worst accusation. No one can possibly know if someone else is playing with emotion or not. I think the people who say that just see guitar videos on youtube of players making faces; biting their lip and squinting their eyes while they play the same chuck berry 10 times over again "wow that guy is really feeling it!"


Lots of players who can technically play fast can't play slow, nor can they play with feeling. Vinnie Vincent is guilty of both, and I think that while Chris Broderick can play slower stuff, nothing he plays has much feel to it at all. That said, just because you can play slower doesn't automatically mean you can play with feeling either.


----------



## Sumsar (Aug 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> The absolute worst is
> 
> "Sure he can play fast, but can he play Smoke on the Water?"
> 
> .....As if by playing a slower song automatically means you have "feeling", and just because you can shred it means you dont play with any feeling or emotion. Thats probably the worst accusation. No one can possibly know if someone else is playing with emotion or not. I think the people who say that just see guitar videos on youtube of players making faces; biting their lip and squinting their eyes while they play the same chuck berry 10 times over again "wow that guy is really feeling it!"



I was camping in the forest this weekend as part of a bachelor party, and one of the guys I didn't knew before hand found out I could play guitar, so he asked why I didn't bring a guitar and played 'camp fire guitar' and I basicly told him that I suck at that. Sure I can play the sweepy/shredly widdly widdly stuff and have spent thousands of hours on that, but I never bothered to learn stairway to heaven and stuff like that.

When I was younger I believed in the fallacy that in order to be a great guitarist you had to be able to play EVERYTHING really well. Over the years I found out that it is really hard to put time into something you don't care about, so I play the widdly widdly stuff and various kinds of extreme metal, and I have come to accept that that is who I am as a guitarist and at this point it seems pointless to learn the classic 'guitar songs' that people expect you to be able to play when you can play guitar.


----------



## prlgmnr (Aug 15, 2017)

Demiurge said:


> I met someone who had kind of worked backwards from that position, that one isn't a "real" musician unless it is their career and primary source of income. Even people who gig consistently with non-music jobs on the side: dilettantes in his opinion. I respect people who can grind it out, but the smugness and, to an extent, contempt bubbling under the surface of that affectation was breathtaking.



I keep thinking about this.

Say there are two people, one in his lifetime records 8 songs, all by himself, no one hears them, he makes no money from them, they're discovered when he dies and considered almost universally to be groundbreaking music of the absolute top level.

Another guy plays gigs every night of the week, sometimes more than one, all his money comes from this and he's able to live extremely comfortably. He never writes a song of his own.

Who is the real musician? Could there, just possibly, be enough room in our concept of "musician" to allow for both of these options, and every possible variation in between?

I think most people in this thread seem to be on board with this.

So often it's just this ego-driven thing online where someone says "you're not a real musician unless you can do *thing I happen to think I can do really well* as well as/instead of *whatever thing it is you do that I am going to dismiss as trivial because I can't do it*"

There's probably as many different ways to be a musician as there are musicians, as there are instruments out there in the world, whether that's one guitar in a rack with fifteen more in your home studio, or that battered acoustic under the bed that only comes out once a year to lead the family in some campfire songs.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 15, 2017)

prlgmnr said:


> Who is the real musician?


The real question is why we're asking this in the first place. Every time I hear someone pull a "x isn't a *reaaaal* something-or-other" I cringe a little bit, because you know it's coming from a place of wanting to invalidate someone, and has nothing to do with really categorizing or understanding something. I don't care if you learned to play twenty minutes ago and will never pick it up again, for that short moment you're as "real" a musician as anyone else is. You can play semantic games to justify whatever position you want on it, but in the end it makes zero difference.

Like I typically say "I'm not really a drummer", in the hopes that the context implies that it's not my official role in any of the bands I'm in. But realistically, I am a drummer- and a better drummer than a fair number of people I've run into who "being a drummer" is a large part of the identity they put forward for themselves.



Sumsar said:


> When I was younger I believed in the fallacy that in order to be a great guitarist you had to be able to play EVERYTHING really well.


In my mind, being able to play simple "campfire songs" isn't a separate skill than being able to play something faster- when I see someone who can shred but is incapable of strumming a couple of chords, it strikes me as having skipped a step, since those basic chords shapes and strumming is part of the foundation/basics of playing a guitar. I get not wanting to learn a bunch of songs that don't interest you as a guitarist, but at some point it's not a question of "did you spend time learning that" and more of a "do you have the skillset to BS your way through it because your understanding of the underlying concepts is solid enough that you could wing it"? I never "learned" smoke on the water, but I could wing it from knowing the intervals roughly, just like any other song. 

I don't know if that's just a skill I have that other people don't- I can "learn" a song by listening to it once and just copying the intervals I hear. It's not perfect, but most non-musically-inclined people are blown away by the idea.


----------



## iamaom (Aug 15, 2017)

TedEH said:


> copying the intervals I hear


I have a lot of trouble with this. I have a messed up brain where intervals that are a minor second apart I can't tell which one is higher or lower without any visual context. If you play F and F# back to back without letting me look at a fretboard or piano, I really cant' tell so I'lll find myself playing both over and over trying to figure out which on it is in a song.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 15, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Lots of players who can technically play fast can't play slow, nor can they play with feeling. Vinnie Vincent is guilty of both, and I think that while Chris Broderick can play slower stuff, nothing he plays has much feel to it at all. That said, just because you can play slower doesn't automatically mean you can play with feeling either.



I find that to sort of be hogwash. Everybody can play slow. Everybody started out playing slow. You think people like chris broderick picked up the guitar for the first time ever and started sweeping arpeggios? Or started shredding a harmonic minor scale without ever touching a guitar before?

If you want to say that people cant play with feeling, then that is obviously subjective; but at the same time, how do you know if they are playing with feeling or not?

(I dont mean playing practice licks like for example Paul Gilberts lesson videos. Im refering to melodic solos. Technically, even fast thrash band solos like Slayer can have feeling.....mostly anger, but its still feeling.)

And for that matter why dont you go ahead and define "feeling" for everyone? Since you know who has it and who doesnt. Not being a wise guy here, im just curious as to how people magically know these things.

You should do a blindfold test. It would be funny if you heard someone playing guitar, playing something slowly. And you couldnt see their face at all so couldnt see if their face was making "emotions". They would be playing something slow like a lullaby or campfire song or smoke on the water, but they were making the most tight-lipped dead serious plain jane emotionless face; like the deer in the headlights face. You say wow they really played that with feeling, but the player can openly admit that he didnt.

Or how about a blindfold test where two players played the same exact thing back to back, how could you possibly choose which one played with more feeling, or at all? Would you base that on technique? Like who has the better vibrato and the person with the vibrato style that YOU liked better had more feeling?

I just want to know how you determine who plays feeling and who doesnt. Just because your not feeling it doesnt mean theyre not playing with feeling


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 15, 2017)

I have done a blindfold test -- it's called listening to albums. What I mean by "slow" is that when they play at a more leisurely pace, or decide to rest on sustained notes, they tend to sound pretty awful.

Not sure why you decided to rant and talk about campfire songs, but here we are, I guess.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Everybody can play slow.


That's not true though. It's pretty common for players, of whatever instrument, to have a particular pace they're comfortable with, and it becomes harder to play the farther you stray from that, be it faster or slower. Drums are probably easier to see this with- when you play slower, it's harder to time things, the instrument becomes less forgiving about little flubs and dynamics issues. Playing fast allows you to gloss over some little details that not everyone is good at.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Everybody can play slow.



Being able to play slow ≠ being able to play slow well. Playing slow magnifies the timing and dynamics mistakes you make.


----------



## Sogradde (Aug 15, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I just want to know how you determine who plays feeling and who doesnt. Just because your not feeling it doesnt mean theyre not playing with feeling


There is more to feeling than "playing slow while making silly faces". The way you phrase your melodies, how hard you hit the notes, how you add or leave notes away and how tight you play to the beat... ton's of possibilities to make the same riff sound different. 
If you were right, everyone who hits the right notes on singstar would be a world famous singer.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 15, 2017)

Sogradde said:


> There is more to feeling than "playing slow while making silly faces". The way you phrase your melodies, how hard you hit the notes, how you add or leave notes away and how tight you play to the beat... ton's of possibilities to make the same riff sound different.
> If you were right, everyone who hits the right notes on singstar would be a world famous singer.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 15, 2017)

Think you guys missed the point. The question at hand is how can you know someone is playing with feeling or not? And again, things like some have mentioned being timing, nuances, and technique are all just that; different from feeling. In other words, you can nail all those nuances, (which are absolutley important) but does that mean you played it with feeling? 

Fwiw, no disrespect here. There alot of eastern asian players out there who nail Yngwie covers, violin covers and you name it. To me, it doesnt look or sound like they are "feeling" it. The covers sound robitic/sterile and the players do not look like theyre having fun.. But thats very judgmental. How can i possibly know what they are feeling? I dont.

How does one distinguished who plays with feeling and who doesnt? Timing, phrasing, the way you hit the notes and dynamics are all techniques. Completley seperate from feeling and emotion.


----------



## A-Branger (Aug 15, 2017)

iamaom said:


> I have a lot of trouble with this. I have a messed up brain where intervals that are a minor second apart I can't tell which one is higher or lower without any visual context. If you play F and F# back to back without letting me look at a fretboard or piano, I really cant' tell so I'lll find myself playing both over and over trying to figure out which on it is in a song.


as a bass player thats always been the hardest part and the reason why I never end up learning songs by ear.

EVeryone was the same including ofcourse my guitar player (who was a beast player already at 17) "just learn it by ear"..... easy for a guitar, not much on a bass. And I quote one of the other post in here of "you cant hear the bass", which it is really hard for a lot of stuff, specially when bass is masked out by the guitar and drums. See Metallica for the perfect example of it (and yes, I know their bass was burried in the mix), but being a beginner this was the perfect band to learn stuff, yet one of the hardest to know wtf the bass was doing. And when you are starting you also had 0 idea of what a bass is supposed to be "its that a guitar with 4 strings?". It took me a while before learning that some stuff I heard was bass and not a guitar.

Because its harder to listen and isolate, you try to follow the guitars. But as opposed to you playing guitar where you can listen if you are off or not, on a bass then you run into the inversions of the chords and theres quite a few notes that sounds "right", and to find the exact one was impossible for early me.

I could easily know if my bass was slighty out of tune while playing a song, but I couldnt for the love of anything sacred, be abel to learn a song by ear. And I still cant 100% (maybe like 60-70%)


So thats another thing I might add to this tread "tabs are bad, you NEED to learn everything by ear"

which I get the point, and yes, ideally you should do it like that. But theres nothing wrong with tabs. Specially in todays time where you can find them with the score timing, and with GP players ect. Back in my days it was just numbers I had to figure it out the timing of them.

if it wasnt for tabs I would have end up playing metallica stuff and maybe quitting playing for a lack of growth. I would have wasted my first 2-5 years of bass playing (the most important ones of each instrument) trying to learn stuff, or reliying on my guitar player for chords to show. Instead by the help of tabs I was able to tackle way harder songs. So I end up playing Red Hot Chili Peppers stuff in my first couple fo years, and playing anything from Dream Theater in the next couple of years. My musicality might not have been the best, but I was able to tackle anything you put in front of me. And my current playing level is thanks to those first years.


----------



## sezna (Aug 16, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Think you guys missed the point. The question at hand is how can you know someone is playing with feeling or not?



It doesn't matter. As a performer, you are the only one who knows if you are playing with feeling. As a listener, you only know if you feel the music. It is safe to say very few musicians write music and perform it without any emotion, so if you feel music is not emotive, it is your lack of appreciation for it to blame. This is not a bad thing, it is what causes genre preference and whatnot. It is such a common misconception to blame not appreciating music on the artist, saying the music is not emotive. Just plain false.



TedEH said:


> The real question is why we're asking this in the first place. Every time I hear someone pull a "x isn't a *reaaaal* something-or-other" I cringe a little bit, because you know it's coming from a place of wanting to invalidate someone, and has nothing to do with really categorizing or understanding something.



Full agreement. Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 16, 2017)

sezna said:


> It doesn't matter. As a performer, you are the only one who knows if you are playing with feeling. As a listener, you only know if you feel the music. It is safe to say very few musicians write music and perform it without any emotion, so if you feel music is not emotive, it is your lack of appreciation for it to blame. This is not a bad thing, it is what causes genre preference and whatnot. It is such a common misconception to blame not appreciating music on the artist, saying the music is not emotive. Just plain false.



Exactly thats what im saying


----------



## will_shred (Aug 16, 2017)

Syphon said:


> Wow man you go straight to the throat.
> 
> I try to explain to people how a wave of energy is either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. Different materials have very different properties for all three of those possibilities. The actual "wave" of the string is a reflection of the pick energy into the string, then into the wood, then back. At every step, there are some frequencies that are either absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. The end result is an electro-mechanical transfer function as the strings interact with the pickups.
> 
> ...



I have no clue about the physics, but having played hundreds of guitars, electric and acoustic, from cheap to boutique, from brand new to pre WWII, I can confidently say that wood has almost no effect on the sound of an electric guitar, and it has an enormous impact on the tone of an acoustic guitar. Besides wood the largest effect on the tone of an acoustic guitar is probably how the top is braced.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 16, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> How does one distinguished who plays with feeling and who doesnt? Timing, phrasing, the way you hit the notes and dynamics are all techniques. Completley seperate from feeling and emotion.


I disagree- I think those things are EXACTLY what constitutes "feel" in playing. I've always taken "with feeling" be basically be a poor shortcut to describing tastefully expressive playing. Take something played by Vai or Govan - lots of people can hit the same notes, but very few can match the expressive way they play those things. Instruments are all about dynamics on some level - if you can hit every note but have no dynamic, that to me has no "feel". When all the little extra dynamic details are filled in, in a way that comes across as deliberate and expressive, that to me is "with feeling". And lots of people can't do that. Most beginners can't do that.

The simple answer to "how do you tell who plays with feeling or not" is that it's a question of taste relating to all the little bits of technique that come after simply fretting the right notes.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 16, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> as a bass player thats always been the hardest part and the reason why I never end up learning songs by ear.
> 
> EVeryone was the same including ofcourse my guitar player (who was a beast player already at 17) "just learn it by ear"..... easy for a guitar, not much on a bass. And I quote one of the other post in here of "you cant hear the bass", which it is really hard for a lot of stuff, specially when bass is masked out by the guitar and drums. See Metallica for the perfect example of it (and yes, I know their bass was burried in the mix), but being a beginner this was the perfect band to learn stuff, yet one of the hardest to know wtf the bass was doing. And when you are starting you also had 0 idea of what a bass is supposed to be "its that a guitar with 4 strings?". It took me a while before learning that some stuff I heard was bass and not a guitar.
> 
> ...



There are several reasons to try to learn a song by ear, and there are alternative reasons to learn by tab:

By ear:

1. Most tabs have flaws in them. Many of the ones available for free on the internet are flat out wrong.
2. Learning a song by ear helps you _hear_ the song. You'll understand a lot more nuances a lot better, since those cannot be conveyed by tabs.
3. It takes a lot more attention, so you will learn the song better.

By tab:

1. It's quicker and easier, and generally you get the main point of the song in less than a minute.
2. Why duplicate effort? If someone else put as much effort as you would in a transcription, it's pointless to waste your efforts.
3. Worst case scenario, a tab can be a decent starting point for learning a song by ear.

And to address bass playing by ear - Man, it is really difficult to clearly make out the bass in a lot of recordings. There are tricks to isolating bass a little, but they take a lot more time to set up, and it's inconvenient. I couldn't imagine trying to learn bass lines to _...And Justice for All_ by ear back in the 1990's. And songs with more than one low register instrument (I'm looking at you, keyboard player) - good luck easily telling whether that ultra low C is a bass or a synth.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 16, 2017)

TedEH said:


> I disagree- I think those things are EXACTLY what constitutes "feel" in playing. I've always taken "with feeling" be basically be a poor shortcut to describing tastefully expressive playing. Take something played by Vai or Govan - lots of people can hit the same notes, but very few can match the expressive way they play those things. Instruments are all about dynamics on some level - if you can hit every note but have no dynamic, that to me has no "feel". When all the little extra dynamic details are filled in, in a way that comes across as deliberate and expressive, that to me is "with feeling". And lots of people can't do that. Most beginners can't do that.
> 
> The simple answer to "how do you tell who plays with feeling or not" is that it's a question of taste relating to all the little bits of technique that come after simply fretting the right notes.



Yes we all know how expressive Mr. Vai is hes amazing. I would agree with you there.

Originally, i was refering to players who play fast or shred. Theres the people who dont like shreddy music that say that "well this guy can shred but plays with no feeling". It can either be they dont like a certain player or they just dont like shreddy music at all, thus claiming the player has no feeling; just because the listener themselves are not feeling the music. I call that a fallacy.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 16, 2017)

Unleash The Fury said:


> I call that a fallacy.


I just call it a difference in taste.

Edit: And I mean that in the sense that a lot of shreddy playing does lack some feel to my ears. Not because speed = no feels. Shreddy solo playing isn't something that usually strikes me as aiming for the feels in the first place. To me, the fallacy is that the level of feels equates to any other musical quality or value. Music doesn't have to be expressive or have all the feels to be "good".


----------



## _MonSTeR_ (Aug 16, 2017)

TedEH said:


> I just call it a difference in taste.



I think it's probably that "feeling" itself, is probably synonymous with a "difference in taste" and frankly due to very little else.


----------



## stevexc (Aug 16, 2017)

EDIT: Oh whoops FALLACY not PHALLUS-Y


----------



## gnoll (Aug 21, 2017)

Ok so I know it was a while ago Lars was discussed in this thread but reading it I just gotta say something... He's TERRIBLE, and that's not a fallacy!

Considering how long he's been playing and the fact that he plays for one of the biggest bands in the entire world, his playing is embarrassing. His technique is bad, he's sloppy, he has NO feel, he can't play fast double bass, his fills are super awkward and bad, he doesn't use a RIDE CYMBAL?!? And his gear just sounds like shit generally, with too heavy cymbals and shit drum sticks, and a snare that almost always seems to sound crap.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 21, 2017)

gnoll said:


> Ok so I know it was a while ago Lars was discussed in this thread but reading it I just gotta say something... He's TERRIBLE, and that's not a fallacy!
> 
> Considering how long he's been playing and the fact that he plays for one of the biggest bands in the entire world, his playing is embarrassing. His technique is bad, he's sloppy, he has NO feel, he can't play fast double bass, his fills are super awkward and bad, he doesn't use a RIDE CYMBAL?!? And his gear just sounds like shit generally, with too heavy cymbals and shit drum sticks, and a snare that almost always seems to sound crap.


So I take it you will NOT be preordering any Lars signature drum kits?


----------



## Dayn (Aug 21, 2017)

If we're still on playing with 'feeling', I'm going to jump on the side saying it's all a bunch of bull. When people say 'playing with feeling' in the context of guitar, they almost entirely mean music like slow blues and the like, where you get people who say "oh so soulful". What they mean by 'feeling' is almost always one very specific emotion brought about by exploiting slow tension and release. Study enough of what people usually say has 'feeling' in the context of guitar, practice it, and you can emulate it too.

I can play with 'feeling' like the above while personally feeling absolutely nothing. I'm just going through the motions, but it elicits 'feeling' in others who hear it because that's what they expect 'feeling' to sound like on a guitar. I can do that easily - but it means nothing to me. My personal feeling is "god this is boring to play" while others think it's oh so soulful.

Meanwhile, if I play something that I really, really get into, completely lost in the moment and pouring my heart out, it won't elicit the same thing as above. Because what I'm feeling and expressing is not within the traditional paradigm of 'feeling' on guitar. Shredding your heart out in manic happiness is chock-full of feeling, but people will dismiss it as wankery because it lacks 'soul'. Because it doesn't fall into that narrow view of what constitutes 'feeling' on guitar.

TL;DR: playing with 'feeling' on guitar usually means one specific feeling evoked by slow tension and release traditionally exploited by blues, and other feelings that aren't expressed in that narrow way are typically dismissed out of hand as soulless garbage.


----------



## A-Branger (Aug 21, 2017)

playing with "feeling" is one part vibrato(including bends), and one part face expresions


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 21, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> playing with "feeling" is one part vibrato(including bends), and one part face expresions


You forgot the two parts premium note choice.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Aug 21, 2017)

Dayn said:


> If we're still on playing with 'feeling', I'm going to jump on the side saying it's all a bunch of bull. When people say 'playing with feeling' in the context of guitar, they almost entirely mean music like slow blues and the like, where you get people who say "oh so soulful". What they mean by 'feeling' is almost always one very specific emotion brought about by exploiting slow tension and release. Study enough of what people usually say has 'feeling' in the context of guitar, practice it, and you can emulate it too.
> 
> I can play with 'feeling' like the above while personally feeling absolutely nothing. I'm just going through the motions, but it elicits 'feeling' in others who hear it because that's what they expect 'feeling' to sound like on a guitar. I can do that easily - but it means nothing to me. My personal feeling is "god this is boring to play" while others think it's oh so soulful.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Thats basically what i was trying to say in the previous pages


----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2017)

Dayn said:


> TL;DR: playing with 'feeling' on guitar usually means one specific feeling evoked by slow tension and release


I don't disagree, but I still think that's a skill not everyone has- both in terms of writing songs with that tension and release mechanic to it, or in terms of being able to pull it off convincingly on the instrument. Deconstructing "feeling" in music does kinda take the magic out of it (as deconstructing anything would do), but I don't think it negates its existence.


----------



## marcwormjim (Aug 22, 2017)

It does with magic.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 22, 2017)

Carry on with this side topic, but I have an unrelated observation:

The adage: "There are only twelve notes in music, therefore, nothing will ever truly be new."

I disagree with that, and, personally, consider it a musical fallacy, but perhaps the conclusion can be subjectively considered true, although the logic here is pretty easily torn up.

There are not "only twelve notes in music" when referring to the context of a song. For example, B A G A B B B sounds totally different if it's all quarter notes B3 A3 G3 A3 B3 B3 B3 than it does if it's played with a mixture of different octaves and a mixture of whole notes, half notes, quarter notes, eighth notes, and sixteenth notes with rests interjected in between some of the notes. In the contrary direction, all quarter note Bb Ab Gb Ab Bb Bb Bb sounds pretty much exactly the same, yet uses different notes from the same "only twelve notes."

My point is that the number of notes has nothing to do with it.

Thought experiment. Say there are a finite number of melodies possible. Each melody has a specific number of notes. There must be a melody then that contains no more notes than any other extant melody. If so, I can make a new melody by arbitrarily adding one note into the melody somewhere. Therefore, there cannot be a finite number of melodies.

Some of the most glorified songs written have just been ripped off completely from a mixture of sources. For example, "Uptown Funk." A youtube user posted a video of an almost exact recreation of "Uptown Funk" by editing 4 or 5 old songs together. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great song, but what I'm getting at is:

A) Any two or more old ideas can combine to successfully and effectively make a brand new idea.
B) No new idea ever happened without some influence of at least one old idea.
C) There are not technically a finite number of melodic combinations, although I would argue that there may very well be a finite number of aesthetically viable melodies.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Aug 22, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Carry on with this side topic, but I have an unrelated observation:
> 
> The adage: "There are only twelve notes in music, therefore, nothing will ever truly be new."
> 
> ...



Let's be honest. Western music theory and preferences barely understands microtonals and complex polyrythyms.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 22, 2017)

diagrammatiks said:


> Let's be honest. Western music theory and preferences barely understands microtonals and complex polyrythyms.



Hmm. Ok, let me roll with that a little bit. It's a great comment.

Modern western music theory does understand a lot about microtones and polyrythms, even if it rarely gets discussed in open forums that are not tailored to those discussions. Western musical preferences, on the other hand, are not terribly kind toward anything outside of a few scales and three or maybe four time signatures and maybe three or four different rhythmic feels.

To be clear, I wasn't even trying to get into either of those two topics with my post. Even if there was only one note, say 440 Hz, then you could technically make a beyond-infinite number of songs simply by holding that tone different amounts of time and placing rests in various places. If you wrote a number of songs with that one note, and limited yourself to quarter-note quantization, I could always make a new song by taking the longest one of yours and adding another quarter note beep at the end of it, thus my point that the idea that there are a finite number of ways to combine x number of notes is technically false.

But, perhaps the gist of the adage is still true on the practical level. If you limit yourself to a genre, say pop, you are limiting yourself to 4/4 time, 3 minute song length, either the major or minor scale, one of a half dozen chord progressions, then a melody that "fits" over the chords and time. Add in the fact that you are limited in structure to verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus, and that you have a palette of maybe three drum beats and tempos to choose...I guarantee that you'd run out of ideas for the backing track after a hundred songs or so, and then you either have to incorporate something from outside the genre, or else you get really weird and creative, or just keep reusing that same handful of backing tracks.

There's a guy on youtube who wrote a pop song using a MAD LIBS program and just kind of picking cliches from other pop songs, and, lo and behold, the result sounded pretty much like a stereotypical silly pop song.

Rock and metal have a little more wiggle room, but are still limited in so many ways. But, in the 21st century, we don't really have every band trying to fit in a specific genre by the rules anymore, which is why you get weird genre descriptions, like post-grunge--psychedelic-dad-core


----------



## JohnIce (Aug 22, 2017)

Dayn said:


> If we're still on playing with 'feeling', I'm going to jump on the side saying it's all a bunch of bull. When people say 'playing with feeling' in the context of guitar, they almost entirely mean music like slow blues and the like, where you get people who say "oh so soulful". What they mean by 'feeling' is almost always one very specific emotion brought about by exploiting slow tension and release. Study enough of what people usually say has 'feeling' in the context of guitar, practice it, and you can emulate it too.



I used to think that, but somewhere along the line I realized that what people generally call "feeling" is the ability to convey emotion, basically just being good at communication through music. Being really, really honest is usually the only way to do that. Sometimes that means taking it slower and being more sensitive, but it can also be the opposite. For example I hear a lot of "feeling" in Dillinger that I don't hear from the next derivative mathcore teenagers, and I hear more "feeling" in Warren Zevon than the next sensitive singer songwriter douche. It's a complex thing because humans are complex, an eyelid or a breath can change our perception of what a person is saying to us. Music is just like that, and that's why it's way harder to learn to convey emotion as a musician, than it is to recognize it when you hear it. Getting there by simply copying someone else is not gonna happen. It has to begin with honesty. Like John Mayer said: "The public is about a million times smarter than you." If there's anything derivative, braggy or dishonest behind your songwriting or playing most people can tell way easier than you can.


----------



## TedEH (Aug 22, 2017)

JohnIce said:


> Being really, really honest is usually the only way to do that.


The problem with these kinds of statements is that they have no real meaning. What is "honest" in terms of guitar playing? Or maybe a better question is how do you play a guitar "dishonestly"? Guitar playing doesn't "lie" or "tell the truth". I agree as far as the ability to convey emotion through songwriting is a skill, and one that not everyone has, but "honesty" isn't a thing. You can't hear "honesty". Maybe you can spot someone trying to BS their way through a technique they aren't really good at, but that often comes down to body language that you'd never pick up in a recording, and you could argue that watching someone struggle with the instrument somehow is MORE honest looking, which negates the whole thing.

Can music communicate emotion? Sure it can. But lets not kid ourselves in terms of our tendency to attach this sort of pseudo-inspirational imagery to the stuff that we like. A shreddy player whose music doesn't "convey deep feelings" is not somehow less "honest" than other music.


----------



## JohnIce (Aug 22, 2017)

TedEH said:


> The problem with these kinds of statements is that they have no real meaning. What is "honest" in terms of guitar playing? Or maybe a better question is how do you play a guitar "dishonestly"? Guitar playing doesn't "lie" or "tell the truth". I agree as far as the ability to convey emotion through songwriting is a skill, and one that not everyone has, but "honesty" isn't a thing. You can't hear "honesty". Maybe you can spot someone trying to BS their way through a technique they aren't really good at, but that often comes down to body language that you'd never pick up in a recording, and you could argue that watching someone struggle with the instrument somehow is MORE honest looking, which negates the whole thing.



I thought so too, until I got a teacher in college who had a freakish talent for hearing the intent behind your music. If there was even a little bit of a motivation in me to impress, get appreciated or copy other artists as a safety measure, he could sniff it out immediately because he'd seen it all before. That made a pretty big impact on all of us as students and really made me realize why only some of my songs/bands seemed to connect with people when most of them didn't. I was basically using too many tricks to write "good" songs and shooting myself in the foot by compromising my feelings and taste and relying more on skill and knowledge instead. I agree that this makes a lesser impact on guitar playing than on songwriting as a whole, but guitar playing is a part of the whole. I think you can hear "BS" in a person singing about some tragic event that never actually happened to them, or being braggy and show-offy when they're really quite insecure. Some people hide it well enough but to me most people don't. I don't think this is universally objective at all, but I do notice that the majority of people seem to have the same ear for it. But yeah, it's not 100% accurate all the time.



TedEH said:


> Can music communicate emotion? Sure it can. But lets not kid ourselves in terms of our tendency to attach this sort of pseudo-inspirational imagery to the stuff that we like. A shreddy player whose music doesn't "convey deep feelings" is not somehow less "honest" than other music.



I'm not trying to be pseudo-inspirational, it's just a hard topic to condense in a short paragraph. Like I said, speed or genre has nothing to do with it in my experience. People who don't like shred guitar might not care either way, but someone who is a huge fan of the genre might be floored by John Petrucci yet unimpressed by you, and I think the difference is mostly in the intent of the player. If your intent is to just play faster and cleaner than John Petrucci, I don't think you're gonna go nearly as far as he has.


----------



## r33per (Aug 23, 2017)

Dayn said:


> If we're still on playing with 'feeling', I'm going to jump on the side saying it's all a bunch of bull. When people say 'playing with feeling' in the context of guitar, they almost entirely mean music like slow blues and the like, where you get people who say "oh so soulful". What they mean by 'feeling' is almost always one very specific emotion brought about by exploiting slow tension and release. Study enough of what people usually say has 'feeling' in the context of guitar, practice it, and you can emulate it too.
> 
> I can play with 'feeling' like the above while personally feeling absolutely nothing. I'm just going through the motions, but it elicits 'feeling' in others who hear it because that's what they expect 'feeling' to sound like on a guitar. I can do that easily - but it means nothing to me. My personal feeling is "god this is boring to play" while others think it's oh so soulful.
> 
> ...


Yes yes yes. The fallacy is that fewer notes per minute, bends/vibrato, rake-and-dig-in with the pick (Brian May anyone?) = big feels.

That's not untrue, but it also missed the mark. Feeling is so subjective, but the usual task of the musician/composer is to play in such a way that the listener experiences the emotion you want them to convey.

I remember when Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory was coming out and JP released a couple of isolated guitar solos, one of which was from Home. On its own it was VERY cool, but in the context of the song's subject matter and mood, it was near perfect. It is tracks beautifully with the music, is technically astute and has some superb note choices. His solo from Voices is of the same ilk - full of technique, yes, but giving it big in the "feels" department as well.

That's another point: surely the "feel" of a guitar solo - or any instrument - will be affected by the surrounding music supporting it.


----------



## r33per (Aug 23, 2017)

Dayn said:


> If we're still on playing with 'feeling', I'm going to jump on the side saying it's all a bunch of bull. When people say 'playing with feeling' in the context of guitar, they almost entirely mean music like slow blues and the like, where you get people who say "oh so soulful". What they mean by 'feeling' is almost always one very specific emotion brought about by exploiting slow tension and release. Study enough of what people usually say has 'feeling' in the context of guitar, practice it, and you can emulate it too.
> 
> I can play with 'feeling' like the above while personally feeling absolutely nothing. I'm just going through the motions, but it elicits 'feeling' in others who hear it because that's what they expect 'feeling' to sound like on a guitar. I can do that easily - but it means nothing to me. My personal feeling is "god this is boring to play" while others think it's oh so soulful.
> 
> ...


Yes yes yes. The fallacy is that fewer notes per minute, bends/vibrato, rake-and-dig-in with the pick (Brian May anyone?) = big feels.

That's not untrue, but it also missed the mark. Feeling is so subjective, but the usual task of the musician/composer is to play in such a way that the listener experiences the emotion you want them to convey.

I remember when Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory was coming out and JP released a couple of isolated guitar solos, one of which was from Home. On its own it was VERY cool, but in the context of the song's subject matter and mood, it was near perfect. It is tracks beautifully with the music, is technically astute and has some superb note choices. His solo from Voices is of the same ilk - full of technique, yes, but giving it big in the "feels" department as well.

That's another point: surely the "feel" of a guitar solo - or any instrument - will be affected by the surrounding music supporting it.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 23, 2017)

r33per said:


> I remember when Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory was coming out and JP released a couple of isolated guitar solos, one of which was from Home. On its own it was VERY cool, but in the context of the song's subject matter and mood, it was near perfect. It is tracks beautifully with the music, is technically astute and has some superb note choices. His solo from Voices is of the same ilk - full of technique, yes, but giving it big in the "feels" department as well.


Eh. No offense, but John Petrucci is the definition of cold and clinical. Sterile and robotic might also apply to his playing. Sorry, but it's just not that exciting to me.


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 23, 2017)

Marty sounds like he's trolling, but he's spot on IMO. 

The whole "Who told you this is happening?" rant is epic!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 23, 2017)

Marty freakin' Friedman is certainly NOT a fallacy. He's awesome! 

EDIT: And by the way, Marty has some INSANE downward pick slanting going on. And that part about "giving it that little jerk" and not making it totally metronomed out is what -- ahem -- _feel_ is. Attitude as well. At least to me anyways.


----------



## A-Branger (Aug 23, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Eh. No offense, but John Petrucci is the definition of cold and clinical. Sterile and robotic might also apply to his playing. Sorry, but it's just not that exciting to me.


I beg to differ a lot, one fo the reason I like him so much is becuase for me hes really melodic, plus adds the right amount of fast shred stuff while still keeping melodic slow and "feeling" stuff around mixed.

And thats the perfect example of what "feelings" is really all about. It all depends of what you define it and what you like. For me its more about hitting the right notes at the right time in the right context, and to know when to go full on and when to step back. Its not about the notes but the silence on them.... or in a case of a solo, how long to hold a note.


Usually people tend to asociate "feelings" playing with slow songs as they tend to be more "powerfull ballad" kinda thing which also allows for a more melodic, slower approach to soloing


----------



## r33per (Aug 23, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Eh. No offense, but John Petrucci is the definition of cold and clinical. Sterile and robotic might also apply to his playing. Sorry, but it's just not that exciting to me.


Oh in the last few years, I completely agree. I've just gone off their stuff entirely. Their 90s stuff is (imo) much better - sounds more like music than an extended practise exercise.

And - if I might say - you make my point: it is so subjective. Some of us will go nuts and wax lyrical about _the_ Comfortably Numb solo, others just find it meh. Again: the fallacy is that "feeling" is one specific style or genre and that it is mutually exclusive from technical virtuosity.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 23, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> I beg to differ a lot, one fo the reason I like him so much is becuase for me hes really melodic, plus adds the right amount of fast shred stuff while still keeping melodic slow and "feeling" stuff around mixed.
> 
> And thats the perfect example of what "feelings" is really all about. It all depends of what you define it and what you like. For me its more about hitting the right notes at the right time in the right context, and to know when to go full on and when to step back. Its not about the notes but the silence on them.... or in a case of a solo, how long to hold a note.
> 
> ...


I am not one of those people to "associate feelings playing with slow songs." I consider Eddie Van Halen, Dimebag, and Marty Friedman -- among others -- to play with feeling. Whether that is what most people mean or not is another story. Like I said, I find John Petrucci to be really robotic and mechanical in his lead playing. But you seem to like him, which is fine.



r33per said:


> Oh in the last few years, I completely agree. I've just gone off their stuff entirely. Their 90s stuff is (imo) much better - sounds more like music than an extended practise exercise.
> 
> And - if I might say - you make my point: it is so subjective. Some of us will go nuts and wax lyrical about _the_ Comfortably Numb solo, others just find it meh. Again: the fallacy is that "feeling" is one specific style or genre and that it is mutually exclusive from technical virtuosity.


I think even their 90s stuff was kind of devoid of personality, attitude, and so on. I think if they entended to be the follow up to Rush, they focused on the wrong things. Rush -- especially during the 70s and up to Tom Sawyer -- were amazing. Once they got back on track sometime in the 90s, they continued to be amazing, and their last couple albums, like Vapor Trails [the redone version sounds great] and Clockwork were awesome, awesome discs.


----------



## USMarine75 (Aug 23, 2017)

I actually quite like JP's solo in Wither and think it has an appropriate amount of "the feels". But musical appreciation is subjective. 

So most of us on here "know" how talented he is, and how talented that genre of music is, therefore we assess that he must be "playing" the right notes and not "feeling" them. I would bet that an untrained (uncaring? unknowing?) listener wouldn't differentiate between that solo and a Chicago Blues solo, as to either being more technical or sterile. IMO it is an artifact of us all knowing JP is a living breathing Berklee textbook.

Similarly, people assume all blues and rock greats are all musically illiterate. I hear that all the time about Hendrix and EVH, even though they were both quite knowledgeable about theory in their own respective ways, even if it was not formal education.

And we also assume that shredders have more music theory knowledge than other genres, such as pop, blues, and classic rock. Yet guys like Marty Friedman admit that he never gave an F about scales and modes and all that lol (however, Marty is a master troll). And a lot of pop (session) musicians are incredibly talented and knowledgeable.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 23, 2017)

Some great points made about JP in the sense he's talented and knows what he's doing. I also agree that Marty is a master troll, but I get the feeling that while some of his playing might relate to a scale/mode here and there, I don't think he thinks about it or plots it out as he's writing a solo. Or as USM75 put it, he doesn't give an F [F# to be totally precise; he loves F# notes, and so do I thanks to him and Ace Frehley].


----------



## A-Branger (Aug 23, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I am not one of those people to "associate feelings playing with slow songs." I consider Eddie Van Halen, Dimebag, and Marty Friedman -- among others -- to play with feeling. Whether that is what most people mean or not is another story. Like I said, I find John Petrucci to be really robotic and mechanical in his lead playing. But you seem to like him, which is fine.



yeah that was my point, that everyone thinks and like something different. What I see as playing with feeling is different to what you see and everyone else.

At the end of the day the weirder the face you put when you play, the more people believe that you are sooooooooooo into it, so you must be flowing in feeling


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 23, 2017)

A-Branger said:


> yeah that was my point, that everyone thinks and like something different. What I see as playing with feeling is different to what you see and everyone else.
> 
> At the end of the day the weirder the face you put when you play, the more people believe that you are sooooooooooo into it, so you must be flowing in feeling


Fair enough, but for EVH and Dimebag, I consider them playing with feeling because I can hear them smiling through their playing. EVH's playing in particular sounds fun, rambunctious, and exciting. But you're probably right: eye of the beholder.


----------



## bostjan (Aug 23, 2017)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Fair enough, but for EVH and Dimebag, I consider them playing with feeling because I can hear them smiling through their playing. EVH's playing in particular sounds fun, rambunctious, and exciting. But you're probably right: eye of the beholder.


This is pretty much what the majority of the recent posts were pointing out as a fallacy.
To say that EVH's playing evokes playfulness and excitement is spot on, but saying that he's playing with more "feeling" than a player who evokes melancholy or determination or anger is just kind of an empty statement.
It's like asking "which emotion is the most emotional?"


----------



## marcwormjim (Aug 23, 2017)

"At the end of the day, 'emotion' may very well be nothing more than an information-age portmanteau of 'electronic motion.'"-marcwormjim


----------



## A-Branger (Aug 23, 2017)

bostjan said:


> This is pretty much what the majority of the recent posts were pointing out as a fallacy.
> To say that EVH's playing evokes playfulness and excitement is spot on, but saying that he's playing with more "feeling" than a player who evokes melancholy or determination or anger is just kind of an empty statement.
> It's like asking "which emotion is the most emotional?"



yeah but that goes with the context of the band/music and the person. Of course he evokes Happiness, because the dude always smiles and his music was more inot the happy 80's side of things. Not because you can hear how he smiled trough his solo. Its more about you picturing the memories you have of him (or a poster in front of you).... same if its "anger", put a guy on a band with a "angry" look, settup, dress, art, paint, shape of the guitar, ect ect and the you would think their music and his solo its "angry"


I made the joke of playing with feelings is one part making silly faces. But in a way its kinda true, its another way to express yourself, one with your body language and with the guitar, so when you put the two into context it evokes more "feeling" to the audience as they see you fully submerged into it. rather if you play the exact solo (sonically with an the same technique/mistakes) but you jsut stand there with a blank face/body


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Aug 30, 2017)

Not a musical fallacy, but rather a gear fallacy. It is a bit annoying that the idea is passed around as fact that "active EMGs sound the same no matter what guitar you put them in." That is not really true at all, and especially so if you put EMGs in just about any guitar, then put them in a BC Rich. For whatever reason, probably construction, body thickness/headstock size, and other tone shaping factors like that, the BC Rich loaded guitars always sound way different than everything else. But even if you have EMGs to two very similar guitars, like my H500 and H1001, they have their own characteristics as well.


----------



## tedtan (Aug 31, 2017)

I think people say that about EMGs referring to the clipped/compressed nature of the pickups running at 9 volts. Going with some of the newer EMGs or the 18 volt mod will give you more dynamics.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Aug 31, 2017)

^
Definitely. If you're not satisfied with your 81, before you gut the electronics, try an X series or Retro Active.


----------



## A-Branger (Aug 31, 2017)

I have the Het Set in one of my guitars. I actually like the compressed nature for cleans a way more than my other guitar with Dimarzios. For the stuff I play it helps with better notes arpeggios


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Sep 1, 2017)

They also don't really clip much (if at all) with fresh batteries. But oh man do they ever when the battery gets low. I once recorded direct into my interface and compared the waveforms with fresh vs near dead batteries. It was wild. Just a hard cutoff on the dead batteries. Even the cleanest if clean tones was fuzzed.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov (Sep 1, 2017)

tedtan said:


> I think people say that about EMGs referring to the clipped/compressed nature of the pickups running at 9 volts. Going with some of the newer EMGs or the 18 volt mod will give you more dynamics.



Four things about the tone of EMGs stand out:
1. Slew rate clipping in the older ones
2. Ungodly high output causing headroom-clipping at 9V
3. Built-in high-pass filter which is there whether you want it or not
4. Essentially parallel wiring, with each coil buffered individually, giving them amazing high-end extension

Newer EMGs change 1 of those things. If you hate the other 3, you'll still hate the newer EMGs. Like me. I actually preferred the 81/81 set to the 57/66 set and I'm passiv 4 lyf.


----------

