Is your rig better than you are?

[lyman]

i'm just finding this thread, but it's along the lines of what i've been thinking about recently. interesting input from a lot of you guys.

i feel like the biggest improvement in my electric guitar playing has stemmed from playing a lot of acoustic over the past few years. I've upgraded my speakers, cabs, tubes, pedals, etc. which has definitely made a difference. But I feel like I've gotten a better grasp of some of the fundamentals by taking it back to the acoustic realm.

For me, I've been in an apartment for a little while and simply can't crank the amp up to where it sounds the best. And I'm on a hiatus from playing with bands it seems, so mostly I just have some acoustics lying around and I play those way more often.

Now, I'm not saying that's THE one approach to take. In fact, nobody approached the electric like it's a whole other instrument we'd miss out on so many great sound, songs, and artists. It would be a boring world if everyone had the same point of reference. It's music: forget about the rules, do what sounds good to you, and take it where you want to go because there's really no limit except your imagination. That's what art is, really.

So like I said, I've been upgrading my gear while at the same time, I feel like I've been growing by working on aspects of playing that I wasn't maybe so good at in the past. I'm looking forward to the right time/place/people where I can pull all of this together and get back to doing what I love.

 

[Bshizzle]

I firmly believe that a new improved tone from your equipment is one of the biggest motivators in practicing your chops. It seems like too much of a coincidence that the first time I got a good sound from my Mesa, that I also spent 8 hours jamming with it. That's practice! when you come out sweaty and fingers completely worn out.

 

[coppa]

since getting a solo50 and a bfg gbson and a loadbox/speaker sim for cranking the power section at any volume I feel lost inside a music store I look at all the stuff I dont really want to buy, I feel like "what am I doing here, maybe I should go home and play instead"

my playing has probably got worse and now I need to catch up to my few grand worth of pro gear.

 

[jdurso]

As far as making Shred tuneful incredible honorable mention can be made to Satriani and John Petrucci's solo work.

I agree 100% here. Shredding becomes noise real quick, if there's no melodic values behind it. Satriani and Petrucci both make some great melodies and use their chops to the extreme, without becoming "too much".

Anyway, it's my opinion and it makes sense to me

plus petrucci is a killer rhythm player. i find a lot of shred guys will have decent rhythm abilities when it comes to writing. petrucci on the other hand because he has to in his band, comes of with some great rhythm parts. he's definitely of the riff school of thought just as much as he is the shred.

 

[crisis]

I don’t think my chops match my gear since I got my Single Recto. I now have the guitar I always wanted (but have had for years) and an amp /speaker box set up that I have wanted but never expected to obtain. The recto gives me the sound I have wanted and I imagine(hope) that continued tweaking I will achieve the ultimate sound I want. I am setting up my effects to reflect what I use for the music we play and hopefully will not embark on such a tone quest once it is settled.

The Mesa exposes my mistakes more ruthlessly than my previous piece of **** amp so I am now being forced to clean up my act which is an upside. Even though I don’t practice at home with it, only once a week for rehearsals, I have noticed a slight improvement in my technical ability just lately but then again for me that sort of comes in fits and starts.

I am not anal about tone in the way I want to have all analog/vintage/boutique whatever. A good, quiet delay/chorus/phaser is good enough. It doesn’t have to sound like someone from the 70s/80s or whatever classic period so I don’t chase that type of thing.

The other side of course is that this is in many cases peoples hobby and inevitably one spends a disproportionate amount of money acquiring the latest best thing as far as hobbies go. I see where you are coming from though. Keep in mind that there is no magic piece of equipment that is going to do it for you if you are wanting to improve your how you sound.

At the end of the day I am a very average player and I doubt I would ever be satisfied with my ability therefore my rig is really destined to be too good for me which I suppose is better than being compromised by it not being good enough.

 

[crisis]

RE: "A lot of kids play guitar now, and I think that even if there's less shredding going on they've often got a better grip on music than many 80s players because they listen to music pretty much every hour they're awake.". While due to technology advances, it may be likely that kids today listen to more sheer volume of music per day than previously, I most definitely disagree that kids today have a better grip on music. The average level of knowledge of actual music theory was never higher than it was in the late 80's, and much of that disappeared with playing chops in the early 90's when Grunge came along as a pendulum reaction against the technical excesses of the 80's.

Some good stuff here. The fact that kids have music constantly going into their ears does not necessarily improve their understanding. For many it is merely a soundtrack to what they are doing. For many years I heard “classic” songs that I never cared for and dismissed until I tried to play it or listened a bit more carefully.

Technically speaking, guitar playing took a nose dive throughout the entire decade of the 90's once Grunge arrived. The rap metal of the late 90's/early 00's was even simpler. So-called nu-metal of the 00's was even simpler still, predominantly characterized by extreme downtuning and (as if the power chord wasn't already simple enough) one-finger power chords. Actual guitar solos have only recently returned to the radio, and still only very sparsely, and none which even come close to rivalling the technical difficulty of the 80's.

And we are still left with the hangover attitude towards technical brilliance with such attitudes that “shredders play with no feeling/soul/emotion” as if once you reach a certain speed you must discard such qualities.

I'm also aware of Rusty Cooley, Guthrie Govan, Alexi Laiho and others from today who are monster shredders. Technically, they are every bit as good if not better than 80's guys. However, they all suffer one major serious disadvantage: unlike in the 80's, their music isn't the popular genre of the day. Radio isn't playing guitar hero music. Metal is dominated by the worst example of unoriginality in its entire history: the 'death metal, cookie monster-as-lead vocalist, anemic-kickdrum-playing-32nd-notes-in-every-song, twin-guitars-playing-32nd-note-riffs-without-solos, every-song-sounds-exactly-the-same, clone band'.

Ha! You don’t know how good you had it. 80s metal was never played on the radio in Australia. We had to suffer the likes of Midnight Oil, Split Enz, INXS, Mondo Rock and Cold Chisel. How I longed to live in America back then. It is ironic that more heavy style music is played on the radio due to the popularity of the much maligned “Emo” style than ever was in the 80s. And yes I am a 45 year old fan of Fall Out Boy, Funeral For a Friend and a few others.

 

[crisis]

These days if you walk into Guitar Center and hear somebody play Yngwie's stuff the only people who won't look at that as wank-age are the few people who still look up to that sh!t.

Rush and Pink Floyd had their hey day in the mid 70's. In the mid 70's the best players were in Fusion but hardly anybody remembers it. Not only that Van Halen 1 was only a couple years later and the only people who still listen to it are the few who still wish to play like that.

There's a reason why shred died in popular culture. In my opinion David Gilmour said more with 3 or 4 notes than Jimmy Page did with the vast majority of the diarrea he played and that's not even getting into shred. Overly notey and sloppy Pagey may have been but at least his soloing was somewhat coherent. I cannot say the same about Yngwie or the majority of anything Steve Vai ever played.
As far as making Shred tuneful incredible honorable mention can be made to Satriani and John Petrucci's solo work.
My perspective is of a music college drop out.

That footnote is kind of ironic. Still I am not even good enough to drop out of any music college so good on you anyway.

I saw the best players in my area duking it out with the "my dick is bigger than yours" shred challenge on a day to day basis. I wasn't the best in my class I was in the top half but all those who played faster than me played faster and that was it.
Their problem: They couldn't construct a solo or improvise. What they played didn't fit together. They didn't really understand how to develop an idea no matter how many times it was explained to them by the teachers.

All of them? Come on. I am sure there are plenty of pissing contests but at least they are improving one area of their playing. Sure speed isn’t everything but it is just as relevant and valuable as any other aspect.

 

[MF]

Do I have GAS? Probably. I've spent like 7-8 grand on gear within the last year. But, I don't own a car (can't drive anyhow, I'm as blind as a bat, I swear), have ordinary clothes and a crappy computer. Pretty much my only 'prized possessions' are my guitars and my rig. I think it pretty much balances out in the end. So long as the bills get paid and my lady doesn't complain too much, I'm good to go.

I'm in the same boat. I have a car but it's just a cheap thing, and i live in a small apartment with crappy furniture and lame clothes. Besides my gear my only real luxury is a 32 inch LCD tv and a PS3. I don't live frivolously. Hell, by most peoples standards even my gear is pretty pedestrian (except my Mesa :twisted: ). But my gear is my only real indulgence and so my girlfriend tolerates it, and sometimes even encourages it. As long as the bills are paid and it makes me happy then no harm is done.

to add, IMO, every guitar player should own an acoustic and know how to enjoy playing it. Not only will it help keep things real, but it could turn out useful in the event that the power gets cut for more than an hour...

Agreed. I know too many players who dismiss acoustics as sissy or hippy instruments...or as Skwisgar Skwigelf put it "grandpas guitars".

The Mesa exposes my mistakes more ruthlessly than my previous piece of sh!t amp so I am now being forced to clean up my act which is an upside. Even though I don’t practice at home with it, only once a week for rehearsals, I have noticed a slight improvement in my technical ability just lately but then again for me that sort of comes in fits and starts.

My situation is very similar. I wish i could play it more but most days it's not convenient to load up the rest of my gear and drive to the rehearsal space to play. If i could i suspect that my playing would greatly improve. I've always been a sloppy player and having only owned SS amps up until this point they've covered up a lot of my sloppiness.

 

[user 7737]

i'm better than my gear... 'caus when i left it alone it can only make a single note feedback... it can plays songs by itself... lame... :lol:

 

[Hirschberger]

Yes.

And all i have is a crappy MIM Strat, crappy practice amp, a DS-1 and a Crybaby Classic.

/fail

 

[MJ Slaughter]

Yes.

And all i have is a crappy MIM Strat, crappy practice amp, a DS-1 and a Crybaby Classic.

/fail

The MIM Strats are not all that bad. A guy in my band plays one through a Crate Vintage Series 30 watt tube amp and it really sounds good. You've got good taste by just being a part of this board. One day grasshopper you will have an amp to be proud of. If you didn't get the grasshopper reference then you're too young and I'm much too old!

 

[CoG]

I bailed on this thread but have to come back. See, 80s guys, in 1991 when your band suddenly stopped getting gigs, it was to *my band*. The guys who didn't do the hair, didn't work on our "stage show" didn't bring our own lighting rig, had Jazzmasters or duct-taped LP copies instead of JEMs.

I have been hearing this sh!t ever since from every guitarist born before 1972 about how it was the end of the goddamn guitar universe. Never mind that most of us who were in those bands that were eating your lunch in the 90s had been ordering the same Paul Gilbert videos as you were in 1989, we just weren't gonna bust out solos no one wanted to hear any more.

It had absolutely nothing to do with how my band played our guitars versus how your band played your guitars. Zero. It was about people who don't play guitar thinking Kim Thayil looked cooler than Nuno Bettencourt, and Kurt Cobain seemed way more interesting than Sebastian Bach. The fashion and the attitude went out, and the sound, which was like five per cent of the whole thing, went with it.

Sorry to vent here. I have been hearing this for like 18 years from bitter shredders who never figured out that the 92 per cent of the population who's never picked up a guitar thinks of David Lee Roth's tights when they hear "Jump", not EVH's tapping.

Nothing more to say on the subject.

 

[tremayne007]

on this note, I find it interesting that at this exact same time (90-91) , Trey Anastasio (from Phish) began his climb in popularity which would end at becoming one of the nations biggest touring bands by the mid 90's, using a format that showcased extended (and I do mean extended) guitar solos, when they were the bane of most popular music of the time.

Just goes to show that it wasn't so much the focus on guitar technique and rock solos per se that lost all appeal to the masses, as it was the overall approach taken by the 'big hair" metal bands of the 80's...

Two main differences in approach (outside of general stylistic differences) that I see are:

1. Having solos that modulate through a harmonic framework and/or having your band mates accompany by comping/accenting the solo rather than staying on a static chord progression, more of a jazz (or prog rock) approach. IMO, this is much more interesting/engaging as it allows for a far greater capacity for tension building and subsequent release.

* disclaimer, I do not find this to be true of most of the bands I have heard in the current "jam band" genre (even though Phish are the supposed titans of it), that simply noodle incessently over the same four chords for days... bleck!

2. Attitude, as in we're all just regular guys and we are all participating in this experience, rather than look at me and how cool I am, which in my opinion came from everyone trying to be half as cool as Led Zeppelin, which no one in the 80's was. You can't just cop that kind of mystique, no matter how big you make your hair :lol: .

Also, people simply tire of the same thing when bombarded by it constantly (Winger, White Snake, Poison, Great White, Cinderella, etc...) and it goes on for way too long. Ever heard the expression "breath of fresh air"?

p.s. Another honorable mention of a shredding guitarist whose band hilighted solos yet managed to gain widespread popularity in the 90's : Dave Navarro from Jane's Addiction

 

[jdurso]

you know what... i retract my statement about the 80s having better musicians than the 90s. i had a discussion with my friend about this yesterday and he is a huge fan of 90s bands and he is a great guitar players. he argued while shred may have been dead, there were may more guitarists actually being musical in the 90s. Both he and I agree the for the most part shred is just a bit of show boating with some impressive physical and musical feets thrown in but it gets old very very quickly, so lack of solos mean absolutely nothing. look at some of the bands that were popular: Metallica, Janes Addiction, The Jellyfish, Radiohead, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, Tool, Live, Dave Mathews Band, The Black Crowes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Primus, G n R, Pantera, Beck, Weezer, Rage Against the Machine, Blind Melon, REM, Oasis, Alice in Chains, Eric Johnson (hit his pinnicle in the 90s), Collective Soul, etc.

Now again not every band in there contained a shredder, but in terms of musicians, song writers and solid guitar playing i think the 90s had more important bands than the 80s. Think about it.... between Metallica, GnR, and Radiohead, you have 3 of the most important rock bands in the last 30 years thriving in the 90s and filling up a lot of radio space. Plus if you disect the music of the 80s and the 90s, you'll find the 80s had a lot of talent but pretty straight forward music. Take the shred away and there is really nothing interesting. Disect the 90s and you see a lot of creativity, a lot of diversity in terms of what was popular, and you'll see a lot of great musicians, let alone guitar players. All the bands i mentioned about contained great song writing and solid guitar playing that was actually interesting.... 80s music really didnt have interesting rhythm stuff or song writing (unless you went underground). I'll take more creative bands like Tool and The Jellyfish anyday over sterile bands like Poison, Whitesnake, or Jovi (even though i enjoy Jovi at times since im a jersey boy). To be honest with you i dont think a band like Radiohead or Tool or The Black Crowes or The Jellyfish could have been popular in the 80s.... which i think says a lot.

Now I know there were also a lot of **** bands right a long side the great bands of the 90s but that is true for every decade of music, and i think the ratio is probably pretty consitant. Yes grunge existed but aside from Nirvana there were way more bands in the rock, alternative, and metal scenes that were more popular and were great musicians. Everyone remembers grunge but it was only a tiny percent of the popular rock bands of the 90s.

 

[Herbie the Rad Dorklift]

I'm a terrible guitar player.

Well, I'm great at rhythm (Idols are Malcolm Young, James Hetfield ) But a s alead player I'm terrible.

In my band (which is sleaze metal....Backyrad Babies meets Velvet Revolver meets Metallica) I have pretty much 2 sounds. Rhythm and lead (Which is usually just rehashed blues lick and divebombs :lol: )

I have no need for a Mark IV, or a rack.

In fact, I've been considering selling it all and buying an ENGL Powerball stack :lol:

 

[user 7737]

look at some of the bands that were popular: Metallica, Janes Addiction, The Jellyfish, Radiohead, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, Tool, Live, Dave Mathews Band, The Black Crowes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Primus, G n R, Pantera, Beck, Weezer, Rage Against the Machine, Blind Melon, REM, Oasis, Alice in Chains, Eric Johnson (hit his pinnicle in the 90s), Collective Soul, etc.

metallica formed in 1981
jane's addiction 1984
soundgarden 1984
rhcp 1983
primus 1986
g'n'r 1985
pantera 1981
beck first tape 1988
etc...
etc...

i don't want to offense anyone but trying to say that music or bands was better in this or that period is absurd...

first, each band is influenced by the period before
second, i think some people think good = well known

each period bring somethings and our own period is quite exciting...

 

[jdurso]

look at some of the bands that were popular: Metallica, Janes Addiction, The Jellyfish, Radiohead, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, Tool, Live, Dave Mathews Band, The Black Crowes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Primus, G n R, Pantera, Beck, Weezer, Rage Against the Machine, Blind Melon, REM, Oasis, Alice in Chains, Eric Johnson (hit his pinnicle in the 90s), Collective Soul, etc.

metallica formed in 1981
jane's addiction 1984
soundgarden 1984
rhcp 1983
primus 1986
g'n'r 1985
pantera 1981
beck first tape 1988
etc...
etc...

i don't want to offense anyone but trying to say that music or bands was better in this or that period is absurd...

first, each band is influenced by the period before
second, i think some people think good = well known

each period bring somethings and our own period is quite exciting...

oh i realize those bands all started their climbs in the 80s but it weas in the 90s where they were at the forefront of the music scene. At that point i would say those bands were at their most influencial. Now some might say Metallica's best albums were in the 80s and while i agree on some level i think they released some **** good stuff in the 90s and actually open the doors for some people who wouldnt usually listen to trash, to their older stuff. Same goes for a lot of the other bands i listed.

as for the good vs well known, those are the bands i thought were both good and well known. yes good is very subjective but thats my take on the best of the 90s.

while i agree each period brings something exciting, i think some era's have more excitement than others... hopefully the next era will be more exciting than this one because we got a flat liner going on right now