Conference napalm::guitar

    
    Well, as an old fart used to playing lots and lots of junk gear
    for many years I must say that I'm disappointed in the general trend
    *away* from just plugging a guitar into an amp in favor of multiple
    amps/effects.
    
    A few columns ago, Andy called Mark Knopfler's setup for "Sultans
    of Swing" was "Pure simplicity"....a reader responded that using three
    amps was not his idea of simplicity.
    
    Of course, maybe I'm just jealous.  As a bassist, the first thing
    that happens live or in a studio is the engineer takes a direct
    line from my instrument so all my expensive amplification is just for the
    benefit of the band......jeez.

    I tend to agree that the more stuff becomes available, the more
    prevalent the perception that such gear is NECESSARY in order to
    sound good.  Used to be, if ya had a fuzz box and reverb on your
    amp, you were ready for anything.  Now, I'd just love to have some
    of the stuff I see advertised, and I will admit that I'd be loath
    to give up channel switching and go back to using a BIG MUFF, but,
    somehow I suspect that ten grand worth of equipment wouldn't make
    me play the slightest bit better - noiser maybe . . . 

    The big problem as I see it is that the magazines have become nothing
    more than showcases for the manufacturers. I seldom if ever see
    bad reviews of products (everything is always just a great product).
    I see this not just in the music industry but in others as well.
    The lack of quality reviews for the average consumer caused me to
    cancel GP nearly ten years ago, and over the years I've tried a
    number of mags, nearly all of which I have cancelled after a year
    or so.                                    
    
    dbii

    I have witnessed a tremendous tendency to go overboard on equipment.
    "What you have" becomes more important than "what you do with it".
    
    I even have known people to buy a particular piece of equipment without
    having the faintest idea of its function.  Not just how it works!  At
    the time of the purchase, they couldn't even tell me what effect it
    had on the sound.
    
    However, I don't completely agree that getting a particular piece of
    equipment won't make you a better player or make you play better.
    
    First, if I had never got my Boogie I would probably not be playing
    guitar today.  It allowed me to get the kind of sound I wanted, and
    it allowed me to do it at a low enough volume not to disturb the
    neighbors.  Plus, I remember like it was yesterday the thrill I had
    playing it for the first time.   That thrill continued, and it often
    is what inspired me to practice.
    
    Second, if I can't get the sound I want out of my guitar and the
    rest of my equipment, I play lousy.  Sometimes though, it just does
    EXACTLY what I want it to do, and I get real hyper and play very
    well.  It's part of the difference between a "good night" and a
    "bad night".
    
    3) I have a standard speech I used to give to parents of
    young students (at various times I've taught tennis and music
    to kids of varying age).
    
    The typical situation is that the parent buys the kid a totally
    cruddy racket that *I* couldn't play with (or loans them their old
    guitar with the strings 1/2" off the frets) and tells the kid "if
    you stick with it, we'll buy you a good one".
    
    The kid gets totally frustrated because no matter how hard he tries,
    he just can't do anything with it and eventually gives up. 
    
    Time and time again, I've seen a good quality racket have an
    "incentive" effect, AFTER it's been bought.  That is, it's a special
    possession to the kid and he gets motivated to use it.
    
    	db 

	I was dissapointed in Andy's column also,but suspected
that most of what he was going to write about would have very little
to offer to me personally. I know from personal experiance that it
really takes alot of thought and time to put a system together that
works and has limited noise regardless of your budget. Trial and
Error can be a costly way of finding this perfect system. Every
time I throw down the money I feel like I buying a used car.
	I may have a taste and an ear for a Dumble,but definately not 
the budget or even a need right now.
	Music today has so much processing that if a guitarist today
is trying to perform in a cover situation it is a little more complicated
than just showing up with an amp and a guitar to play. I've known a few
good guitarists who switched to bass just to avoid this technology
crunch. As far as the general public is concerned they associate certain
sounds with certain music. I'm sure I voice many guitarist feelings
when I say I'd rather show up with a guitar and amp and just play. But
my question is for who?
	I really think that there are enough people in this conference
(or company) which have better technical knowledge to be able to talk 
sound and performance systems. I have found it extremely frustrating to 
go into music stores and run into sales people who lack the knowledge to 
assist you in putting together a system keeping in mind a budget.
	I would be real interested in starting discussions around problems 
and ways to get sound from equipment setups for live performance. With
all the Midi guitar preamps available they seem to be a good solution
to an age old problem of not having enough feet and aging back problems.
but what about speakers and power amp's?
	I liked to see what people use.... and what "bugs" they've had 
and what kind of music they play. If you don't feel comfortable discussing
even mail to Video::Busenbark would be good....

							Rick

    
    Actually, Rick, the speakers are often the most archaic part of
    a modern guitar amp setup.  As a bassist I've been watching the
    trends in bass cabinets changing over the years.  The old standby
    twin 15 is no longer king of the hill as biamping and Thiele aligned
    cabinets and other technological advances have totally changed (for
    the better, mostly) reproduction of the electric bass.
    
    Guitarists however still seem to love full range systems built around
    12" drivers, with a few proponents of 10" or 15" drivers.  Many
    will be surprised at the new Scholz Rockman stacks, as they look
    like four 12 cabs, but have a 15", a 10", a tweeter and a three-way
    crossover built in!!!!  This is certainly a more hi-fi approach
    well suited to all the signal processing in use today. 

    Another Scholz idea is that the "head" is really a rack that will
    hold either Rockmodules or normal rack gear.  It includes a power
    strip built in (you listening, db?) and I wouldn't be surprised
    if it has some kind of surge protection.
    
    Most players really use their speakers as signal processors anyway,
    since in large rooms, the amp is miked and run through a hi-fi PA.
    Notice that guitarists almost never go direct while 99% of bassists do.
    The GT preamp with the Speaker Emulator, the Kolbe emulator, Scholz
    Rockmans (the headphone amps that is) and "filtered" direct boxes like
    the Peavey DRI and one I saw in GP (forget the name), where they filter
    the straight tone to have the frequency response of a 12" speaker, all
    point to this trend.  For instance, if you found some little amp like a
    Champ that sounded great, and you could run that into a hi-fi rig to get
    the massive volume, would you still lug around those Marshall stacks? 
    
    I think the two most underrated "effects" today are noise reduction and
    signal switchers.  Both are not flashy effects you can show off but as
    an ex-user of a horrendous four stomp-box setup (back in my top 40
    days), I can attest that the switchers are well worth it.  I recently
    starting experimenting at home with a noise reduction unit similar to
    the Rocktron Hush and it makes a *huge* difference when recording
    overdriven guitar. The signal is dead quiet when not playing, sounds
    great when you are playing and doesn't chop off the fading note like a
    noise gate.
    

    I just have to respond to this, because it's been on my mind a lot
    lately. This note seems to be going two ways. I have to agree
    completely that you should go out and buy the best equipment you can
    afford, because there is little satisfaction to playing on inferior
    instruments. I think part of being a good musician is developing an
    appreciation for the tools you use.
    
    On the other hand (and I know this will be very controversial, but I
    can't resist), modern effects processors do absolutely nothing for me.
    In fact, they tend to eliminate almost everything I know and love about
    the sound of an electric guitar. To me there is nothing more sterile
    than the sound of a compressed, digitally processed guitar. I'm not a
    complete dinosaur -- I've heard and have used some effects like delay
    and chorus done very tastefully. But if I want to listen to a
    synthesizer, I'll listen to a synthesizer, thank you. When I want to
    hear raunch, bite, whine, feeling, *soul* and *blues*, give me a plain
    old amplified electric (or acoustic) any day.
    
    I'm not saying people shouldn't experiment, and I like to do so myself.
    It's true that the costs of musical equipment, and the hassles
    associated with the technology have gone through the roof, and turned
    what was once a street-boy's foolishness into a technologist's dream.
    But if you have the money and the time and interest, go right ahead.
    I still haven't heard anything, however, that could even begin to
    replace the simple, raw sound of electric rock music.
    
    Glad I got that off my chest.
    
    - Ram

    My main complaint about nearly all processors is that they don't
    haeve enough headroom, so now I have to compress my guitar to use
    the effects without alot of noise..and unfortunatley nobody sells
    an expander (to counteract the compressor) that's worth a shit.
    Also most 'effects loops' on amps are useless, especially the one
    on my Fender studio lead as the return requires such a hot signal
    to get any volume that I can't use it.
    
    
    dbii

    Yeah, Ram!  I like/listen to all kinds of music, from primal acoustic
    blues to very processed guitar playing, and I've played around with
    a lot of effects, but nothing gets me in quite the same way as a
    simple guitar/amp setup, although one development I do like is channel
    switching, to enable transition from clean to distorted (as opposed
    to using a fuzzbox)
    
    I just love a good rhythm player using a Tele....
    
    As an example of uplifting, (fairly) effect-free, adventurous but
    not inaccessible guitar-based music, you need look no further than
    Television's "Marquee Moon" lp
    
    Bob

    A man after my own heart! I am also a fan of channel switching, which I
    do not think of as a real "effect". I use a Seymour-Duncan amp myself,
    which many people regard as a hi-tech kind of amp, but is really just
    two classic tube amps in one box. I happen to like Fender-like rhythm
    sounds, and Marshall-like lead sounds, and I feel I can get both pretty
    well. With a bit of fooling around I could get an even wider variety
    of sounds, but I don't usually bother. With limited time to play, I'm
    more interested in making noise than in fooling with knobs, buttons and
    displays.
    
    On the other hand, if someone could build something that has the tone
    of a tube amp, the power of a stack, the flexibility of
    channel-switching, and get it into a smaller box, I'm all for it. I'd
    rather see technology moving in the direction of making these things
    smaller and cheaper than more complicated and more expensive.
    
    - Ram

    
    I think the general trend in effects is to bring recording studio
    processing to the stage and home studio. 
    
    However, since recordings, even CDs, lack much of the prescence
    of live music, this approach is a bit short sighted.  I think
    a Rockman, for instance, sounds incredible but it doesn't really
    sound like a guitar playing through an amp, it sounds like a
    *recording* of a guitar playing through an amp.

    

Re. Brian
	In my aging memory banks I had forgotten about speakers,cab etc...
 But this I believe even complicates sound more. My situation is such that
my amp is miked through a sound system,and acts as a stage monitor. However
I have to create the tone or sound on stage to be copied. The rockman idea
was to use direct lines to the sound board and 3 way speaker cabs were monitors.
Similiar but not the same. eliminating mike's as a variable when using a 
direct box is still a good idea. The purpose for behind puting all the 
instruments through a pa use to be for volume. However these days it's
a balancing the sound and tone are as important. Besides the last thing
I want to do is to cart around is a stack of Marshall 4-12 cabs.
unless they are lightweight cardboard   :^)     I will have to listen
    closer to hear if it is live or a memorex sound hmmmmm

re.others..I agree
	 No effect will replace profiency some basics are necessary even
the effect can be seen as an instrument in some cases. When I taught music 
I saw students whose instrument's would have been better off destined for 
someones wall for decoration. However there were people like Django Rhien-
hardt,Charlie Christian,John Lee Hooker and Robert Johnson who I'm sure
also played some real boat anchors.
	The sad part are the students who really worked hard to play these 
relics and parents who wouldn't or couldn't buy there son or daughter a decent
or better instrument. There also the kids who don't work hard. Gifted and 
hard working kids usually don't get the attention that the mainstream pupils 
get. Music programs are typically setup for the mainstream. 

	If all I had to do was show up with a gtr and amp for a job and play 
blues or jazz I'd be there....but those job's are few and far between....and
pay less.
	I'm not real pleased with any of the effects processors I've seen
and heard. The best being an ADA MP1 the worst being a GP8. A midi switcher
really eliminates a lot of the fast foot motion.

	"street-boy's foolishness"(nice term!)

	I think it's too bad also,when technology takes over instead of the 
player/composer,however I still feel that this is still controled by the
player. It's provided tools to be used which in the right hands can create
and do incredible things,it's just anyone can abuse them. 

						Enough babbling

							   Rick

    I can't remember who said it, it may have been someone like Andy
    Summers, who uses a lot of effects in his playing, but the gist
    of the statement was that at the final, in the hypothetical desert
    island situation, all he would really need to be happy with as a
    guitar player would be a good acoustic six-string......
                          
    Bob

    Funny, I rarely ever play my electric at home; I use an acoustic 6
    string. The reason for this is that I'd rather explore something that
    I have to work for. I Find that things like: Distortion, Flanging,
    Compression, Octave-Dividing, Chorusing and Delay (as in slap back
    echo) are real easy to add to your skills as long as your skill set
    is up to par. I never considered myself an exceptional guitar player,
    but I always try to explore styles that sound interesting & sometimes
    stumble into the things that I putz within the context of different
    songs. When I used to play exclusively on my Electric & played with
    effects, I never seemed to try to expand on what I knew. I guess if
    you have only the basics to work with, you don't get distracted quite
    so easily (I wish that the MIDI synth stuff was this easy to simplify).

						    Jens

    RE:.14
    
    	I do the same thing. When learning, I never use the electric,
    I always go with the acoustic because I have more distractions
    with the electric. Fiddling with the amp controls, the guitar
    controls and the effects tend to take away from my concentration
    when trying to learn new material. Besides, I make alot of mistakes
    while learning and I don't particularly want to amplify them.
    	Like Ram, I enjoy the sound of an unprocessed signal but I
    also think that technology has offered some processing equipment
    that can really inhance the music when used correctly. Nothing
    is worse that a signal dripping wet with flanged echo through a
    distortion unit with heavy chorus set on a 4 second delay. With
    effects I am a firm believer that less is more.
    
    Now where did I put my wah-wah.....
    DonH
    
    

    I just spent major bucks to get that processed guitar sound
    (Roland GP-8).
    
    I used to wax superlative about the sound of unprocessed guitar,
    and still appreciate that as a "classic sound".
    
    However, I'm experimental by nature, and I like to do as many
    things as I possibly can.
    
    Playing straight is fine to achieve a particular sound, but it is
    also very limiting.  Your standard straight guitar player is playing
    "rhythm" or "lead" which is fine, but I get bored listening to 
    people who stay within those confines.  (This is very evident
    in looking at my influences (Morse, Steve Howe, etc.)
    
    With processed guitar you can do other things like "background",
    "pads", "noise", "effects", or just introduce an unfamiliar tonal
    change.
    
    I find the statement about "if I wanted synthesizer" to be ironically
    and totally counter to my use of signal processing.
    
    It's really hard to create a "special" sound with a just synthesizer.
    Generally speaking, an unprocessed synth sounds like a synth.  That is,
    it's immediately identifiable as having been produced on a synth. 
    You're starting out with a limited number of oscillators and that sorta
    bounds you into a category of sounds.
    
    With the guitar, you start out with an instrument that's tonally
    very rich (compared to an oscillator) and has lots of "expression"
    techniques (bends, attack, vibrato, harmonics, etc. etc.) that
    are very hard to get without sounding machine-like from a synth,
    which typically understands only a limit number of expressive
    type "modulators" (velocity, pressure, wheels, etc).
    
    These days, I find myself tending toward doing "pad" type sounds 
    almost entirely with my guitar and effects. 
    
    For example, many of you have MIDIVERB IIs.  Take a guitar and
    run it through something like the "Bloom" effect, and do some stuff
    like bar or volume knob, or tone control over a spacey (wide
    intervals) chord (like a C5 add9).
    
    Does that sound like anything you can easily get from a synth?
    To me, it doesn't.  What I like about it most is that there is
    no "suggestion" of any particular instrument in that sound.
    I find that quality appealing.
    
    I really have no problem with people who like to play sorta
    "classic" or "traditional" type music with recognizable instruments.
    I do too - but not ALWAYS.
    
    I think the only problem I have is when I sense any disdain for
    processing, or any kind of "puristic" attitude regarding processing
    among other things.
    
    I also reject the commonly held belief that there are people who
    substitute technology for talent.   I feel the flaw there is the
    lack of recognition that using technology to produce something
    special is as much a talent as the abilty to bend a note "just right"
    or anything else.
    
    	db

    db makes some very good points and I wouldn't disagree with any
    of them.  What bugs me though is the attitude that you NEED a rack
    of effects processing to play guitar nowadays.  Things like technique,
    subtlety, taste, and dynamics are getting lost in the flood of "cool
    sounds".  While people like Dave may be really using the technology in
    creative ways, too often I hear players covering up a lack of interesting
    ideas with a variety of sounds.  I think on the whole, its having
    a negative effect on the state of the art (just my opinion).
    
    Paganini didn't need an effects processor.  There's still a lot
    of mileage left in a good guitar and a good amp.
    
    /rick

    
	Keep in mind this is just my opinion on the GP8,and I'd really 
like to hear someone who knows what they are doing using one,maybe we can get
a demo in the future db?
	I have never felt playing a musical instrument to be limiting
other than by it's physical range. This is why I didn't jump to add a 
guitar synthe to my arsenal of tools. I didn't want to be limited by
to creating a synthe part with guitar and be limited to range. Just
like Larry Carlton,Robbin Ford,Joe Satriani are capable of using all
the variables,tools and there instrument play expressive music. By listening
to John Coltrane,Miles Davis,Randy and Michael Brecker,Wes Montgomery
they too use sounds and tone towards expressiveness.
	Excuse my ignorance what are"Pad"sounds I don't own a midiverb,and
what is C5 add9 is this a C7 add9?
        I agree,people who know how to use there hardware and know how to play
have some special talent and effects are an enhancement to the resident talent 
which I believe comes first. To me a classic sound as to a chorused sound as
to a delay is another sound to cover. I'd like to rely on my music not
    an effect.

						Only an opinion.....

							Rick

    	So are you playing the third of a C chord in the bass(6str) and adding
    a 7th also(and another third)? Or is it played like a triad? 

    	Dave, are you using the GP8 with a JC120 or your MKII
    
    						Rick
    

    Pad/c5add9/boogie or JC
    
    re: C5 + 9
    
    Larry's explanation is right on the money.
    
    It's not a "proper" chord.  As Larry said, it doesn't imply any
    particular tonality which is sorta what motivates its use typically.
    
    re: What is a "pad"
    
    I haven't seen a formal definition of it, but I think of it as a
    sound that's used to sorta "fill out" the gaps audio space.  Its typically
    a sustained sound.  Strings are often used as pads.
    
    re: What do you use your GP-8 with.
    
    I've only had it a little while, but I intend to use it primarily
    with my JC-120.  For one thing, many of the GP's effects are stereo
    and sound MUCH MORE dramatic in stereo (the JC is stereo for those
    of you who aren't familiar with it).
    
    The other reason for using the JC is that it is a very "clean" amp.
    The Boogie sorta limits the span between the different GP-8 sounds.
    
    BTW, I don't plan on bringing the Boogie to most gigs.  The GP/JC
    combo is certainly more than enough for T-40.
    
    re: Demos
    
    Anytime.  Although I can probably give you a more snazzy demo once
    I've setup some banks of sounds.  I'm in "recording mode" at the
    moment and haven't spent much time with it other than to run
    through the sounds, understand the controls, and come up with
    some sounds for the stuff I'm recording.
    
    	db

    All of the previous replies (well most) have reinforced what I was
    trying to say in the base note:  I wish Andy Brauer *would* talk
    about GP-8's, MIDverb II's, Multiverb's, ME-5's, etc.!!  These are
    the things [I think] most guitarists are interested in and can afford,
    not Soldano's, Dumbles, Quad Preamps, and modified [by famous tech-
    nicians] Marshalls, etc. Nothing wrong with modified amps, I suppose,
    as long as the price tag isn't out of "the average" player's means.
    
    As far as to use effects or not, I think that's up to each individual.
    I used to frown on effects processors, now I want a Multiverb so
    bad I can taste it! ;^)
    
    joe. 

    
    Now that more and more processors are coming out with distortion
    in addition to reverb, delay, etc. it seems to me that it causes
    a real problem.
    
    OK, I have my Brand Z amp with an effects loop, and I plug my processor
    into the loop.  I notice (as mnay here have noticed) that while
    the delay-type effects sound OK, the distortion &/or compression
    sounds bite the big one.
    
    OK, I plug my guitar into the processor and then run this into my
    amp....now I get wads of noise on the delay-type effects but the
    distortion/compression is fine.
    
    Do boxes like the GP-8 have a loop that allows you to do this:
    
    1. Patch guitar into effect.
    
    2. Add distortion and compression.
    
    3. Patch out of effect into amp.
    
    4. Patch from amp effects loop into effect.
    
    5. Add delay effects.
    
    6. Patch from effect back into amp's loop.
    
    This *can't* be done on devices like the GSP-5, SGE, etc.  I'm sure
    this is because although they do multiple effects, they are all
    done via digital processing.  To do an effects loop would require
    two processors.  The GP-8 is more like a collection of stomp box
    guts tossed into a common case and controlled by a microprocessor,
    so the routing of an effects loop would be possible, but can the
    loop point be inserted between any two effects?  
     
    It seems to me this would a very useful feature if you want to continue
    using conventional guitar amps.    
    

    I have a GP-8 and I run directly into it from my guitar and then
    into my Marshall with NO noise anywhere !  What kind of processor
    are you using ?  I will admit the Compressor is noisy when used
    in conjuction with either Distortion or Overdrive, but that's almost
    to be expected, by me anyway.  Oh yeah, and the GP-8 is more than
    a collection of "stomp box guts ...", I haven't had to replace a
    9V battery yet ...;^)
    
    
    
    				Scary ...

    Brian,
    
    You want some aspects of the GP-8 to run in the effects loop of
    your amp.  You can't do that.
    
    If however, you have a seperate pre-amp and power amp, you might
    be able to run the pre-amp into the one of the effects loops of 
    the GP-8, and I think that would accomplish the same thing.
    
    I don't quite remember where the effects loop appears in the GP-8
    signal chain but I think it's where you'd want it to be (basically
    before the delay effects, but after the sound shaping type effects).
    
    	db

    Re: .27
    
>    If however, you have a seperate pre-amp and power amp, you might
>    be able to run the pre-amp into the one of the effects loops of 
>    the GP-8, and I think that would accomplish the same thing.
 
    That would be OK, because an effects loop on most amps is a patch
    point between the preamp and power amp stages.
    
       

    The only thing I'm not sure of is whether the output of the
    preamp is at an appropriate level for the efx return of the
    GP-8.