Conference napalm::guitar

    I suspect you're going to get "buried" with replies to this one. So
    I'll try to keep it simple. 
    
    First off switching from "rhythm" to "lead" is really changing from one
    sound to another. In the simplest case, this is just add some volume
    for solos:
    
    	1. The best solution is to get a Mesa Boogie Tri-Axis MIDI preamp.
    It can store up to 90 preset "sounds" that can be accessed via a MIDI
    foot pedal. If you don't want to spring $1400 for the Tri-Axis &
    another $200 - $300 for the MIDI foot pedal, you may have to be content
    with something less than "perfect" either in sound or in operation.
    There are other similar less pricey units available. Test drive some.
    
    	2. Multi-channel amps are common these days. They typically have a
    high gain & a low gain channel & some kind of A/B switching built in.
    There are also quite a few models (notably Peavey) with A, B, "both" 
    switching.
    
    	3. Another approach is to use two separate amps. One optimized for
    rhythm, & one optimized for lead, & an outboard A/B switch. The Roland 
    JC-120 is legendary in this application.
    
    	4. Any stomp pedal that has a volume control can be used to perform
    the lead/rhythm switching function. One of my favorites was the VOX Cry
    Baby wah-wah pedal which has a little boost built in so that you could
    leave it resting just above the button 'til the solo comes around, then
    kick it in like a stomp box.
    
    	5. Guitars with 2 or more *independently controllable* pickups can
    be set up to have 2 or more sounds with vastly different volume (&
    tone) settings accessible via the pickup switch. On your Les Paul, set
    the bridge pickup volume at 10 (or 11) & the neck pickup volume at 2 or
    3 & use the neck pickup for rhythm & the bridge pickup for lead. The
    middle position (both pickups) can be useful for lots of other stuff
    too. This has the drawback of being inherently noisey in the rhythm
    position, so make sure you use only a true vintage Gibson Les Paul.
    The Fender Jazzmaster from the '50's & '60's had a really useful group
    of switches that allowed you to set up 2 sets of sounds using both
    pickups for each sound & switching between them via another switch. I
    call it the first "programmable" guitar. Very few others do this unless
    you're into hacking.
    
    	6. Use the guitar volume control. Yuk ! These are always scratchy;
    you can't really tell whether you're set right without a lot of pregame
    fiddling; & waaay too inexpensive for any modern sounding music. Eddie
    Van Halen does this with the guitar without a tone control. He makes up
    for the cost effectiveness though by using an expensive vibrato
    tailpiece. Unless you play like he does, this will probably be too
    limiting for live use.
    
    	7. One of my favorite "tricks" is to use a combination of 2 or more
    of the above, for example the pickup switch & the stomp box
    simultaneously. This makes the solos sound much different from the
    rhythm. 
    
    	8. A method that's rapidly gaining popularity is to attach a
    separate piezo type pickup to the electric guitar & use it for rhythm.
    This sounds like an amplified acoustic. Christian industries makes
    these pickups.
    
    	9. You can trust your sound man to do everything for you. This
    works especially well if you don't care what you sound like.
    
    Probably the most important consideration is what you want the 2
    different sounds to sound like. If they're similar enough, the simpler
    methods may work quite well, otherwise, the sky's the limit.
    
    Paul     

    >	1. The best solution is to get a Mesa Boogie Tri-Axis MIDI preamp.
    
    Gaaccckkkk...did you leave off the smiley faces????  How the heck have
    people been dealing with this problem since 1951?  Why do they put
    volume knobs on guitars?
    
    Oh yeah, there are volume pedals out there which allow you to set a
    "minimum" (non-zero) volume, so that backing off on the pedal all the
    way gives you a "low" volume and flat out is your "high" volume.  Boss
    has one like this...
    
    							Brian

    RE: Gaaccckkkk...did you leave off the smiley faces????
    I guess it's a matter of taste. Once you play through a Mesa Boogie
    Tri-Axis MIDI preamp, you'll wonder how people ever survived since
    1951 without it.
     
    My main objection to both pedals & (guitar) volume knob games is
    *NOIZE*.
    
    I used to carry nothing but a boost/wah & a Les Paul when playing on
    "foreign" equipment & I survived, but if I'd had my "druthers" ...
    
    BTW, while you're checkin' out that Tri-Axis, don't forget to pick up
    some mean, clean MIDI rack EFX to put into the loop. The Guitar World
    with Vernon Reid (Living Color) on the cover has an article showing how
    *he* solves this age-old problem.
    
    Paul
    
    P.S. ;-) ;-) ;-)  
     

>    *NOIZE*.

    ?

    NOIZE:
    When you turn down the volume pot on the guitar, the signal/noise ratio
    goes down like Linda Lovelace. The inherent thermal noise of the
    resistor is involved as well as the contact surface. You can improve
    things with high quality pots, low impedance pickups (another can o'
    worms) & good clean contacts, but it will never be as quiet as a wire. 
    
    Stomp boxes are notorious for cheap (noisey) interstage & active
    components. All this gets amplified when placed between guitar & amp. 
    Weak batteries cause gallons of hiss, & extra cabling means more
    scratchy connections. Jeff Beck partially overcame this difficulty by
    desinging a sort of "Dolby" for guitar. He boosted the treble at the
    guitar & then cut it back at the amp which resulted in a cleaner sound.
    
    Paul

    Hmmmm, strikes me that going from a backing volume level to a soloing
    volume level shouldn't present much of a noise problem, unless you're
    playing through some open-loop gain fuzz box. But with all the junk
    people put in their signal paths these days, maybe you've got a point.

    This is a big issue for anyone owning a Mark III and earlier Boogie.
    
    Perhaps someone can explain it to me, but I've always found that
    the volume knob on my guitar has a VERY big effect on tone, whereas
    a volume pedal doesn't seem to affect tone nearly as much.  Therefore,
    back when I was playing a lot of guitar in my bands, I tended to use
    a volume pedal.
    
    Now, I play only half a set of guitar and often none at all.  Since
    I play so little I don't like to spend much time setting up my guitar
    stuff so I just give with a guitar, a cord and a Boogie and don't
    bother with the volume pedal.   Just don't want to bother setting it
    up because about half the time, it never gets used anyway.
    
    	lazy db

    >RE: Gaaccckkkk...did you leave off the smiley faces????
    >I guess it's a matter of taste. Once you play through a Mesa Boogie
    >Tri-Axis MIDI preamp, you'll wonder how people ever survived since
    >1951 without it.
    
    I really like this guy!!!
    :-)
    
    Save yer nickels kidz!!
    
    
    RE: Noize 
    
    I dunno if I'd say that backing off your volume induces much more
    noize (btw- the reference to Ms Lovelace had me rollin'!), but I 
    would say that ones TONE goes right out the window...
    
    Don't gt me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to back off your volume
    control (like to cllean up your sound), but to boost your volume?  That
    won't cut it for me.
    
    As for how MUCH you should boost it?  Who knows?  I'd guess it depends 
    on your ear and the ears (bleeding?) of your band mates.
    
    It's very difficult, IMHO, to get a substantial increase in volume with
    your average amp (marshall, fender, roland) without trashing your tone.
    I tried for years to have a simple amp give me three flavors - clean
    rhythm, dirty rhythm and a volume boost for leads.  I settled in MIDI
    land with things like Mp1's or a TriAxis.  Why skimp?
    
    Whats the big deal with the difference between a regular amp anna box
    like a TriAxis with a power amp?  They do the same thing...
    
    jc

    >Whats the big deal with the difference between a regular amp anna box
    >like a TriAxis with a power amp?  They do the same thing...
    
    The big deal is it's a bit extreme to think that you have to buy an
    expensive preamp just to be able to get your guitar louder for solos!
    
    I understand (I think!) the original reason that the TriAxis was
    suggested, but c'mon, there have been a lot of players wanging on gits
    for the last forty-some-odd years and they survived with such primitive
    techniques as using the volume knob, so I still gotta believe another
    box is not *always* the answer.  In fact it usually is *never* the
    answer 8^)  8^)
    
    I'm a firm beliver in having the right tool for the job, but there are
    limits!  
    
    OK, I'll go crawl back into my hole now  8^)
    
    						       Grumpy

    A simple cap-resistor across the guitar volume pot (input to wiper)
    preserves tone/clarity at all settings. I posted this mod in here once.
    I forget where but it's probably gone now anyway. I suspect that volume
    pedals always had this type of circuit.

    RE: Volume pedals
    
    How about a MIDI Continuous Controller assigned to your preamp
    master volume.  No tonal change at all and go from mild to wild
    by flexing your ankle.
     
    Yipe!
    
    Just play loud as hell ALL the time, and don't worry about it...
    :-)
    
    jc

    See note 2461.13 for cap-resistor mod to vol control.

    Welp, fer starters, the big deal about MIDI preamps vs. stomp boxes is
    *programmability*. There's other reason too numerous to mention, but
    the number of scratchy interconnects should be minimized if possible.
    
    IMHO there is no argument to be made in favor of volume pots over MIDI
    racks (or vice versa). A volume pot does one main thing with some 
    undesirable side effects. If that's all you want to do, & if you can stand 
    the side effects, dig in. *Typically*, what happens though is once you hear
    what can be done with more sophisticated equipment, that volume pot just
    isn't ever quite good enough again. 
    The Marshall JCM900 is a classic case of how they managed to let the
    side effects overtake the process. People with JCM800's wanted more &
    more gain, so Jim stuck another preamp stage in the chain & voilla,
    gain galore. Too bad the *sound* was altered in the process.
    Getting 2 (decent) sounds from one amp is enough of a challenge, 3 is next
    to impossible unless the amp was equipped for the purpose. The latest
    Mesa amps (MK-IV, Dual Rectifier, etc.) have several switch selectable
    sounds that are independent or nearly independent of each other, so you
    can pretty much dial in whatever you want & hop to it using the foot
    switch. The Tri-Axis takes this even further by making *all* of the
    parameters (clean volume, treble, bass, master volume, etc.) fully
    independent & programmable (& accessible through MIDI). This way,
    *anything* that you can dial in, you can store & switch to by a foot
    switch. I think you can store up to 90 programs, which is like having
    90 separate preamps (each set how ever you want it) from which to
    choose. They also have switchable power amps which compounds that by a
    factor of 16.
    
    A lot of this is driven not so much by the desire to go from lead to
    rhythm like a normal humanoid, but rather by trying to cover tunes live
    that may have taken 14 takes & half a dozen guitars to record in the
    studio. That gets back to the business of what's acceptable *to you*.
    
    Again, you don't *have* to have a Tri-Axis to get programmability, or
    good tones, but unless there's a chance you'd buy one, don't even
    bother to listen to one, because once you do, you'll wonder how you ever 
    got along without it.
    
    BTW, that cap/resistor across the volume pot sounds much better if it's
    done on a vintage Gibson Les Paul that's played through a Tri-Axis. 
    (Did I mention silver bearing solder, polypropylene cap & Holco
    resistor ?)
    
    Paul
      

    This is a good note.
    
    	Since when do guitarists have a problem with not enough volume?
    
    I think it is all a compromise. I don't have a sound guy out front
    so I have to do the volume changes myself, I personally think the 
    lead sound should be really really louder than the rythmn sound, it
    has got to cut.....if people in the first three rows ears don't explode 
    immediately on going into the first note of your solo ...turn up!! 8^).
    
    	No seriously, I think set your lead sound up so that you get the 
    tone you want at the loudest possible setting, then check your rythmn
    if the lead is to loud bring it down ...easier to control tonal color
    than increasing, once this is set ..let the PA do the work...the
    important thing is tone..not volume IMO.  As long as you can hear
    yourself over the band let the PA do the rest of the work.
    
    Personally I think the Programmable preamp approach is the easiest to 
    use.
    P.K.
    

    buy a Tube Screamer......

    Dawg has the right idea.  Actually, Buck mentioned something way back
    when that seemed like a good, simple solution.  Use an EQ stomp box,
    preferably one that has a gain knob that'll give some boost to the
    signal.  Have the EQ off for rhythm and kick it in for leads.  Besides
    the boost, the EQ settings can be really useful in getting the lead
    sound to stand out.
    
    All this assumes that you want basically similar sounds for rhythm and
    lead, just enhanced.

The EQ solution is a very good one.  Another (which I use) is a 
compressor/sustain pedal.  I tend to set the level control to be
just louder than normal when I'm strumming a full chord *hard* with
the guitar's volume all the way up.

When the compressor is off, I have flexibility for strumming, etc.
using the guitar's volume control.

Kick the compressor in and *single notes* cut through at the high
water mark.  This is also effective if you tend to mix chords and
single notes in your leads (e.g. Outside Woman Blues).

or, you could buy an H&K Access preamp.... (buy me one too, would
you?)

Geoff

    This also assumes that tou can stand the cruddy sound of the EQ stomp
    box. 
    
    You might want to try using the EQ on *rhythm* & *not* on lead. This
    will allow you to play your lead solos in the "bypass" mode of the
    stomp box, which is usually less grungy.
    
    Another great alternative that no one's mentioned yet is to use
    compression. This way, a single "lead" note can be made to sound as
    loud as a whole "rhythm" chord. You can do this at the mixer board, or
    on the floor. The right settings of threshold & compression ratio can
    allow both a reasonable lead sound & a reasonable rhythm sound to
    coexist.
    
    Paul

    Golly, I never knew boosting your volume to take a solo was like rocket
    science. And to think all these years I relied on a 250K pot between my
    pickups and the coax connecting it to the grid of a 12AX7. Ahh, when
    life was simpler.

    This line of discussion bothers me.  There seems to be a premise here
    that you somehow need a massive increase in volume when you take a
    solo.  For most music, I don't think you do.  If your lead can't be
    heard at a reasonable volume, then maybe you should think about fixing
    your *arrangement* rather then boosting your volume.  When you're
    taking a solo, other parts should be background parts, and if they're
    stomping you, that's the problem, not your lack of volume.  I tend to
    like sparse arrangements and rarely need very much volume boost.  
    
    It makes me cringe when I see Joe Guitar Hero get up there and his
    volume doubles when he goes to take a solo, so that it's just blaring
    in your face.  Hey, solos are nice and all, but they ARE still part of
    the SONG, right?
    
    re: Rick
    
>  Actually, Buck mentioned something way back
>    when that seemed like a good, simple solution.  Use an EQ stomp box,
>    preferably one that has a gain knob that'll give some boost to the
>    signal.  Have the EQ off for rhythm and kick it in for leads.  Besides
>    the boost, the EQ settings can be really useful in getting the lead
>    sound to stand out.
 
    That's exactly what I do.  Not only does it give me a little bit of a
    signal level boost, but I boost the mids a bit and it makes the guitar
    sound stand out a little better.  I'd much rather hear a guitar stand
    out because of it's tonality rather then it's volume.
    
    If I want to use a sound that's substantially different from what I'm
    playing with, I'll change amp channels or use a different effect.
    
    I knew one player that said he used a chorus when he did solos in his
    country band to make 'em stand out (personally, I think that tends to
    push 'em back in the mix, but he said it worked for him).
    
    re: Paul
    
>    This also assumes that tou can stand the cruddy sound of the EQ stomp
>    box. 
    
    Guitar lead parts are intended to stand out, but I don't think anyone's
    going to notice the small bit of extra noise added by an EQ stomp of
    reasonable quality in a live scenerio.  These are *much* quieter then
    the old fuzz boxes and other *really* noisy stuff that people have been
    using over the years.  I've never heard a member of an *audience*
    complain about how noisy someone's sound was, even if it was hiss city.
    
    Think about the players that are the most memorable for you and I'll
    bet that most of 'em didn't have a big rack full of custom stuff.  One
    of my favorite rock players was Randy Rhodes, and he used a hand full
    of cheezy old stomp boxes (mostly MXR stuff, if I remember right).  I
    always thought his tone was very cool!
    
    I read an interview with Paul Gilbert not too long ago where he said
    he'd rethought his approach to his guitar tone by looking back at all
    the players who's tone was memorable for him and he found that *all* of
    the people that impressed him with cool tones were using what he'd
    considered crappy equipment.  He started using stuff like fuzz boxes
    and such after that.
    
>    You might want to try using the EQ on *rhythm* & *not* on lead. This
>    will allow you to play your lead solos in the "bypass" mode of the
>    stomp box, which is usually less grungy.
    
    My biggest problem with this approach is that it takes the assumption
    that the lead sound is the most important thing you're gonna use in the
    song.  I'm sorry, but I completely disagree.  A lead is just fluff,
    icing on the cake.  I play rhythm in *every* song, leads in some, no
    leads in others.  If anything's gonna get sacrificed, it's not gonna be
    my rhythm sound.
    
    I see this kind of attitude from a lot of players, and I used to have
    it myself.  I used to work really hard to get that "ultimate" lead 
    sound, it was the most important thing, and I was never happy with my
    guitar sound, ever.  I've only been happy with my guitar sound since I
    started worrying about my *rhythm* sound.  The lead stuff fell into
    place after that (or maybe I just stopped worrying about it, I donno). 
    
>    Another great alternative that no one's mentioned yet is to use
>    compression. 
    
    See the note about 1 or 2 before your's...
    
    Greg
                                                                           

    RE: Greg and Paul Gilbert
    
    Gilbert uses an Mp1...  
    

>    Gilbert uses an Mp1...  
    
    Absolutely not.  He dumped that thing years ago.  Last I read, he was
    using those Ampeg high gain tube amps and "cheesy stomp boxes".
    
    Greg

    RE several:
    >My biggest problem with this approach is that it takes the assumption
    >    that the lead sound is the most important thing you're gonna use in
    > the song.  I'm sorry, but I completely disagree.  A lead is just fluff,
    > icing on the cake.  I play rhythm in *every* song, leads in some, no
    >    leads in others.  If anything's gonna get sacrificed, it's not
    >gonna be my rhythm sound.
    
    Somewhere back there I think I mentioned that this depends on what you
    want or what sounds good *to you*, so what exactly are you disagreeing
    with ???
    
    >   See the note about 1 or 2 before your's...
    
    My pappy used to call this kind of sitcheashun a "notes corlision".
    I reckon' you guyz wit' awl yer fancy, new fandangled, spel checkers &
    Alpha-bit cormputers dun got some ultra so-fisticaded way 'o makin' it
    from not happennin'. I'm still dion' it th' ol' fashion' way.
    
    My basic philosophy is still, "Get a Tri-Axis & quit complainin'".
                                                    
    Paul 
    

best solution I had came as a stock option when I picked
up my Ibanez MC400 in 79....  It has a built in three stage 45DB
preamp...  Hit the switch on that puppy, and things can jump
off the stage....

I find a good balance, and neva touch my vol. knob.

Solo time, hit the switch,,,  Really cool..

    RE: .15
    
    I agree, buy a Ibanez Tube Screamer (classic) and keep it simple!
    For ~$60.00? It's worth it and they sound excellent with the right
    setup. 
    
    	Fred (who LOVED the sound of his old Strat through a Tube screamer 
              and a Fender Super Reverb). 

    re: -1
    
    Fred,
    BTW,
    that was *my* tube screamer you used at Blind Willie's (case ya didn't
    know) 8^)
    
    When I use the TS with a strat, I turn down the distortion level knob
    (I think it says 'gain') and I use the 'level' knob to raise the volume
    for a solo.  It still clips and sustains a little, but the strat tone still
    shines thru.  When I use it with the Les Paul, I can use a little more
    gain and it actually enhances the Les Paul tone....they are nice units
    for the value!
    
    Noise, what noise?  I hear so much talk about quieter pickups and
    such...I guess my tinnitus is so bad, I can't hear any hiss; either
    that or I'm such an old fashioned, keep it simple, blues/southern rock
    dinosaur, I couldn't give a flyin' squirrel turd about a little
    'noise'...it adds character!  
    
    8^)

     heh heh.....tube screamers suck...yeah...huh...heh heh....ummm..
     ...heh heh.....
    
    

    re: -1
    
    is that Bevis or Butthead?
    
    Buck,
    
    what *doesn't* suck IYHO?
    
    dawg

    RE: -.1
    	Yo Bull Dawg, if *you're* an old geezer...  what does that make me? 
    Darn it man, give me a 1964 Super Reverb, a new Twin '64 reissue, strap
    them together with a Tube Screamer between them and the guitar and I have 
    the opportunity to be a VERY HAPPY GUY!
    
    Rock on,
    	   Fred (who like's the simple things in life... fast boats, fine wine,
    fast cars, hot... (ahh)  hot... (hmmm)  hot guitars (whew, got out of that 
    one) yeah hot guitars with tone too and amps that improve on that tone with
    enough power to break a few windows...  ahh-yup, I like the simple things 
    in life.
    
    	;^)'s
    

    >>Yo Bull Dawg, if *you're* an old geezer...  what does that make me?
    
    I turned 41 last month.....if yer older than that, yer a *really* old
    geezer, if yer younger (and meethinx you are), yer just lucky!
    
    dawg (coming up to Mass last week of this month!)

    Hey, will you kids keep it down!  Us Olde Pharts are tryin' to play
    some Cribbage here.  And turn that damn music down - it's just noise!
    
                                        Methuselah Mithridates

    RE: Greg
    
    >Absolutely not.  He dumped that thing years ago.  Last I read, he was
    >using those Ampeg high gain tube amps and "cheesy stomp boxes".
    
    I think your mistaken.
    
    Mr Bigs latest efforts' liner notes thank ADA, not Ampeg.
    And, the ADA Newsletter I got a few months back has several 
    presets;
    
    '...From Paul Gilbert - Used in recording Mr. Bigs latest...'
    
    ??
    

    Sorry Coop --
    
    The last interview I read with paul, that had one of those "In
    Depth" equipment rundowns included two of those Lee Jackson/Ampeg
    heads, as well as an old Ampeg V4 head, and some cheesy stomp box type
    things.  Looks like his days of 'rack puke' are over with.
    
    I always knew it was a phase ... Paul has been a 'modified' 100wt head
    person forever.  He was one of Lee Jackson's first clients!!

    I don't find unreasonable the idea that you would want to increase the
    volume for a solo.  
    
    When *I* play guitar, the rhythm part uses 4, 5, or 6 strings.  When I
    play a lead, I use 1, 2, or 3 strings.  It stands to reason that 1
    string will require more gain than 2 strings.  
    
    Personally, I like a compressor, but any stomp, including a chorus, can
    be used to differentiate the sound.  
    
    I don't quite understand the reasoning that says your solo is less
    important than the rhythm track.  The solo is where you showcase your
    talent - it should be the part of the performance that the audience
    remembers about you.  I want them to hear my solo (but not kill them
    with it).
    
    Jeez, I shitcanned my V2 head and cab 6 or 7 years ago cuz I thought it
    was sadly obsolete!  
    
    Oh, well, guess I'll have to replace it with a TriAxis.
    
    Carl_another_olde_pharte_who's_gonna_make_it_to_Blind_Willies_one_of_
    these_Tuesday_nites.
    

    I've got a spare V4 head that you can have for the right price.
    
    Paul
    

    > is that Bevis or Butthead?
    
    In another notesfile (Heavy Metal) I said that Buck MUST be the voice
    behind Beevis.   However, I got it backwards.  The character that
    sounds like Buck (or vice versa) is actually Butthead.
    
    I've also started to wonder about this guy "BUCKethead".  ;-)

    >The solo is where you showcase your
    >talent - it should be the part of the performance that the audience
    >remembers about you.
    
    Unfortunately, sad, but true, I guess.  Personally, I feel I'm a better
    rythmn player than a lead player. It comes more naturally to me. The
    band I was in the longest (6 years), I was the only guitar player, and
    I obviously spent ALOT more time playing rythmn than playing solos.
    (True in many bands depending on the type of music you play). In this
    case, the drummer, bass player, kybd player and I were VERY tight, and
    my rythmn playing was a more significant contribution to the band's 
    overall sound, energy, dynamics, etc. than my soloing.  The funny thing
    is, I only remember very few comments that led me to believe that other
    guitar players even noticed some of the chord voicings, rythmns, accents,
    strumming patterns that I was most proud of!
    
    I guess it's the solo that counts to most folks.....sigh.  I can
    remember trying to have a jam with some guys who haven't even bothered
    to learn a few chords.
    
    dawg

    Hey Dawg, keep talking like that and we'll turn you into a bass player
    yet!  This is the fact of life for most bassists; the stuff in your
    playing that you're most proud of, almost nobody notices.  Well, actually
    they do notice, they just don't realize it.  When I see people's toes
    tapping, I know it's because of the groove that the drummer and I are
    laying down.  You have a lot of power as a bass or rhythm player, more
    than is obvious; it's downright subversive.  I guess it all depends on
    what you're in it for.  Rhythm players have to take their pleasure in
    the solid groove and the perfect part, in knowing that they make the
    tune, even if the audience doesn't realize it.  Looked at the right way,
    these can be more satisfying than all the killer solos in the world.
    
    /rick

re: .38

I couldn't agree more.  In fact, I'll go as far as to say that if a
guitar player thinks that solos are the most important thing then I'm
not sure I'd want him or her in a band with me.

-Hal

    Without wishing to rathole, I'd have thought that this phenomenon would 
    have been buried along with the demise of the power trio (� la Cream, 
    Taste, Jimi Hendrix Experience, etc.). But you still see these bands 
    around that are little more than a vehicle for the lead guitarist. 
    
    And I for one find most of them a crushing bore.
    
    Dom (who's had his fill of bands who cover "Cocaine", "Alright Now",
    etc.) 

    
    	Could you heretics please create your own rhythm guitar
    	notesfile, please?  ;^)
    
    	Actually, by listening to the many guitarnotes tapes, it's
    	obvious that most folks feel that way.  Very few leads...
    
    	Tom
    

    Well, Tom, we can't all be as talented as you, ya know....

    re: Coop
    
>    Mr Bigs latest efforts' liner notes thank ADA, not Ampeg.
>    And, the ADA Newsletter I got a few months back has several 
>    presets;
>    
>    '...From Paul Gilbert - Used in recording Mr. Bigs latest...'
    
    But dude, Mr. Big's "latest" album is well over two years old now!  If
    I remember right, he picked up that Ampeg endorsement and dumped the
    ADAs right after the album came out, 'cause I remember seeing them
    playing live on MTV during their "Spring Break" show that year ('91)
    and he was just using a couple of those Ampeg stacks then.  No rack in
    sight.
 
    re: Carl
                        
>    I don't quite understand the reasoning that says your solo is less
>    important than the rhythm track.  The solo is where you showcase your
>    talent - it should be the part of the performance that the audience
>    remembers about you.  I want them to hear my solo (but not kill them
>    with it).
 
    The solo is just one, relatively small, portion of the song.  Most
    non-musicians couldn't care less what someone plays in it, or even if
    it exists at all.  As far as showcasing my talant, I'd *much* rather
    have someone tell me that I played in a great band, or played a great
    song, then to have someone say I played a great solo.  Sure, I like to
    play solos as much as the next guitar player, but I want to keep things
    in the proper perspective.

>    Oh, well, guess I'll have to replace it with a TriAxis.
    
    HAhaha!!
    
    re: Steve 
          
>     The funny thing
>    is, I only remember very few comments that led me to believe that other
>    guitar players even noticed some of the chord voicings, rythmns, accents,
>    strumming patterns that I was most proud of!
 
    I guess it comes down to why you're playing music and who you're trying
    to impress.  Personally, I get off on cool rhythm parts.  It seems like
    a lot of people were really into Eddie Van Halen because of Eruption or
    his solos on the old VH stuff, but that was never the part that
    impressed me.  I thought he had a really cool rhythm style and I always
    listened to him for that.  Yeah, his solos were good, but that wasn't
    what I liked best about his playing.
    
    If your just out to have your ego pumped by other musicians, hey, go
    for the best technical solo and lead sound you can possibly get, screw
    whether it fits in the song or not.
       
>    I guess it's the solo that counts to most folks.....sigh.  I can
>    remember trying to have a jam with some guys who haven't even bothered
>    to learn a few chords.
 
    It seems like so many guitar players are so "solo-centric" these days
    that they can't seem to see past that part of playing.  They'll have a
    tough time when they get around to actually trying to make some music
    someday.
    
    re: Hal

>I couldn't agree more.  In fact, I'll go as far as to say that if a
>guitar player thinks that solos are the most important thing then I'm
>not sure I'd want him or her in a band with me.

    I agree completely.
    
    re: Dom
    
>    And I for one find most of them a crushing bore.
    
    I also agree with this.  There are expections, but they seem to be few
    and far between.
    
    Greg
          

He was using the ampegs when I saw them a while back...pretty lame tone IMHO,
but it could have been the mix...warn up bands never get a decent mix...

dbii

   >> 'warn' up bands never get a decent mix...
    
    I used to play in a 'warn' up band....
    
    8^)

    Waaaay back when I was a full time rhythm guitarist, one of my most
    important functions was to keep overzealous hecklers from unplugging
    the lead player's amp during a song. I remember when someone reached
    onto the stage for his AC cord, I sort of looked the other way as I
    stepped on his outstretched hand & proceded to stand there 'til the
    song was over. 
    
    My rhythm sound was more dispensible than the lead sound, so if anyone
    had to stop playing & deal with the invaders, I was usually the one.
    
    Eddy VH does great leads, but I agree. What makes that band sound
    different from a thousand wannabees is his fills & strums when he's
    *not* soloing.
    
    Check out Vito Bratta (White Lion) in Little Fighter. Wow !!
    
    Paul

    Vito Bratta, EVH, same thing...

    Vita Bratta is another Mp1 user...
    
    jc (Who used to use some of his patches too...)
    

    Vito is another EX user.  Last I saw him, he was playing thru Carvins!

did I see a reply from Cooper??? he's not dead!

So JC where the &%$* is the tape?

dbii

    RE: .47
    	If I could play like either one of them, I'd be happy !
    
    	Do we have to go through a whole "clone" doesn't mean "s*cks" ?
    I thought that was covered under "speed" doesn't mean "s*cks" ?
    
    BTW, if Vito & EVH sound "the same" to you, then you're either not
    paying attention, or you're tone deaf. I'll give you that they're
    similar, & that EVH probably *influenced* VB, but "clone" is going too
    far. 
    
    Paul
    

>    Vito is another EX user.  Last I saw him, he was playing thru Carvins!
    
    No way!?  Someone that endorces Carvin stuff actually *uses* it???
    
    Naaa...
    
    re: Paul
    
    Did I say Vito sucked?  Did I say *anything* about playing fast?  I
    just found it interesting that when someone brought up EVH that someone
    else followed with VB, who wears EVH's style on his sleeve.
    
    Greg

    
    Vito and Eddie ? No comparison. Sure Eddie influenced the guy but Vito
    took tapping out of those tedious pentatonic licks and added some melody 
    to them.
    
    mho,
    -Tony

    RE: .52
    	I guess I mistook the word "clone" as a euphamism for "...mindless
    copier..."
    
    Both of them have done rather amazing things as derivative performers &
    as individual artists. Even if you know nothing about music, I think
    you could listen to 100 Eddie "clones" & come away saying that Vito had
    more "life" or "taste" than the other 99.
    
    BTW, "tapping" wasn't all that tedious (even pentatonic tapping) back
    when EVH started doing it. It got real tedious when guitar "street
    rats" invaded music stores all across the country & did their minimalist 
    excerpts to impress other customers (I guess). Somewhere in there, the
    L.A. music production machine pumped out a gazillion EVH wannabees to
    quench the thirst of the rapidly growing market for this stuff, &
    almost overnight, it's no longer considered interesting or difficult.
    
    Paul       

    I'm not a particularly good noter, so I'm sorry if I sounded like the
    lead solo is the only reason you brought the guitar to the gig...but
    the fact is that many songs have a lead part built in...to leave it out
    is like skipping a verse.  If you muck up while playing this, the
    audience WILL have the perception that you suck.  
    
    It's nice if you have one or two songs a nite that you can create your
    own solo.  
    
    I'm a far better rhythm player than lead--I agree that GOOD rhythm
    playing is a dying art; but as far as scoring points with the audience
    (and you either score or get fired!), the solos are what are
    remembered.  Yes, IT'S NOT FAIR! but that's life.
    
    Carl