In defense of no effects

[NeoConMan]

Yeah, noodling and screwing around, experimenting and goofing off - that's what we do when we play.

To use pedals to that very same end is no big deal and I heartily endorse it.

Gigs I understand, especially playing covers. Some effects are inevitable.

 

It's those players who are addicted to them that I never wanted to be identified with.

 

Can't stand the thought of powering up an amp without a dozen gadgets in the signal path?

I'll let you play by yourself....

 

:-)

[chewy60]

effects are great if they're built into the guitar and amplifier. the less cables the better....

[thejay]

I actually use effects. I see them as "another color on the canvas" and something else to use just like a techinque or skill acquired to playing the guitar. I don't use effects in everything but they are nice to add something if needed.

[saturn]

I've never been a big effects guy either. I prefer to hear the natural sound of the guitar coming through the amp. I do own a Boss ME-50 and play around with it sometimes at home. At gigs, I mostly by-pass it, but do use it for occassional wah, chorus or delay on certain songs.

 

I've seen some local bands where the guitar player plays 5 different guitars but you can't hear any change in tone because of so many effects being used. Why? :D

[Notes_Norton]

I have a friend who is both a master at the guitar and a master at the pedals (I'm green with envy). He has an array of about 20 in front of him, I don't even know what they all do, but I know that when I jam with him (on sax) he gets the most delightful sounds out of them. They wouldn't be worth a darn if he didn't play guitar as well as he does pedals, but he truly is a 'Guitar God'. Unfortunately he never got "the big break" and plays guitar in local bands and teaches guitar lessons.

 

I'm not against FX, it all depends on the kind of music you play and what you want the guitar to sound like.

 

For me it's minimal, but perhaps if I were a better guitarist, I'd go deeper into the little stomp boxes.

 

Notes

[guitargreg1993]

i actually like using effects.... actually im in the process of building my own pedal board.... but anyway i really like how pedals can just give the guitar a little bit "extra" something.... you know??

[Mr. Robot]

A previous band I was in actually let me do Burning Sky' date=' this is my fav Bad Company song. Feel Like Making Love and Bad Company coming in close 2nd and 3rd.[/quote']

 

Funny you should say that. Only last night I plugged my LP Traditional straight into my Fender Hot Rod, no effects and jammed to the Best of Bad Company. Pretty easy stuff to learn, but it is great straight rock n roll.

 

I came away convinced that the main guitars on those classic songs are either LPs or SGs - certainly humbuckers, 'cos i seemed to be getting exactly the same tone (AND DRONE ) from my setup.

 

The biggest kick I get these days is when I get sweet tone and warm overdrive without any effects. In fact, getting a sound out of a straight set up that sounds like there ARE effects is the sweetest of all.

 

No pedals for me these days. I have a little Boss Multi effects for when i want to experiment, but paying for lots of quality stomp boxes would be wasted on me.

 

PS I am still getting over the amazing playability and tone of my new LP Traditional GT. Just had it set up beautifully. I just cant sit down when playing it and I certainly cant play jazz on it - it calls out for playing rock. Nothing else computes with it. The bridge pickup blows me away and takes me by surprise everytime I play it

[milod]

I'll hit a second shot at this...

 

Basically I do have pedals although I'm not considered a "pedal" player by most folks. Heck, I'm just an old folkie.

 

But my current technique pretty well makes very light strings - to roughly the same sort of tension of a classical guitar - most practical for what I play given the amount of available practice time and the sorta unexpected calls to play here or there with little notice.

 

So... although the amp's "chorus" is cool, the multi-effects box gets a bit more "fill" so I think I get the tone of heavier strings, at least on the treble strings.

 

I know acoustic guitarists who use specialty boxes so they feel that their "true" sound is what's heard by the audience.

 

As for the other 1 percent, I've got a Leslie emulator, and it's so I can pretend I'm playing a B3 Hammond. When I had the real Leslie years ago, I ran a volume pedal so I could have a bit more sustain - again so I could get closer to the B3 sound and playing style. I've done that with standards and blues. The Hammond is used less today, but it once was pretty important in blues and was heard a lot in the 50s an 60s in pop and "jazz" style standards.

 

So... Am I defending effects? Yeah, I guess I am. Frankly I think Notes playing a sax with a little reverb and you've got the "guitar fuzz box" riff for the Stones' "Satisfaction" as it would have been done in an earlier era with horns. One might ask, in fact, why not learn how to play the sax in the first place. <grin>

 

But I'm totally on the side of those who figure playing six guitars that all sound the same through a $1,000 bank of "effects" is pretty silly.

 

Most of the time I play clean. If not - there's a reason. Oh - and I could care less personally at this time whether I can sound "just like Band A," although that is a good rationale for boxes.

 

m

[ledzep59]

I own two pedals: a classic cry-baby wah, and a danelectro phaser. My Marshall has some effects built in, but the only one I really use is the reverb because the rest sound pretty bad. I find that I can sometimes be in an effects mood, and other times just plug right in. Honestly, I think I plug into my pedals a lot because the cable becomes twice as long and I can walk around my room and really get into playing. I do really love the raw sound of les paul and gain.

 

I think effects on acoustic guitars is a little lame. It's an acoustic guitar, don't try to spice it up.

 

Financially, I could never justify spending a bunch of money on effects because I would rather spend that money on more guitars or amps. Pedals are a lot of fun, though. I could understand how after you get a few it becomes addicting and you end up wanting every effect.

[milod]

Philosophically I'd agree about effects for an acoustic, but...

 

Bottom line is that seldom is an acoustic heard by much of an audience except through various sorts of electronics. An A-E with enough "effect" to overcome variations in PA quality and room acoustics does make sense to me although I've never used one.

 

A lot has to do with how and what the audience is hearing, IMHO. Even a very good mike may not get "the" sound by the time the stuff goes through a batch of electronics, out a speaker and into varying "rooms" or into the outdoors.

 

So... in that case I don't see it so much as an "Effect" as a stabilizer to get more true tone to the audience. Heck, I remember the losses in various sorts of recordings in the old days - from needle and horn with no electronics at all, through 78s with some electronics to "hi fi" and LPs, then... The engineers always are working to get "true tone" that musicians hope for, and it's seldom even close to "right." Then we listen to a live perf and... lots of loss there...

 

m

[vourot]

This is one of the best amps I have heard. The owner of the sounds rooms where my friends and I practice has one of these in his recording room.

http://www.wizardamplification.com/vintage.htm . The sounds he got from it were amazing, and he used an old Washburn guitar he has sitting in his office. A little out of my price range but one can dream....