Options
Sell it all, Start Over?
House53
Posts: 1,276
Well,
Here's my latest thought.
Trade my amp for a used Martin D-28 that the local shop has in... Sell my SG and buy a cheaper amp for home use...
lock myself in the woodshed and get better at guitar...
That would leave me with a very useable electric setup and a top of the line acoustic...
Maybe all the quest for electric tone is for not... go back to basics.
I can always sing.
Thoughts? Similar experiences?
Here's my latest thought.
Trade my amp for a used Martin D-28 that the local shop has in... Sell my SG and buy a cheaper amp for home use...
lock myself in the woodshed and get better at guitar...
That would leave me with a very useable electric setup and a top of the line acoustic...
Maybe all the quest for electric tone is for not... go back to basics.
I can always sing.
Thoughts? Similar experiences?
There's No Code.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
while your at it, check out the John Mayer Model Martin though. My lord, it's my favorite martin yet, but not worth your Ghia dude. Turn of the distortion, play clean and do the same as you would with an acoustic. Or whatever you want to do it's your stuff.
Just you and your guitar.
I could get the D-28
My tele and likely a Deluxe Reverb or something of the like.
Then I could sit around and pretend I am Bob Dylan and play guitar all day...
it seems so much easier than messing with recorded tones, live tones, sitting correctly in the mix...
The deluxe reverb made it about one practice, then I got the Dr. Z Maz 18... but I think I could be very happy with a deluxe reverb... it is a great amp... obviously. Just not botique... which appeals to me for some reason.
but a fender(clone) and a fender amp... can't go wrong there.
and then the key is the good acoustic... the back bone to any guitarists setup.
then in a couple of years get back into a band...
I am probably just tired of practicing with no gigs lined up at the moment... hopefully that changes in the next couple of weeks... but right now just tired of the no gig situation.
There is nothing worse than playing a gig with no feel... it's not much fun... well, I take that back, what's worse is not having any gigs for a while and being in a band.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being in a cover band. The flaw with cover bands are they tend to stifle creativity. (a) you find the tabs and rehearse a song til you get it right (b) except for an occasional extended solo, most cover bands don't deviate from the tabulation to add their own signature, this is usually done via the singer with no real innovative instrumental effort behind such, and (c) most cover bands get caught up in expanding new artists' to their set lists and end up getting stagnated in the development of their own identity.
Every musician needs to feel they are capable of bringing something to the table because that's all we do. We create sounds. We add word. We call it music. They calls us artists. There's no limits.
House you could acquire every pedal and gadget; the best of amps and guitars and NEVER get the tone your looking for, you could probably replicate someone else's though. A tone is not just the sound of a chord or bar resonating through an amp. To me tone is a sound that inspires you to create around it, when you hear it, you know that its something you have to create around it even if it did belong to someone else, you make it yours.
So yes House, many of us go through "the hell with it" phase, that's where your individual creativity starts and that's when you begin to challenge yourself.
Sorry to sound preachy but its so easy to get disillusioned.
WELL SAID.
i'm just different i guess. i never felt more energy than sitting in a rehearsal space jamming. but that was an original project.
i hate covers. i played them. but i played them my way. and i only played songs i liked.
reason one why i wasn't "successful" as an act i suppose. i'm not an entertainer. i only make music for me.
I've always believed there are two types of musicians out there: artists and performers. Artists are the people who push the envelope, create, think outside the box, innovate... Modest Mouse, Wilco, Radiohead, Tortoise, etc. Performers are the people who work hard to present a high-quality, polished, entertaining experience... Barbra Streisand, Celine Dion, Britney Spears, anyone in Vegas, etc.
There are a few who do both, and well. Sting, Elton John, Neil Diamond, The Beatles, etc. But for the most part, a musician concentrates on being one or the other.
Another way to look at it: a performer plays for the crowd, an artist plays for him/herself.
it's true. now this isn't to say that i produce high art or anything. so i don't want to sound that way. it could just be an easy way for me to justify sucking.
like matt good said: in 20 years, would you rather be responsible for "white light white heat" or the milli vanilli record.
Well, any musician who tries to be an artist runs the risk of getting to full of him/herself. Lou Reed is the textbook example... David Byrne... Roger Waters... if you stop caring what your "art" gives to society, your "art" gets less and less appreciation. Always walking that line...
Artists are usually less-talented performers, too... screwing up more, relying more on session players, or relying on "lo-fi" sounds to cover up the fact that you're an average player *cough Modest Mouse cough*.
So, was Hendrix an artist or a performer? Clapton? Page? They all were amazing guitar players, but they all just ripped off blues (albeit quite well). Angus Young? Total performer... Eddie Van Halen?
roger waters. *shudder*. lou reed and david byrne got too caught up in being weird for the sake of being weird. byrne kicked ass in the "between the teeth" era though.
as for the modest players vs. virtuosos... i just don't know... hendrix, clapton and page have/had feeling in what they played certainly... there was art in the interpretation. and clapton certainly did go through a period of denying his virtuosity by trying his damnedest to be a sideman. i have no time for young or van halen though.
That's too bad... AC/DC and (DLRoth era) Van Halen are the musical equivalent of a weekend in the woods with the guys and some cheap beer. Or a Shelby Cobra on the California coast. I am not ashamed to say I love both bands...
they just never did anything for me.
Canadians... *sigh*
As far as the martin goes I'll just say this: I love my electrics but I'd never be without a great acoustic. Every piece of gear I own would go before my acoustic.
It's too bad I am being compared to Streisand and Celine Dione, but so far I am not that creative with music.
So, I guess I am an entertainer.
AC/DC is a kick ass band... they have a groove that is undeniable.
Music shouldn't have to be explained as to why it is good... which I think some musicians who get to involved in their work run into... the average person isn't going to notice the subtleties that make some people so excited.
I don't think the Rolling Stones would qualify as musicians by the definition used here.
They are the best Rock 'n' Roll Band in the history of the world. So, In that case I am glad to be an entertainer.
Now, regarding my band... the old incarnation did a good job of not trying to replicate stuff and just playing songs we liked. The new members are more set on "nailing" the songs and playing "pop" songs.
I guess I am just bored with the confines of being the singer in a cover band... having to sing songs I don't like and being perceived as a dick when I point out the "correct" way to play something to the rest of the band.
An acoustic guitar is like an escape from all that... I could just sit at home and play along with my favorite records and sing my heart out... then go play at shitty little bars and open mics...
that's where my mind is today.
that makes complete sense.
Musician/artist, performers/entertainers, legends, rock gods, rock stars. A person doesn't need a title to create music. They only need a title to enjoy its perks. Take your acoustic journey, just don't sell your meal ticket to pay for the trip.
If I were you and I was going for just the acoustic I think I'd find not just a D-28 but THE D-28 maybe an HD-28 what have you. I'd look for a "seasoned" one. Late 60's to Late 70's. Maybe even a D-35 with that amazing 3 piece rosewood back. They are still reasonable about the same price as the new ones and they are weathered and the tone just rings out especially ones with that darker yellow laquer on the top. The acoustic may be perfect for you for a while. Just jam out to the records have fun and try and write a few songs up for open mic nights. Nothing wrong at all with changing direction, you seem to like to do it quite frequently.
Well, that's good. I didn't introduce labels... but I was saying if I must have one give me entertainer...
I don't have a musical meal ticket... that's why I am an Environmental Engineer...
The yellow lacquer is the natural aging process of a Martin... I don't doubt that there are good better and best Martin's... but the 60s vintage go for over $3K normally.
Also, I don't doubt that I would want a better electric rig in the future... but that is in the future.
I definitely don't have a problem changing direction... I never like to get bogged down in one area... however, I feel that sometimes I avoid becoming good at something by wavering like I do.
It's an on going process.
I should just spend the money and get a new guitar... but I have been trying to stop spending on music related items... major purchases at least.
I will figure things out in the coming weeks.
I was speaking of your gear not your job.