Sell it all, Start Over?

House53

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?

exhausted

you're nuts.

Pacomc79

*pulls out strait jacket*

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.

House53

There is something very satisfying about playing a great acoustic... no frills, no overdrives, no fuzz, no delay, no amp, or speaker choices...

Just you and your guitar.

exhausted

i'm guessing the deluxe reverb is already gone since you were talking about master volume the other day.

House53

Besides, out on the road... you can carry an acoustic... you can't carry your electric setup on your back...

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...

House53

Originally posted by exhausted
i'm guessing the deluxe reverb is already gone since you were talking about master volume the other day.

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.

exhausted

it's all preference. it's nothing that any of us can decide for you. if you don't have a good acoustic, yes it's a good investment. not worth giving up a high quality SG and a boutique amp for though. especially not if your focus is still on a band.

House53

thanks for the correction... the boutique amp is great... so is the SG... but maybe this band at this time isn't the right thing... maybe I should be on my own for a while...

then in a couple of years get back into a band...

exhausted

all depends on what you'd rather do. be a singer-songwriter.... or the front-man of a cover band. both have their rewards i would imagine.

House53

Yes, they both do... I think I am a better front man than I am singer songwriter... especially the songwriter part.

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.

exhausted

again. it's what meets your needs. if the energy doesn't come from the band itself but from being in front of people, then you'll have to re-evaluate things.

House53

the energy for the whole band has to come from entertaining people and playing live... especially for a cover band.

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.

puremagic

House we all get in a rut and ask ourselves where is this going or where do we want it to be going, especially during down time. Ex said it best, re-evaluation. This doesn't mean giving up the band. The key is to do your own thing also. I know there are time constraints in trying to learn new music and rehearsals when your in a band, but unless you always want to feel confined, then you have to fine time to challenge yourself to create something you can call yours.

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.

LemonYellowSun

Originally posted by puremagic
House we all get in a rut and ask ourselves where is this going or where do we want it to be going, especially during down time. Ex said it best, re-evaluation. This doesn't mean giving up the band. The key is to do your own thing also. I know there are time constraints in trying to learn new music and rehearsals when your in a band, but unless you always want to feel confined, then you have to fine time to challenge yourself to create something you can call yours.

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.

exhausted

Originally posted by House53
the energy for the whole band has to come from entertaining people and playing live... especially for a cover band.

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.

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.

mccreadyisgod

Originally posted by exhausted
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.

exhausted

Originally posted by mccreadyisgod
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.

mccreadyisgod

Originally posted by exhausted
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?

exhausted

Originally posted by mccreadyisgod
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.

mccreadyisgod

Originally posted by exhausted
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...