Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by onelife

  1. it happens...





    I find the telecaster can be whatever you want it to be - the design is that good.



    One of my teachers, Ed Bickert, played jazz on a tele which he got as a loaner when he took his hollow body to the shop for repairs. “It could have been any other kind of solidbody, I guess,” he said. “It’s just one of these things where I got used to it, felt comfortable with it and it’s certainly very hard to smash it.”

  2. I bought the CP5 a few years ago, just before it was discontinued. I really liked the wooden keys and the overall piano feel but always found it somewhat bulky.


    I'm thinking about the CP73 for the portability and for general use and keeping the CP5 for the times when a full sized piano is required.


    I was a Rhodes player in the '70s and found the 73 keys to be workable and the 88 keys to be too much to carry around. From what I understand, the CP73 has a newly designed Yamaha keyboard reminiscent of the Rhodes.

  3. I needed to raise the height of the pickup to get more output and sustain so I unscrewed the pickup from the body and put a layer of foam under the pickup. I screwed back the pickup into the body and I didn't get any sound. There's no sound coming out. The bridge pickup and middle pickup still work. The neck pickup just died. What happened to the pickup?


    how is the pickup mounted in the guitar?

  4. I noticed my solid state Laney head doesn't sound good with distortion pedals. Is it really this way with solid state amps? I supposed you got to use distortions with tube amps mainly. Is there a way to make a solid state amp sound good with distortion pedals?


    The difference between tube amps and solid state amps is how they respond when they are pushed. An overdriven tube circuit has a warn pleasant while an overdriven transistor circuit can get really nasty.


    If you run the output level of your distortion pedal high it may overdrive the first stage of your amplifier. This may cause the solid state amp to sound unpleasant compared to the tube amp.


    Try running your pedal(s) with the gain/drive turned up as usual but with the output level turned down a bit - you can make up the volume loss by turning up the volume control on your amplifier.

  5. The whole idea behind preferring tubes to solid state happened in the 60's and early 70's when guitar players didn't like the overdrive sounds that solid state amps delivered.


    When you are talking about cleans and reliability...solid state is definitely better. Less noise like tube hiss. Especially ridiculous is the idea of a tube "bedroom amp"...people spending well into 4 figures for a 5 watt tube amp that's hand wired etc....Give me a Roland cube 30 for that situation any day.


    The Boss Katana series builds on what the Roland Cube amps started - the bottom of the like Katana 50 is excellent bang for the buck and the Katana Artist gets into Boutique territory but still comes in at less than $1k.

    • Like 1
  6. I'd recommend a Casio Privia PX-160' date=' with the optional stand and optional pedal bar / board. All-in, around $585. I have one in my living room, and I really like it a lot. No extra amp required, nice action, good quality sounds - if you want a digital replacement / substitute for an acoustic piano, it's a very good choice IMO, and a great bargain for the quality level you're getting. IOW, it's not junk...


    Edit: If you buy the stand and pedal bar as a bundle, you can save a few bucks more... Sweetwater sells the pair for $150... add $400 for the piano, and you're at around $550, all-in. If you get it locally instead of online, add tax on top of those prices.





    I think decent sounding built in speakers are an important consideration... the convenience of a simple setup - just switch it on and start playing.

    • Like 1
  7. I have always failed to see the difference between "classical" and pop music as the stark line that so many people seem to envision. From my perspective' date=' the only substantive differences are the "born on" date and the fact that the only old music that we still losten to is the 10% that isn't garbage...[/quote']


    You might find this enjoyable/interesting. I certainly did.



    • Like 1
  8. Another feature of the DG amplifiers is the motorized knobs. It might seem like a novelty at first - when a patch is recalled from the panel or via MIDI, the analog style knobs move into the position where they were when the patch was saved - but it makes minor adjustments, such as cutting the midrange a bit, obvious, easy and subtle.


    I was talking to a guitar enthusiast friend of mine, who is a mechanical engineer, about the amp. I couldn't figure out why Yamaha discontinued the line after such a short run. His response was that they were too expensive to build and that was because of the motors.


    I was concerned about the motors when I bought the amp but the regional Yamaha rep at the time reassured me that Yamaha had been building products with motorized faders for a long time and that I had nothing to worry about. After twenty years of use, I have not had a single technical issue with the amplifier and I have saved a small fortune in tubes.

    • Like 1

    I am really on the fence on the amp itself. I generally carry either a Bogner XTC or Marshall 3203 to gigs, run through a Two Notes Torpedo Live cabinet emulator, so it's a bit of a hybrid analog/digital system. I still carry the tube head, but not the cabinet. I hate dealing with the weight and size of the tube heads, but I just haven't found any digital amp that I like the sound of, aside from the Kemper.....and it's a bit on the expensive side. :eekphil:


    I really like the Yamaha DG series of amplifiers. It's 20th century technology but still the most organic feeling digital amp I have ever used. I often get the "I cant believe that doesn't have tubes in it" comments when people hear it for the first time.


    The downside is that, like a tube amp, they are rather heavy (perhaps that's part of the emulation - carrying it up a flight of stairs creates a certain expectation) My 80 Watt single 12 version weighs about 25Kg (a little over 55lbs US) If you get a chance, try one out.



    One thing I have found' date=' though, is that doing away with the cabinet has given me much better control over stage volume. [/b']Running all my stuff through a wedge monitor aimed directly at me from downstage makes the guitar nearly inaudible to the rest of the group aside from whatever they want in their monitors, unlike an open-back amp that bleeds all over the stage. It also lets me dial in my sound on the exact same feed that the FOH tech gets. If I need more volume or wider coverage (outdoor stages), I just add a second wedge coming from the side or upstage. This also lets me run my acoustic instruments and vocal mic through the same monitor cabinet, which cleans up the stage and generally makes life easier.....which is where the XR12 was supposed to come in.


    That's probably ideal for the kind of stuff you are doing - especially the show gigs where you are in the pit. That way you get to hear what you need and everybody else can get as much, or as little, guitar as they want through the foldback

    • Like 1

    We agree. I had a music theory teacher once make a BTW comment. He said that composers created their music, and theorists came along later and analyzed and labeled/codified things. Sometimes people study and learn traditional music theory or jazz music theory and they believe they are learning rules that are NOT to be broken. Problem.


    But, I'd say that music theory has value. Let's take "My Funny Valentine"and the intro to "Michelle". "Valentine" has (in the key of C) chord changes in Cminor with descending half steps C, B, Bb and A . The intro to "Michelle" descends (in F minor) F, E, Eb , D, Db, and C. The other notes in the tonic chord are static. About five years ago I discovered that someone gave the name, "line cliche" to this movement. Someone somewhere observed and labeled it with a name. What use is this gibberish ? Communication. I could tell someone that the intro or verse of a song uses line cliche and they'd have a clue about playing the song.


    This is probably of little interest to most. But if you play pickup gigs with another musician and don't get to rehearse, any common language is useful.


    I basically think learning theory along with learning to play by ear can open up bigger worlds to a growing musician. Growing, learning, cultivating music.




    Again, we agree.


    I thought that about Coltrane. He just played and the analysis came afterward.


    I recall sitting in with a band and before the song someone would say something like "it's a one six two five in A" and we'd be off to the races. There is definitely value in knowing theory - even if only as a common language - as a way of describing music with words.


    I'm usually a bit disappointed when I tell the drummer "it's on the and of three" and they tell me that they don't count.

    • Like 1

    A largely neglected but valuable skill, by my observations at least, is playing by ear. Maybe that's partly what you're getting at by "learn the instrument". I was schooled in music theory. And played Bach and Beethoven, Brahms in college. But a few years later, I was having lunch with a gigging guitar player in a pizza joint that had a juke box. He played a few current popular songs on it (this was circa 1979 maybe) and pointed out the bass line. The bass, in large part (but not exclusively) is key to being able to play songs by ear. Of course, in 1979 there was still some pop music with harmonic movement - chord changes. This pizza joint juke box experience was eye opening - actually ear opening for me.


    Add to the bass line, chord inversions and chord voicings, complex altered chords (often called jazz chords). These are the tools of making music beyond the simplistic pop music that passes my ears in public spaces. Current mass music seems to be harmonically semi-literate. More concerned with synthesizer "tones" and loops and such. Anyway, I've come to believe that the tools necessary for playing by ear should be taught. Whether formally, as music theory, or practically , as in "this is a I chord. This is a (minor) vi chord" and applying these to actual songs. And BTW, the Beatles were no slackers when it came to interesting and sometimes pretty sophisticated harmonies.


    Erroll Garner (a legendary jazz pianist) never learned to read music. He was called an "ear player". But he composed "Misty". Of course he started playing around 3 (IIRC) and had pianists around him to learn from.


    That's precisely what I mean. Music is sound. "How do I get that sound from my instrument?" is where it starts.


    I certainly don't have a problem with people learning theory but the stuff that we learn is not where the music starts but rather a method we use to describe the sound.


    • Like 1

    I'm about ready to just give up on it and go back to a small analog rackmount mixer.


    More stuff to carry around is moving in the wrong direction - my intent with it was to carry fewer cables and less weight. There's no space in my rack case for a router, and having to carry a laptop/tablet and power supply into every club and pit to be able to change a level or two is just nonsense.


    I think that this is a case where the newer tech just isn't better. I can tolerate that stuff for a mains console because the benefits outweight the difficulty, but not for a guitar rig mixer.


    That's a better choice. Sometimes the old analog world is indeed better.


    I've slowly abandoned all of my tube amps and gone digital. My main amp is a Yamaha DG80 which has served me well and required zero maintenance in the twenty years that I have had it - but I would not be able to troubleshoot or repair it in the middle of a gig. That being said, Yamaha does have a well deserved reputation for reliability.


    On the other hand, my Twin Reverb stopped working one night in the middle of a set. A puff of smoke came out of one of the input jacks. With a screwdriver and a spare fuse I was able to get the amp up and running while the band played one song without me. The problem was a short circuit in one of the 6L6 output tubes which physically blew up the corresponding screen resistor. It was obvious, when I slid the chassis part way out of the cabinet, which tube it was. I removed the bad tube and one from the other side of the push-pull circuit, replaced the fuse, slid the chassis back into the cabinet and was ready for the next song.


    I like the portability and versatility of the modern amplifiers but the old Twin served me well despite the maintenance required and the cost of replacing the tubes every year or two.

    • Like 1

    I've never learned to read, but I have been able to learn a lot of music theory anyway. If I could start over, I'd take piano lessons and learn how to read. But I'm grateful that my lazy, undisciplined learning style has led me to a place where I'm comfortable playing. The thythm guitarist and main singer in my folk band can follow anything on guitar but can't on piano, which was her first instrument.


    It's interesting how some teachers just teach the instrument rather than teaching music.


    I approach the guitar the same way I approach the piano - where I can see all of the notes and the chords just by looking at the board. I use the piano as a teaching tool when I'm teaching guitar (or any other instrument).


    Wtf??? You could have woken me up in the middle of any given night at around age 10 and asked me and I'd have said Eb before you finished the sentence! I find that difficult to believe in a "highly trained" performance pianist. Possibly because I went to a conservatory, which was a great deal more than "piano lessons", but a full curriculum - piano, choir, music history, music theory, solfege, etc... I admit to being rather unfamiliar with US/Canadian educational practices for child pedagogy, bur it seems to me that "highly trained" would imply all of the above, not just the ability to sight-read.


    And I gotta disagree with Chet. I'd say "teach em how to HEAR by teaching them how to play AND read AND comprehend". All at the same time. I haven't taught full time for quite a while, bur when I did, that was my approach... I alwaya wanted my students to not just be able to play stuff back to me but to undersrand WHY they were doing it. Maybe that's why I alwaya preferred older kids and young adults as students :lol:


    My piano player friend is a marine biologist. She's very intelligent, she probably took piano lessons as a child and responded very well to her teacher but music is not her passion - marine biology is. Her ability to play exactly what is written on the page is her strength and she does not have much experience playing with others.


    I bring her up as an example of what happens when the teaching starts with people playing from sheet music. I've had students who carried boxes of sheet music with them which they relied on to play pieces they had been playing for decades. They came to me to learn how to remember what to play.



    I do agree with Chet in the sense that I want my students to get a handle on their instrument before they become dependant on reading. One of the things I notice at the high school where I do workshops is that the students learn to play songs they like from watching youtube videos that show them where to put their fingers. They don't learn the instrument but they do learn to play certain specific pieces - maybe that's all they want. The challenge for me, a senior citizen, is to be able to reach teenagers with short attention spans in away that sparks their interest enough to want to dig a little deeper.







    And remember, live performances were no picnic for them at the time when they stopped doing them - the crowds, the screaming, the inability to go out and see the towns they were visiting, the threats from the wives of foreign leaders, etc. etc. Not to mention the fact that the PA systems of the day couldn't keep up with the SPL levels from the crowds - they often couldn't even hear themselves as they were playing. They felt live performances were too restrictive, and they wanted to focus on working in the studio, which was a far more creative and less restrictive musical environment for them... and without the necessity of having to perform the new songs live, they felt free to try new things, without having to worry about how they were going to perform them live.



    Those live shows must have been rough. I've never seen any evidence of foldback in any of the videos I've seen of their shows - and they were a vocal group.


    Taking full control of the environment they were going to play music in must have been very significant for them.

  16. I got the first two years of a music degree, and qualified for a minor but didn't request it on my diploma.


    FWIW, in my current playing, I ride the border between the two. Both my horn bands and my theater gigs have some degreed players who have studied performance, and many of them (not all, but most) cannot improvise to save their lives. We also have "untrained" players who always think in terms of making music, rather than in terms of following the chart/score. Players with both are rare and incredibly valuable.


    As you say, the players with both are valuable but I don't think they are all that rare. I know lots of players who are competent with both approaches.


    Chet Atkins described it well when he said "teach them how to play then teach them how to read" - which is my philosophy when teaching.



    Anecdote - about a year ago I was directing a theater gig' date=' and I gave the instruction that we would do a playoff based on one of the "rock" numbers from the show, play the head, then two verses through with soloists each 12 bars, then the last 4 bars of the score as an "outro". The drums, bass, guitar and keyboard played it perfectly as described without even looking at the score; the concertmaster (lead violin), asked me if I would chart the playoff so that the string section could follow it. Different ways of approaching music - not good or bad, just different.[/quote']


    You mention string section. Charts are useful and very efficient when you want to get an ensemble to play together.



    I have a friend on island who is a highly trained classical piano player. Whenever we need someone to walk in and read complex parts we hire her and she nails it on the first try. Once, the two of us were backing up a singer at a Christmas concert and she was sight reading Vince Guaraldi parts, including transcriptions of his solos. At one point I asked her what key the song was and she replied "I don't know but it has three flats."


    Although our approaches are quite different, she and I have mutual respect - I admire her ability to sigh read and she my ability to improvise.

    • Like 1
  17. And minor point of correction - I don't think they ever intended for the album to be impossible to perform live - they merely realized that it would be impossible for them to perform some of their songs from the Revolver (and after) period live due to the cost of taking the LSO on the road with them and the technological limitations of the time.


    You are correct.


    It was probably more about removing the restriction of "how are we going to play this live?" while they were producing a recording.



    • Like 2
  18. Have you seen the Fab Faux do the Abbey Road medley? Its quite remarkable.


    I did see a video of them doing that in a studio setting. At first I was questioning why they would go through such effort to do something that has already been done. As the music progressed, however, I became much more appreciative and yes, it is quite remarkable.


    That music has become like classical music where we go to the symphony to hear the works of the masters being performed, as written, by highly skilled musicians.

  • Create New...