Page 1 of 2
#1
To reduce noise, I mean. It seems like such a simple solution to a massive problem - as long as you're not using the 1st fret it seems like it could really clean up your playing. Open string noise is probably the most frustrating thing about playing guitar, so is there any reason why you couldn't do this?
#2
No there isn't and reason you couldn't. It might make you tend to play sloppy tho. Alot of people use scrunchies
I hate my sig
#3
You can get purpose-made string dampeners for that. Basically, they're weaker, soft capos.
#5
Alternately, you could learn god muting habits and not have to lose a fret. Also, wouldn't that also keep you from playing open notes?
#6
Quote by QuantumMechanix
No there isn't and reason you couldn't. It might make you tend to play sloppy tho. Alot of people use scrunchies


I don't think I would play with one most of the time, but some songs seem to be impossible to play without sounding sloppy (e.g. Lay Down by Priestess). I can even put it on in such a way that it nearly halves string noise while still allowing the open strings to ring true, although I'm not sure how I'm doing it...

Would it be seen as incredibly lame by other people to pop one on right before a song? I mean, do other people do that?
#7
Quote by Geldin
Alternately, you could learn god muting habits and not have to lose a fret. Also, wouldn't that also keep you from playing open notes?


I assure you that my muting habits are quite excellent. Even professional musicians deal with this though (Jimmy Page, anyone?) and it seems that, if there is a particular part of a song that is difficult to nail without tagging another string, this could be a quick solution.
#8
Quote by dysonsphere
Would it be seen as incredibly lame by other people to pop one on right before a song? I mean, do other people do that?


If you're good, you might eventually be able to do it so fast that nobody will really notice. Dave Martone does this from time to time, as I'm sure others do.

A scrunchie of course, not a sock.
#9
Yeah I think a scrunchie would look less gay than a sock. Especially if you just grab it off some random girl right before you start the song
I hate my sig
#10
Well the only reason I mentioned a sock specifically is because it's what I first tried it with. The scrunchie seems too wide for the neck... I guess I'll have to convince my sister to go buy me some smaller ones, haha.

In fact I think this would be best for recording, not playing live, because it would save you the hassle of doing multiple takes just to eliminate one little string noise. I guess you don't have to be as precise when you're playing live.
#11
try the string skipping riff in All Shall Perish's "Better living through catastrophe" to tighten up your playing a bit. Thats one of my favorite riffs to play. back when i was learning it, it really helped with muting because it skips from the 6th string to the 4th, back to the 6th, then to the 3rd, back to 6th, 2nd, 6th, 1st, and you need to mute out every string.

GUITARS CURRENTLY USED
Ibanez RG7621
Ibanez RG121
ESP LTD H-400
#12
Quote by dysonsphere
I assure you that my muting habits are quite excellent. Even professional musicians deal with this though (Jimmy Page, anyone?) and it seems that, if there is a particular part of a song that is difficult to nail without tagging another string, this could be a quick solution.

If your muting habits are excellent, you don't need a sock or scrunchy to do it for you. Practice some string skipping riffs to work on string noise problems. Practice playing parts where you have this problem slowly and perfectly. If you are having trouble with it at tempo, you shouldn't be trying to take it at tempo. You should be attempting to get it perfectly slowly bit by bit.
#14
I can imagine that while you're recording stuff, this is a quick and easy solution. Still, when performing live:
A) It looks plain stupid
B) It may look as if you can't play your own songs without a sock wrapped around your guitar; not good..
#15
Quote by Geldin
If your muting habits are excellent, you don't need a sock or scrunchy to do it for you. Practice some string skipping riffs to work on string noise problems. Practice playing parts where you have this problem slowly and perfectly. If you are having trouble with it at tempo, you shouldn't be trying to take it at tempo. You should be attempting to get it perfectly slowly bit by bit.


I virtually never have any problems with the strings I'm actually touching - it's the sympathetic vibrations of the others that cause problems. For instance, the second-to-last part of the solo to Highway Star is pretty easy to nail and sounds pretty sexy, but the E and A strings almost always cause issues - without my hands even CLOSE to them - so I have to mash my palm down across everything but the 1st string. Presumably the sock/scrunchie/whatever would help with that sort of thing, which I see as an intrinsic flaw in the design of the guitar.
#16
You might want to get it looked at by a technician and set it up right. My guitar has never done anything like that.
#17
Quote by dysonsphere
I virtually never have any problems with the strings I'm actually touching - it's the sympathetic vibrations of the others that cause problems. For instance, the second-to-last part of the solo to Highway Star is pretty easy to nail and sounds pretty sexy, but the E and A strings almost always cause issues - without my hands even CLOSE to them - so I have to mash my palm down across everything but the 1st string. Presumably the sock/scrunchie/whatever would help with that sort of thing, which I see as an intrinsic flaw in the design of the guitar.


Or the universe. Resonance and sympathetic vibrations just happen with everything. Ever heard a really loud rattle in your guitar that only happens at certain speeds? Same thing.
The scrunchie/sock thing though. Great idea to help with muting parts that are almost impossible to play cleanly.I think ive even seen Guthrie Govan use one, and it's pretty hard to argue he'd be using it to mask bad technique.
Last edited by ApeWeevil at Aug 1, 2009,
#18
Quote by ApeWeevil
Or the universe. Resonance and sympathetic vibrations just happen with everything. Ever heard a really loud rattle in your guitar that only happens at certain speeds? Same thing.
The scrunchie/sock thing though. Great idea to help with muting parts that are almost impossible to play cleanly.I think ive even seen Guthrie Govan use one, and it's pretty hard to argue he'd be using it to mask bad technique.

Guthrie Govan is Guitar god...
I hate my sig
#19
That's true. When I look for a demonstration of perfect technique, it's Govan or PG I look at first.
#20
Quote by Geldin
You might want to get it looked at by a technician and set it up right. My guitar has never done anything like that.


Are you sure? Every guitar I have EVER played has done this. You absolutely can not pick indefinitely on the 1st string without the sound turning into a sludgy mess.
#21
I've never experienced this. Can you post a video of this on different instruments? I'm really curious now.
#23
Just learn how to mute excess noise with your hand. It's not that hard, and you could play open strings any time you want.
#24
Quote by Geldin
I've never experienced this. Can you post a video of this on different instruments? I'm really curious now.


Sorry, I don't own a camera. But you're saying that you can tremolo pick the 1st string, open or with a note fretted, and the lower strings don't begin to ring out? That would be completely contrary to my experience with the guitar.

Also - I am fully aware of muting techniques! If you read my other threads on UG, the vast majority regard me being a total perfectionist about everything, and this is no exception. If I did use the sock/scrunchie technique, it would only be to supplement the muting I already do rather than replace it.
Last edited by dysonsphere at Aug 2, 2009,
#25
I'm no expert on multi finger tapping, but isn't the sock/scrunchie/sting dampener method pretty much a necessity when performing this technique?
#26
Quote by Myung-trucci
I'm no expert on multi finger tapping, but isn't the sock/scrunchie/sting dampener method pretty much a necessity when performing this technique?


Not if you're Chris Broderick
#27
Using the sock is cheating imo.

People may say 'satch does it!' etc but there are ways of muting every string at every time.

And to TS, if i tremolo pick on one string the other strings are completely silent..
#29
Quote by dysonsphere
I don't think I would play with one most of the time, but some songs seem to be impossible to play without sounding sloppy (e.g. Lay Down by Priestess). I can even put it on in such a way that it nearly halves string noise while still allowing the open strings to ring true, although I'm not sure how I'm doing it...

Would it be seen as incredibly lame by other people to pop one on right before a song? I mean, do other people do that?



That song can be played perfectly clean without string dampeners.

I can, so I know
#30
Nah, I know how to mute.
I like to use the first fret and open strings, as well, and need the ability to use them on the fly.
Having a sock would just mess me up.
Quote by SteveHouse
This thread is officially about sucking Sleaze off for a sig.


Quote by tayroar
Hey Sleaze I'll give you a blowjob if you sig me. Maybe even some nudey photos?


Quote by crazy8rgood


Sleaze, that made me lulz in my pants.


Quote by 36mikeyb36
hahaha Sleaze i'd give you my mom for that one.
#31
Quote by dysonsphere
Sorry, I don't own a camera. But you're saying that you can tremolo pick the 1st string, open or with a note fretted, and the lower strings don't begin to ring out? That would be completely contrary to my experience with the guitar.

Also - I am fully aware of muting techniques! If you read my other threads on UG, the vast majority regard me being a total perfectionist about everything, and this is no exception. If I did use the sock/scrunchie technique, it would only be to supplement the muting I already do rather than replace it.


If you're that much of a perfectionist, you should be perfecting your muting technique and your technique in general, not finding a cheap and lazy solution to a problem you can fix by getting better at your instrument.

In my opinion, it's a cheap way of saying "I play sloppily, but I want it to sound less sloppy." If you need a scrunchie or sock or whatever to mute unwanted strings, then it's not a flaw in the guitar or anything of the sort, it's a flaw in your technique. Any song you claim to need a scrunchie for, you should ask yourself this first: "Does the guitarist in the song use it too?" If the answer is yes, then I don't see a problem in it because it might be required. Although, you should also look up covers of the said song, see if ANYONE can play it just as clean without a scrunchie or sock or whatever. If you find someone who can, then it's obviously possible and it proves that it's a flaw in your technique.

Seriously, just work on your muting technique.
#32
Definately sounds like a player issue.
In my 10+ years of playing, I have never run into such a problem.


/endtroll
The power of your example is far greater than what you say.
#33
I tie one on the neck for shiggles sometimes just so I can feel like Herman Li
I play Lacrosse, you should too
Quote by reeses
heed this man's suggestion, for he is wise.

Aww shucks...

Quote by Tom 1.0
Oh and wait for the Schecter fan boys, if you listen real hard you can already hear them coming.
#34
Many players do this, especially those who do a lot of two handed tapping type playing. I suspect many of the people who are telling you to learn to mute better have never played a 50 or 100 watt tube amp cranked up
#35
It's perfectly okay to do.

But don't claim your muting is excellent if you have to do this. As for the example you gave, I can (and thousands of other people, if not millions) tremolo pick the high e string without any other strings ringing out. This is a right hand muting technique. It's pretty basic. You should examine your muting, because it doesn't sound "excellent" the way you describe your problem.
#36
Gee, UG, you guys sure have lovely reading comprehension.

"durr why do u need a sock just learn to do it right lol"

"But it's really a very minor sort of thing, and I was just..."

"hurp hurp u just have bad technique"

"My technique is actually pretty good, I just thought this could give me a bit more leeway during hard bits..."

"DURRRRRRR"

Not to mention the fact that basically every answer that I could have gotten, I *have* gotten. From "tons of people do it" to "some people do it occasionally" to "it could be useful when you're recording" to "no, you're a horrible guitarist and I personally dislike you for suggesting this."

Let me make this perfectly clear:

I DO NOT NEED A SOCK TO PLAY *song*. IT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION. CHRIST.
#37
Quote by timeconsumer09
It's perfectly okay to do.

But don't claim your muting is excellent if you have to do this. As for the example you gave, I can (and thousands of other people, if not millions) tremolo pick the high e string without any other strings ringing out. This is a right hand muting technique. It's pretty basic. You should examine your muting, because it doesn't sound "excellent" the way you describe your problem.


You. You in particular. I. Already. Do. This. I wish I didn't have to, but I do.
#38
I use a hair tie, make a small knot to tighten, and leave it around my guitar. What's wrong with having a tool that could help you sound cleaner and having your notes sound more articulate? By all means, if it sounds better, do it.
#39
I do it quite a bit, but I only use it for fast tapping licks on multiple strings with wide intervals. Most of the time I don't really need it but for recording I keep it on.
Legato and fluidity in your playing is where it's at

DJENT!!
ಠ_ಠ
#40
Quote by felenoral
I use a hair tie, make a small knot to tighten, and leave it around my guitar. What's wrong with having a tool that could help you sound cleaner and having your notes sound more articulate? By all means, if it sounds better, do it.
But don't you ever use open strings?
Last edited by leephan at Aug 3, 2009,
Page 1 of 2