#1
Hey,

I have been playing guitar for almost 3 years and I have been an acoustic player since the beginning. I wondered if any of you feel the same way like me:

I kind of see electric guitar as a "technical stuff", not really a classic instrument. Here is why. If you dont have an amp, you are basically screwed... Therefore, you are dependant on equipment, technical stuff, etc...

On the other hand, the acoustic guitar does not have the required volume to keep up with a band or something like that WITHOUT a built-in amplification system (unless you do only strumming and these sort of stuff), so again, you are dependant on equipment.

Look at for example a violin, bass, trumpet, or any other instrument. They dont need artificial amplification, only a microphone and thats it (or no mic at all). In many cases acoustics havent got enough volume even to just simply play with others in a garage or something.

This started to bother me a little bit nowadays, and I dont know how you guys feel about this. So tell me your opinions!
#2
Instruments are only as complicated as you choose to make them really.
On playing the Paul Gilbert signature at the guitar store extensively, my missus sighed:
"Put it down now, It's like you love that guitar more than me!"
In Which I replied.
"Well it has got two F-Holes!"
#3
The term 'technically demanding' the way you're using it is a bit misleading. If you mean you need a lot of kit to work it then yeah, electric guitar does need a relatively large amount. But to play large venues, all instruments need some kind of amplification to be heard really
My Soundcloud
Always up for some C4C, been compared to Frank Turner, The Cure's Robert Smith and Bruce Springsteen so check out my stuff if you like the sound of that
#5
Two ends of the spectrum:

Yngwie Malmsteen/Steve Vai/etc: Tons of technical proficiency

Punk music in general: The every mans genre of music for guitar

As previously stated, it's only as technical as you choose to make it.
#6
Quote by Minivirus2
Two ends of the spectrum:

Yngwie Malmsteen/Steve Vai/etc: Tons of technical proficiency

Punk music in general: The every mans genre of music for guitar

As previously stated, it's only as technical as you choose to make it.


Please take some time to ****ing read the OP.
#7
Quote by kiraly5

This started to bother me a little bit nowadays, and I dont know how you guys feel about this. So tell me your opinions!


I don't understand what the problem is.

First of all, I don't see the difference between a violin and a guitar. You can, in fact, just amplify an acoustic guitar with a mike the same way you would with a violin. In fact, that's usually the best way to capture your sound.

People use a variety of other techniques because, unfortunately, while a microphone is the best way to capture the sound, it is also most likely to lead to feedback problems, and it's the most limiting - you can't move while you play. (Although some acoustics have internal mircophones to solve this problem).

But if you were going to play a violin with a band you'd have all the same problems.

As far as an electric with your amp, well, let me ask you this: why is the amp "technical" when the instrument isn't. An electric guitarist's "instrument" is his whole signal chain.

WHy does some part of the signal chain being electrified change things in a negative way?
#8
Hmm.. I don't know about you, but I've heard nylon and classical guitars in ensembles before. I heard them quite well, in fact. The way classical guitarists strum and pick the strings is designed to make it sound more crisp and audible.

It's an interesting mix--one that isn't performed often, but one that I'd like to see more of.

Edit: A guitar certainly does not have the same amplification power of, say, a violin. But in that case the composer would just have the rest of the strings play more quietly, I would imagine.
Quote by Trowzaa
I wish I was American.

~ A Rolling Potato Gathers No Moss ~
Last edited by eGraham at Mar 14, 2012,
#10
TS, I see what you mean and it's true that electric instruments need more equipment. However, a professional guitarist could play with a 1200$ guitar and a 2000$ amp and about a 1000$ worth of pedals and all this investment is still less that a professional tuba. So my point is we may need more equipment and accessories but in the end, it's still more accessible to many.
Last edited by SuperWeirdoUG at Mar 14, 2012,
#12
Quote by kiraly5
Hey,

I have been playing guitar for almost 3 years and I have been an acoustic player since the beginning. I wondered if any of you feel the same way like me:

I kind of see electric guitar as a "technical stuff", not really a classic instrument. Here is why. If you dont have an amp, you are basically screwed... Therefore, you are dependant on equipment, technical stuff, etc...

On the other hand, the acoustic guitar does not have the required volume to keep up with a band or something like that WITHOUT a built-in amplification system (unless you do only strumming and these sort of stuff), so again, you are dependant on equipment.

Look at for example a violin, bass, trumpet, or any other instrument. They dont need artificial amplification, only a microphone and thats it (or no mic at all). In many cases acoustics havent got enough volume even to just simply play with others in a garage or something.

This started to bother me a little bit nowadays, and I dont know how you guys feel about this. So tell me your opinions!


It is what it is. play it, don't judge it.
shred is gaudy music
#13
Quote by kiraly5
I kind of see electric guitar as a "technical stuff", not really a classic instrument. Here is why. If you dont have an amp, you are basically screwed... Therefore, you are dependant on equipment, technical stuff, etc...


Electric guitar isn't a "classic" instrument. It's extremely new if you intend to compare it against violins, brass sections etc.

The reason those original instruments are "self-amplified" is because the technology wasn't available to amplify them at the time. People did design theaters and concert halls however to amplify the sound for a larger audience.

However now we do have the technology to amplify instruments and sounds, and they're utilised everywhere.

Secondly, the amp is part of the instrument. It's still arguably more portable than a classic grand piano.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#14
Quote by eGraham

Edit: A guitar certainly does not have the same amplification power of, say, a violin. But in that case the composer would just have the rest of the strings play more quietly, I would imagine.


Well, think about how classical music works. First of all, you're not competing with a drummer hitting the skins as hard as he can constantly, like a rock musician is. And you're not competing with an amplified bassist and keyboard, either.

A violin can be drowned out by a piano the same way a guitar is. A violin might be capable of being played precisely at slightly louder volume, but I think people are overestimating the difference.

Which is why, after all, orchestra's have string SECTIONS. The Los Angeles Philharmonic has over 30 violinists (although they don't all play in every performance). THIRTY. And yes, when one is playing a solo everybody else shuts up, and the audience sits there as silent as they can be in order to hear it.
#15
You're right, but what does it matter? If it doesn't fit the bill of whatever you need to play at the time then grab the proper tool or instrument and get going.
#16
There is no 1 instrument that is harder to play than any other 1 instrument, it's all on the individual. It'll be harder to play certain songs on guitar than other songs on trumpet, harder to play certain songs on trumpet than other songs no guitar, harder to play some songs on drums than trumpet, ect.
#17
Quote by kiraly5

Look at for example a violin, bass, trumpet, or any other instrument. They dont need artificial amplification, only a microphone and thats it (or no mic at all). In many cases acoustics havent got enough volume even to just simply play with others in a garage or something.

This started to bother me a little bit nowadays, and I dont know how you guys feel about this. So tell me your opinions!


I just have to ask, how is a mic not artificial amplification? really though the mic is nothing more than a gateway to the speaker/amp....

also if you ever have these instruments in a heavy drum based scenario (rock, most pop, etc.) they are mic'd and then amplified to be heard over the harder drums... I guess I don't really see where you are coming from here man....
Quote by Dirk Gently
Some pieces are only meant to be played by people with six fingers on their fretting hand. Sorry.
#18
In the 1920s, use of a "megaphone" or "speaking trumpet" were used to get different vocal effects.

In jazz, use of a "plunger" as a wah effect for brass, not to mention cup, straight and a variety of other "mutes".

Pipe Organs are by far one of the most technologically dependant instruments, have you ever seen a large one and played with it.

Tchaikovsky used cannon for the 1812 Overture. This requires a lot of technology and well drilled military teams to pull off.

More modern "Hammond Organs" from the mid 20th century were serious technology based instruments.

Pianos are sometimes considered a percussion instrument and rely on levers to strike the strings hard enough to get the required volumes. They also have mechanical effect "pedals".

The use of chemicals on bows for string sections to increase grip (volume) and the actual design of the bow itself is use of technology. Try plucking a string then play it with a bow and you will hear the difference.

Just because the modern use of guitar is based on electronics doesn't mean it is the only one that requires technology to function. You just think that technology means "electronics" whereas technology has always been part of music and entertainment.
If I miss one day of practice, I notice it.
If I miss two days, the critics notice it.
If I miss three days, the audience notices it.

Ingacy Jan Paderewski (1860 - 1941)
#19
Quote by HotspurJr


Which is why, after all, orchestra's have string SECTIONS. The Los Angeles Philharmonic has over 30 violinists (although they don't all play in every performance). THIRTY. And yes, when one is playing a solo everybody else shuts up, and the audience sits there as silent as they can be in order to hear it.



This is exactly what I thought of when I came into this thread. If you had guitar in an orchestra, you would need to have just as many guitars as the violins, violas, cellos, etc. The way I see it, the ability for a guitar to play 6 different notes at a single time, the ability to easily play a bassine, melody and (maybe?) a counter-melody, make it ill suited for an orchestra. Hell, a guitar is an orchestra in itself. Same with piano, and to a lesser extent, electric bass. Guitar is more of a solo instrument, whereas each instrument in an orchestral section is playing, in equivalent, one string on the guitar.

Hope this made sense...
Caution:
This post may contain my opinion and/or inaccurate information.

Current Rig:
2006 PRS CE-24
Mesa/Boogie Mark V
Voltage S212 w/ V30's
Strymon Timeline
CMATMods Signa Drive
TC Electronics Corona & Hall of Fame
#22
'Classical' instruments take the Soviet solution: use instruments en masse to achieve the required volume. I just need my guitar and a POD to plug into the PA and I can blow an entire string section away with my volume. It's hardly 'technical'. Electric guitars, being electronic instruments, simply have far more options for sound. It becomes as technical as you want it to be.
Ibanez RG2228 w/ EMG808Xs | Line 6 POD HD500 | Mackie HD1221
#23
Not the way I play it...

But yes, it can be.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin