Page 1 of 2
#1
Unimportant: When I started looking at pedals, I had no Idea what to get first. Once I bought a tuner, I was actually pretty sure I wanted a drive pedal. Once I bought a drive pedal I didn't know what to get for my third pedal. Once I bought a Wah pedal, I didn't know what to get for a fourth pedal. My fourth and latest addition to my board was a Boss DD-7. Now I don't know what to get... again...

I thought it would be great for beginners as well as experienced players (more like gear collectors. lol) to see what other peoples opinions are on the importance of guitar pedals. Which type of pedal should you buy first? Which ones are the most useful? Which ones will add the most to your sound? Which ones are the most fun to fool around with?

I would encourage you to stick to a basic format as I think it would make the viewing process easier. In the case of a question or random tip do whatever you want, but, in the case of an opinion (a list) please use this format:

Rank. Name/Type
(Opt) Description/Advice
(Opt) Recommended Models

1. Tuner
(Duh) Needed if you don't have (or like) an alternative (like a clip on)
Korg Pitchblack, TC Polytune

2. Drive
Boost-Fuzz Pedals, give your amp breakup without a huge increase in volume. Can also be used to give your amp "flavor."
(Soooo many options)Boss BD-2, MXR Custom Micro Amp+

3. Reverb
"Extends the sound"/Creates ambiance. Needed if your amp doesn't have (a quality) built in reverb.
Eventide Space

4. Delay
Creates, processes and repeats intervals from a continuous signal. (Gives you an echo) This can be used to add ambiance like reverb, or used in time with rhythm to add a new dimension to your sound.
Boss DD-7, Way Huge Aqua-Puss

5. Wah
Put it down on the floor and rock it back and forward to make (70's) porno movie sounds *Bow Chka Wow Woww* (Made famous by Eric Clapton and (more so) Jimi Hendrix)
Dunlop Cry Baby Classic Wah

6. Phaser
Messes with the *uhh* frequencies to *ummm* *Swirl sound* *ugg* Just go listen to one. (Not very useful if you already have a wah)
MXR Phase 90

7. Chorus
Creates slightly altered (off pitch) copies of your signal so thicken the sound. (Listen to the start of "come as you are")
(Haven't found one I like yet)

8+ Idk, that's why I made this thread
#2
there is no way to answer this. your style of music and amp have as much to do with what may or may not be important. a guy playing a clean amp that doesn't need a drive pedal will obviously rank that really low. a guy playing shoegaze may rank a reverb or delay pedal higher than a guy playing metal. hope you get what i'm saying
#3
This sort of idea is often presented by well-meaning beginners who are frustrated at the 'cost of entry' where you're forced to learn a bunch before anything makes sense. Lots of people just starting out want to be told "what's the best" or just given a list of what to buy.

Unfortunately, the more you learn, the more you'll realize that such a guide is neither practical nor possible in any meaningful way. There's simply no substitute for asking questions and learning what works for you and why.

Descriptions of what effects do are easily found all over the internet. Rankings are pointless clickbait for people who don't know any better.
#4
Quote by monwobobbo
there is no way to answer this. your style of music and amp have as much to do with what may or may not be important. a guy playing a clean amp that doesn't need a drive pedal will obviously rank that really low. a guy playing shoegaze may rank a reverb or delay pedal higher than a guy playing metal. hope you get what i'm saying

Pretty much this. The main factor here is what do you want to play and what kind of sound you're interested in.

I've seen tons of "I don't need any pedals, only the amp and a wah" while personally I couldn't care less about wah, on the other hand I couldn't live without reverb and delay, as I find they can massively shape the feel and atmosphere of the song. There's people who prefer just one type of distortion so they just use amp channels and no drive pedals whatsoever, and there are some people with several types of gain pedals for various contexts. Some love all sorts of modulation (chorus, flanger, phaser and such) and can't live without them, while for others it sounds plastic and they stay away from it.

There just isn't any rules I think. I'd just suggest to try simpler types of pedals like reverb or overdrive for a beginner rather than something crazier and harder to tame like a flanger, but then in some cases that might still work, and just experimenting with what pedals can do can be very fun, inspiring and creative. (When I got my TC Flashback Delay it was worth more than my amp at the time but I seriously felt like I'm in some paradise or something when experimenting with all the awesome settings)
#6
All I use these day is OD, tuner and wah.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#7
Delay
Delay
Delay
Delay
Delay
Reverb
Originally posted by primusfan
When you crank up the gain to 10 and switch to the lead channel, it actually sounds like you are unjustifiably bombing an innocent foreign land.


╠═══════╬═══════╣
τλε τρπ βπστλεπλσσδ
╠═══════╬═══════╣
#8
not used a pedal board for years, prefer going straight into an amp but a long time ago i used multi effects as well as some key noise generators. it was handy having all those effects but noisy and unprofessional.

nowadays I've stripped it right down to

1. tuner boss tu-3
2. distortion boss ds-1
3. delay digitech digidelay
4. rangemaster treblebooster/sweetener

which I will soon put on a pedalboard once I pick up all the plugs and build a power supply.

also want to add a chorus/trem/fuzz/compressor/wah/volume boost

as for ranking them, depends entirely what your doing, I am happy without any pedals but distortion is my most used pedal, then for stage work the tuner is pretty important. the rest don't matter that much to me.

I'd also say that it's most important to get pedals that don't suck your tone when they are switched off, or have them sent/return to a true bypass switch as otherwise it'll sound horrible.
#9
at MOST all i need is a tuner, OD, and delay.

sometimes a wah and or a second OD and/or a second delay.
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#10
If you play in a covers band like I do, the pedal collection tends to grow...but I use a tuner, overdrive, distortion, boost, and more recently a delay. Tried chorus,flanger, treble and shit like that, but starts to get messy and stuff goes wrong when playing live...like loose connections for example and standing on power points and turning oneself off :-)
#11
For all of the things that Rocksmith can't do, it's threads like these that make me think that Rocksmith should be the first purchase for newbs.

The biggest problem between forum members and newbs is the shifting perspective. I could barely hear a difference between pickup positions in the beginning. All amps sounded the same to me. Now I'm starting to be able to tell the difference but back then it was very vague if I could hear it at all. Newbs come here seeking advice and everyone here is wonderful about giving it, but we have a hard time relating to people who don't hear as well as we do.


But when you play Rocksmith you get introduced to songs that you maybe wouldn't have thought to try yourself. You play it enough and you start to pick out the tones that you prefer. Then you load the tone and figure out how it was made. There are some inaccuracies and shortcuts, but you're learning at a coarse resolution and there'll be time to correct those inaccuracies later.

Rocksmith answers a lot of questions that you probably didn't know that you were going to ask. I still wouldn't say that it can replace a good teacher, or that it is particularly successful at its core function, but the total sum of the package is the best bang for your buck that you're likely to get. A Pod probably beats it as a modeling tool, but the Pod doesn't teach you songs. A teacher would more effectively identify things that you need to work on, but a teacher isn't available 24/7.
Last edited by paul.housley.7 at Jun 17, 2015,
#12
As I get older its just more about a good amp with tube driven distortion, nice cleans and on-board reverb. The ability to switch that reverb on and off between chords and leads is a must. I have alot of pedals, but somehow they always stay in the box. Beyond the reverb, I think delay is probably at the top of the list.

I am more interested in amps these days. The Mark V and the new Marshalls for example. Wow.
#14
Quote by Roc8995
This sort of idea is often presented by well-meaning beginners who are frustrated at the 'cost of entry' where you're forced to learn a bunch before anything makes sense. Lots of people just starting out want to be told "what's the best" or just given a list of what to buy.

Unfortunately, the more you learn, the more you'll realize that such a guide is neither practical nor possible in any meaningful way. There's simply no substitute for asking questions and learning what works for you and why.

Descriptions of what effects do are easily found all over the internet. Rankings are pointless clickbait for people who don't know any better.


This all the way.
There are so many variables on what is best or most important.

Also...
6. Phaser
Messes with the *uhh* frequencies to *ummm* *Swirl sound* *ugg* Just go listen to one. (Not very useful if you already have a wah)
MXR Phase 90

Uhm...
Except for the "MXR Phase 90", and the "*Swirl sound*" part...
Well, lets just say that there are numerous descriptions of what each effect type does out there and explains it in both layman's terms and technical terms.
And if you think a phaser is "Not very useful if you already have a wah", then you need to practice with both a wah and a phaser more because that statement is all kinds of wrong.
A phaser and wah do VERY different things to your signal.
#15
If you don't know what you need, that probably means you don't need it. And that statement tends to be true for just about all audio and studio equipment. But I will answer your question anyway:

1. Tuner
2. Delay
3. Reverb
4. OD
5. Distortion
6. Chorus
7. Everything else is typically only used for short times (single songs or even just parts of songs). But the first 6 are used, by many players (such as myself), MOST of the time.

The only reason I don't rank OD and Distortion higher are because they come with most amps. If you have a single channel amp without much gain, and you want gain, than those would be #1. It would depend heavily on what amp you have.
Last edited by gillmanjr at Jun 18, 2015,
#16
The priority of pedals cannot be standardised into a list because this is dependant on: the musician; music style being played; and the equipment already available. If you have an amp with a great distortion you would not need a pedal. Same applies for a reverb. If you play a high gain amp, a noise reduction would be a great pedal while a compressor is more effective on a clean amp.

If you suggest a style and tell us about your already available gear, then one can give you their opinion about your situation and suggest pedals you may consider next.
#17
Quote by paul.housley.7
For all of the things that Rocksmith can't do, it's threads like these that make me think that Rocksmith should be the first purchase for newbs.

The biggest problem between forum members and newbs is the shifting perspective. I could barely hear a difference between pickup positions in the beginning. All amps sounded the same to me. Now I'm starting to be able to tell the difference but back then it was very vague if I could hear it at all. Newbs come here seeking advice and everyone here is wonderful about giving it, but we have a hard time relating to people who don't hear as well as we do.


But when you play Rocksmith you get introduced to songs that you maybe wouldn't have thought to try yourself. You play it enough and you start to pick out the tones that you prefer. Then you load the tone and figure out how it was made. There are some inaccuracies and shortcuts, but you're learning at a coarse resolution and there'll be time to correct those inaccuracies later.

Rocksmith answers a lot of questions that you probably didn't know that you were going to ask. I still wouldn't say that it can replace a good teacher, or that it is particularly successful at its core function, but the total sum of the package is the best bang for your buck that you're likely to get. A Pod probably beats it as a modeling tool, but the Pod doesn't teach you songs. A teacher would more effectively identify things that you need to work on, but a teacher isn't available 24/7.


That's an interesting perspective and I'm inclined to agree.

I too wasn't able to pick up on nuance until I'd been playing a while and I suspect it's like that for most folks. I still don't hear some of the subtleties that others claim to, but I'm ok with that. The more you learn the more you find out that you don't yet know.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#18
Quote by paul.housley.7
For all of the things that Rocksmith can't do, it's threads like these that make me think that Rocksmith should be the first purchase for newbs.

The biggest problem between forum members and newbs is the shifting perspective. I could barely hear a difference between pickup positions in the beginning. All amps sounded the same to me. Now I'm starting to be able to tell the difference but back then it was very vague if I could hear it at all. Newbs come here seeking advice and everyone here is wonderful about giving it, but we have a hard time relating to people who don't hear as well as we do.


But when you play Rocksmith you get introduced to songs that you maybe wouldn't have thought to try yourself. You play it enough and you start to pick out the tones that you prefer. Then you load the tone and figure out how it was made. There are some inaccuracies and shortcuts, but you're learning at a coarse resolution and there'll be time to correct those inaccuracies later.

Rocksmith answers a lot of questions that you probably didn't know that you were going to ask. I still wouldn't say that it can replace a good teacher, or that it is particularly successful at its core function, but the total sum of the package is the best bang for your buck that you're likely to get. A Pod probably beats it as a modeling tool, but the Pod doesn't teach you songs. A teacher would more effectively identify things that you need to work on, but a teacher isn't available 24/7.


can't agree with this. while great for learning songs it won't give you any real world experience dealing with fx past the bare basics. the tones are preset as well for the songs which again teaches you nothing about how to get those tones from scratch. already seen a thread by a guy that was disappointed that his actual amp etc wasn't producing a "rocksmith tone". you are also listening to it through your tv's speakers whickh isn't the same as an amp speaker ((headphones make things worse).
#19
I saw that thread. Everything you say is true, but I'm thinking you don't have a clear memory of what it was like when you were a Noob.

I've only given a half-assed justification so far, and admittedly that's my own failure if I want to be taken seriously.
I think that the first and best point in favor is the removal of complexity. In my short time playing (2+ yrs) I've encountered failures of all sorts and in some cases I was just too inexperienced to realize that I was being dumb. Examples:
-I used an unshielded low-quality cord.
-I used active pickups and clipped the hell out of all of my SS amps.
-intonation? What's that?
-are these two frets supposed to sound exactly the same?
-string buzzing? Raise the bridge. Still buzzing? Raise it again.
-minutes later... Why does this sound bad and why is it hard to play?
-I spent weeks learning a tab, wondering why it didn't sound quite right, then my buddy found out and laughed at me for learning a tab that was all wrong. And in retrospect yes it was all wrong.
-I spend more hours researching gear than I spend practicing.

Some of these are character flaws. All of these are avoidable. If you adopt Rocksmith as an all I'm one package then you can sidestep most of these. The game automatically detects guitar levels when you start, so it sets the internal gain for you. It eliminates the need to make decisions about which crappy starter gear to buy because it replaces all of that stuff. You can still purchase a cheap distortion pedal if you want to but Rocksmith should teach you that you don't need to.
As a complete solution Rocksmith has the fewest failure points. There's one cable that works with the game. Any guitar, from vintage up to active pickups will work with the software. The software itself is handling everything else. There's never going to be a day where you're not sure if your amp is broken or just needs a tube. You'll never have a pedal go bad on you. You'll never have to deal with bad tablature. You won't need a tuner or a metronome or a looper until you're ready for one. You'll always have a professional rhythm section to practice with, and it's all included in one package.
You can do better on every count. There is nothing Rocksmith can do that can't be done better, but you can't even get close to the value that Rocksmith gives you for your dollar. As a total beginner solution it is unmatched.
#20
Quote by paul.housley.7
I saw that thread. Everything you say is true, but I'm thinking you don't have a clear memory of what it was like when you were a Noob.

I've only given a half-assed justification so far, and admittedly that's my own failure if I want to be taken seriously.
I think that the first and best point in favor is the removal of complexity. In my short time playing (2+ yrs) I've encountered failures of all sorts and in some cases I was just too inexperienced to realize that I was being dumb. Examples:
-I used an unshielded low-quality cord.
-I used active pickups and clipped the hell out of all of my SS amps.
-intonation? What's that?
-are these two frets supposed to sound exactly the same?
-string buzzing? Raise the bridge. Still buzzing? Raise it again.
-minutes later... Why does this sound bad and why is it hard to play?
-I spent weeks learning a tab, wondering why it didn't sound quite right, then my buddy found out and laughed at me for learning a tab that was all wrong. And in retrospect yes it was all wrong.
-I spend more hours researching gear than I spend practicing.

Some of these are character flaws. All of these are avoidable. If you adopt Rocksmith as an all I'm one package then you can sidestep most of these. The game automatically detects guitar levels when you start, so it sets the internal gain for you. It eliminates the need to make decisions about which crappy starter gear to buy because it replaces all of that stuff. You can still purchase a cheap distortion pedal if you want to but Rocksmith should teach you that you don't need to.
As a complete solution Rocksmith has the fewest failure points. There's one cable that works with the game. Any guitar, from vintage up to active pickups will work with the software. The software itself is handling everything else. There's never going to be a day where you're not sure if your amp is broken or just needs a tube. You'll never have a pedal go bad on you. You'll never have to deal with bad tablature. You won't need a tuner or a metronome or a looper until you're ready for one. You'll always have a professional rhythm section to practice with, and it's all included in one package.
You can do better on every count. There is nothing Rocksmith can do that can't be done better, but you can't even get close to the value that Rocksmith gives you for your dollar. As a total beginner solution it is unmatched.


so what are you saying here, Old Guy is senile and can't remember back that far .

dude you need to fail in order to learn how to succeed. if everything is handed to you in the manor you suggest then you learn nothing. what happens when you actually try to play in a band with real gear. you are totally lost. many of the mistakes you made come under the heading of rites of passage. we all made those or other similar mistakes. sometimes learning the hard way is the only way to learn. how many guys make threads here and then get pissy when given proper advice, lots. they don't listen and then make mistakes. that my friend is just part of being young (and foolish).

now i'm not saying in any way that Rocksmith (or other things like it) isn't a great thing. obviously you did point out many of the benifits. i certainly didn't have anything like it when i first started to play. just saying that sometimes doing things the old fashioned hands on way is bette in the long run. i learned a great deal trying to get tones i wanted out of gear that probably would have no chance of getting them. did i waste time and money, hell yeah. helping folks avoid some of the really stupid mistakes i made is a big reason i post here.
#21
Quote by monwobobbo

dude you need to fail in order to learn how to succeed. if everything is handed to you in the manor you suggest then you learn nothing. what happens when you actually try to play in a band with real gear. you are totally lost. many of the mistakes you made come under the heading of rites of passage. we all made those or other similar mistakes. sometimes learning the hard way is the only way to learn.


Love ya, but that's utter crap. There are better ways to learn (and teach) than to reinvent the wheel over and over and over and over...

Just take your first sentence. Now apply it to a bomb disposal technician. Oops...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#22
Quote by Arby911
Love ya, but that's utter crap. There are better ways to learn (and teach) than to reinvent the wheel over and over and over and over...

Just take your first sentence. Now apply it to a bomb disposal technician. Oops...


bomb disposal really that is your example . since there is no true right or wrong with guitar (or music in general) that hardly is the same thing. no one is saying to reinvent the wheel (although recently i saw 2 guys that did and may have a better wheel) at all. my point was that by exploring your gear you learn way more that just having presets handed to you. yes you will make mistakes but that is part of the deal. sorry i don't subscribe to the modern don't let the kids fail, everyone is a winner bullshit. as for buying wrong stuff well we've all done that and there is no way around it. GAS often trumps common sense.

by the way don't know about where you are but bomb disposal techs aren't taught on live bombs where i come from. (i know i had to take a basic course in it for my job).
#23
I don't intend any disrespect at all. I can feel my own perspective shifting away. I would say that I am becoming one of those old guys too.

I'm just saying "wrangle tones from the Rocksmith models and fx instead of from a starter amp." Learn to tune with Rocksmith rather than with a cheap clip on tuner. Learn tabs from Rocksmith rather than from the frequently inaccurate internet. Et cetera.
That sort of stuff feels like you learned it in a single day when you look back on it, but beginners are still in the struggle.

And I will admit here and now that Rocksmith can be a little dangerous. I didn't have a clue about keeping my own rhythm until I put the game away for awhile.

If I were to propose an alternative to Rocksmith it would start with something like a pocket pod, a zoom g3, maybe a Peavey vypyr. Already costs more and does less. Amplitube is a possibility but when you add the costs of models it adds up quick, and the program was too complex for me the first time I tried it. To some of these you need to add a tuner. More $. Might need a metronome. More $.
No matter how many things you add it'll still cost more and fall short, because the Rocksmith note scroll and practice tools are pretty darn useful and difficult or impossible to replace.
#24
Quote by paul.housley.7
I don't intend any disrespect at all. I can feel my own perspective shifting away. I would say that I am becoming one of those old guys too.

I'm just saying "wrangle tones from the Rocksmith models and fx instead of from a starter amp." Learn to tune with Rocksmith rather than with a cheap clip on tuner. Learn tabs from Rocksmith rather than from the frequently inaccurate internet. Et cetera.
That sort of stuff feels like you learned it in a single day when you look back on it, but beginners are still in the struggle.

And I will admit here and now that Rocksmith can be a little dangerous. I didn't have a clue about keeping my own rhythm until I put the game away for awhile.

If I were to propose an alternative to Rocksmith it would start with something like a pocket pod, a zoom g3, maybe a Peavey vypyr. Already costs more and does less. Amplitube is a possibility but when you add the costs of models it adds up quick, and the program was too complex for me the first time I tried it. To some of these you need to add a tuner. More $. Might need a metronome. More $.
No matter how many things you add it'll still cost more and fall short, because the Rocksmith note scroll and practice tools are pretty darn useful and difficult or impossible to replace.


you're fine i have a thick skin and knew you weren't dissing me.

the down side you pointed out is a pretty big deal. you need to be able to keep time. again though Rocksmith is a wonderful learning tool so don't think i'm against it. it needs to be part of the learning process and not used as crutch though.

now i just have to decide whether to cut the white wire or the green
#25
Quote by monwobobbo
bomb disposal really that is your example . since there is no true right or wrong with guitar (or music in general) that hardly is the same thing. no one is saying to reinvent the wheel (although recently i saw 2 guys that did and may have a better wheel) at all. my point was that by exploring your gear you learn way more that just having presets handed to you. yes you will make mistakes but that is part of the deal. sorry i don't subscribe to the modern don't let the kids fail, everyone is a winner bullshit. as for buying wrong stuff well we've all done that and there is no way around it. GAS often trumps common sense.

by the way don't know about where you are but bomb disposal techs aren't taught on live bombs where i come from. (i know i had to take a basic course in it for my job).


Well, it's been a good while since I've had to mess with explosives so take or leave the example as you will.

But a doctorate in adult education, now that I'm using on a daily basis. If you'll re read his post he was saying use it to expose yourself to different tones, then go and figure out the ones you like. That's a perfectly valid use, and doesn't require failure in order to move forward. We are intelligent apes, we can learn from the mistakes of others if we choose to, we don't have to make them (all) on our own.

Just because you learned that way doesn't make it the best, or only, way.

Look, I know we can learn from failure, and often do, but we don't have to and any curriculum that relied on it would be considered lazy and unprofessional.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#26
Quote by Arby911
Well, it's been a good while since I've had to mess with explosives so take or leave the example as you will.

But a doctorate in adult education, now that I'm using on a daily basis. If you'll re read his post he was saying use it to expose yourself to different tones, then go and figure out the ones you like. That's a perfectly valid use, and doesn't require failure in order to move forward. We are intelligent apes, we can learn from the mistakes of others if we choose to, we don't have to make them (all) on our own.

Just because you learned that way doesn't make it the best, or only, way.

Look, I know we can learn from failure, and often do, but we don't have to and any curriculum that relied on it would be considered lazy and unprofessional.


ummmm... at no time did i say that failure was required to move forward. i am saying that at times failure teaches you more than success and that things shouldn't necessarily be laid out for you in a to easy way. i have stated that there are certainly positive benifits to Rocksmith however as has been pointed out as well there are pitfalls. as PART of a learning experience it's fine but to rely on it to much may be more detrimental in the real world.

while you can certainly learn from others mistakes i've pretty much found that many don't (myself included at times). that's human nature as i'm sure you know. i'm not a fan of the current education system in schools these days. kids aren't allowed to fail and are told they are wonderful etc all the time. no losers. i agree that you can't base any curriculum on failure as a teaching method. you certainly have to prepare those taking it for the possibility that you can fail and that there can be positives in doing so.

guitar playing and bomb disposal are pretty far apart. screw up with a bomb and boom you're dead. screw up with a guitar and you may discover something new that can be great. i just try to encourage that. with Rocksmith someone else has decided what everything should soundl like after all it's just a computer program at heart. with actual gear you decide what it sounds like to a far greater degree. just sayin
#27
My plan -just to clear things up.
Kid asks Santa for an electric guitar for Christmas.
1. Buy the kid a guitar and a copy of Rocksmith.
2. Sign kid up for real guitar lessons
3. Buy real gear later.
#28
I've never even seen Rocksmith. Hell, I haven't even had any guitar lessons, period. I taught myself by trial and error. And here it is 35 years later and I'm still gigging regularly. I didn't even have the internet back then.
Kids these days. You expect everything to be simply handed to you.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#29
Quote by Cathbard
I've never even seen Rocksmith. Hell, I haven't even had any guitar lessons, period. I taught myself by trial and error. And here it is 35 years later and I'm still gigging regularly. I didn't even have the internet back then.
Kids these days. You expect everything to be simply handed to you.

Would you have been more efficient and saved some money had there been a "Cathbard" around that you could've prodded for advice, technical knowledge and options you may not know about?
Fender Mustang/Derfenstein DST> Boss Power Wah> Pedal Monsters Klone> Bogner Uberschall> Walrus Audio Janus> Randall RM20> Line 6 M9> Randall RM20
Last edited by lucky1978 at Jun 19, 2015,
#30
I can read music theory books. I was gigging after less than a year. I gigged my first amp and guitar for about 10 years. How much faster and cheaper do you want to be? It's not that hard if you apply yourself fully. It's called self reliance.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#31
I would expect nothing less, but younger folks today grow up in a sea of options. I can't blame 'em for asking for help to cut through all the bullshit. I can't blame them for trying to take advantage of the resources available to make the best possible decision.
Fender Mustang/Derfenstein DST> Boss Power Wah> Pedal Monsters Klone> Bogner Uberschall> Walrus Audio Janus> Randall RM20> Line 6 M9> Randall RM20
#32
I use tabs off the internet at times too. Use whatever is there, but don't think for a second that there's only one way to learn. People of my age had **** all and we learned just fine. I learned playing along to vinyl records. No help, just monkey hear, monkey do. I kept up with technology mostly by trying shit in shops.
There's a lot of paths to knowledge.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#33
Excellent points/discussion.

Quote by lucky1978
I would expect nothing less, but younger
folks today grow up in a sea of options
. I can't blame 'em for asking for help to cut through all the bullshit. I can't blame them for trying to take advantage of the resources available to make the best possible decision.

Tremendous benefit ... so much gear to try out. Kinda like ammo, I absolutely love the old .30-06 but thank g*d for the .454 Casull and the other obscene pistol calibers it inspired.
#34
Cathbard with the "when I was your age I walked uphill in the snow, 15 miles, and it was uphill both ways, darn it!" -point of view.

I get it. My best friend has made no secret of his annoyance about how much easier it is to learn guitar nowadays. He remembers struggling to figure out some things that YouTube can teach you in about ten minutes.
If you did it the hard way then you want to believe that the extra work that you did was difference-making, but you can't assume that faster learning is the same thing as not being willing to work hard.
#35
Get orf my ****ing lawn!
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100


Cathbard Amplification
My band
#36
Quote by monwobobbo
ummmm... at no time did i say that failure was required to move forward.


Quote by monwobobbo

dude you need to fail in order to learn how to succeed. if everything is handed to you in the manor you suggest then you learn nothing.


Also, you've mentioned the "everyone's a winner" mentality twice now, and although that's at best only tangentially related to what we're talking about here I wanted to address it because it seems important to you.

I agree with you. It's not healthy to pretend that everyone is equal and everyone's a winner, because eventually those kids get out of school and find out that nobody really believes that shit.

Quote by paul.housley.7
If you did it the hard way then you want to believe that the extra work that you did was difference-making, but you can't assume that faster learning is the same thing as not being willing to work hard.


You've hit on a key factor. It offends our sense of 'fairness' that someone else has an easier time of it than we do, so our internal reaction is to diminish the quality of their experience. Our brain LIKES "fairness" (it's called the "Just World Fallacy") and when we don't get it we create it.

Problem is, learning the hard way is almost never the best way. It wastes resources, is inefficient in scope and causes more dropout failure than any other method. The reason it's so common is because it's easy to teach. If you want people to REALLY learn something, make it fun and interesting (at least to the extent possible, not everything CAN be made fun and/or interesting). That's vastly harder, and in many cases takes a *huge expenditure of up-front resources, but the payoff is massive.

*When I was designing courses for the energy sector, research showed that it took between 40 and 160 hours of design time for every instructional hour, depending on the subject and requirements.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Jun 19, 2015,
#37
All I need is my Soul Food and TS10... they stay on constantly and rarely do I need other effects.
"If you're looking for me,
you better check under the sea,
because that's where you'll find me..."
#38
I am fascinated by your career field Arby. It has always been an interest of mine. Unfortunately I have too many interests.

I think that you and I could have an interesting OT conversation about this and related subjects. As an extension of the Rocksmith discussion I'd like to address a question to you:
First, what do you know about the upcoming Virtual Reality headsets? If you're not familiar with what people are saying about using them then this might be difficult to understand my context.
What people are saying is: "I forgot that I was in VR"
It's still just a transient forgetfulness at the moment, but in the early days of the technology that's understandable. I have extrapolated this to mean that you will eventually be able to suspend all of your disbelief and to simply exist in that other digital world. Fool your eyes, fool your ears, be somewhere (or someone) else.

Now I'm honestly not all that interested in the gaming applications. I am interested in how it could change art and education.
For example there's no reason to think that a band wouldn't be able to put on a show with pyrotechnics, huge 3d displays, exploding skyscrapers, intergalactic space battles, angels descending from heaven for the solo and a cameo by Jimmy Hendrix.
There's also no reason to think that it couldn't be attended by all 7 billion earthlings at the same time (aside from the logistics of getting a headset and internet access to everyone)
And there's also no reason to think that the audience couldn't all be crammed into the first row of the concert. We'd all be as ghosts in there. Hell, they could come up on the stage with the band during the performance and be invisible to everyone but themselves.

So art is going to be hellaciously different soon.
I think that schools are going to undergo a similar change.
If reality can be simulated to such a degree, then why would any parent send their kid to a physical school? You could have a school that looks and sounds exactly the same, except bullies can't intimidate the younger kids, nobody can steal their gameboy, no risk of bus accidents or violent disaffected teen mass-murderers....
And just like in the musical example I gave, you could have the best teacher in the country teach every kid at the same time.
There'd be room for teacher's assistants to field questions during the lecture. There'd be a place for tutors. Most of all there'd be a pause and rewind function. No reason why you couldn't. Did your kid spend a lecture doodling and missed out on how to factor a quadratic? (like I did) Well he can just rewind the lecture and catch up on what he missed.


So what is your professional response to this?
#39
Quote by paul.housley.7


So what is your professional response to this?


I've been watching this technology for quite a while now and I think it has, as you've highlighted, countless uses.

I'm not yet convinced that a headset/headphones alone can provide a sufficiently robust environment, as many of our environmental cues are tactile. In addition it would seem to require a scanning aspect to accurately simulate body positioning, lest our mental viewpoint and our physical reality get out of kilter. (This may not be as critical as I think, I've often wondered if our brains have the capacity to comprehend and function in an environment that's independent of our meat sack and it looks like we'll get the chance to find out.)

In addition to the educational and entertainment potential, I'd say that effective remote telepresence could open new commercial opportunities as well. Consider heavy equipment operations in extreme environments that don't have to be designed to coddle the operator, because said operator is in Boise in shorts and a t-shirt. No transportation, housing, medical or other human needs on site would massively decrease the cost of such operations.

And of course there's the ever-present warfare. We are already seeing the effects there with drones, but what about tanks and larger aircraft? What if your military only had to put boots on the ground after the war had been largely won, and you had not yet lost a man? (I see this backfiring as well, as it might bring about the necessity of bombing civilian population centers to take out the operators of the opposing force's equipment.)

We live in exciting times.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#40
Quote by Arby911
I've been watching this technology for quite a while now and I think it has, as you've highlighted, countless uses.

I'm not yet convinced that a headset/headphones alone can provide a sufficiently robust environment, as many of our environmental cues are tactile. In addition it would seem to require a scanning aspect to accurately simulate body positioning, lest our mental viewpoint and our physical reality get out of kilter. (This may not be as critical as I think, I've often wondered if our brains have the capacity to comprehend and function in an environment that's independent of our meat sack and it looks like we'll get the chance to find out.)

In addition to the educational and entertainment potential, I'd say that effective remote telepresence could open new commercial opportunities as well. Consider heavy equipment operations in extreme environments that don't have to be designed to coddle the operator, because said operator is in Boise in shorts and a t-shirt. No transportation, housing, medical or other human needs on site would massively decrease the cost of such operations.

And of course there's the ever-present warfare. We are already seeing the effects there with drones, but what about tanks and larger aircraft? What if your military only had to put boots on the ground after the war had been largely won, and you had not yet lost a man? (I see this backfiring as well, as it might bring about the necessity of bombing civilian population centers to take out the operators of the opposing force's equipment.)

We live in exciting times.



If I presented this to an auditorium full of educators, wouldn't it be safe to assume that some proportion of the audience would fall victim to some variety of the Just World Fallacy?

I can speak about scanning - they're going to solve scanning this year. They've already mostly solved scanning. Regarding hands: Oculus just showed their new controllers. They've got a circular structure that provides a constant counter-balance so that the controller always wants to rest in the corner of your hand between the thumb and the fore-finger. You can let go of the controller and it'll stay there. Every reviewer so far has loved them. It tracks thumb, index and middle finger position (more or less) and provides a satisfying sense of having gripped an object.
One reviewer in particular noted that he could see his real arms for a moment through a slit at the bottom of the headset, and his real arms were satisfyingly aligned with the virtual arms and that strongly reinforced immersion for him.
Given accurate hand and head tracking (already achieved) you can nearly approximate the torso using assumptions about average height and balance. If that's not enough, wearing a belt and maybe a few arm and knee bands would absolutely confirm that.
Haptics are mainly still rumble motors (like in your cell phone) at the moment but those can be useful if not entirely convincing.

But you're touching on a phenomenon that graphic artists call "closure". The mind is brilliant at creating closure. Closure is what makes you see a smiley face every time I combine a colon and a parenthesis. It's what allows us to classify a fork as a fork without having to spend time considering the differences. A pink plastic fork with 4 tines is set next to a silver metal fork with 2 tines. Still obviously a fork. That's closure. If that sounds unimpressive, you should know that most animals probably aren't capable of comprehending the sameness of those two forks. Or even if they could figure it out, it wouldn't come as quickly for them as it does for us.

I think that we're smart enough to fill in the gaps already, and if we're not able to fill in the gaps, well... wait a few months. The more convincing the positional audio becomes, the more convincingly real the graphics become, the easier it will be to complete the scenario in our minds.
Last edited by paul.housley.7 at Jun 19, 2015,
Page 1 of 2