Quote by Freepower
Thanks for chiming in Buckeye, I think it's really good to have someone speak out to their fans and especially with such a level-headed and genuine post.

I can totally empathise with you on the evil youtube comments, the lack of interest in originals... everything except the runaway success being a surprise.

You have an extra subscriber here.
Thanks for the kind words!

Quote by Funk Monk
this guy is just your average shredder.

Why is it so ground-breaking??
I must have missed the part where somebody called it "ground-breaking". I also get the impression you didn't read through my response to the TS.
I agree that it is pointless to argue about music based on taste. By the same token, your assertion that most popular music is "talentless crap" compared to Paul Gilbert is based on your own taste. For most of us, musical talent goes well beyond how much technical proficiency someone can demonstrate. However, I respect that you might have a different definition and might prefer to rate musical purely in an "objective" manner.
Quote by Aleksi
If you're arguing about what music you like, your argument is purely subjective and thus worthless. You can argue objectively about the complexity and the ability required in music, so this argument, far from being redundant is actually the only laudable way to argue about music.
His point is that the complexity and technical ability required to play something has little to do with the appeal of that music to most listeners (myself included). Some people completely ignore this fact and choose to put down others' taste in music or original compositions because they expect a certain level of proficiency to be demonstrated. It's a very shallow-minded way of thinking, but unfortunately it's very prevalent, especially on internet forums and media sites.
Quote by archenemyfan
Wow!my respect for you has increased by miles..your reply was very honest and sincere...

I would love to see you do a vai or a Paul gilbert cover...metalcore does not exactly exhibit technical abilities or skills..sure there are some hard ones but some arent...

After I saw your post I suddenly felt like a douche

forgive me if I in anyway offended you..
Oh man I've developed some pretty thick skin having read comments on my YouTube videos for the past few years. (Some people are downright evil.) Don't worry about it.

As I mentioned in my post above, I don't consider myself anywhere near technically elite, and the metalcore songs I've covered are plenty challenging for me. I don't really post songs for the sake of proving my technical ability. I haven't listened to much of P. Gilbert, Satriani, Vai, or other well-known instrumentalists, but from what I've heard I know much of what they play is well beyond my ability.
I have to admit I was a bit scared to click on this thread knowing how some discussions turn out here, but overall the criticism has been pretty mild. (Yeah, I don't really care much for that baby blue shirt anymore--the criticism is deserved. Any other shirts of mine that you disliked? Keep in mind that I often used to play right before leaving for work or right when I got home, because that was the only free time I had.)

I am a bit disappointed that my original compositions weren't even mentioned until the 3rd page though. While I'm happy with most of my covers (especially the more recent ones), I would hope to be defined more by my originals.

In response to the OP, I would say this: there are probably thousands of people posting videos on YouTube with greater technical ability and better form than me. There are probably hundreds of members of this forum with more technical ability. So in that respect, my skills are nothing special. On the other hand, I believe a very small percentage of people who aim to learn guitar will get to this level, so that in itself could be viewed as a significant accomplishment. However, "good" is a very subjective term. For some, a player's technical ability is the sole measure of how "good" he is. For others, it might be compositional skills or sound. For most people, it's probably some combination of the these attributes. I'd like to think that I have a pretty nice balance of these attributes, but everyone will have a different opinion.

I think a number of factors other than my playing skill have led to my "success" (if you'd call it that) on YouTube. I certainly never dreamed of having this much exposure on the internet or being recognized occasionally in public when I posted my first crappy YouTube video. First, I started posting videos when YouTube was really starting to take off in popularity. In this sense, I "got in" with some of the first "good" versions of some popular cover songs before YouTube was flooded with hundreds of redundant versions. For most of my covers, I practiced the hell out of the song until I neared perfection. Most people didn't come close to nailing songs at the time. Second, I made videos with good audio quality at a time when the vast majority of people were using their camera microphones to pick up sound. You could actually hear what I was playing and people could tell it was clean. Third, I chose songs that I liked, but at the same time had a wide appeal to fans of the genre and weren't trivial to play. (I get sick of the argument that metalcore is "easy". I honestly don't think most people making this claim have attempted to learn many Trivium or All That Remains songs. They are more difficult than you might think.)

Over time I built up a subscriber base and the views increased exponentially. I remember reaching 100 subs and I thought that was incredible. Now I might get close to 100 new subs on a good day--it's crazy. I have had to deal with my fair share of haters along the way. To give you one example, someone recently complained in the comments of my Master of Puppets video that his version was better, he was a better player than me, and that I didn't deserve more views than him. I tried to explain that it was pointless for him to try to get exposure on YouTube by posting yet another version of a song that has been covered many thousands of times, but he just didn't get it. He kept attacking me, obviously infuriated by the fact that someone with "lesser" skills could achieve more success than him. There is a similar theme with many of the other hater comments.

Anyhow, I don't think there's a "yes" or "no" answer to your original question. One day you might realize you've matched my technical ability, and you'll decide that you have so much further to go. Or maybe you'll realize, like me, that you just don't have the time to put into it anymore to get much better, because you have other priorities in your life. I just know that I spent countless hours practicing in my first 2-3 years of playing, and although I haven't improved a whole lot since then, I'm proud of what I've accomplished. I know I'll never reach a technically elite level, and I'm okay with that.

Thanks for letting me express my thoughts. Let me know if you have any questions.

PS: I used a POD 2.0 and POD X3 for all of my videos. I'm a big proponent of amp emulation technology for direct recording. I'm not certain that they're the best choice for a live rig, but they do a damn good job for recording and have many advantages over the traditional tube amp and microphone technique.
Jumbug: It really depends what you want to do with your setup. If you're pretty sure you're always going to be practicing in front of your computer, and you'd like to record, then something like the POD X3 makes perfect sense despite what some people here might say. Also, the claim that "EMGs only sound good through tube amps" is completely baseless in my opinion, yet it gets repeated on here as absolute truth. (I'm an engineer with some background in DSP, and I've yet to hear an explanation for this that makes any sense). You said you like the way my stuff sounds, and it was recorded using EMGs through solid state devices, so you should be able to form your own opinion on that.

If you think you're going to want to haul your amp around to practice with other people, then a combo amp makes a lot more sense. I haven't played through a lot of combos, so you should check out some of the recommendations others have made.
You would just use your M-Audio device as your external audio interface, and plug in the microphone, which would be placed in front of your amp. The rest of the process is pretty much the same. I would suggest using SONAR instead of Audacity. Since you'll be recording your amp with a microphone, you'll have to use headphones to monitor your recorded tracks as well as the new one you're recording. Otherwise, if you use speakers to monitor, they will bleed back into the microphone. The other option is to place your amp in a separate sound-proofed room, but most people don't have this option in their homes.

The key is learning how to use your DAW software (SONAR) effectively. If you're new to this it can be pretty overwhelming, so you might want to see if you can find some tutorials or read through the documentation.
There are several different ways to record your guitar. You can use a microphone in front of your amp and capture the signal using your computer's sound card as others have mentioned. Alternatively, you can use a direct recording method (usually with some type of amp emulation hardware or software) to capture your guitar audio. The "USB audio interfaces" that have been mentioned are usually a step up from your computer's internal sound card, but essentially they perform the same function. If you're new to PC-based recording, I recommend starting with just your computer's sound card. If you get the hang of it and you're striving for better quality and/or more I/O options, you can always upgrade to a dedicated external audio interface. This is what I did recently. You can find more information about my recording methods on my website:
Quote by BoL7z
Yeah starting to get it, but the tab i'm using atm isn't that good does anyone know the best tab out for this?



Or what would be easier to play, i'm guessing it's very much the same tab just with different frets?
Of course the KillrBuckeye one is more accurate.

But seriously, you can judge the accuracy of my tab for yourself by watching my cover video:
It's not weird at all. Amp/cab/mic modeling is really intended for direct recording, or playing through headphones, a P.A. or other "neutral" systems. When you run the output of your modeler into your amp, you're essentially putting a preamp in series with your Randall head's pre-amp and power stage, which changes the sound significantly. The cabinet colors the sound even more, so what you hear is a jumbled, over-processed mess. My Line 6 POD X3 includes the option to turn off the cab/mic/room simulation for feeding a guitar amp, but even then there is still the problem of the amplifier "over-processing" the sound. For this reason, you really need to make separate patches for direct sound and for feeding an amp, and there's no guarantee that you'll ever get a good sound using the modeler in front of your amp.

If you like the sound you get from the Metal Zone, then why did you create this thread in the first place? And why would you say that you want the "true tone" of the Randall, yet insist on using the cheap pedal? Have you TRIED just using the distortion of the amp head itself?
This doesn't make sense to me:

I've mainly been turning off the amp modeling and stompboxes on the GNX because i want the randall's true tone and just using the metal zone for all of my distortion and using the GNX for effects.
Your Metal Zone pedal is essentially doing the same thing as the amp modeling on your GNX (minus the cab/mic/room simulation). If you want the "true tone" of the Randall, you should be using its internal gain circuitry for most of your distortion. Try that and see if your 7-string sounds better.

For what it's worth, my 7-string never sounded right when I used my Line 6 POD 2.0 as a tone-shaping front-end for my half stack, but I when I plugged the guitar directly into my stack it sounded great. I think a lot of the devices that act like pre-amps (your Metal Zone pedal and the GNX pedal included) for some reason don't handle the lows on 7-strings very well. If this is what's happening, putting different pickups on your 7-string isn't going to help.
Just to clarify, for my original songs I used the USB functionality of my Line 6 POD X3 to record all guitar and bass tracks. The "Recording: Covers" section on my website describes how I recorded my cover videos, which was by using the sound card in my computer to capture the output from my POD 2.0.

You need to decide how you want to record and what kind of quality you're shooting for. If you want to record your guitar amp and you'd be happy with "decent" quality, then you just need a microphone and you can get away with using your computer's built-in sound hardware. An external audio interface, such as the Presonus device mentioned by the pirate, would be ideal, but not necessary for getting started with home recording.

Your other option is to record your guitar direct using a device like a Line 6 POD or POD Studio. The advantage is that you don't have to worry about having a good acoustical environment and mic, and you have nearly infinite tonal possibilities with digital modeling.
Quote by JELIFISH19
Sure is. Pretty good clean tone for those dull, lifeless, EMGs, eh? But what do I know? My ears are apparently bad.
Quote by Mazzakazza

Also, gain levels will have no effect on clipping, if you then turn the volume up to compensate for less gain. It's about sound levels.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If the signal coming out of the guitar is not clipping, then it can be digitally processed without clipping. I have a background in digital signal processing, so please speak in technical terms when trying to explain where this "unavoidable" clipping occurs. Tons of bands are using amp emulation in the studio these days, and they manage to record without this clipping with active pickups.
Quote by Mazzakazza
Dude, it's absolutely true. EMGs and other active pickups WILL clip through tube amps. If you can't hear the clipping, you're either not that loud, or you have bad ears. (I can hear clipping on your youtube, some slight stuff on the rythym section chug parts. It's not loud enough to be massively noticeable, but when you gig, it probably is)

EDIT: Nice playing though. I liked the song
I assume you meant SS amps instead of tube amps, but I still don't agree. The whole purpose of the gain/drive setting on a preamp is to adjust the input level. If the signal from the active pickups is too hot, it's just a matter of turning down the gain on the amp to prevent clipping.

There are professional players using EMG active pickups through modeling gear. If this setup is half as bad as you claim, I'm not sure why anyone would do this.
Quote by Mazzakazza
^ Actives clip through SS amps - it's a fact. Not opinion.
I've used my EMG active pickups through solid state amps for many years while gigging. If it's clipping, I certainly can't hear it and nobody has ever mentioned anything to me about it (even with clean tones).

Again, I think I get great metal tone with my EMG actives through a POD X3.


I'm not claiming that the pickups are extremely versatile--just that they serve my purposes very well. Even so, there are still people here telling me that they don't (or shouldn't) work well through my solid state modeling device. What a bunch of rubbish.
EMGs work great for what I do, and I certainly don't have a top-of-the-line amp. In fact, I use them with a Line 6 POD X3, and I think the sound is fantastic. (Another constantly-repeated yet unsubstantiated claim on this forum is that active pickups sound horrible through solid-state modeling devices. I would definitely disagree with this.) The bottom line is that EMGs provide an awesome metal tone. If that weren't the case, then you wouldn't see so many successful bands in the genre using them. If you want a pickup that's more diverse, then obviously EMG actives aren't the best choice.
Quote by webbtje
Head mod approves it -> no-one cares what you think.

Incidentally, if you'd bothered to read the thread as well as the list, you'd have seen that it's there for traffic reasons, not doucheist elitebag reasons. Whinge about the list not being edited for the last two or so years, not the fact that it exists.

On a further note, labelling is useful, whether you believe it or not.

"Hey mate, can you recommend me some METAL?"

"OK, have some Iron Maiden, Killswitch Engage, Morbid Angel, Darkthrone, Carcass, Meshuggah, Dream Theater, Napalm Death, and SYL!"

"No, I didn't mean that, I meant METAL!"

"What kind of metal?"

Such much hostility here... I was just making an observation that I found interesting. I wasn't suggesting that Fear Factory doesn't belong in this forum.

Not for elitebag reasons huh? From that sticky:
I noticed that your eager to post about Trivium or some gay band that your best friend with the black nail polish played too you or you heard on the radio.

Sure, that' not elitist at all.

I don't have a problem with using labels to reduce traffic in certain forums, but the labels are too often used for derisive purposes. People seem to disrespect other people on these forums just because they're fans of a certain subgenre.
I love Fear Factory, and I really, really hate sub-genre labels. I was appalled to see how much hostility there is on this forum when someone posts about a band that the majority here do not consider to be metal (people act as if there is an objective set of criteria that can be applied to each band to properly label it--a ridiculous notion IMO). There is a sticky at the top of this forum that lists bands that supposedly do not belong in this forum. In fact, the sticky goes so far as to say: "Don't post these bands(Unless you want to be raped and/or flamed)"

The funny thing is that Fear Factory is classified as Nu Metal according to the list, so where is the flaming and raping for the OP?! It's not as cut and dry as many would like to believe.

Another thought: I think there is a striking similarity between As I Lay Dying's "An Ocean Between Us" album and Fear Factory's "Obsolete". Yet one is considered metalcore and the other is metal.

Anyhow, I'm a proponent of just calling everything metal. If you have to start referring to lists (very subjective lists created by a few people with control) to figure out in which subforum you should be posting, it's gone a bit too far IMO. Sorry, end of my rant about labels.
Quote by darkcheef
Nope. The numbers I listed are correct. Think about what fixationdarknes said:

Do you really think your low E string is almost half an inch thick?

That's what you're suggesting by claiming that it's 0.42".

Quote by randomhero93
i thought, (and i'm pretty sure it's) .09, .11, .16, .24, .32, .42 for a set of 9's... i think you should get your decimal places correct. =/
I think you should actually consider that you might be wrong (which you are) before throwing a "=/" face at me.
Quote by darkcheef
That would be thinner than a high e string
Actually, no. Typical light gauge high E string is 0.009".

I am currently using 0.011-0.050 for D standard, and the tension feels just right to me. For drop C, I found the tension to be a little too low in the 6th string through.
Yes, I am on UG! Thanks for the thread--I'm flattered.

I don't claim to be a great guitar player when it comes to technique. I try to make up for that with composition and accurate transcriptions of cover songs.

As for criticism of my vibrato, this is something I've heard before, but no one has been able to actually tell me what it is they don't like. It would be nice if someone could point to specific examples in one of my *recent* videos, and tell me what you think is wrong. Personally, I think I do a fine job if you listen to my original songs. Maybe I'm not great at mimicking the vibrato technique of other players though.

Over-use of harmonies is another criticism I've heard before. What can I really say? I love dual guitar harmonies. I've never listened to a song and thought to myself that there was too much dual guitar harmonization. Especially in instrumental guitar music, you hear it all the time. I guess it comes down to personal taste.
Quote by 6 STRING NOOB
off topic, ^^^ loved ur as i lay diying - the sound of truth cover on youtube
Thanks! Have you seen my two originals yet?
Quote by JEST87
EMG 81 ... I love them through a nice tube amp, but they sound God awful through SS amps.
I disagree. I use them with my POD 2.0 and X3 and they sound fantastic. I also used them through my Marshall 8100 Valvestate.
If you have two guitars with the same scale length set up properly with the same strings (gauge and material) and same tuning, then the string tension in the two guitars WILL be extremely close. String tension is a function of the unit weight of the string, length, and tuned pitch (first natural frequency of vibration). The unit weight of the string will depend on the gauge, construction, and materials. The tension has nothing to do with how the string attaches to the body (bridge type). So, the only possible reasons there would be a significant difference in string tensions between your two guitars are:

- Different string gauges
- Different string construction or material
- Different tuning
- Different scale length

This talk about the Ibanez tremolo/ZPS has nothing to do with string tension. That system is design to improve tuning stability through increasing tremolo SPRING tension (the floating bridge will seem stiffer when you go to bend/pull), but it does not affect the string tension at the zero point.
Thanks for the feedback everyone! I will try to return the favor for those of you who asked when I get some time. This has been my first week with a newborn, and it has been a little hectic!

For iTunes, I believe I get $0.70 per download. Unfortunately, sales data is not released until 45 days after the end of the month, so I'm still waiting to see how many people purchased my first song "Arrival" in January!
Quote by turtlewax

Will someone tell my freind's band that they suck?

Granted, it's a very simple song, but I've heard FAR worse. No, I won't tell them that they suck.
Quote by necrosis1193
That my friend, is the internet. Full of idiots who need to insult others to make their lives feel good.

Why do I think that's going to stop a lot of you from commenting on youtube?

Thanks so much for that cartoon! As a veteran poster of YouTube guitar videos, that pretty much sums it up!!! Hilarious. I think I might put that on my website.

Regarding the topic of this thread, I say give the guy a break. We all sucked at some point, yet we all probably thought we were great! I know I did, and I wasted no opportunity to show off my incredible skills (such as playing the intro to "Nothing Else Matters") as often as I could! Thankfully people were supportive of me, and internet forums like this one didn't yet exist!
Hahaha you got me. Metalcore just pisses me off so much I feel a little biased towards it.
A little? LOL. I'm curious to know why, but let's take this offline. I'm going to send you a PM.
That's not an opinion you dump ape. Let me correct that for you.
Hey DEATHPANDA, speaking of opinions, don't you think if you're going to give Ikonoklast trouble, you should at least change your sig to read like this?


Sorry, I couldn't resist. I do find your sig quite childish though.
Quote by Starstorm
No, compromising your overall sound from your original vision to appeal to everyone's taste is selling out.
Well said, and GO BUCKS! (Hopefully you're a fan since you live in C-Bus).
For the vast majority of people, technical proficiency does not play much of a role in determining what music sounds good to them. What sort of validation are you seeking regarding your "technically superior" guitar playing? Do you just want your cousin's step-dad to admit that you could write and play licks that Noel Gallagher could not? Is that really what you're after? Who cares?

On a related note, somebody was recently "criticizing" the solo to one of my original songs that I posted to YouTube. He started off by saying that the solo "sounded amazing!", but then followed with this: "I got your tab for the song and I was disappointed that I was able to learn most of the solo in a matter of minutes. I think you should have spent more time on it." To this person, a solo that "sounded amazing" was not good enough. It wasn't until he looked at the freaking tab that he decided that the solo needed improvement! I'm not going to write difficult licks for the sake of being technical, but apparently that makes me less of a musician in the eyes of some people. I think that's pretty sad.
Washburn all the way! But I'm a bit partial. You can see and hear what the X50 can do in my video:
Quote by lorrythebassguy
If its cheap, then hell yeah go for it, but in another year (or less) you'll get fed up and want to replace it, so ide probably wait and get something abit better
I used my 8100 for many years and never got "fed up" with it. Also, the amp modeling that you hate so much is used on more and more recordings these days. Chances are you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. Maybe you hated your Spider amp, but it's unfair to base your opinion of digital amp modeling on your experience with a single combo amp.
Quote by JilaX^
To put it that way:
Pics or it didn't happen.

I've seen people claim Zakk Wylde and Kerry King play MGs, too. And that they can "Get a perfect tone" out of those amps.
I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to accept that some artists are perfectly happy with the sound they get from SS / modeling amps. I have links supporting the list of artists I mentioned who used the Valvestate amps. I'm not sure about MrSandMan's list, but I easily found links to several articles where Wayne Static talks about using Marshall solid state amps. One of the articles is even from U-G.
Quote by RadioMuse
It does... But about as much as having a set neck vs. a bolt on neck does sustain... Which btw has been scientifically tested and bolt ons have *slightly* more at most frequency ranges.

So get the guitar that looks and feels right to you. The shape is basically unimportant.
I agree with you. I don't hear any difference in tone or sustain between guitars with bolt-on necks and those with set-thru or neck-thru-body construction. The one undeniable advantage that set-thru or neck-thru construction offers is playability at the higher frets. The big block of wood where the bolt-on necks attach to the body is definitely somewhat of an impediment; however, if one has only played on guitars with bolt-on necks, he/she would probably never notice.
Yes, the shape of an electric guitar does affect the sound. Here is a simple explanation. The voltage signal coming out of the guitar is created by magnetic field perturbations caused by string vibration. The string vibration is influenced somewhat by the vibration of the guitar body. The vibration of the guitar body is influenced by its shape and material properties. So different guitar body shapes will have some influence on how the strings vibrate.
Quote by TheQuailman
@Killrbuckeye: As important as the points you mentioned are (especially the first one), I have to say: It's obvious that tastes differ. There are people who like Marshall Valvestate amps, but on the other hand, there are also people who like being kicked in the nuts - if you like it, fine. Yet I wouldn't encourage anyone to do the latter because I think it's a bad idea. And I certainly won't encourage anyone to buy an amplifier that I think is horrible (yes, it is far beyond bad imo, indeed horrible).

The problem with solid state Marshalls is that when you are inexperienced, they actually sound good to you. But when you start developing an ear for tone, you will hear all it's shortcomings.
Well I guess according to you I still don't have an ear for tone after 14 years of playing. I guess Chuck Schuldiner and Dino Cazares also don't share your refined ear for tone. Regardless of what you think, there are many people who are quite happy with the sound of this amp. Why not let the OP decide for himself?
I disagree with most people in this thread. First of all, tone from an amp is a very subjective thing, so asking a question like "is this a good amp?" is similar to asking "what is the best color?". There are many tube snobs on this forum (sorry if I offend anyone, but it's true) who won't even consider anything without valves, which is ridiculous considering that many albums these days are recorded with software amp emulation.

I have a Marshall 8100 amp (older version of the VS100) and 1960a cabinet, and I think it sounds fantastic. I gigged with it for many years and I always received compliments on the tone. The other guitarist in my old band bought a VS100, and I thought it sounded very similar to the 8100. I keep reading about how the old 8100s are so much better than the VS100s, but I honestly couldn't hear a big difference. I think this is a case of one person stating something, and everyone else regurgitating it.

Finally, these amps have been used by successful metal recording artists. The late Chuck Schuldiner of Death used an 8100 exclusively, and Dino Cazares (formerly of Fear Factory, now with Divine Heresy) uses a 100W Valvestate head (he doesn't specify which series). If the tone is good enough for these successful metal guitarists, I think it could work for you. Don't let a few people on a message board talk you out of considering it.