-
Hello, I was wondering if any of you find it easier to play on an acoustic guitar compared to a plugged in electric.
I always struggled with the dynamics/pick attack while listening to just the amplifier tone. A tube amp helps just a little bit but if I record myself I sound a lot better with an acoustic guitar, a lot cleaner too. Today I recorded myself on my ibanez artcore without monitoring the signal from the pickup. Put it on my computer and the daw program... It sounded so much better although I did add some EQ and saturation later. It doesn't sound like me acoustically but its all good and much cleaner than my electric guitar playing would have been normallyLast edited by mokapot; 09-27-2016 at 04:55 PM.
-
09-27-2016 04:49 PM
-
It depends on what I'm playing.
I've found that for myself, my electric playing benefits from time spent on acoustic, in that I'm more sensitive in how I touch the guitar.
-
I have no problem playing electric. It is my voice.
However, I covet adding a Martin acoustic to my sound palette and will shortly. Just want to play some jazz on the finest acoustic made...
-
Better get you a Larivee, too, then.
Originally Posted by fasstrack
-
Acoustics and electrics are two very different instruments. The biggest adjustment acoustic players face when plugging in, is that an amplifier amplifies along with the music, every undamped ringing string, finger squeak, pick noise that your guitar makes. If you are used to playing a classical, then plug a Tele into an amp, you'll hear sounds you had no intention of making. It's just a matter of adaption, focusing on those artifacts and eliminating them. This issue is why I am a huge proponent of electric players doing most of their practice plugged in. In short, when playing an amplified guitar, you are playing the guitar and the amp.
-
easier? no.
but I actually see them as 2 different instruments
you have to spend time with your electric to have a good tone on your electric
they are similar, but you have to spend time with both of them because they are not the same
-
Who? Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
Better get you a Larivee, too, then.
Never heard of it. But then I've never heard of lots of things, living as I do in a kind of self-made 'bubble'...
-
Jean Larrivee makes some sweet guitars.
I like Martins, but not too much for jazz playing.
-
I played a Santa Cruz recently and loved it. I've got an early 60s Gibson LG 1 and it's great, acoustic or with a sound hole p.u. I did some recording with it going direct and it sounded like an ES 150.
Gabor Szabo sounded good on a amplified Martin but I think earlier he was playing a Gibson J-160E.
-
I guess I could call myself an acoustic guitar player then, never really bothering to play with an amp
I just view the pickup as another way to record the instrument.
I used to have problems with recording vocals with headphones on, I boosted 2khz by a lot and that did the trick for me. Maybe I could crank the tube amp a little bit (for compression) when I play it if I want to be an electric guitar player
-
I think acoustic is more difficult to play amplified. I recently started playing my acoustic (finger style) and bought an L1 compact. The first time I plugged it in I couldn't believe how much extraneous noise was coming through. I have had to work on damping strings, eliminating buzz etc. It also made my fingers sore for about two weeks because I hadn't played it in a long time. Really toughens the calices.
-
I know exactly what you mean. Originally Posted by mokapot
A loud electric is a different animal. I use a different right hand technique.
You just have to practice with an amp to get used to it.
-
If I my play the role of hard ass purist, (not really me in this particular case, very much me in others) the acoustic guitar was not invented with the intention of ever being amplified. Originally Posted by Patriots2006
-
I play a D'angelico EXL-1 with a Shadow AZ 48 pickup these days often acoustically.Thumb or thumb and a couple of fingers. It sounds very different plugged into my Roland Blues Cube BC60 - with an Eminence Legend 1258 speaker replacement/ clean channel BMT all at zero and modified by an Empress Para EQ.
I play acoustically when doing rough " learning the structure stuff " and switch to plugged in when focusing on refinement. Which then reflect back to the acoustic rough practice playing. Plugged in I hear every sloppy fretting technique / poorly weighted note articulation/finger scrape etc etc . The acoustic feels like exploratory practice space the plugged in like performance or performance practice space.
-
Larrivee, small-label guitars built in Canada and America, fantastic build quality and (depending on how you like your acoustic to sound) tone. I've played plenty of Martins, but none of them grabbed me like my neighbor's Larry (one he'd helped build himself in their Oxnard shop) -- a dreadnought with midrange! Almost as if it had a cedar top. About the same price range as a Martin. Originally Posted by fasstrack
If you've never heard of them, you owe it to yourself to check them out and play a few. They are top notch.
-
Yeah Thump,
Larrivee makes great sounding guitars. Unfortunately less than 10 years ago they were substantially under priced, a great bargain but since then have had a dramatic price increase up to the level where they "should" be compared to their peers.
-
Well if you are capable of playing a solo gig at a bar or restaurant and can compete with the noise level and not plug in then I say kudos to you. Originally Posted by whiskey02
-
I think of my archtop as a different instrument when plugged in than when playing acoustically. My touch, especially with the pick/fingers, is much lighter when amplified and I think my left hand may be lighter as well. I rarely bother to plug in at home because my guitar sounds so nice acoustically; I would prefer to play acoustically all the time, but can't do that with drums, sax, trumpet and electric bass. Well, I could but no one other than me would know I was there... sometimes I never use the amp except at gigs and rehearsals. I really have very little interest in electric sounds (right now, anyway, that wasn't true in the past and may not be true in the future).
The thing about amplified playing is that it really makes you have to clean up your technique. But when you play amplified all the time and go back to playing acoustically, you've got no drive/oomph/projection.
-
Yeah, the word got out. The last one Nate brought home that I played was a Tele-style with an SD minihumbucker in the neck spot. Great workmanship, outstanding tone, but even with his employee discount, a few bills above what I'd want to pay at that time. The one and only parlor guitar I've loved was his as well, but at three large, it just ain't gonna happen. Originally Posted by whiskey02
-
If the need for amplification resulted in the use of magnetic pickups then we could ask the question is there going to be a better alternative? Could we keep the acoustic guitar as its own instrument in the future?
I just love electric guitars, especially when someone else plays it. It is a different instrument but the acoustic is my voice. When I'm recording vocals I choose between dynamic and condenser mikes based on the dynamics and similarly, it can make it sound like two different instruments!
-
You missed the point entirely; the flat top steel string was neither conceived, designed nor intended to contend with the noise produced by 97 talking bar patrons. You are using a tool that was not built for the application you are forcing it into, therefore you will have to deal with a new set of issues that you created by "making it louder". An acoustic guitar is by nature a fairly soft spoken instrument, capable of producing beautiful sounds within limited dynamic range (roughly a whisper to a moderately low). It's not a fault or flaw in the instrument, it's just what the instrument is. An organ in a church with 130 pipes has a much broader dynamic range, albeit missing the whisper soft volume other instruments are capable of. That organ is not mobile, it must stay in one place. Again, not a flaw in the instrument, just what the instrument it. Originally Posted by Patriots2006
-
I don't agree with the statement that I am forcing the instrument into any unorthodox situation. It is true that electronics will alter the sound somewhat depending on what you play the instrument through. ( I happen to think using a condenser mic is a more pure sound but even that is an alteration to the original sound of the instrument. With that said if we follow your logic to the letter no one would ever perform live in any situation with an acoustic guitar unless it was a very small crowd in virtually a small room. Think of all the great music we would be missing because most of us would never here it. I purposely bought the L1 compact in order to get as close to an uncolored sound as possible, (within reason of course), and I admit I still have to alter the eq in the T1 mixer to get a more natural sound and eliminate feedback by notching out a specific frequency but it sounds very good to my ears and I can now go out and book some solo gigs in the up coming year. Without any kind of amplification I couldn't work. Maybe it is a necessary evil but nothing in this world is perfect. I understand what your point of view is and can appreciate it but what other way could musicians perform acoustically if it were not for some method of sound reinforcement?
-
I think you are both right. It is nice to amplify the acoustic sound, and also rather difficult..
-
Patriots2006,
I have no argument with you. You are not doing anything but what you have to do, and what just about everybody else in your situation is doing. My one and only point is that when the acoustic steel string guitar was designed and built in the first half of the nineteenth century, it was intended to be played for an audience of maybe 15 to 25 people in "concerts" in the parlor of a home. No thought was given to amplification or how to make it loud enough to fill a concert hall, as there were no traveling virtuoso concert artists at that time (famous musician like Tarrega and Franz Liszt never played for crowds more than a 20-30). There have been refinements and improvements, more volume, but ultimately and acoustic guitar is still an acoustic guitar. You can amplify it, which raises some issues, and you have to admit that in doing so, you forfeit something that can only be had by hearing a pure acoustic instrument; you compromise. The reason so many people have issues with their amplified acoustic sound, is that they are always in a situation of compromise, giving up something they love if you will, for more of what they need in a particular situation. I'm not saying it's wrong or that it shouldn't be done, I'm just conscious of the fact that you loose one thing to gain another.
If you want to talk about the classical and amplification, I will spew venom to anyone who is not Amish in their thinking. Do not get me started lol.
-
Tiny quibble to a post I otherwise think pretty on. The "steel string" acoustic is not a 19th century instrument. They only date from the first half of the 20th century. They were part of an escalation in a volume war to build louder instruments. The need was precisely that they were no longer chamber instruments and volume was needed to play to larger crowds or on busy street corners.
That said, they were never meant as a stadium rock instrument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Playing live and getting the best sound from the...
Today, 02:08 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos