ShortScale.org

I've got way too many but i doubt i'll stop buying more any time soon, so i suppose i have to say there's never too many . On my board i've got A Boss SD-2, V3 Big Muff or a Deluxe depending on how i feel that day and a Dunlop Hendrix Octave Fuzz (the black MXR sized one).

The rest are:
- Boss DS-1
- Boss DF-2
- Boss OD-2 /OD-2r
- Boss SD-1
- Boss PW-2
- Boss HM-2 x2
- Boss HM-3
- Boss FZ-2
- Proco RAT2
- Marshall Drivemaster
- Marshall Guv'Nor mk1
- Double Muff
- NYC Big Muff (removed 1st set of clipping diodes, so it's a "supa tonebender" i guess)
- Big Muff w/ Tone Wicker
- Rams Head Muff
- Ibanez TS-10
- Ibanez SML Super Metal (similar to the Guv'nor actually)
- MXR Blue Box
- Fuzz Face clone

... fuck, i really aught to sell half of these

johnnyseven wrote:Forgot that I have a Dunlop Hendrix Systems Octave Fuzz too, but it's on ebay as I got more use out of the Hyper Fuzz.

I'm the opposite, my FZ-2 is mostly reserved for Bass, though the past few days i keep using it in place of a Muff. I'd love it if there was a footswitch for going between modes 1 and 2. I only use the Hendrix for noise anyway.

Cheers all...the Fender Blender intrigues me all the more now. I had it down as just another retro fuzz, but it sounds more like an 'experimental' piece of kit rather than something in the region of, say, the Muffs, RAT and Fab Tone I already own.

I have the same issue with delays. Yes, I bloody do need so many. DD-3? Straight-up digital. RV-3? It does reverb too, 100% wet/dry mix AND delay and 'verb at the same time. Carbon Copy? It's analogue and small. PS-2? It's another 'best kind of bad' devices that's so quirky and unusual I keep it for the lulz and the shit-eating grins that its weird noises give me. A Fender Blender sounds like the ocatve/fuzz equivalent of one of those. Looks like I'll be putting an order in with Mike for one of those when I have the autumn/Christmas malarky out of the way.

@BacchusPaul: I don't know squat about the music theory either, so that was really helpful. It's one of those things I wanted to know, but never read a succinct 'layman' answer to. In the same way that I've wondered why minor chords often sound shit through fuzzes but not with valve distortion...

BacchusPaul wrote:
Major third: play a note, play another one string up and one fret down (like at the bottom of a G chord)
Fourth: Play two notes on consecutive strings on the same fret, like the top half of a power chord.
Fifth: Play a note, play another one string up and two frets up (like at the bottom of a power (or 5th) chord).

As you can see, the distance between the notes gets bigger as you go from third to fourth to fifth.

EDIT: Obviously this won't work if the strings are the G and B strings, because those are a different distance apart.

Thanks Paul. I did know these, and I use them, just didn't know what they were.

johnnyseven wrote:

BacchusPaul wrote:
Major third: play a note, play another one string up and one fret down (like at the bottom of a G chord)
Fourth: Play two notes on consecutive strings on the same fret, like the top half of a power chord.
Fifth: Play a note, play another one string up and two frets up (like at the bottom of a power (or 5th) chord).

As you can see, the distance between the notes gets bigger as you go from third to fourth to fifth.

EDIT: Obviously this won't work if the strings are the G and B strings, because those are a different distance apart.

Thanks Paul. I did know these, and I use them, just didn't know what they were.

To be honest, this is something that fucks me off a bit. Most guitarists know a fair bit of theory, they maybe just aren't confident with terminology, which isn't surprising because if you read guitar magazines. Terms or phrases that have quite exact meanings get thrown around all over the place to mean different things to what they were supposed to mean originally. Also, I think that a lot of teachers and sort of, pro-style, shredder type guitarists use terms to make themselves sound like they know more than they do about what they're doing, or that what they're doing is more complicated than it actually is. It's like they're priests speaking Latin or something, and it's all hocus pocus.

It's the same with written music to an extent. Musical notation as it has evolved in Europe (and every else now too, I suppose, but it was based on those European standards) is a powerful tool to record on paper a sound that is produced by an instrument. It is designed to be communicative and quite easy to read, but when you see the way the musical score part of a a guitar piece appears along side the tab in the average guitar magazine, it's usually written in a really confusing way that must be willfully difficult to understand. One of the things we were always taught at uni was to make it easy to read, that's why you're writing it, because someone has to read it.

I'd love to write a book (and keep talking about it) of music theory for guitarists. I'd love to see a change of attitude so that people weren't intimidated by music theory. After all, you only have to look at the pages and pages of threads about fairly complicated technical stuff relating to valves, transistors, strings, springs, woods, construction techniques, voltages, impedances, wattages, etc. that we are all fairly comfortable with.

These terms are intended to be used so that two people talking about music can more quickly express a musical concept to each other. They shouldn't be scary, they should be useful. And if someone else doesn't know the term you're using or what it means, you should be able to explain it a different way. If you can't, then maybe you don't understand it. It should be a set of tools, and people shouldn't be made to feel stupid or less competent because they don't know the same terminology as someone else.

Like, I still don't understand jazz chords or how they're written but that's never been a problem because I know dozens of other ways of describing chords and intervals.

paul, I for one would be interested in that book if you write it. maybe start with a blog with some articles.

I've made an effort to try and learn music theory over the years on the guitar but it is only recently since I started messing about with keyboards that its started to click. The guitar can make matters confusing but it can also be liberating, the fact you can play the same notes in different positions can really confuse (and that is the power of its magic) with how you can relate the music rules on to it. but keeping it linear on a keyboard I have found helps me focus on it a lot more and then when I come back to the guitar I can express and learn things a lot more.

Dont encourage him Chris. He has ruined this thread, it was all about simpletons owning a shitload of dirt boxes before he chimed in.

Good explanation Paul. I only know scraps here and there of music theory and can't sight read, but learning a bit of jazz and piano really helps with getting to grips with scales and chords. I'd recommend the same to anyone. In fact, now I have some money coming in I think I might take up some piano lessons and nail this shit.

Fran wrote:Dont encourage him Chris. He has ruined this thread, it was all about simpletons owning a shitload of dirt boxes before he chimed in.

Haha. To be honest though there's a good wealth of musical knowledge in people like Paul and Gabriel on this forum. Most guitarists are purposefully ignorant (you all know it's true) but some people pipe up with interest. Nothing wrong with that - pursue it if you want to know. Fuck everyone else.

Agreed. I wonder if it's a bit of snobbery on the part of classical musicians, reverse snobbery on the part of non-classical ones or a bit of both. On one side there's "you're not a *proper* musician unless you know the theory and how to read notation" and on the other there's "learn power chords and have fun". I suspect there's an element of elitism on both sides, which isn't constructive at all.

If this makes any sense, my attempts to learn theory felt like being caught in a loop in which I read the terminology and definitions, but they referred to each other instead of being proper explanations. I can't even be sure whether I understand it or not! I know my way around a fretboard but can't read 'traditional' notation, so for all I know I might actually possess the knowledge without realising, simply because I don't know the fancy names. It's one of those "I know it but can't put it into words" things.

Yeah, I know it's off-topic but it's really interesting and useful. Mods: feel free to split the thread or something.

Concretebadger wrote:If this makes any sense, my attempts to learn theory felt like being caught in a loop in which I read the terminology and definitions, but they referred to each other instead of being proper explanations. I can't even be sure whether I understand it or not! I know my way around a fretboard but can't read 'traditional' notation, so for all I know I might actually possess the knowledge without realising, simply because I don't know the fancy names. It's one of those "I know it but can't put it into words" things.

Aye. I see that when I read lessons or similar in magazines. I suppose the nature of magazines, where they're serialised probably from before the reader was playing guitar, means that they can't be systematic enough in presenting information. The stuff is all easy to understand, it just needs to be explained in such a way as new things are introduced one at a time to build on previous knowledge. It's a load of small steps. The more common approach is to just throw loads of terminology at a person and hope that some of it sticks. The chance of some sticking and then also having a useful definition in the person's mind is pretty slim.

Concretebadger wrote:Agreed. I wonder if it's a bit of snobbery on the part of classical musicians, reverse snobbery on the part of non-classical ones or a bit of both. On one side there's "you're not a *proper* musician unless you know the theory and how to read notation" and on the other there's "learn power chords and have fun". I suspect there's an element of elitism on both sides, which isn't constructive at all.

If this makes any sense, my attempts to learn theory felt like being caught in a loop in which I read the terminology and definitions, but they referred to each other instead of being proper explanations. I can't even be sure whether I understand it or not! I know my way around a fretboard but can't read 'traditional' notation, so for all I know I might actually possess the knowledge without realising, simply because I don't know the fancy names. It's one of those "I know it but can't put it into words" things.

Yeah, I know it's off-topic but it's really interesting and useful. Mods: feel free to split the thread or something.

Nah, leave the natural progresion of this thread I say. It will get onto UK vs US, religion or rape in about ten posts anyway.

I had massive problems trying to get theory at first on guitar. The inherent nature of gutiar neck boxes doesn't help. Like lorez (Chris) has said, the linear-ness of keyboards REALLY is useful to see it mapped. I would suggest also looking into basic jazz to help as well.

I get the feeling that a rule book doesn't need to be written BY scalers, but a good selection of links and videos could be vetted and dumped somewhere in guitar resources with an ongoing theme of lessons, headed by some of the more knowledgable people (mentioned above). Like the book club or something, but not.

Oddly, reading my eldest's alto sax book has helped my understanding of music theory. I believe what Paul says is correct that guitar mags just throw info at you to see what sticks. Reading through the saxophone stuff, it's laid out much simpler and easier to put in to practice, same blues, jazz chromatic stuff in there but written much better than any guitar mag - or book for that matter.
I surprised him the other day by saying he had a skill, that he could sight read music. I had to explain to him that most musicians (most guitarists) won't be able to do what he can do and he's only been at it a twelve months, once a week fifteen minute music lesson in school.

anyway, it doesn't matter if I'm harmonizing a 7th above my fretted note when I have the TGD or XT-2 on, it all sounds like a bloody mess then

Concretebadger wrote:Cheers all...the Fender Blender intrigues me all the more now. I had it down as just another retro fuzz, but it sounds more like an 'experimental' piece of kit rather than something in the region of, say, the Muffs, RAT and Fab Tone I already own.
er Blender sounds like the ocatve/fuzz equivalent of one of those. Looks like I'll be putting an order in with Mike for one of those when I have the autumn/Christmas malarky out of the way.

They're can get pretty bananas, I kinda miss the clone I had made for me years back, sold it on to Hurb of this very parish. I'll get Mike to make me one with a Marshall tonestack one of these days; it was a pretty spiky bit of kit.

George wrote:

Fran wrote:Dont encourage him Chris. He has ruined this thread, it was all about simpletons owning a shitload of dirt boxes before he chimed in.

Haha. To be honest though there's a good wealth of musical knowledge in people like Paul and Gabriel on this forum. Most guitarists are purposefully ignorant (you all know it's true) but some people pipe up with interest. Nothing wrong with that - pursue it if you want to know. Fuck everyone else.

Heheh, Paul knows i'm joking, i'd be up for helping in more theory threads. Euan wanted a Shred Shop thread some time ago..

I use on my board:

EHX LPB1
Catalinbread SFT
TC electronic Vintage Bass Distortion
EHX Sovtek Russian Green Big Muff

not on board:

Boss OD-2
Ibanez LF7 LoFi

Fran wrote:Dont encourage him Chris. He has ruined this thread, it was all about simpletons owning a shitload of dirt boxes before he chimed in.

Loud noises!

The current 3 I'm using are:

Fredric Effects Klon Clone - clean boost to light gain
OCD Clone - heavier gain and...
Black Russian Big Muff - for unleashing the fury

I've definitely gone for the less is more approach re. pedals of late. I think it's a reaction to all of the "look at my 50kg with a billion pedals" boards I've seen on the circle-jerk that is The Gear Page. I seem to be becoming more utilitarian in my old age. When I was playing post-rock, my board was definitely in danger of becoming one of those atrocities.

dezb1 wrote:

Fran wrote:Dont encourage him Chris. He has ruined this thread, it was all about simpletons owning a shitload of dirt boxes before he chimed in.

Loud noises!

WUT??? I can't hear you over my tinnitus and dirt boxes.

wwrrss wrote: [*]Dwarfcraft Eau Claire Thunder
[*]Dwarfcraft The Great Destroyer
.

What kind of fuzz are the dwarfcraft pedals?

gusman2x wrote:

wwrrss wrote: [*]Dwarfcraft Eau Claire Thunder
[*]Dwarfcraft The Great Destroyer
.

What kind of fuzz are the dwarfcraft pedals?

THE BEST KIND.