Going all acoustic

[catmandu2]

I totally agree. Yes those guitars and amps are great and that was some fun. Still, when I found out what fun was had just fiddling I decided I'd take that approach .. horsemanship is handy, but I've done this without horses too.. https://youtu.be/uIT_ov0lOXo

[Jess L.]

I never did play rock. I never even listened to rock until recently. (I now realize that I missed out on a lot of cool music, but that's another topic.)

It took me a long time to realize that electric instruments can play *any* style, it doesn't have to be rock. It doesn't even have to be loud. You can play it like an acoustic (modifying your technique as necessary, of course), but you get more variety of tonal options.

The other thing I have come to appreciate about electric instruments, especially after I retired and went on a fixed income, is that dollar-for-dollar, you get more for your money with electric. In my limited experience it's possible to get a much more-pleasing sound from an electric setup than from a comparably-priced acoustic instrument:

Cheap acoustic instruments, played acoustically, sound... well... cheap. Even in the hands of an excellent player who knows how to compensate for each particular instrument's deficiencies, you're still not going to get that ethereal dreamy sound from a cheap instrument that you'd get from a high-end famous-maker instrument. You know, like when you pluck just one note and think "ahhhh.... so lovely"....

Whereas a cheap electric instrument, if you're using an amp like the little Roland Micro Cube I have here, you can dial in some mellow sounds to get a less-harsh, more-pleasing 'acoustic' type of sound than you'd get from the actual cheap acoustic. At least that's been my experience with the stuff I've got here.

Set the Roland to "Acoustic", turn the reverb knob up a little, set the instrument to use the neck pickup (more mellow than the bridge pickup, assuming it has more than one pickup), and then you're in the dreamy wondrous ethereal zone again, where I like to be (musically).

It's certainly not what people think of when they hear the word "electric", there's no angry distortion or weird effects or anything. Basically just an acoustic *sound* but at a fraction of the price of a good acoustic.

So, that's a good thing, for people on limited incomes. (Where, say, to spend $300 you have to save up for a while first.)

Those who are *not* on limited incomes, probably wouldn't see the point of it, like "Why don't you just play acoustic, since you're after an acoustic sound anyway." It's about the quality of the sound. Cheap electrics can be made to sound better than cheap acoustics.

Another note. I used to believe the line I heard from my dad, that electric somehow takes less talent. Now, after finally trying my hand at electric instruments, I disagree. Electric instruments do not play themselves, talent is still necessary, and lack of talent *will* be noticeable. The player still has to know their stuff. Maybe even *more* so - one of my acoustic-only friends played my electric guitar once, he couldn't make it do what he wanted because he was accustomed to thrashing the living daylights out of an acoustic guitar, whereas if you try that with a low-action light-string electric, you're just going to get a bunch of buzzing strings. Less is more. I told him, lighten up on the right hand, it'll sound better, but he just blamed the guitar. I never had any problem with that guitar, so I know it was his playing technique and not the guitar. His heavy-handed approach didn't work too well on my lightly-strung electric. And then there was the matter of excessive 'ringing' (too much sustain), which I have only recently come to recognize and am now trying to correct in my own playing. So yeah, electric and acoustic are two different critters that require modifications to one's technique to make it sound right.

If I didn't have electric, I'd want something comparable to my old instruments back again - the fine old Gibson mandola, the excellent Steve Grimes mandolin, the other great high-end instruments I used to have. It'd be MAS etc all over again. Don't want to do that, and I no longer have the budget to afford such luxuries anyway.

But with the electric option, I can get sounds that are pleasing to me and that I genuinely enjoy, it keeps me happily occupied for hours (can't say that nowadays about most budget acoustic instruments, they get boring quick), and it has the bonus side effect of allowing me to practice for hours on end (headphones) without disturbing anyone else with my repetitive "practice the same tune for an hour" stuff.

One other thing. At the risk of being redundant since I've mentioned it before in other threads, electric is great for arthritic fingers. You can do your practicing using extra-light-gauge strings, single-strings instead of double strings, low action, gentle playing, it's much easier on the finger joints. Something to consider if hand arthritis is a concern, as it certainly is for me.

</ long winded dissertation>

[Jess L.]

... I think part of my anti-electric movement took root last year. My family and I were able to see a famous guitar player who had been one of my favorite players/composers on recordings ... it was perhaps the least inspiring performance by a major guitarist that I've ever seen live. That show was a turning point of sorts, ...

Might have had something to do how those recordings were produced. I've read about some of the trickery that modern commercial studios do when they're making recordings.

Acoustic, electric, doesn't matter, they can selectively go in to a regular audio recording (not midi) and replace individual notes, change pitch, etc. They can apparently start with sloppy musicians, bad takes, and off-key singers, and turn it into a recording that the public thinks is good.

While I respect the skill & artistry of the studio engineers who can pull off such miraculous feats, I dislike the feeling that I'm being conned by the musicians.

Not sure what ever happened to the old idea of just re-recording a track however many times it takes, until there is a sufficiently-long contiguous/continuous stretch of acceptable music that doesn't need to be micro-edited, but apparently that has gone out of vogue.

What studios can do now, goes way beyond the 1960s practices of having secret studio musicians do the actual arrangements *and* recordings (like the Carol Kaye thing).

Anyway, my point is, a live performance could sound uninspired or downright bad, because the musicians aren't having their playing 'improved' by other musicians and engineers in the studio.

They probably figure the live audience won't notice as long as there are sufficient visual distractions - flashing lights, fancy sets, the whole "show"/entertainment aspect. But you can tell if it's not what you thought it was, by closing your eyes, shutting out the visual distraction, just listening... does it still sound good? Ah.

I hope I have sufficiently refrained from expressing my quite strong geezerette opinion on what I think of such practices - trying to keep it neutral here, and not get into one of my rants. But, I have not "gotten used to" such commercial studio practices yet. Maybe I will someday, or not. The feeling of a deliberate deception is the part that bugs me. If the musicians would stop pretending it's their music and just be upfront/honest, like "oh hey our band didn't really play all that stuff on that record you just bought, that's just a digital conception of what we think our music *should* sound like".... That would be easier to accept. Maybe it's common knowledge? Meanwhile, my revulsion of such practices keeps me from spending money on commercial recordings because I simply don't trust that what's on the recording, is what the musicians are actually capable of playing. Regardless of genre or whether it's electric or acoustic.

So I get most of my 'new' music now from stuff like YouTube cellphone video of jam sessions or other informal situations where the participants probably aren't motivated to utilize fancy studio editing techniques. I'd like to think that what I hear, is what was actually played, otherwise there's no point in trying to learn "How did they play that?" because it might not even be humanly possible.

[Ausdoerrt]

On the initial topic: I like to combine both, as they're completely different instruments with completely different sound and functions. I have an acoustic band playing more traditional stuff (where I'm actually learning how to play mandolin properly, lol), and a 'loud' celtic punk band, where the acoustic simply doesn't cut it, even with a pickup. So I'll record acoustic parts in the studio, but use a solid-body electric on stage to make sure it's heard without making everyone's ears bleed.

For the record, I think the rock/metal bands trying to use acoustic instruments in a loud, live environment are basically torturing themselves as well as the audience.

They probably figure the live audience won't notice as long as there are sufficient visual distractions - flashing lights, fancy sets, the whole "show"/entertainment aspect. But you can tell if it's not what you thought it was, by closing your eyes, shutting out the visual distraction, just listening... does it still sound good? Ah.

The sad truth is, however, that they are mostly right. From my experience, people generally come to a show to be entertained, not hear a pitch-perfect copy of the studio recording. There are, of course, unacceptable extremes on both sides of the spectrum.

This doesn't apply to classical music, acoustic folk and the like, but it's also more difficult to sell and has a completely different audience.

Finally, any band that doesn't bring a good sound engineer with them to a live gig is shooting themselves in the foot - they could be playing like geniuses but still sound like crap

[Willis]

Finally, any band that doesn't bring a good sound engineer with them to a live gig is shooting themselves in the foot - they could be playing like geniuses but still sound like crap

Ain't that the truth. My old college band got to play at the second SXSW conference, way back in the days when it was still just about music. We played at a decent venue, had a good crowd, and the soundman was (I'm hoping for his sake) on some kind of substance and totally wrecked the sound. Our gig was the worst part of the whole weekend for me. Seeing Killbilly busking downstairs, though right before we played...well, that was a revelation and a big part of where I am musically today. Another hearty thank you to Alan Wooley and the boys!

[Phil Goodson]

Only electric left in the house is the 15 year old Reverend Slingshot guitar in the closet.
Last played about 10 years ago. (It lives beside the banjo.)

But I do have a K&K in one mandolin (for emergencies).

[Mandoplumb]

JL277Z states that cheep acoustics sound cheep. He's right, but a good acoustic sounds good and a great acoustic sounds great. A cheep electric sounds like an expensive electric played thru the same amp system. I've never heard one sound acoustic. I've never even heard an acoustic-electric that sounded like a good acoustic. Pre-amp, EQ, work and work and a good acoustic still will blow it out of the water.

[Mace]

I’d just like to add that having owned several quality acoustic and electric instruments and amps over the years, I find the quality found in under $1000 to be excellent value.

[Willis]

I’d just like to add that having owned several quality acoustic and electric instruments and amps over the years, I find the quality found in under $1000 to be excellent value.

Especially in terms of electric stuff, I'd say. I helped a nephew pick out his first guitar and amp combo this summer and he walked away with a quality, albeit low-power, Tele and amp rig for quite a fair price. I haven't played many inexpensive acoustics in awhile, but I remember how good my solid-top Sigma sounded 29 years ago compared to the junky Epiphone I had prior to that (traded a mid-70s Tele Custom for it--they were at the same price point at that time! Right after that I bought a really nice '65 Fender Jaguar from the same shop for $300. At least we have our memories).

[JeffD]

One difference, significant to me as my primary emphasis in music is jamming, there are a metric tonne more acoustic jams with acoustic mandolin than electric jams with electric mandolin.

Outside of performing, or recording, it is difficult for me to find a real context for electric mandolin. I know it's a regular in various jazz genres, and western swing, which music I am not as yet strong in. But most electric jam sessions are (or seem to be) guitar and rock and roll based, playing and showing you can play rock classics. And the electric mandolin is not no part of main stream rock. (All hail Michael Kang of String Cheese Incident.)

Without a context, I am left to playing electric at home. I am having a great time, (just discovered the beauty of a wah pedal for example), but I feel more and more like Snoopy, pretending to be a WWI flying ace. "Here is the awesome JeffD laying down some of the angriest fiddle tunes imaginable. Listen to that expressive wah."