weird problems with effects chain

Discussion in 'rec.music.guitar' started by Grant, Aug 4, 2003.

  1. cgunter@hotmail.com (Guncho) writes:

    >Modulation effects do not "have" to go through the effects loop. I
    >use my Boss DD3 delay and MXR Phase 90 in front of my amp, (which is
    >what I use for overdrive) and it sounds fine to me.


    Nothing "has" to go anywhere. :)

    But modulation in the loop *often* sounds better. Naturally a crappy loop
    circuit or crappy boxes will not help.

    Jay
    --
    J. Verkuilen jayv@uiuc.edu
    "You spend too much time reading, Spenser. You know more stuff that don't
    make you money than anyone I know." --Lennie Seltzer (Robert B. Parker)
  2. tempus fugit

    tempus fugit Guest


    >
    > BTW, one minor complication I've just discovered in testing the pedals
    > individually is that I have them permanently mounted (with screws) on a
    > wood pedal board, connected by right-angle jacks. There's not enough
    > space to plug the guitar cable (with straight-in jack) into the
    > intermediate pedals, so I won't be able to isolate pedals until I either
    > (a) unmount all the pedals from the board or (b) buy a guitar cable with
    > a right-angle jack on one end. Had I known I would have this problem,
    > I would have designed things differently!! Live and learn...



    Ouch. I know, I hate that too, when you've got everything done and a
    problem crops up. I always try to leave as much of the hardwiring as
    possible till the end. Do you know how to test the PS? I know I had a
    problem with a swirly kind of sound that seemed to be coming from my chorus
    a while back. COuldn't ever pin it down, but the switch went, and after I
    replaced that, it went away. Maybe there's some bad connection in one of the
    pedals somewhere. Maybe it's just the CS3 with a loose or bad connection
    somewhere that's causing all this.

    Anyway, let us know what you find out.

    Good Luck
  3. "Boyd Williamson" <zoid@z9design.com> wrote in message
    news:BB557786.F780%zoid@z9design.com...
    > > From: "tempus fugit" <toccata.no.spam@ciaccess.com>
    > > Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
    > >
    > > FWIW I have 5 effects in my chain with no audible signal

    degradation. You
    > > could never get past 2 or 3? What are you using? I do agree with

    your
    > > statement that there will be some degradation of the signal; this is

    almost
    > > self evident. However, if no one can actually hear the degradation,

    it
    > > becomes irrelevant.
    > >
    > > My point is that it seems very unlikely that the OP's problems are

    the
    > > result of the signal degradation that everyone is so terrified of.

    Others
    > > have responded and said they are running even more pedals without

    any
    > > noticeable degradation.

    >
    > Well, maybe my 2 cents worth here isn't worth picking up off the

    ground.
    > Where I'm coming from, is back when I was doing a lot of gigs

    fulltime, and
    > I was hypersensitive to anything that was different in my setup. I

    mean, I
    > could almost hear the difference in tone from using a different color

    duct
    > tape!
    >
    > I was very sensitive to stomp boxes inserted, and most didn't cut the
    > mustard because they were just too noisy to begin with. I much

    preferred
    > running straight into the amp, cranking it, and working everything
    > dynamically from my fingers and off the controls on the guitar. When I

    did
    > use an effect, it tended to get written into stone, and if the box was

    not
    > there for some reason, I felt I was screwed, so I preferred to steer

    clear
    > of them generally.
    >
    > This is very, very different from someone who plays more occaisionally

    and
    > can afford to experiment with a lot of boxes, so I'm probably not the

    best
    > person to comment. I'll drop out at his point and defer to those who

    are
    > more familiar with this particular regime.
    >


    Boyd- I think your original caveat about using a lot of pedals covers
    this:

    >That's why the "big boys" have techs put their
    >pedalboards together for them, because it isn't as simple as just

    hooking
    >them all up together when you have that many.


    Obviously chains of more than 5 effects are quite possible without *mud*
    , as many a pro player has just such a rig, but as you mention it does
    make things complicated, and it does help if you have someone else
    dealing with it. Some amps respond better than others to having
    stomboxes in front as well.

    Kerry M
  4. "john v verkuilen" <jayv@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
    news:i3WXa.328$9m4.3910@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
    > I'll make one quickie suggestion that doesn't really deal with your :
    >

    <snip>


    >I too agree that connecting 7 pedals in a chain CAN be done, though the
    > ears crowd won't stand for it. Keep yourself happy since most
    > of your listeners won't have any clue anyway.
    >


    Also keep in mind the many *champagne* eared players who are/were known
    to use quite a few effects ( Frank Zappa, Adrian Belew, Steve Vai,
    Robert Fripp for starters- it's a very long list). I would say 7 or more
    pedals in a chain is probably quite common among many top pro and *Big
    Name* players. But as was mentioned earlier, these are all guys who can
    pay someone else to make it work. If you are schlepping to bar gigs for
    $100 bucks a night you may well be advised to simplify.

    Kerry M
  5. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Steve wrote:

    > Possible solution: the way I did it...
    >
    > I set everything in the pedalboard to rhythm output level--including the FD2.
    > Then, last in the pedalboard, is a pedal for clean boost, making anything that
    > went before a LOT louder.
    >
    > Side benefit: gives yo a lead volume boost on ANY sound in your pedalboard.


    Actually, that's in large part what I use the EQ pedal for. I placed it
    where I did in the chain so I could shape the tone of the distortion
    pedals if I wanted to, but more commonly I just set it fairly flat
    (though maybe with a little bass and treble boost) and set the overall
    level a notch above neutral. So the EQ pedal ends up being effectively
    a volume boost when I kick it on. I guess I could just as easily put it
    at the very end of the chain, but I don't think that makes a huge
    difference, as long as I'm not overdriving the chorus and reverb pedals
    (not likely).
  6. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Kerry Maxwell wrote:
    >
    >>That's why the "big boys" have techs put their
    >>pedalboards together for them, because it isn't as simple as just

    >
    > hooking
    >
    >>them all up together when you have that many.

    >
    >
    > Obviously chains of more than 5 effects are quite possible without *mud*
    > , as many a pro player has just such a rig, but as you mention it does
    > make things complicated, and it does help if you have someone else
    > dealing with it. Some amps respond better than others to having
    > stomboxes in front as well.
    >


    Just wanted to reiterate that "mud" is not my problem with my setup.
    When it's working properly (which is 95% of the time; it's that 5%
    during a gig when it's not working that's driving me crazy) it sounds
    fine to my ear, and I've learned that my ear is more critical of what I
    hear than the ears of most of our audience. So hooking up seven pedals
    must not be rocket science -- as long as they (and the power supply) all
    work as advertised.

    Now a question to those who decry the use of lots of pedals: Let's say
    you play in a cover band, and you play everything from Beatles to CCR to
    Hendrix to the Police to U-2 to Nirvana. Which of the effects in my
    chain would you ditch, and why? The delay? The chorus? The Rat? The
    FD2? The compressor/sustainer? The wah (true bypass, by the way)? The
    EQ (which I use as volume boost and distortion shaper)?

    Just curious...

    - Grant
  7. > From: Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu>
    > Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
    >
    > Now a question to those who decry the use of lots of pedals: Let's say
    > you play in a cover band, and you play everything from Beatles to CCR to
    > Hendrix to the Police to U-2 to Nirvana. Which of the effects in my
    > chain would you ditch, and why? The delay? The chorus? The Rat? The
    > FD2? The compressor/sustainer? The wah (true bypass, by the way)? The
    > EQ (which I use as volume boost and distortion shaper)?


    I would concentrate on covering the music well, vocally and instrumentally.
    If you work and achieve some success in getting a good tone from your voice
    and instrument, you really don't need much else. The music is the bottom
    line, not the effects or exact sound textures.

    You can always play the music a little better, and I would advise working on
    that. Playing with too many effects puts you off on a time and energy
    consuming tangent when you could be practicing the music, making it better
    (and leaving more cash in your pocket instead of handing it over to the
    music store).

    For me, that means a good mic, a good monitor, a good guitar (a spare for
    when a string breaks), a good amp (spare tubes & fuses), a stomp box for
    putting my leads out front, and a chorus to fill out the sound a bit. With
    these tools in order, I'm happy working on the music. I can always do it a
    bit better than I did it last time, and more effects would just get in my
    way.

    So, I play CCR "Born On The Bayou" without a tremelo effect, and I play
    Hendrix "Little Wing" without a flanger. Big deal. I do the music real well,
    put my heart into it, and that's what people respond to. Blowing their mind
    with effects, generally doesn't. Keeping all the batteries, connections, and
    settings straight on a wide array of stomp boxes would be a distraction I
    neither need nor want.

    Anytime I've heard a guitar player that blew me away, or heard anyone else
    talk about someone that way, it wasn't because of what they were doing with
    their feet, unless it was a guitar player who had no arms and was sitting on
    a stool playing the strings with his toes.

    I could give a rat's ass if I don't have the same exact sound as Dimebag
    Daryl. If the music ain't great, I don't do it. I want to feel like a
    genuine musician, and that the music is coming from my head, voice, heart,
    and hands. I never want to feel like I'm just needed to press buttons to
    make it go. I'd rather be a DJ.

    I'm talking about the stuff I can't just have just by forking over $50 or
    $100 or $500. I'm talking about stuff I have to work at, investing my time
    and talent in the most productive way, because it gives me a tremendous
    advantage over relative beginners who are trying to convince their newbie
    crowd that they're some kinda stars because of the "toy show" they put on.

    And when people tell me afterward that I'm really good, and that they really
    enjoyed my performance, I thank them very warmly. I humbly accept the
    compliments and the cash, and take them both to the bank.

    My $.02. Not much, but well-earned.

    Zoid

    z9design.com
  8. RC Moonpie

    RC Moonpie Guest

    On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 22:41:37 -0500, Boyd Williamson
    <zoid@z9design.com> wrote:



    >I would concentrate on covering the music well, vocally and instrumentally.
    >If you work and achieve some success in getting a good tone from your voice
    >and instrument, you really don't need much else. The music is the bottom
    >line, not the effects or exact sound textures.



    to a point. pedals are fun, and having different sounds at your
    disposal are fun. Playing in a cover band, also, like he does, lots of
    the audience will admire a guitarist who can emulate the specific
    guitar sound on any given song. You dont, so groovy, but, lots of
    other people will.

    i'm not saying "dont work on your overall playing skills" either.
    Sure, those come first.

    I dont use a bunch of effects now, cos i'm not in a cover band, but
    when i was, yeah, i used a ton of them, and my band mates liked all
    the different sounds i could come up with. There probably was always
    one or two guys in the audience every night, watching my fingers, with
    their arms crossed, sneering that a real man only needed a strat and a
    twin and a tubescreamer. Thats ok, they still payed the cover charge.



    studio album and free soundfiles:
    http://www.snowwhitetrashband.com
  9. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Boyd Williamson wrote:
    >>From: Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu>
    >>Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain

    >
    > My $.02. Not much, but well-earned.
    >


    A thoughtful, and thought-provoking, response. Thanks.

    - Grant
  10. Guncho

    Guncho Guest

    I run through a Ernie Ball Volume Pedal - Dunlop Crybaby - MXR
    Microamp - Boss DD3 - MXR Phase 90 and have also plugged right in. I
    have not noticed a difference.

    Chris
  11. As Boyd Williamson <zoid@z9design.com> so eloquently put:
    [...]
    [] I would concentrate on covering the music well, vocally and instrumentally.
    [] If you work and achieve some success in getting a good tone from your voice
    [] and instrument, you really don't need much else. The music is the bottom
    [] line, not the effects or exact sound textures.

    Zoid,

    Well said. Few would disagree that the ability to express yourself
    with your instrument is often the most valuable.

    But good music through great playing doesn't need to be confined to a
    purist, no-effect vacuum. We could spend all day bringing up examples
    of really great players who's signature 'tone' involved an effect.

    Instead, I'll pose the question of what is an effect, and who's job it
    is to delineate which effects are valid. In it's most basic form (all
    you need, as you say), a rig without pedals has still undergone a few
    tone shaping stages. There's the variable effects of preamp gain, the
    amp (both of which can be one of a myriad of circuits and tubes) and
    EQ in-between. Also, one can shape their tone with various cabinet
    selections. Then there's the compression of an over-driven amp.

    These changes in tone are effects, that affect the listener and player
    alike. You're free to consider them tone-shaping tools rather than
    effects, but they are variables (an important term, which I'll touch
    on more).

    And still, without adding pedals, you have room. This is pretty
    important. Let's skip the aspects of sound reinforcement, the FOH
    mixer and how it really ends up sounding to the audience. Instead,
    let's consider only the acoustic properties, which include foremost
    reverb. More variables.

    In the studio, the room sound is further shaped by mic selection and
    placement. Mics are often setup to capture the room sound as well,
    because of course, close-mic studio recording has lost the experience
    of the live sound. There's tons room for experimentation here, all
    variable.

    So if the playing is valid from a technical stand point, what's the
    problem with a musicians particular choice of variables, whether it be
    choices mentioned above, or from various other sources? Why are some
    valid and others invalid?

    I agree that some of the baggie-pants shoe-gazers lost in a wash of
    effects and over-driven amps *may* not be demonstrating much
    musicality, relying totally on effects, but even so, this persons
    choice may not be invalid. Texture is legal, if it's lacking in licks.

    But I'll even put that aside and talk only about players ability and
    the respect they must garner with their ability, while using effects.

    Good players can "play" effects. There are countless examples of this.

    Yes, you can play those Hendrix covers without the emulating pedals,
    but he wouldn't have copped those time honored tones without them, and
    I dare say that their musical performances would have been quite
    different without them. You can learn Little Wing and play it without
    a pedal, but would Jimi had played it the same way without the
    effects?

    I've gone on too long. In closing, I'll offer an allegory: the
    painter. Discuss.

    Chris

    --
    "My current strat is actually a hollow tele."
    -- Fabio
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  12. RC Moonpie

    RC Moonpie Guest

    On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:39:24 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
    <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:


    > In closing, I'll offer an allegory: the
    >painter. Discuss.
    >



    Magritte sucked. Oils suck. Real men use a conte crayon and sheetrock.
  13. As RC Moonpie <rcm@hotmail.com> so eloquently put:
    [] On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:39:24 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
    [] <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:
    []
    []
    [] > In closing, I'll offer an allegory: the
    [] >painter. Discuss.
    []
    [] Magritte sucked. Oils suck. Real men use a conte crayon and sheetrock.

    So, you admit, finally, that pre-CBS conte crayons and script-logo
    sheetrock are "responsible" for your tOnE?

    --
    "My current strat is actually a hollow tele."
    -- Fabio
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  14. As Boyd Williamson <zoid@z9design.com> so eloquently put:
    [] > From: Not A Speck Of Cereal <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX>
    [] > Subject: Re: weird problems with effects chain
    [] >
    [] >... In closing, I'll offer an allegory: the
    [] > painter. Discuss.
    [] >
    [] > Chris
    []
    [] Point well made. I don't mean to say that there is only one way to do it;
    [] absolutely not. I merely speak from my own experience, what works for me,
    [] and that the only way to do it ISN'T with every effect conceivable.

    My bad then.

    [] A painter is a good analogy, because both painting and music are art forms
    [] requiring tools and media from a vast array available. A good painter would
    [] indeed explore and experiment with many forms of media in the persuit of his
    [] own vision.

    Aye, but not just the medium--what's painted on, with what tool, with
    what paint--but what genre they paint and how they use the media
    uniquely. There were several "too much technique" artists scoffing at
    the impressionists.

    Then there was Warhol. Hmmmm.... punk rock.

    [] And, I personally think that most eventually settle down to a familiar set
    [] that works for them, be it watercolor, acrylics, oils, charcoal,
    [] photography, computers, whatever, and then use it to paint what he sees in
    [] his mind.

    Agreed. And it also matters if he is going to apply his work to an
    existing genre, extend into a sub-genre, or forge ahead into something
    entirely new. With or without effects.

    [] There's absolutely nothing wrong with artists venturing into unfamiliar
    [] territory and trying something new. It may be debateable whether experiments
    [] are as valid as art with a clear vision, but, what the hell, it's all art.
    [] If you like it, fine, if you don't, screw you. It's art!
    []
    [] I feel that good art should say something, and that the media is simply the
    [] medium to that end. Experiments with no clear meaning may be ponderous and
    [] interesting, but good art has a message, captures emotions, and conveys them
    [] to whoever is viewing or listening to it.

    In general, I would agree that those who are expressing a clear
    message or producing something that is likely to garner a known,
    expected response is probably going to be more successful at having an
    audience, if they're good at the practice.

    But it's the pioneers who laid those courses followed. Without getting
    into ancient musical history, where plenty of revolutions and
    evolutions occurred, just look at the past 50 years. Keerist, there
    are so many genres and sub-genres in the music industry today, it's
    overwhelming.

    And they're all valid.

    My point here is that many of those genres had a relatively unique
    genesis (while others were conglomerations of existing genres--not
    that there's anything wrong with that!).

    I could bring up a large list of examples, but I'm guessing I don't
    need to.

    [] To continue the parallel, I would suggest that composition and color, light
    [] and shade, subject and substance, translate to music as melody and harmony,
    [] rhythm and chords, lyrics and phrasing, comedy and tragedy, even love and
    [] hate, more importantly than sound effects. My humble opinion.

    Your opinion is completely valid, I totally respect it. But I
    personally like to believe that effects in music can translate to the
    following in a painting: texture, tonality, mood.

    Both music and painting can express the following: repetition, space,
    shade, dynamics, and a large degree of subtle variances on a theme.

    So, the extreme in either world may not appeal to some. A painting
    with nothing but a wash of color, tone, dynamics may be no more
    interesting than someone dropping nails into a piano, which is mic'ed
    and piped into an effects processor set to stun.

    As an example: a photograph of complex ripples on water reflecting a
    deeply colorful twilight sky. Nothing else in the frame but that
    texture. Okay, I got a box of that in the basement.

    Add some foreground: the shore, some grass, a silhouette of a person,
    some trees to the side to frame the image. Add to the some background:
    the horizon, with colorful clouds in the sky, perhaps an island poking
    out of the ripping water. Now you have form that appeals to most.

    I'm down with that. There's a place for the close up texture shot, but
    pulling back is probably more meaningful to most.

    [] But it's all valid. Anything in art is valid, whether it even works or not.
    [] Some may love what others may hate. It's all art.

    Yeah. Insert many debates about rap here.

    [] But I would encourage any artist to "paint" what he sees, and not be too
    [] influenced by the guy selling the tools. That's his art, not yours!

    Meanwhile, leaving the philosophical allegories aside: yes, the guys
    are selling the tools, and a lot of the consumers lay passed out on
    the couch with the heavy lids reminiscent of the opium smoker; but
    there are those of us that actually program those effects as a means
    to an end.

    Just sayin'.

    Not all effects users are ear-candy addicts.

    Chris

    --
    "My current strat is actually a hollow tele."
    -- Fabio
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  15. RC Moonpie

    RC Moonpie Guest

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 04:28:45 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
    <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:


    >[] Magritte sucked. Oils suck. Real men use a conte crayon and sheetrock.
    >
    >So, you admit, finally, that pre-CBS conte crayons and script-logo
    >sheetrock are "responsible" for your tOnE?



    i'm not a real man, with no real tone. I use Illustrator and
    Photoshop.
  16. RC Moonpie

    RC Moonpie Guest

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 05:24:27 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
    <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:

    >
    >So, the extreme in either world may not appeal to some. A painting
    >with nothing but a wash of color, tone, dynamics may be no more
    >interesting than someone dropping nails into a piano, which is mic'ed
    >and piped into an effects processor set to stun.



    or, it could be very interesting. Jackson Pollack vs Brian Eno. I
    never could understand the attraction to Pollack, but an art professor
    told me, well, he thought of it first, you didnt. I guess. Eno is sort
    of groovy in a trippy way. The wife hates his stuff.


    >As an example: a photograph of complex ripples on water reflecting a
    >deeply colorful twilight sky. Nothing else in the frame but that
    >texture. Okay, I got a box of that in the basement.
    >
    >Add some foreground: the shore, some grass, a silhouette of a person,
    >some trees to the side to frame the image. Add to the some background:
    >the horizon, with colorful clouds in the sky, perhaps an island poking
    >out of the ripping water. Now you have form that appeals to most.



    take that to the extreme, and you are in WalMart, loking at poster
    prints of Thomas Kinkaid. Yeah he sold 25 million prints that ended up
    in the bathrooms of suburbia. He has great skill, I'm not knocking
    that at all, I coulndnt do anywhere near as good, but he does sort of
    represent the whole "disco-n'synch-macdonalds of modern art". I know
    of a fabulously talented water-colorist who will puke if you even
    mention his name.



    >I'm down with that. There's a place for the close up texture shot, but
    >pulling back is probably more meaningful to most.



    I guess. milli vanilli sold more than Bela Fleck too. It's sort of all
    about perception. And the mainstream perception, towards art in
    general, is usually, "I dont know what it is, but i like it" or dont
    like it. And traditionally, the mainstream always responds to more
    representational forms of art, ie, pop vocal, traditional realism in
    art, etc.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, at least i dont think i am, i think
    maybe we are saying the same things.

    Personally, i need to find a Kandinsky random distortion generator
    pedal for my ToN3.
  17. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    RC Moonpie wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 05:24:27 GMT, Not A Speck Of Cereal
    > <XchrissherwoodX@Xcomcast.netX> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >So, the extreme in either world may not appeal to some. A painting
    > >with nothing but a wash of color, tone, dynamics may be no more
    > >interesting than someone dropping nails into a piano, which is mic'ed
    > >and piped into an effects processor set to stun.

    >
    > or, it could be very interesting. Jackson Pollack vs Brian Eno. I
    > never could understand the attraction to Pollack, but an art professor
    > told me, well, he thought of it first, you didnt.



    Pollack's stuff reminds me of Ornette Coleman jazz. It's about
    what is signal and what is noise - and what does your mind
    imprint on a non structured object d'art.

    Also, at the time, the New Yawk people needed some art heroes and
    those guys all happened to be there. And "Bluebeard" by Kurt
    Vonnegut is a pretty insightful thing about that whole idea
    at the time.

    > I guess. Eno is sort
    > of groovy in a trippy way. The wife hates his stuff.
    >


    I don't think Hank done it that away.

    > >As an example: a photograph of complex ripples on water reflecting a
    > >deeply colorful twilight sky. Nothing else in the frame but that
    > >texture. Okay, I got a box of that in the basement.
    > >
    > >Add some foreground: the shore, some grass, a silhouette of a person,
    > >some trees to the side to frame the image. Add to the some background:
    > >the horizon, with colorful clouds in the sky, perhaps an island poking
    > >out of the ripping water. Now you have form that appeals to most.

    >


    Don't forget the happy little bush.

    > take that to the extreme, and you are in WalMart, loking at poster
    > prints of Thomas Kinkaid. Yeah he sold 25 million prints that ended up
    > in the bathrooms of suburbia. He has great skill, I'm not knocking
    > that at all, I coulndnt do anywhere near as good, but he does sort of
    > represent the whole "disco-n'synch-macdonalds of modern art". I know
    > of a fabulously talented water-colorist who will puke if you even
    > mention his name.
    >


    So the fabulously talented water colorist gets a buzz off being
    superior to some guy who industrialized the thing. That's an
    expensive hobby, being artistically superior.

    > >I'm down with that. There's a place for the close up texture shot, but
    > >pulling back is probably more meaningful to most.

    >
    > I guess. milli vanilli sold more than Bela Fleck too.


    You sure about that? For the life of the material? The Fleck
    stuff will be available for library use in film and stuff.

    > It's sort of all
    > about perception. And the mainstream perception, towards art in
    > general, is usually, "I dont know what it is, but i like it" or dont
    > like it. And traditionally, the mainstream always responds to more
    > representational forms of art, ie, pop vocal, traditional realism in
    > art, etc.
    >


    And what exactly is wrong with that? I think Norman Rockwell is
    right up there with 'em. But his stuff is essentially honest
    material. I think that making something good which is also
    accessible to the mainstream is *hard friggin work*.

    > I'm not disagreeing with you, at least i dont think i am, i think
    > maybe we are saying the same things.
    >
    > Personally, i need to find a Kandinsky random distortion generator
    > pedal for my ToN3.


    I will not touch your monkey, no matter what.

    --
    Les Cargill
  18. RC Moonpie

    RC Moonpie Guest

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:10:17 GMT, Les Cargill
    <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


    >
    >
    >Pollack's stuff reminds me of Ornette Coleman jazz. It's about
    >what is signal and what is noise - and what does your mind
    >imprint on a non structured object d'art.



    I guess. I didnt get him either. Here cometh the fury of the jazz
    snobs. what can I say. I played bass in a bee bop band for a bit, i
    got turned onto Bird, Bud Powell, Dizzy, Monk, all them guys, and i
    dont exactly go out and buy up all the Kenny G albums.



    >Also, at the time, the New Yawk people needed some art heroes and
    >those guys all happened to be there. And "Bluebeard" by Kurt
    >Vonnegut is a pretty insightful thing about that whole idea
    >at the time.



    he's great.

    was that one about the guy who had some big barn behind his house and
    it was full of, some mysterious thing, cant remember what it was....
    some art thing...



    >
    >I don't think Hank done it that away.



    probly one of those missionary only, dog style is for fags, guy.


    >Don't forget the happy little bush.


    that what she said to Hank.



    >>

    >
    >So the fabulously talented water colorist gets a buzz off being
    >superior to some guy who industrialized the thing. That's an
    >expensive hobby, being artistically superior.



    uh, well, there is that, however, she is extremely talented, and does
    quite well as full time painter herself. Its no hobby. I dont know
    about Kincaids water-color abilities, but he would have to be quite
    skilled to be on her level. Sure, professional jealousy, maybe a bit,
    but i honestly think his way mainstream thing sort of is at polar
    opposites to what she can do. Maybe Mozart hated Handel.




    >> I guess. milli vanilli sold more than Bela Fleck too.

    >
    >You sure about that? For the life of the material? The Fleck
    >stuff will be available for library use in film and stuff.



    good point. no i'm not sure. bad example maybe.



    >> It's sort of all
    >> about perception. And the mainstream perception, towards art in
    >> general, is usually, "I dont know what it is, but i like it" or dont
    >> like it. And traditionally, the mainstream always responds to more
    >> representational forms of art, ie, pop vocal, traditional realism in
    >> art, etc.
    >>

    >
    >And what exactly is wrong with that?



    wel, nothing. its only perception and thats what i was getting to.
    Personally I dont feel myself finding the appeal in art that is more
    mainstream. I can always at least appreciate the skill that goes into
    making it.




    I think Norman Rockwell is
    >right up there with 'em. But his stuff is essentially honest
    >material. I think that making something good which is also
    >accessible to the mainstream is *hard friggin work*.



    Norman Rockwell was a skilled beyond belief artist. An exhibition of
    his stuff came thru here recently. I wish a Maxfield Parrish display
    would next...




    >I will not touch your monkey, no matter what.



    she probly said that to Hank too
  19. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    RC Moonpie wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:10:17 GMT, Les Cargill
    > <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >Pollack's stuff reminds me of Ornette Coleman jazz. It's about
    > >what is signal and what is noise - and what does your mind
    > >imprint on a non structured object d'art.

    >
    > I guess. I didnt get him either.



    Nobody does. It's like guessing the letters in alphabet soup. You
    just kinda let it wash over you.

    > Here cometh the fury of the jazz
    > snobs.


    &^$* 'em. Them guys can't play Elvis stuff at all, usually. Can't
    hang on Stones, neither.

    > what can I say. I played bass in a bee bop band for a bit, i
    > got turned onto Bird, Bud Powell, Dizzy, Monk, all them guys, and i
    > dont exactly go out and buy up all the Kenny G albums.
    >


    It's depressing. Back when there was no mafia, the mafia
    guys ( that didn't exist) kept all them clubs going. Now
    they all Starbucks.

    > >Also, at the time, the New Yawk people needed some art heroes and
    > >those guys all happened to be there. And "Bluebeard" by Kurt
    > >Vonnegut is a pretty insightful thing about that whole idea
    > >at the time.

    >
    > he's great.


    I think he knew all them guys.

    >
    > was that one about the guy who had some big barn behind his house and
    > it was full of, some mysterious thing, cant remember what it was....
    > some art thing...
    >


    Yeah. Shining purple tubes and all.

    > >
    > >I don't think Hank done it that away.

    >
    > probly one of those missionary only, dog style is for fags, guy.
    >
    > >Don't forget the happy little bush.

    >
    > that what she said to Hank.
    >


    Geez, no respect for Fro Guy at all.

    > >>

    > >
    > >So the fabulously talented water colorist gets a buzz off being
    > >superior to some guy who industrialized the thing. That's an
    > >expensive hobby, being artistically superior.

    >
    > uh, well, there is that, however, she is extremely talented, and does
    > quite well as full time painter herself. Its no hobby.


    What can you do? Low low prices every day cuz we shop the Wally way.

    > I dont know
    > about Kincaids water-color abilities, but he would have to be quite
    > skilled to be on her level.


    I am quite sure. I wouldn't buy any of that stuff, but I appreciate
    the sort of engineering that goes into designing for the mass
    market.

    > Sure, professional jealousy, maybe a bit,


    Nah. It's an implied accusation of prostitution.

    > but i honestly think his way mainstream thing sort of is at polar
    > opposites to what she can do. Maybe Mozart hated Handel.
    >


    Prolly.

    > >> I guess. milli vanilli sold more than Bela Fleck too.

    > >
    > >You sure about that? For the life of the material? The Fleck
    > >stuff will be available for library use in film and stuff.

    >
    > good point. no i'm not sure. bad example maybe.
    >


    I'm not sure there is a good example, because stuff shows up
    in weird places all the time. I don't see a whole lot of
    Elmer Bernstein records in the Top 40 but I bet he's worth more'n
    most of them.

    > >> It's sort of all
    > >> about perception. And the mainstream perception, towards art in
    > >> general, is usually, "I dont know what it is, but i like it" or dont
    > >> like it. And traditionally, the mainstream always responds to more
    > >> representational forms of art, ie, pop vocal, traditional realism in
    > >> art, etc.
    > >>

    > >
    > >And what exactly is wrong with that?

    >
    > wel, nothing. its only perception and thats what i was getting to.
    > Personally I dont feel myself finding the appeal in art that is more
    > mainstream. I can always at least appreciate the skill that goes into
    > making it.
    >


    I think there's some probability distribution that represents how
    good art is. I think there's another that says how mainstream it is.
    Multiply those and you get "good and mainstream", and that's a
    much smaller subset than both the others. So to me, good
    mainstream art is probably of more value than *just* good or *just*
    mainstream.


    > I think Norman Rockwell is
    > >right up there with 'em. But his stuff is essentially honest
    > >material. I think that making something good which is also
    > >accessible to the mainstream is *hard friggin work*.

    >
    > Norman Rockwell was a skilled beyond belief artist. An exhibition of
    > his stuff came thru here recently. I wish a Maxfield Parrish display
    > would next...
    >


    I think it's more than skilled. Anybody who can make something
    which could be extremely trite out into a fine peice of art,
    that's held up for decades had to be one of the good ones.

    > >I will not touch your monkey, no matter what.

    >
    > she probly said that to Hank too


    Don't get me wrong - there's a strong whiff of bovine feces to Eno,
    but he's made a damn dent in the world.

    --
    Les Cargill
  20. RC Moonpie

    RC Moonpie Guest

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:32:09 GMT, Les Cargill
    <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


    >Don't get me wrong - there's a strong whiff of bovine feces to Eno,



    really? mine smell like plastic. Where you buying yer albums?

Share This Page