Golden Smoghead

Having done this many times, I'd just advise to try to sing the vocals as clean as possible. I usually change SOMETHING in the vocals when I am performing live -- which I think is a good thing for shows -- but those really annoy me later on with these projects.

Alternate concept: I'm just not a great singer and can never make a great-sounding vocal take live.

Huh. I had no idea that is how that sound is produced, thanks for spelling it out.

I've seen folks use that capo technique, too, but I've never attempted it, myself. Just like I don't really fuck around with open tunings. I'm enough of a guitar retard (please pardon the term) without any deviations from the norm, that the thought of fucking with that kind of thing makes me cry.

Oh come on. You don't know a song that has D / A / G? That's literally all it takes to try out the five-string capo at the second fret. The only, only thing different is strum the bottom string when you play the D. I promise, that is exactly the only thing you have to do different ... but it might get you hearing slightly different.

This is why I started the thread, because some of the ideas in here don't sound too hard but get me thinking. (and i do think of this as basically the songwriting / gear forum on the site)

Like I've never messed with harmonics other than tuning, but Moss has me thinking about the times I'm already noodling at a harmonic fret, why DON'T I try out the harmonic notes and see what that sounds like? That's exactly the kind of idea I wouldn't think of on my own, but seems obvious to Moss. (and yes I realize that's not exactly what Moss is talking about but I don't fingerpick / scared of trying to pluck while picking)

I like the entry you got! (OK so just another vote that you seem like a good dude doing good things and keep it up.)

A long time ago I was watching a video of Guy Clark playing and saw him use a capo for just five strings. I just copied him, thought it was cool and didn't think much about it. But then in a music store a few weeks ago I was doing this and the instructors there all gathered around to think about it. I was a little surprised, so I am wondering if you guys do anything you thought everyone knows about, but you've gotten questions on.

The technique I assumed everyone knows about:

It only works with those alligator-clip type of capos, you basically would capo five of the strings at the second fret (for D-shape chords) or fourth fret (for C-shape chords) so that the bass string rings the root. More or less, with the capo at 2, it's in drop-D except you can still fret the bottom string for standard chord-shapes that use the bass (like G or C/G or F). Definitely fun at 2, but I actually use it more at 4 because I like the barre-type chords you can slide between with the root ringing. (actually A and B, shaped like F and G)

I am not sure if this is a great topic thread or not, but what got me thinking about it was the Nashville High Tuning stuff we talked about on this forum a couple years ago. I just wonder what other tricks you guys have up your sleeves, because I really had fun with the Nashville Tuning experiment. The only other kind-of-unusual thing I do is tune into DADGBD, which I know is close to DADGAD so common in bluegrass etc, but I like the chords you can make with the B in the normal tuning. (and still be able to riff around with a chord at the bottom)

FWIW, I strongly prefer "bluegrass gauge" strings when I can get them for my acoustics. I seldom strum the top strings (will strum middle or bass sets) so I like how they ring out (sharper with less sustain) when I reach for them with the lighter gauge up there. Also I like having more sustain on the lower strings, especially the E and D strings end up having to hold down roots while I noodle around sometimes.

I DO think that different body types / tonewoods / whatever do sound better with different string-types though. So for me I have owned some cheaper guitars that sounded like total garbage with lights, but OK with medium and above. (Thinking of the cheapo Fender I learned on here.)

I have never known anybody who played with heavy gauge acoustic strings. I think I'm probably too weak to do that myself, plus I feel like some heavy-metal guy I knew really liked them which made me dislike them.

My electric strings are almost always just matched to my guitars, so for example I use a wound G with my guitars that use humbuckers. When I had a strat I liked the more-standard unwound G instead. I used flats for awhile on my Gretsch a couple years ago, but switched when I adopted a more rockabilly sound.

Just in case folks aren't on their mailing list... There's a presale on for some May and June dates if you join. I will be catching them the Monday after Bonnaroo (in Columbia, MD).

Thanks for those links, very helpful. I didn't realize the M1A was active (duh from the name) hence the confusing DI question. So yeah sounds like you could run the same setup on the post-pre-amp DI since it's just for color.

On that note, I am not super-impressed with the Fishman Aura in my Martin as far as sound-shaping goes. I know all electronics are going to sound fake to a degree, but the Aura is just unsatisfactory to my ears, even with all those settings to mess with. I have been wondering if it might be because the Aura is linked into the piezo (and it's really piezos I don't like rather than the Fishman gear itself).

So that's why I'm probably going to try out the M1A, see if in general I just like the sound of magnetic acoustic guitar pickups better. Then I'll look at if I want to try out another DI -- basically I'm guessing if the M1A just sounds a ton better to me without other DI, I'll never get the rig in the Martin to sound the way I want.

P.S. no idea why i spelled "Martin" "Marting" not once but twice in my last post. And agree on the Seagull. The only guitar I ever miss is a Washburn acoustic I had a couple years ago... Some of these low-end acoustic manufacturers can really have individual gems here and there.

Thanks for the tips, man. I don't play solo very often these days, for that part of the question. I play a Marting D-18 with on-board Fishman Aura pickups (where you can blend Aura with piezo) for the most part.

However, my second acoustic guitar is a currently-uninmic'ed Seagull which I like a lot. I'm thinking about playing it as my second guitar and installing the Baggs you mentioned. Mostly with it tuned DADGBD, for about four speciality songs I have in that tuning.

So I guess what I'm looking for is mostly what you mentioned / what I saw on your soundboard (xciter / how many lines do you run / etc) for both a new Baggs setup plus my Aura/piezo deal between the cheapo and the Marting. I really doubt I'd be smart enough to configure a setup for each guitar vs. running both into some kind of post-pre-amp environment (thinking of your xciter here).

I'm currently in the final stages of refurbishing (gently) my granddad's 1961 Les Paul (really an SG body type). Had to re-wind one of the humbucker coils and a few other bits of this and that, will re-post when I get some pics ready.

I find the toughest thing for me when it comes to gear is really more on the acoustic-guitar side of things. I go back and forth in shows (probably 3/4 electric, 1/4 acoustic) and I always find that my acoustic gear is just so shit-tacular as to sound much worse by comparison. Do you guys have any tips for what are sort of must-have electronics to use for rolling an acoustic through a PA? I have a Fishman setup in the guitar and it sounds OK but everything just always sounds so cold to me when it comes to amplified acoustics. I think straight-piezo is the worst for this, so I blend it with the Fishman Aura sound to a point where it sounds OK.

I think ideally I'd have some amazing microphone and play into that, then modify the sound a bit with vocal tools. But for the small places I tend to play, it's always a feedback disaster plus I play standing up and tend to move around a bit too much for regular-miking.

So more or less, please help with some tips for acoustic guitar gear that can help unfreeze that sound.

Another vote in favor of this album. I disliked a lot of their previous work, this is very solid to my ears.

I think because it's more consistently roots-based. Their old stuff sounded very indie-rock -based and that wasn't a good thing to me.

I'm with those who say "better than their last and let's hope they keep with this trajectory."

The video did in fact claim they were volunteers.

I just wanted to go back and visit a topic from a couple pages ago.

Coming to Bruce relatively late in his cycle (after 9/11, in my 20s), I actually found BITUSA a lot better than you guys give credit. I had heard the tracks a few times as a kid but thought the song BITUSA was some kind of jingoistic deal and didn't care much for Dancin' in the Dark, so I was surprised by how good that album is overall.

I also find Nebraska a bit boring. I know that's sacrilege, but face-to-face, I'd rather listen to Devils & Dust any day of the week. Dunno, different strokes for different folks, but I think some of these late Bruce songs like Maria's Bed are the bee's knees.

I would also say that production values from the 70s really do not sound that great to a more-modern audience. I really hate all that jazzy saxophone and theatrical sound all over the place, I much-prefer the more stripped down / rocky live versions of some of the classics. Not to say the songs themselves aren't great, but I think the only original version that compares favorably, out of all those tracks, is probably Promised Land. Even The River, I'd rather hear one of the live versions to the studio cut.

This is a great track, thanks for pointing it out!

Good stuff, thanks for the links!

It was a nice performance, although it was a bit of a comedown after the O'Jays.

I think you're right that it suffered from the comparisons (it was also after the Crazy Train / Peace Train bit, right?)...

But honestly I don't think it was good anyway. I was stoked when they announced who was playing, but that was not a performance for the highlight reel. I mean, do you think anybody who'd never heard of Mavis Staples or Jeff Tweedy went rushing out to find them after that one?

Is there a walking bass line for the "under New Madrid" part as well? I kinda hear C - B - A (that initiates the Am for "Madrid")

BTW, my favorite track of yours is "Monsoon Season." The rest of it is potentially "grower" material for me, but a bit slow for my tastes. I think at your best points here it's reminiscent of Jay Farrar, which is a good thing. I can see any of these songs fitting well on a soundtrack or something though, good stuff and good luck.

fwiw my shitty demo is here: My link

I think it depends on what phase you're at in the process. I like to finish to "Outta Sight (Outta Mind)" -- I think that's the rocky one and not the wussy one.

I have the cheapy version of the boss pedal, and I don't like it. Basically it always feels to me like there's a slight delay with the triggering, so the only loops I can really do with it are on songs with slower tempos (or slower LINES vice tempos) so I can compensate / cover for the delay. It works OK if I'm playing solo, but my drummer fucking hates that shit and some songs we would like to use it.

In hindsight I wish I'd saved my money and bought one of the better loop stations discussed in this thread. Just my opinion though and probably other people can use that pedal to good effect, to me it's kinda annoying though. What I really want is a loop station where I can record the basic chords for the verse of a song and have it synch up precisely, be able to stop that loop at the chorus with another pedal (vice the double-tap on this one), and then quickly fired it up again after the chorus.

Obviously, I'm the only guitar player in the band.

Everyone's different. For me, usually playing a show actually HELPS this feeling. Especially if I play more of my upbeat / crowdpleaser crap. That's when I sort of circle around to "people just like a good hook" and it makes me feel better about my lyrics.

When that doesn't work, then I tend to write a couple new very-different songs to sort of work out the angst. A couple years ago I wrote half of a rock-opera about what if Jesus and the disciples lived in present-day Washington, D.C. I only still like one song out of that batch, but it was good to get away from my normal writing voice.

Whatever works is really the answer, man. The tough part about our craft is that your motivation is all internal; the vast majority of us are really never going to get a lot external validation of our work. Given how much hard work that goes into turning yourself into a decent songwriter, it's almost impossible for that validation to ever compare to the work done.

One last thing: I felt like I wrote 10 years of bad songs before I started writing songs that I like at all. So to me there's some kind of masochistic "I am going to write my way through my suckiness" thing going on. For me it ultimately worked out OKish, I'm not sure everyone has to suck balls for 10 years like I did though.

This is just a vote for sticking around here.

I have a band, but all we have available right now is a crappy demo we recorded six weeks after getting together (it's been a year now). We're saving up money to go into the studio this fall and do a more full-range demo / album.

definitely better than the original version...

+1, more substantive and less dreamy-boring

Sold out = boooooo

(I mean the album is sold out / unavailable, not RA, that's too old an argument to bother randomly throwing around)