Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

2 points here...(quoting my other post)


1) It was said on another thread that using effects (say, with a guitar) is just "icing" on the cake. I diagree that's ALWAYS the case...and I don't even necessarily think you can always say there is an "icing" and "cake".

I gave the example of "How Soon is Now" by The Smiths...a song that's iconic in large part to the way the effects were used to make the guitars sound so completely kick-ass. The actual guitar playing that's being done is dead simple...but what gives the chords personality, creativity, and makes the artist achieve his vision is the effects (and more specifically, the creative way in which they were actually used).

If effects are indeed the icing, then I guess the actual guitar playing (supposedly the cake) would have to be something more special, complicated, or innovative than what the effects are doing. But that isn't the case in "How Soon is Now". The effects take centre stage and are the thing that have been used in a creative and innovative way, NOT the guitar playing. If ANYTHING, the effects are the cake here (if again there is such a way to differentiate what's "cake" and what's "icing".

It is true however that a lot of (probably most) people can just slap effects on to make themselves sound better than they actually are...that would be "icing". But again, that's not always the case. The effect ITSELF won't make an instrument sound cool, how you use it will...and if you use it creatively and innovatively enough, it can surpass the importance of what the instrument is doing...as in the above example. The effects ARE the music.



2). It was also argued that you can't compare using effects (pedal/button pushing, knob turning etc...) to doing something like what Segovia does...playing (and transcribing) Bach. I totally disagree.

Of course it's not like there's anything hard about the actual pushing of the buttons or turning of the knobs themselves...(and if you made a direct comparrison to the skill it takes to play an instrument it's obvious which one requires more talent). But the things is, talent isn't just measured in skill on an instrument...that's so shallow. Different people have different talents at different things. Segovia has talent using an instrument and transcribing violin to guitar to play Bach, Pavarotti has talent using an operatic voice to sing arias by Vivaldi, and the Chemical Brothers or Underworld have talent using synths, computers and machines to create new sonics and produce/engineer complex and innovative electronic music.

Take"Rez" by Underworld as way to show how using effects (button pushing, knob turning etc...) take as much talent or is simply as great a thing as doing something like playing or transcribing Bach.

For starters, what techno music is, is really just effects - button pushing, knob turning, playing with frequencies and filters etc...You don't have to know how to play an instrument well (or even at all) to make techno. And I hope no one thinks that this gives it any less value or means techno requires any less talent...talent is found in different ways.

Some techno I've heard (and I mean only "some" I easily put up there with some of the other greatest achievements in music...simply because it's SO creative, SO innovative AND intricate (not to mention musical). But again, just like tons of people use effects on the guitar to sound better than they really are, lotsa people grab a keyboard and do the same. But if you know tehcno well, you can tell the good from the crap

Now, just listen to this for the 30 secs...(or don't bother reading the rest)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WY1qn-k9qE

What you have there is a 16 bar riff that gets repeated over an over, getting tweaked and varied more and more throughout the song (although to the untrained ear I'm sure it just sounds random). THAT 16 bar riff has a distinct, particular melody that includes inticate off-beats, augmented orchestration, complicated off-time rythms...and it even builds off the first half (8 bars) of itself to make the whole 16 bars make a kind of sense. And the list goes on as to how a creative, complicated and innovative piece of music it actually is. And what MAKES this piece of music so phenominal isn't any type of playing or transcribing...IT IS button pushing and IT IS knob turning, etc...If you "get" the song, it's pure genius...and if you're in the right state of mind and that thing comes on, it can honestly sound like THE most beautiful thing you've ever heard in your life...and it achieves this by the musicians having been extremely creative and innovative with "button pushing "and "knob turning"...something that's a talent all it's own.

So I have to ask the same question...do you know HOW HARD it is to know how to produce and engineer music like that...and to create the purposeful sonic nuances that are made to sound musical...and to lay down the fast and inticate rythms that are there? (which again, I guarantee you aren't there randomly). Do you know how much WORK and TALENT it takes to achieve the greatness that's been achevied with this piece of music sonically? They've made this piece of music from MACHINES (button pushing/knob turning)...the effects ARE the music (which is why I questioned earlier if there's even such a thing as "incing" or "cake" with effects). The guys in Underworld have worked really hard to used their unique talent and skill to make something so incredible....definitley AS incredible as what Segovia does.


Point is...Don't knock "button pushing" or "knob turning"...it's ridiculous! It's music making IN ITSELF!! There CAN be AS MUCH talent involved in the way that is USED as there is in playing an instrument or transcribing...it's just that the talent IS DIFFERENT.

I think the issue is confused.

Effects aren't just frivolous icing, but they aren't as important as what was written. Simple or not, the intro to How Soon Is Now? is great because it's a great piece of writing. What made it sound better than it might otherwise have done, is the effects.

I can see both points, and it's a bit silly to act like effects are just an addition, but they aren't an important part. They can just add something, sometimes. It's a case of whether or not it's significant.

To make it clearer, How Soon Is Now? isn't just some frivolous addition, where as something in NIN probably would be.

-AC

Wrong as usual I'm afraid AC. It's not a great piece of writing...it's a power chord, and you probably don't realize this because you're not that musically inclined.

It's the creative way in which the effect is used that makes it what it is. The song as a whole has good writing in it. But we're talking about what makes the GUITAR part in the song as amazing as it is...(the playing, or the effect)...it's the effect. And I know you might not think it's either of the two, but if anything, the effect IS the writing.

Effects (button pushing/knob turning) can be music making in itself. But I guarantee you wouldn't understand this.


NOTE: It's also not like I've made a big jump in any way from effects on guitar to techno music. The argument was AGAINST knob turning and pedal or button pushing...ie. NOT playing an instrument. So...techno.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Wrong as usual I'm afraid AC. It's not a great piece of writing...it's a power chord, and you probably don't realize this because you're not that musically inclined.

Excuse me? I said it was great writing, and it is. Since when could simplicity not be great? I never said it was complex or technically amazing, I said it was great writing. Many great pieces of music are simple.

Stop making assumptions about me.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It's the creative way in which the effect is used that makes it what it is. The song as a whole has good writing in it. But we're taling about what makes the guitar sound good...(the playing, or the effect)...it's the effect. If anything, the effect IS the writing.

Johnny Marr wrote the guitar piece, then he added the effect. You might write a guitar piece with an effect in mind, but you cannot write for a pedal, you can write for a guitar.

I know what makes the guitar sound good, but then we get into the discussion of; What is good use of effects?

In some cases it's just icing, in some it's an integral part of the song, not the writing, the finished song. How Soon is Now? features effects that became an integral part of the finished product, but it wasn't written for the pedal, it was written for the guitar.

That's how songwriting goes.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Effects (button pushing/knob turning) can be music making in itself. But I guarantee you wouldn't understand this.

No, I actually believe that great music can be made on anything, even computers, that's using the computer as an instrument. Pedals are instrumental accessories, and that's what How Soon Is Now? is, an effects pedal.

-AC

With How Soon is Now, the effect (button pushing/knob turning) IS the writing...and this is BASICALLY what techno is...writing by turning knobs, playing with effects and frequencies, etc...and not even touching an instrument. And it's not in ANY WAY making a big jump from talking about the way effects on guitar can be used (IF used creatively like in HOW Soon is Now) to talking about techno music (knob turning, button pushing).

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The effect (button pushing/knob turning) IS the writing...and this is BASICALLY what techno is...writing by turning knobs, playing with effects and frequencies, etc...and not even touching an instrument.

We were talking about guitarist in that forum. Remember? i was VERY specific about what I was talking about. Did you even read what I just posted? I never mentioned TECHNO once, you did.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The effect (button pushing/knob turning) IS the writing...and this is BASICALLY what techno is...writing by turning knobs, playing with effects and frequencies, etc...and not even touching an instrument. And it's not in ANY WAY making a big jump from talking about the way effects on guitar can be used (IF used creatively like in HOW Soon is Now) to talking about techno music (knob turning, button pushing).

Who's discussing techno? In that case, yes, because it's made using unconventional, but credible, instruments. Such as computers, synths etc.

But who was talking about techno? We're talking about Johnny Marr writing the intro to How Soon Is Now? on a guitar. He used a pedal, he didn't write the music for the pedal because the pedal is not the instrument, the guitar is.

In techno, the instruments are the knobs and buttons, they write it for that. Marr did not write the composition for the song by writing for the pedal, because it's impossible to write for a pedal, it's just a pedal.

Wait...you thought How Soon Is Now? was buttons and knobs, not a pedal?

-AC

Thanks for clearing that up AC. EP, nobody was talking about TECHNO or how effects knobs and such are used in that genre. Say whatever you want about that. I was talking about effects pedals in the 'greatest guitar player in the world forum". I will get to your other argument later, I have things to attend to.

In techno, buttons and knobs are instruments, yes, so what? Nobody's talking about that. You can compose music on those, you can't compose music by sitting there with a wah wah pedal or whatever. You write for guitar, you add the pedal if you want.

Not the other way around. Whether or not it makes the song better or not is chance, it's not written that way.

-AC

IT'S THE SAME THING! You don't get that it is because you aren't able to narrow down what music making is.

I KNEW, I KNEW you two would go ahead and say bringing techno into it is different. But it's NOT. THATS why I said...
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
NOTE: It's also not like I've made a big jump in any way from effects on guitar to techno music. The argument was AGAINST knob turning and pedal or button pushing...ie. NOT playing an instrument. So...techno.
and this...Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And it's not in ANY WAY making a big jump from talking about the way effects on guitar can be used (IF used creatively like in HOW Soon is Now) to talking about techno music (knob turning, button pushing).

Techno instruments, buttons and knobs, they count, they are instruments. A pedal isn't. The guitar part that this debate started over, was not written for effects, it was written for guitar and Marr decided to add the pedal later.

Was it icing? No, it made the song better. CAN IT BE ICING SOMETIMES? Yes.

Oh, I should have known this'd turn into another "You lot don't get it.".

Oh well, you can play with yourself this time, EP. Keep this attitude up and nobody will want to take part in any thread with you in it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Techno instruments, buttons and knobs, they count, they are instruments. A pedal isn't. Oh man. So predictable.

I KNEW you'd say that too...that there's this big difference with a pedal and knob...geez.

The PRINICIPLE is the same. You're playing with the unit. You're adjusting, being creative, innovative with the unit. Doesn't matter if it's a pedal, a button, a knob...whatever. And the argument was against this stuff (which IS the same) vs playing an instrument.

How about a vocoder then AC? Is that the icing on a voice's cake?

NO IT'S NOT, IS IT? The vocoder IS the music making.

Does it not count as an instrument?

Of course it does! IT'S what's being played with tweaked, adjusted in a creative way. The singing itslef is just flat.

MORE proof you're wrong!

And in the case of How Soon is Now, it's the actual sound of the effect, AS WELL AS the pulsating and the rythm GIVEN to the effect (which is music making)...and we don't know if it's a pedal, a knob, an effects unit...whatever. The way IT'S being used is what's being done musically, creatively and is more the "writing" than the simple guitar chord.

You're dead wrong...sorry.

It's not actually a pedal effect.

Just to interrupt.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Well, anyone who knows about music can tell it's a pedal. You obviously made the fatal mistake of thinking "Hmm, this sounds like effects, so it MUST be knobs and buttons.".

Baaahahahaha.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
The PRINICIPLE is the same. You're playing with the unit. You're adjusting, being creative, innovative with the unit. Doesn't matter if it's a pedal, a button, a knob...whatever. And the argument was against this stuff (which IS the same) vs playing an instrument.

You WRITE for the instruments used in techno. You can write for a synth, you can write for transcription onto computer composition programs, you cannot write for a pedal. Any musician would know this.

You're talking about writing, and you cannot write for a pedal. It's an instrument in the sense of it is a tool that is used, but it is not played, it is not making sound, it's an addition.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How about a vocoder then AC? Is that the icing on a voice's cake?

It's the same as a pedal, an addition, a tool. Not something you can write for.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
NO IT'S NOT, IS IT? The vocoder IS the music making.

No, the voice is. You use the vocoder after.

A pedal and a vocoder do not have notes, they do not have strings or keys. They enhance or add to already existing ideas and music, you cannot write music with them. Have you ever tried picking up a guitar pedal and writing music with it?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Does it not count as an instrument?

Not in the same sense as instruments that make music, pedals don't, they ALTER music. Vocoders do not, they ALTER music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Of course it does! IT'S what's being played with tweaked, adjusted in a creative way. The singing itslef is just flat.

You do not PLAY a pedal, have you ever played guitar? You USE a pedal while PLAYING an instrument. You do not PLAY a vocoder, you USE the vocoder while adding vocals or vocal INSTRUMENTATION.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
MORE proof you're wrong!

It's not, is it? Once again it's you not having a clue what you're on about.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And in the case of How Soon is Now, it's the actual sound of the effect, AS WELL AS the pulsating and the rythm GIVEN to the effect (which is music making)...and we don't know if it's a pedal, a knob, an effects unit...whatever. The way IT'S being used is what's being done musically, creatively and is more the "writing" than the simple guitar chord.

You obviously made the fatal mistake of thinking "Hmm, this sounds like effects, so it MUST be knobs and buttons.". You're wrong. Listen to Rage Against the Machine, there's a disclaimer on all their albums; "All sounds made by guitar, drums, bass and vocals.". No effects from knobs or buttons, it doesn't say "Sounds made by pedals.". Pedals are just used.

The intro to How Soon Is Now? is not a knobs and buttons studio effect, EP.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You're dead dead wrong, and I know why you understand this stuff.

Haha, says the guy who claims to be musically inclined, yet assumed effects were knobs, not a pedal. Guitarists use pedals, you can't assume it's knobs. Listen to Rage.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
??? I NEVER said it made the "song" good by itself....I said it was in large part the way the effects were used that the song was as iconic as it is.

That's the most distictive element of that song...and it wouldn't have been "How Soon is Now" without that elemnent.

Everything here is true except for the last line. If How Soon Is Now? didn't have the amp effect on the intro, you wouldn't know that it was different. We can all look back and say it wouldn't be the same song if you removed it, but if he didn't include it in the first place, we wouldn't have known.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's not actually a pedal effect.

Just to interrupt.



Baaahahahaha. Oh, I'm intrigued, what is it?


I like How Soon Is Now by the way.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's not actually a pedal effect.

Just to interrupt.



It was definately A tremolo effect. Whether it came from a pedal or from knobs on the amp itself (which is in the case of Johnny Mar). It's still a guitar effect.

It wasn't studio knobs and buttons, which is what EP is insinuating.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You obviously made the fatal mistake of thinking "Hmm, this sounds like effects, so it MUST be knobs and buttons.". You're wrong. Listen to Rage Against the Machine, there's a disclaimer on all their albums; "All sounds made by guitar, drums, bass and vocals.". No effects from knobs or buttons, it doesn't say "Sounds made by pedals.". Pedals are just used.

The intro to How Soon Is Now? is not a knobs and buttons studio effect, EP.
MAN are you confused. I didn't say it MUST be knobs and buttons anywhere...(and again, like usual, you imagine things and pick things out of the air). I DON'T CARE what it is...to me they're the same anyway, aren't they? Do you have a point here?...are you even following the discussion? OBVIOUSLY, CLEALY not. If MAYBE you have followed the discussion and have unerstood that I don't even make a difference as to whether it's a knob or a pedal, are you using any reasoning in you comments? No.

Painful.

And why does what one band say apply to other bands. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

And how do you KNOW the guitars in How Soon is Now ISN'T for sure a studio effect? (which again, I'm not saying is or isn't ...doesn't matter). What a RIDICULOUS thing to say.

And as for your "these are just tools" thing. You're wrong...they CAN be just tools, but as I said earlier, IF they are used creatively and innovatively enough, they essentially become instruments and can be a driving force in what's actually being written.

In the case of the guitar effects, once the guitar chord has been played or recorded (which can often just be a simple power chord), then the effects are what COULD becoem the instrument and used in a creative and musical way. Or in the case of the vovoder, once a voice has been spoken, sang or recorded (which again, can just be a simple flat delivery...which is usually the case when using vocoders), then the vocoder COULD become the instrument, used in a creative an musical way.

A simple DISTORTION effect, can usually JUST be an effect...and not like an instrument. It's tied RIGHT INTO the guitar, and that's pretty much it. But when you get into more complex effects, even a multi-delay, then you can play with THAT DELAY to be creative, be musical, and be innovative, ALL WITH A SIMPLE GUITAR CHORD. The effect is the driving creative force a this point, not the simple, single strum of the guitar.

Again...I'm sure you don't comprehend because song writing doesn't seem to be your bag.

AND you don't always write music FOR instruments as your sayingAC, you write music WITH instruments, and ANYTHING that makes a sound CAN be an instrument.



Sorry dude...you're all over the place. And that junk you were saying about what Rage does applying to others and how you seem to KNOW how "How Soon is Now" was recorded really makes me question how much sense you actually have.

Ridiculous arguing. I think I'm done with you...no point. Really.

PS. Maybe you should think about not going into EVERY SINGLE thread and think you know what you're talking about in EVERY SINGLE argument...because AC, you're clearly out of your league on certain topics...sorry.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
MAN are you confused. I didn't say it MUST be knobs and buttons anywhere...(and again, like usual, you imagine things and pick things out of the air). I DON'T CARE what it is...to me they're the same anyway, aren't they. Do you have a point here?...are you even following the argument? OBVIOUSLY, CLEALY not. If MAYBE you have followed the argument and have unerstood that I don't even make a difference as to whether it's a knob or a pedal, are you using any reasoning in you comments? No.

Oh, not another "You're not following." bs. Spare everybody on this forum another one of those, please.

I'm following it fine. The PROBLEM is that you aren't making a distinction between a pedal and knobs and buttons on a deck or comp that actually make music.

If I gave you a pedal and said "Go write a song.", JUST the pedal, you couldn't. You can't write with a pedal. If I gave you a laptop, a synth or some decks, you could.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And why does what one band say apply to other bands. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

What are you on about? I didn't apply anything to all bands. I said you can't write with a pedal.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And how do you KNOW the guitars in How Soon is Now ISN'T for sure a studio effect? (which again, I'm not saying is or isn't ...doesn't matter). What a RIDICULOUS thing to say.

Because apparantly it's an amp effect, a volume effect that comes with the actual guitar, according to The Smiths fan sites, transcriptions and their Wiki page. So it wasn't anything to do with the studio effects, hence why he does it live/can do it live.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And as for your "these are just tools" thing. You're wrong...they CAN be just tools, but as I said earlier, IF they are used creatively and innovatively enough, they essentially become instruments and can be a driving force in what's actually being written.

Name me a song that was written WITH a vocoder or a pedal.

Not a song that was written with those in mind, a song that was actually written with a pedal or a vocoder.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
In the case of the guitar effects, once the guitar chord has been played or recorded (which can often just be a simple power chord), then the effects are what COULD becoem the instrument and used in a creative and musical way. Or in the case of the vovoder, once a voice has been spoken, sang or recorded (which again, can just be a simple flat delivery...which is usually the case when using vocoders), then the vocoder COULD become the instrument, used in a creative an musical way.

It's not, it's an addition. The writing is done, then the pedals are added, or the other tools are used. They're not written in.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A simple DISTORTION effect, can usually JUST be an effect...and not like an instrument. It's tied RIGHT INTO the guitar, and that's pretty much it. But when you get into more complex effects, even a multi-delay, then you can play with THAT DELAY to be creative, be musical, and be innovative, ALL WITH A SIMPLE GUITAR CHORD. The effect is the driving creative force a this point, not the simple, single strum of the guitar.

But that's all guitar, the PEDAL is not making that music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Again...I'm sure you don't comprehend because song writing doesn't seem to be your bag.

You can make assumptions about me all you want, you can ruin ANOTHER thread with "You don't get it.", but do this ONE THING for me:

Post something you've created, just so we can see if it's your bag.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AND you don't always write music FOR instruments as your sayingAC, you write music WITH instruments, and ANYTHING that makes a sound CAN be an instrument.

Pedals and vocoders do not make sounds.

Microphones are not musical instruments. Have you ever heard someone say "I play the mic."? No.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Sorry dude...you're all over the place.

Let's hear your music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And that junk you were saying about what Rage does applying to others and how you seem to KNOW how "How Soon is Now" was recorded really makes me question how much sense you actually have.

Quote where I said it applies to anyone.

I said it proves that the tools do not make the music.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES

And how do you KNOW the guitars in How Soon is Now ISN'T for sure a studio effect? (which again, I'm not saying is or isn't ...doesn't matter). What a RIDICULOUS thing to say.



To put this to rest here is a credible source an interview with Marr HIMSELF:

Johnny Marr (from the Guardian newspaper, February 24 2006): "As a kid I was fascinated by Hamilton Bohannon's 'Disco Stomp' and 'New York Groove' by Hello, and I wanted to make something with that stomp. The first decent amp I got was the Fender Twin because the Patti Smith Group used it, and it had this amazing tremolo. Later when we'd had a few hits, a review of What Difference Does It Make said I'd written a riff that was instantly recognizable, which fascinated me. One night I was playing for my own pleasure and I suddenly got the riff. It all came together - the tremolo and the stomping groove - for what became How Soon Is Now, although my demo was titled Swamp. Because it was a groove track it originally appeared as an extra track on a 12-inch, but popular clamor forced its single release. I remember when Morrissey first sang: 'I am the son and the heir...' John Porter went, 'Ah great, the elements!' Morrissey continued, '...of a shyness that is criminally vulgar.' I knew he'd hit the bullseye there and then."

Hopfully, AT LEAST, that won't be argued about again.

Whether it's "icing" or not is all in the attitude of the writer. For everyone else whatever is released on the album is part of the song.

I'll quote this again for 2D regarding Depeche Mode...in case he didn't read itOriginally posted by EPIIIBITES
BTW. I though you were a Depeche Mode fan. You think DM is what it is because of Martin Gore? You don't think Alan Wilder has anything to do with their genius? Take the song "Clean" off Violator and strip it down to it's bare music...it's nothing. But with Wilder, it becomes beatiful. The bass line ALONE (which is most likely all electronic) is just gigantic. It's simple musically, but when treated with effects and such, becomes something incredible. ...and it's because how the effects are USED. That's why Depeche Mode is Depeche Mode...cause sometimes they have great music and the effects are secondary, but sometimes they have simple music, and the effects are primary and are what make the song what it is.


Sometimes they have both, and you get "Enjoy the Silence."

Please don't turn this into another "I'll paste cos you didn't read it." argument, EP.

For the sake of this forum.

-AC

Someone think of the forum.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'll quote this again for 2D...in case he didn't read it (which...it sounds like he often doesn't do) ...and it's because how the effects are USED. That's why Depeche Mode is Depeche Mode...cause sometimes they have great music and the effects are secondary, but sometimes they have simple music, and the effects are primary and are what make the song what it is.


Sometimes they have both, and you get "Enjoy the Silence."

AGAIN YOU ARE BEING FRANTIC. I told you I'd go ONE argument at a time. You're still arguing about the first, I thought it was dead. Just beacuase you argue without any kind of structure does'nt mean I have to. Back to the Icing "argument". Which I don't understand why were are arguing, we both agree that sometimes the effect can be considered 'Icing' some times not, yes?

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
To put this to rest here is a credible source an interview with Marr HIMSELF:
Great...again, to me it doesn't matter WHAT is making the effect...it's just that it's not the GUITAR PLAYING that's making the GUITAR PART as great as it is....it's what's being USED, and HOW it's being used.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
I told you I'd go ONE argument at a time. Well it seemed you had disapeared after I replied to your post here. I thought you were done wth that part.

Yeah, who needs a Guitar? !

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Great...again, to me it doesn't matter WHAT is making the effect...it's just that it's not the GUITAR playing that's makine the GUITAR PART as great as it is....it's what's being used.

I already agreeded with that, sorry i did'nt use the same exact words you did. Did'nt you read MY FIRST POST?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well it seemed you had disapeared after I replied to your post here. I thought you were done wth that part.

Sorry man I have a life to live, I can't be on here 24/7.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Great...again, to me it doesn't matter WHAT is making the effect...it's just that it's not the GUITAR PLAYING that's making the GUITAR PART as great as it is....it's what's being USED, and HOW it's being used.

Do you never, ever consider that YOU are ever looking at something from a perspective that doesn't actually make sense?

You enter debates with this "I see things this way, prove me wrong." attitude. No, prove yourself right. So far, in general, you haven't been able to, so I'll repeat what Backfire said:

"Someone think of the forum.".

-AC

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
It was definately A tremolo effect. Whether it came from a pedal or from knobs on the amp itself (which is in the case of Johnny Mar). It's still a guitar effect. Right...which, IF used creatively enough, is what becomes MORE the music making than a simple strummed chord.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you never, ever consider that YOU are ever looking at something from a perspective that doesn't actually make sense?

You enter debates with this "I see things this way, prove me wrong." attitude. No, prove yourself right. So far, in general, you haven't been able to, so I'll repeat what Backfire said:

"Someone think of the forum.".

-AC

I didn't say you could quote me.

Thief.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Right...which, IF used creatively enough, is what becomes MORE the music making than a simple strummed chord.

No, it becomes additional to the strummed chord. The tremelo arm isn't making the music, it's altering it.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, it becomes additional to the strummed chord. The tremelo arm isn't making the music, it's altering it.

-AC

If EPIIIBITES had any sense this would end the argument. Maybe he just likes to argue regardless of being right or wrong.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If I gave you a pedal and said "Go write a song.", JUST the pedal, you couldn't. You can't write with a pedal. If I gave you a laptop, a synth or some decks, you could.
Unbelievable this guy.

We're talking about the PART...the guitar PART. And we're talking about writing PARTS for songs, and if those PARTS are what they are because of the playing of the instrument or because of the effects. And I said if you use an effect like multi-delay creatively enough, you can write the PART you want with it, and be musical with it, and be creative with it, and ESSENTIALLY be using it like an instrument (more so than the simple strummed chord you played on the guitar). I'm not saying you'd make the whole song!! Where does your reasoning come from? Seriously!

And I admitted, in MOST cases, effects are just used SIMPLY as tools to add "icing" so to speak, and people often use them to make themselves sound better than they are. But if you use something like multi-delay and start going crazy with it, it becomes an instrument...heck...it can even sound like techno...and you can sit there playing it and manioulating it for minutes if you want.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Unbelievable this guy.

We're talking about the PART...the guitar PART. And we're talking about writing PARTS for songs, and if those PARTS are what they are because of the playing of the instrument or because of the effects. And I said if you use an effect like multi-delay creatively enough, you can write the PART you want with it, and be musical with it, and be creative with it, and ESSENTIALLY be using it like an instrument (more so than the simple strummed chord you played on the guitar). I'm not saying you'd make the whole song!! Where does your reasoning come from? Seriously!

And I admitted, in MOST cases, effects are just used SIMPLY as tools to add "icing" so to speak, and people often use them to make themselves sound better than they are. But if you use something like multi-delay and start going crazy with it, it becomes an instrument...heck...it can even sound like techno...and you can sit there playing it and manioulating it for minutes if you want.

If they are as good as they are because of an effect, then all the effect did was enhance already existing music. It didn't create any music, it altered it. It cannot create music.

Techno knobs and buttons MAKE music, a pedal does not. YOU simply deciding to say there's no difference is where the problem lies, because again you fail to see anything other than "I believe this, this is what I believe and that's all that matters to me.". If that's how you live, great, but you can't bring that to a messageboard, it doesn't work. It "mattering" to you does not make it true, you cannot just decide there's no difference because you don't see it.

You avoided my question like the black plague; You love to run down everyone else, say we're not musically inclined.

Post something you've written and created. Post some of your own music, let's see how inclined you are.

-AC

Originally posted by Pezmerga
If EPIIIBITES had any sense this would end the argument. Maybe he just likes to argue regardless of being right or wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about, and if you haven't read the initial argument, then your ipinion on the discussion is uninformed.

It's ALTERING what's been played...OBVIOUSLY...but what you do with how you alter it CAN (not always...but if done creatively and innovatively) create a rythm, a mood, or even a sort of MELODY with certain effects, that ISN'T there with playing a strum...and the EFFECT can essentialy become what's doing the music making...what's being done creatively in the music making process...what's giving the personality and meaning to the music.

Key part of Pez's quote; "If EPIIIBITES had any sense...".

Key singular word: "If.".

-AC

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Back to the Icing "argument". Which I don't understand why were are arguing, we both agree that sometimes the effect can be considered 'Icing' some times not, yes? I guess so...but I didn't get that from your initial comment, because I was talking about effects on the guitar part of How Soon is Now, and you said effects are icing on the cake.

Didn't you read you read my post? I wasn't talking about the whole song...maybe you were, but that wasn't clear.

Here's my reply to your first post which you haven't replied to...Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
??? I NEVER said it made the "song" good by itself....I said it was in large part the way the effects were used that the song was as iconic as it is.

That's the most distictive element of that song...and it wouldn't have been "How Soon is Now" without that elemnent. Kinda like half the Depeche Mode songs wouldn't be what they are without what's been done with the effects...APART from the song writing. I've been talking about the GUITAR in that song...what makes the GUITAR as amazing as it is...what might be the "icing on the cake" involving the GUITAR (which is what it appeared you meant by saying effects are just the "icing", since you were the one who said I can't compare pedal pushing or knob turning on a GUITAR with Segovia). Well, if it's done in a creative and innovative enough way, the skill, talent and work it takes to use effects is comparable to playing and transposing Bach.

And something ELSE that's playing with effects and button pushing and knob turning is basically techno. That's what it is. And if you take a song like "Rez" by Underworld, you see how much talent, hard work, and skill is needed to do something as incredible as that song.

Did you even listen to it??? (I somehow doubt it...even though it was indicated you should to better get the point).

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I guess so...but I didn't get that from your initial comment, because I was talking about effects on the guitar part of How Soon is Now, you said effects are icing on the cake. Isn't that what you meant?

If the exact same song existed, without the amp effect on the intro, would it be as good? No? Then it's "icing" on the cake.

I think, by icing, he just means additional part that made the song much better, not that it didn't matter, but I can't speak for him.

-AC

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER



1) Well what I was referring to was this ,"How soon is now" was a good song already. Sure the effects that Johnny Marr used (which were pretty standard for any Smiths song) were not what made the song. Johnny Mar's distinctive way of playing guitar did. I agree the effects he used is what made the song that much better.

There I quoted myself again. I was talking about the whole song hence "was a good song already". Yes, I understand that the tremolo effect added to the song, it made it 'that much better'. What problems do you have with my post? Because this could be a dead argument.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If the exact same song existed, without the amp effect on the intro, would it be as good? No? Then it's "icing" on the cake. OMG.

"Icing on the cake" is some distortion on a bass, or is a simple reverb on the bed track of a song...NOT something that pretty much DEFINES the song...which is the case with How Soon is Now.

It is the most recognizable part of the song and gives it the feel and rythm (JUST LOOK AT THE MARR QUOTE) that typifies the song.

You couldn't GET the rythm by just playing the chord.,..the rythm COMES FROM the effect.

You're so wrong AC it's amazing.

shit sorry, double post.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You have no idea what you're talking about, and if you haven't read the initial argument, then your ipinion on the discussion is uninformed.

It's ALTERING what's been played...OBVIOUSLY...but what you do with how you alter it CAN (not always...but if done creatively and innovatively) create a rythm, a mood, or even a sort of MELODY with certain effects, that ISN'T there with playing a strum...and the EFFECT can essentialy become what's doing the music making...what's being done creatively in the music making process...what's giving the personality and meaning to the music.

How the hell would you know what I have read?

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
He was emulating the guitar styles of somebody else’s music, coupled with the effect, that’s what made the song, BOTH things. Who says he was the one making the rythm though

Listen to the rythm...it's mostly the effect, it's not him strumming it. It's almost mechanical and sequenced...what it's meant to sound like.

And even if in this example it isn't the effect that produces the rhythm, it is in other examples.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
How the hell would you know what I have read? That's why I said "if".

Originally posted by BackFire
Someone think of the forum. I do, Backfire, I do.


On a different note, wouldn't pedals be considered part of playing guitar? I mean...how are the effects different from...playing a C or something?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
That's why I said "if".

Why say it at all unless you are 100% sure? It seems like you love making statements that are baseless and completely wrong.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
OMG.

"Icing on the cake" is some distortion on a bass, or is a simple reverb on the bed track of a song...NOT something that pretty much DEFINES the song...which is the case with How Soon is Now.

It is the most recognizable part of the song and gives it the feel and rythm (JUST LOOK AT THE MARR QUOTE) that typifies the song.

You couldn't GET the rythm by just playing the chord.,..the rythm COMES FROM the effect.

You're so wrong AC it's amazing.

Don't keep cutting my quotes in half, you moron.

"If the exact same song existed, without the amp effect on the intro, would it be as good? No? Then it's 'icing' on the cake.

I think, by icing, he just means additional part that made the song much better, not that it didn't matter, but I can't speak for him.".

That's what I said, that's what I meant.

Also, rather than keep telling everyone they're not musically inclined, are you gonna post your own music or not?

Originally posted by Bardock42
On a different note, wouldn't pedals be considered part of playing guitar? I mean...how are the effects different from...playing a C or something?

Because you're not playing anything with a pedal, you're pressing it or you're not pressing it. It doesn't create any sound, it doesn't create any music. You create and play on the guitar, you alter with a pedal.

-AC

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Why say it at all unless you are 100% sure? It seems like you love making statements that are baseless and completely wrong. I said it because you just dropped in and made a lame-ass point instead of putting something on the table...hence supspecting that "maybe" you didn't read the post. That's why I said "'if" you haven't read the post.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do, Backfire, I do.


On a different note, wouldn't pedals be considered part of playing guitar? I mean...how are the effects different from...playing a C or something?
Exactly...and if you mess around with certain effects enough...that C can turn into a D...which can turn into an arpegio..which can be given a particular rythm, and so forth.

Why do you ALWAYS assume everyone either misreads or skips your posts?

It's not just Pez, you ALWAYS do it. Yet, hypocritically enough, you accused 2D of cutting stuff out of your posts when he replied the other day.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Exactly

"Because you're not playing anything with a pedal, you're pressing it or you're not pressing it. It doesn't create any sound, it doesn't create any music. You create and play on the guitar, you alter with a pedal.".

It's part of the act of performing with a guitar USUALLY, it's not part of playing the guitar. You can play guitar without a pedal, you can't play a pedal without a guitar.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I said it because you just dropped in and made a lame-ass point instead of putting something on the table...hence supspecting that "maybe" you didn't read the post. That's why I said "'if" you haven't read the post.

Why waste time saying what eveyone else has already said? I already had to read you post the same thing 20 times or so. I figured I'd just post my opinion. I mean there isn't really anymore I can bring to the table that someone else hasn't brought up already.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Who says he was the one making the rythm though

Listen to the rythm...it's mostly the effect, it's not him strumming it. It's almost mechanical and sequenced...what it's meant to sound like.

Marr implied that himself by using the word 'and' , meaning they were two separate things. And anybody who has played with a tremolo knows that it doesnt create the rythm, they player does. Just like the player has to decide when the right time to step on a WAH-wah pedal is.

Just to clear 2D...the discussion started from this...


-"The effect itself won't make the song sound cool, how you use it will."

-"I know effects are not 'doing all the work' effects are 'icing on the cake'. Who cares if you have shit music and all the effects pedals (and can use them) in the world?"

So how was I supposed to get anything "song" out of that?

But whatever...it SEEMS we are in agreement now as to what's what.

We'll see how inclined he is when he posts his music, 2D.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Exactly...and if you mess around with certain effects enough...that C can turn into a D...which can turn into an arpegio..which can be given a particular rythm, and so forth.

Yeah, but it is just a (additional) part of playing a guitar, isn't it?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
and if you mess around with certain effects enough...that C can turn into a D...which can turn into an arpegio..which can be given a particular rythm, and so forth.

YOU are the person telling ME I'm not musically inclined?

Do you have any idea how LITTLE sense that made?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but it is just a (additional) part of playing a guitar, isn't it?

Yes, not making music, though.

-AC

More proof...AC doesn't know anything about music making

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, not making music, though.

-AC

No, of course not. It's not an instrument. It's just a part of it. Like....lets say a ...string. (slightly flawed analogy since it is not a fundamental part)

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Marr implied that himself by using the word 'and' , meaning they were two separate things. And anybody who has played with a tremolo knows that it doesnt create the rythm, they player does. Just like the player has to decide when the right time to step on a WAH-wah pedal is.
It's not all that clear to be honest...BUT, as I said above...even if in this example it isn't the effect that produces the rhythm, it can be in many other examples. Expecially with a multi-delay pedal...which you could basically end-up making sound like a techno riff.

Haha, "Expecially.".

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
More proof...AC doesn't know anything about music making

Where's your music, EP?

You keep saying all this, and none of us have heard anything from you.

Show us what you've got.

(Don't write music, do you?).

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, of course not. It's not an instrument. It's just a part of it. Like....lets say a ...string. (slightly flawed analogy since it is not a fundamental part)
Yeah...and sometime syou can use certain strings more than others.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah...and sometime you can use some string more than others

Y-yes?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah...and sometime you can use some string more than others

The string makes sound, the pedal doesn't.

Where's your music, EP? Are you going to show us some or not?

You should, considering you're acting like you know a lot and have claimed you can write.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Y-yes? Obviously the guitar is an instrument...but I'm also saying an effects pedal can be an instrument...because you create with it...you alter the sound with it. Change it's tone, speed, rythm...you know...write music with it. I'd even say it and the guitar are both instrument...but what the guitar might have done in some case (where can simply strum a chord) the effects can be used to do something far more creative and musical.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Obviously the guitar is an instrument...but I'm also saying an effects pedal can be an instrument...because you create with it...you alter the sound with it. Change it's tone, speed, rythm...you know...write music with it.

You do NOT create with it, you alter with it.

If I gave you a pedal, JUST a pedal, no guitar. Could you go and write a song on the pedal?

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Obviously the guitar is an instrument...but I'm also saying an effects pedal can be an instrument...because you create with it...you alter the sound with it. Change it's tone, speed, rythm...you know...write music with it. But that's wrong. The pedal is not an instrument.

I said...Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I'd even say it and the guitar are both the instrument...but what the guitar might have done in some case (where can simply strum a chord) the effects can be used to do something far more creative and musical. IF it's used creatively enough, it can be used like an instrument. But most people just slap it on to make themselves sound funkier than they are...and don't get creative and innovative enough with it where they're making music with IT more than the guitar chord that's been played.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I said...IF it's used creatively enough, it can be used like an instrument.

But it's NOT an instrument.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I said...IF it's used creatively enough, it can be used like an instrument.

Though the guitar is the instrument and the pedal the addition.


N-no....I mean, I am sure AC does not deny that a guitar with a pedal has a wider variety than one without....but the guitar is the instrument...in that case a guitar with a pedal.

How's the music upload going, EP?

You better be good.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though the guitar is the instrument and the pedal the addition. Disagree. Not always. Most times yes...sometimes, no.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Disagree. Not always I mean, I am sure AC does not deny that a guitar with a pedal has a wider variety than one without....but the guitar is the instrument...in that case a guitar with a pedal.

Stop avoiding my questions, EP. It's getting lame:

If I have you a pedal, NO guitar, just a pedal, could you write a song with it?

-AC

OK smart guys...here's a question. What's a synthesizer?

AC? What's a synthesizer?

You expect us to answer your questions when you are literally dodging every question thrown at you?

Laughable.

Answer mine first, then I'll answer yours:

Could you write a song if I gave you JUST a pedal, with no guitar? Take a pedal into a room and write a song? Could you?

Question 2: When will you upload your music? You should do so, seeing as you keep calling everyone musically disinclined and claim you know about music.

Nobody reply until he's answered, otherwise he'll have reason to keep dodging.

-AC

AC...I think you're losing it.

I NEVER said I can write a whole song with a pedal, and I ALREADY SAID THAT...ARE YOU SERIOUS? I've ALWAYS been talking about PARTS of songs.

Either GET SERIOUS OR LEAVE because you're just being an annoying little pest again....Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
We're talking about the PART...the guitar PART. And we're talking about writing PARTS for songs, and if those PARTS are what they are because of the playing of the instrument or because of the effects. And I said if you use an effect like multi-delay creatively enough, you can write the PART you want with it, and be musical with it, and be creative with it, and ESSENTIALLY be using it like an instrument (more so than the simple strummed chord you played on the guitar). I'm not saying you'd make the whole song!! Where does your reasoning come from? Seriously!
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When will you upload your music? How would I do that considering it's not on an electronic medium.

AC, please get out of this thread. You're just being a pest. Seriously.

Why would you assume I have music that I could easily share, or even want to share with YOU of all people?

Well, I don't actually think you do assume that realy ...I think you're just being a pest.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Just to clear 2D...the discussion started from this...


-"The effect itself won't make the song sound cool, how you use it will."

-"I know effects are not 'doing all the work' effects are 'icing on the cake'. Who cares if you have shit music and all the effects pedals (and can use them) in the world?"

So how was I supposed to get anything "song" out of that?

But whatever...it SEEMS we are in agreement now as to what's what.

So...now...how about the second part of the discussion 2D? The part about Depeche Mode, or whatever.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...I think you're losing it.

I NEVER said I can write a song with a pedal...ARE YOU SERIOUS? I've ALWAYS been talking about PARTS of songs.

Then how does it create anything? It alters music, it doesn't create. Ergo; Tool, not instrument.

It alters music, doesn't create. All you respond saying is "I disagree.", once again proving that because you choose to not differentiate, that's "how it is.". You're wrong, and you're a terrible debate participant that this entire forum could do without.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Either GET SERIOUS OR LEAVE because you're just being an annoying little pest again....
How would I do that considering it's not on an electronic medium.

AC, please get out of here. You're just being a pest. Seriously.

Why would you assume I have music that I could easily share, or even want to share with YOU of all people?

Well, I don't actually think you do assume thatrealy ...I think you're just being a pest.

Because you're swanning around accusing us of being musically disinclined, suggesting you know what it takes to write music, and the rest involved, it would only be fair that you either shut up making assumptions, or prove to us that you're not talking bullshit.

I think you KNOW you don't write or play, so you're covering your tracks by saying "I can't prove it.".

Don't tell us we're not inclined, then say you are, if you cannot prove it. It's rude, it's insulting and it has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

Now to your request: What is a synthesizer?

Do you mean, what is it catagorised as, or literally what does it do? I can answer both, I just want to be sure which you're asking.

-AC

AC...answer my question or leave...what's a synthesizer? Is it an instrument?

A) Who are you to tell me to leave? Nobody wants you here. It took me PAGES to get you to answer.

B) Obviously you didn't read my post, I was trying to clarify your question.

Yes, it's an instrument. It's a musical instrument that you use to create music, notes or tones.

-AC

Well I think it's an instrument....but according to you it shouldn't REALLY be an instrument...it's just something that's manipulated a sound.

A lot of synths would just take samples and recordings of actual piano notes and use filters to create its sounds. They couldn't be there if it wasn't for the piano. So what you're doing is essentially using a sound that's been manipulated from the original instrument (what YOU say are effects with a guitar...using sound that's being manipulated from an instrument). BUT THAT'S WHAT A SYNTH IS AC.

But I, ME, I think a synth is an instrument...and I think ANYTHING that makes a sound and has something you can turn, push, or press can be used as an instrument (if used creatively enough).

YOU don't.

It's easy AC. You can play a simple note on a guitar, and now that note has been captured with the effects unit or whatever you're using (basically what's happened with a synth and its original piano sound...that's the process)...and then you can modify the guitar sound in real time to change its pitch, or change its rythm, or do a BILLION things to it that constitue writing or creating music.

So YOU'RE WRONG. YOU'RE DEAD WRONG. Because you don't know what constitues making music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well I think it's an instrument....but according to you it shouldn't REALLY be an instrument...it's just something that's manipulated a sound.

Don't start this bs again. "According to you...", no, according to your interpretation of what I'm saying. For the love of the forum, don't start that again.

Synths can be used to create (Not JUST alter.) music, ergo; They are instruments.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A lot of synths would just take samples and recordings of actual piano notes and use filters to create its sounds. They couldn't be there if it wasn't for the piano. So what you're doing is essentially using a sound that's been manipulated from the original instrument (what YOU say are effects with a guitar...using sound that's being manipulated from an instrument). BUT THAT'S WHAT A SYNTH IS AC.

I've used a synth, I know what they are, and there are many kinds of synths. Some that are tools, used primarily and only for manipulation, some that CREATE the actual notes and sounds, you should know this.

Apply the knowledge as needed. If it creates, it's an instrument. If you cannot make music with it, it's not an instrument. Can you make music with synths or certain synths? Yes.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But I, ME, I think ia synth is an instrument...I think anything that makes a sound and has something you can turn, push, or press can be used as an instrument.

Something that makes and sound AND has something you can turn, push or press? Pedals don't make sounds. Vocoders do not make sounds.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
YOU don't.

If it cannot create sounds, if it cannot be used to create music, it's not a musical instrument.

THAT is what I'm saying. Do not get into the "You think...you say." again, EP.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It's easy AC. You can play a simple note on a guitar, and now that note has been captured with the effects unit or whatever you're using (basically what's happened with a synth and its original piano sound)...and then you can modify the guitar sound in real time to change its pitch, or change its rythm, or do a BILLION things to it that constitue writing or creating music.

The GENERAL PROCESS is creating music, the pedal is NOT creating anything. YOU do not make a distinction between the two, that is not our problem, that's YOUR ineptitude. It's not creating anything.

It's not creating an altered sound, it's altering an existing one.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So YOU'RE WRONG. YOU'RE DEAD WRONG. Because you don't know what constitues making music.

Do you? Can you prove it? No.

I know what constitutes making music, EP. Once again, nobody here is agreeing with you, everyone is disagreeing with your initial point, but because you do not see beyond "This is what I believe, this is how it is.", you are an idiot in debates.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because you're swanning around accusing us of being musically disinclined, suggesting you know what it takes to write music, and the rest involved, it would only be fair that you either shut up making assumptions, or prove to us that you're not talking bullshit.

Don't tell us we're not inclined, then say you are, if you cannot prove it.
What's this "us", "we" stuff?

I said YOU.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What's this "us", "we" stuff?

I said YOU.

And I said you.

You are not musically inclined. There. You are not musically inclined, I can tell from your posts.

Are you going to prove me wrong? No? Then stop making claims. First rule of debating: Do not say things simply to back yourself up but cannot prove.

Being inclined or disinclined has NOTHING to do with this discussion and it's rude, insulting and discourteous of you to bring such a thing up in a debate. Prove you write and compose music or stop bringing it up.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Pedals don't make sounds. Vocoders do not make sounds.
. Thank you AC for pointing out the blatanlty obvious!

I said effects units CAN be used as instruments if they are used creatively and innovatively enough, and not simply slapped on...and they can be used as instruments once the sound from the guitar or the voice has been captured.

OBVIOUSLY a guitar is an instrument...and even a mouth is an instrument...but then an effects pedal or a vocoder can also be USED...USED as an instrument because you can be creative with IT, melodic with IT, rhythmic with IT, apart from what might have been initlialy done simply by playing a single guitar note or saying some words.



How about another question AC...WHAT'S A TRUMPET? ISN'T IT AN INSTRUMENT?

You make a sound with your mouth (LIKE IN A VOCODER) and then you use IT TO MAKE SOUNDS!!!

The sound that you're making with your mouth (an instrument in itself), is being manipulated (LIKE WITH A VOCODER) by the buttons and sliders on a trumpet.


SO A TRUMPET IS AN INSTRUMENT AND A VOCODER ISN'T?



Get it through you're head...You're WRONG!

Stop arguing, because you're WRONG!

I just PROVED... you're WRONG!

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I said effects units CAN be used as instruments if they are used creatively and innovatively enough, and not simply slapped on...and they can be used as instruments once the sound from the guitar or the voice has been captured.

But...that's all you can do with a pedal, step on it. Ohh, but you probably didn't know that. Pedals and vocoders NEVER make sounds, ever. So how CAN they SOMETIMES be instruments? Oh, because you lack the ability to make the distinction between an instrument and a tool.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
OBVIOUSLY a guitar is an instrument...and even a mouth is an instrument...but then an effects pedal or a vocoder can also be used as an instrument because you can be creative with IT, melodic with IT, rhythmic with IT, apart from just doing something initlaly simple with the guitar or mouth.

Yes, so that means it's just a useful additional tool, it's not an instrument, you cannot create music with it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
How about another question AC...WHAT'S A TRUMPET? ISN'T IT AN INSTRUMENT?

You make a sound with your mouth (LIKE IN A VOCODER) to SO IT CAN MAKE A SOUND!!!

The sound that you're making with your mouth (an instrument in itself), is being manipulated (LIKE WITH A VOCODER) by the buttons and sliders on a trumpet.

You can write music for a trumpet, you cannot write music for a vocoder. Trumpets do not alter existing music, they make the music sounds, vocoders do not, pedals do not.

You've never actually seen an instrument before have you? Let alone composed music.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
SO A TRUMPET IS AN INSTRUMENT AND A VOCODER ISN'T?

Get it through you're head...YOU'RE WRONG!!!

If I gave you a trumpet, you COULD (Not you, but someone who plays trumpet.) write music for it and create music WITH it.

If I gave you a vocoder, could you write a song USING the vocoder? No, you'd write music using the voice, and the vocoder would alter it.

Simple.

Question: Have you EVER heard anyone say "I play the mic."?

I best copy that, I have a feeling I'll have to paste it a lot.

-AC

AC...I just proved you're wrong. You got nothing. You NEVER did.

Is that all you've got left?

Have you EVER heard anyone say "I play the mic."?.

-AC

You are so incredibly, incredibly nonsnesical.

That's seriously your question? Seriously.

Well AC...The difference is, a mic itself (and not talking about anything you can add to it), just amplifies the voice...it doesn't have buttons you can push, knobs you can turn, things you can press, and it doesn't have BUILT IN filters such as delay, flange, etc...therefore you couldn't use it as an intrument.

What a silly silly question.

But if it did have all that stuff I mentioned...then it'd be a vocoder...and it could be used like an instrument.


Wow...i can't believe I actually had to just exaplain that.


AC. You're WRONG!. If a TRUMPET is an intstrument, then a VOCODER is an instrument. It's the same thing.


You shot yourslef in the foot, and you're dead wrong.

I'll post this again...might help you to read it once more.Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You make a sound with your mouth (LIKE IN A VOCODER) and then you use THE TRUMPET TO MAKE IT A DIFFERENT SOUND!!!

With a trumpet, the sound that you're making with your mouth (an instrument in itself), is being manipulated (LIKE WITH A VOCODER) by the buttons and sliders on a trumpet.


SO A TRUMPET IS AN INSTRUMENT AND A VOCODER ISN'T?

Hey AC...By the way...you're dead wrong.


Oh yeah and AC...I play the trumpet too.

BAGPIPES...another example. Or a didgeridoo.

What's the real difference between a vocoder and a didge?

Not a heck of a lot is there AC?

Yet AC maintains a vocoder can't be used an instrument.


Silliness


ANYTHING that can contain sound either physically or electronically can be used as an instrument if there's buttons, knobs or whatever to press, push etc...as long of course it's done in a creative and innovative way

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well AC...The difference is, a mic itself (and not talking about anything you can add to it), just amplifies the voice...it doesn't have buttons you can push, knobs you can turn, things you can press, and it doesn't have BUILT IN filters such as delay, flange, etc...therefore you couldn't use it as an intrument.

Yes, you can actually edit microphones, but more importantly:

Does it make music? Does a microphone make music?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But if it did have all that stuff I mentioned...then it'd be a vocoder...and it could be used like an instrument.

LIKE AN...not ACTUALLY one, because it does not CREATE music.

So...it's NOT an instrument, it's an additional tool.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC. You're WRONG!. If a TRUMPET is an intstrument, then a VOCODER is an instrument. It's the same thing.

You can write music specifically using a trumpet.

Can you write songs using a vocoder? Can you CREATE music with the vocoder itself?

You can with a trumpet, an instrument you can write, create and perform music for. Can you with a vocoder? No, you can't. You create and write for the voice, you write the vocal lines, melody lines, vocal notes, then if you WISH, you can alter them with a vocoder.

You do not CREATE with a vocoder, you ALTER with a vocoder.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You shot yourslef in the foot, and you're dead wrong.

It won't be true if you keep saying it. You have to prove it, and it won't be true if you keep saying "I've proven it." either.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
BAGPIPES...another example. Or a didgeridoo.

What's the real difference between a vocoder and a dig?

Not a heck of a lot is there AC?

Yet AC maintains a vocoder can't be used an instrument.


Silliness

Hahaha, panic boy. Stop refering to me as "AC" in that person perspective. You're not talking to anybody else.

Secondly, you can write music for bagpipes, CREATE music with bagpipes.

You cannot create with a vocoder. If I sent you into a room with bagpipes, a trumpet and a vocoder, you could only CREATE with bagpipes and trumpet. They are not altering already existing music, they are CREATING it. The VOICE creates the music, the vocoder ALTERS it.

Do you understand? Or shall I open paint and draw you a picture in bright colours?

-AC

AC. I'm afraid I don't have any respect for your opinion on this stuff.

And I also don't have respect for your weak tactics either:


"If I gave you a trumpet, you COULD...create music WITH it.

If I gave you a vocoder, could you write a song USING the vocoder?"


So I have to write a SONG with a vocoder, and just MAKE MUSIC music with a trumpet.

Wow. Nice ultimatum!

You're great (and most importantly, fair) at this stuff.

But to answer in the only way that could be answered, I COULD make music with a vocoder. I just grab it and talk into it...the MUSICALITY can come from the VOCODER, not necessarily the voice (which could simply be just TALKING).


You've lost. Face it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC. I'm afraid I don't have any respect for your opinion on this stuff.

To quote Gloria Gaynor: I will survive.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And I also don't have respect for your weak tactics either:

I'm sure I'll sleep.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But to answer in the only way that could be answered, I COULD make music with a vocoder. I just grab it and talk into it...the MUSICALITY can come from the VOCODER, not necessarily the voice (which could simply be just TALKING).

No, your VOICE is making the sound, the vocoder is altering it. Speaking into it, singing into it, your VOICE is creating that, the vocoder is altering it.

The vocoder is not creating sound, it's altering it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You've lost. Face it.

Is that all you've got?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Is that all you've got? You probably missed that part about how your mouth makes a sound and a trumpet alters it.

You know...like what you just said a vocoder does.

It's the trumpet that turns the sound that the mouth makes into something musical...and with a vocoder, often times you can just simply speak into it, and it's the vocoder that turns the sound the mouth makes into something musical.

You use them both as instruments, because you can be creative with them by pressing the valves, buttons, sliders, knobs, whatever in a creative way.



Look AC. It's right there in front of you. Proof you goofed and you're wrong...again. Does it hurt looking at it?

I'm certain it does.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC...I just proved you're wrong. You got nothing. You NEVER did. What? Where? I missed it. Last I checked AC had the facts...

Just let him have the last post, Bardock. We all know he's wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
It's not all that clear to be honest...BUT, as I said above...even if in this example it isn't the effect that produces the rhythm, it can be in many other examples. Expecially with a multi-delay pedal...which you could basically end-up making sound like a techno riff.


I wasn't talking about a delay pedal, you were. Clearly I was talking about a 'tremolo and 'wah-pedal'. It was YOUR example and I just proved that your claim (that the effect ALONE made the rythm of the music) is WRONG. Don't discredit the guitar abilities of Marr.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
It was definately A tremolo effect. Whether it came from a pedal or from knobs on the amp itself (which is in the case of Johnny Mar). It's still a guitar effect.

Though, not, as I said, a pedal.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Though, not, as I said, a pedal.

Though, as I said, still a guitar effect.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Though, as I said, still a guitar effect.

Just that it was said to be a pedal while it was never said to not be a guitar effect, which...makes it pretty clear which statement made more sense.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just that it was said to be a pedal while it was never said to not be a guitar effect, which...makes it pretty clear which statement made more sense.

Jusy trying to avoid discussing things that don't really matter. Whether it was a pedal or built into the amp, it was'nt a sample, and it wasnt a synth. It had no relevancy. But for the sake of avoiding argument, yes, VVD was 'more' correct in saying it wasnt a pedal, if you will.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What? Where? I missed it. Last I checked AC had the facts... WHAT FACTS you AC lover?

AC said you can't use a vocoder as an instrument...he only thinks instruments are "traditional" forms of expressing yourself musically like a trumpet...(but then also went on to say vocoders alter the sound you mouth makes)

To which I said...

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You probably missed that part about how your mouth makes a sound and a trumpet alters it.

You know...like what you just said a vocoder does.

It's the trumpet that turns the sound that the mouth makes into something musical...and with a vocoder, often times you can just simply speak into it, and it's the vocoder that turns the sound the mouth makes into something musical.

You use them both as instruments, because you can be creative with them by pressing the valves, buttons, sliders, knobs, whatever in a creative way.
The number of times you have agreed with AC on the most outlandish arguments and reasoning involving music is truly a wonder to behold...AC of all people.

Way to go Bardock!

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Though, as I said, still a guitar effect.
Oh this is ridiculous.

YES EVERYONE. It's a guitar EFFECT. I think we all agree with that.

And a guitar EFFECT can be used extremely creatively and innovatively...or it can just be slapped on.

Pedals are pushed, knobs are turned, buttons are pressed (and MOST LIKELY these all happened in the How Soon is Now guitar riff), and IF you do all that stuff creatively, it ..the effects...can be adding more to the music in terms of the personality, vibe, rhythm it's giving it than what has just been played on the initial instrument.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Oh this is ridiculous.

YES EVERYONE. It's a guitar EFFECT

Well the argument was in concern to both me and AC having the impression you thought it was a synth or sample, not a GUITAR EFFECT. Don't you remember arguming about that with AC? Finally that was put to rest, well at least I though it was. Whether it was a pedal effect or not was irrelvant, that's all I was trying to say.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Well the argument was in concern to both me and AC having the impression you thought it was a synth or sample, not a GUITAR EFFECT. Don't you remember arguming about that with AC? Finally that was put to rest, well at least I though it was. Whether it was a pedal effect or not was irrelvant, that's all I was trying to say. Then you're not reading my posts carefully because I never said IT was a synth or IT was a sample. You'd probably get that if you skimmed through the post.

NOTE: Added more above.

EP, you BLOW into a trumpet and IT makes the sound.

YOU make the sound and the VOCODER alters it.

Simple. You're wrong and once again EVERYBODY knows it.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
And a guitar EFFECT can be used extremely creatively and innovatively...or it can just be slapped on.

Pedals are pushed, knobs are turned, buttons are pressed (and MOST LIKELY these all happened in the How Soon is Now guitar riff), and IF you do all that stuff creatively, it ..the effects...can be adding more to the music in terms of the personality, vibe, rhythm it's giving it than what has just been played on the initial instrument.

So what about what I said regarding what Depeche Mode does...do you agree with that at all?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
EP, you BLOW into a trumpet and IT makes the sound.

YOU make the sound and the VOCODER alters it.

Simple. You're wrong and once again EVERYBODY knows it.

-AC

HA ha...you essentially just said the same thing.

You goofed AC. Face it.

A vocoder CAN BE USED AS AN INSTRUMENT.


(Note: You don't BLOW into a trumpet...you make a sound with your lips).

WRONG AGAIN...because you don't know much about playing or making music. THAT'S a fact

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A vocoder CAN BE USED AS AN INSTRUMENT.

How? By speaking into it? Then it's not CREATING, it's ALTERING. The same as a microphone.

It can be used as a tool, it's not a musical instrument.

And stop panic posting.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


And how do you KNOW the guitars in How Soon is Now ISN'T for sure a studio effect? (which again, I'm not saying is or isn't ...doesn't matter). What a RIDICULOUS thing to say.



True, you never say it was, for sure, a sample or synth. But you certainly believed it COULD be, as your quote above implies. I simply wanted to KILL the idea of it being anything other than a guitar effect.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
(Note: You don't BLOW into a trumpet...you make a sound with your lips).

"The trumpet is made of brass tubing bent into a rough spiral. Although the bore is roughly cylindrical, it is more precisely a complex series of tapers, smaller at the mouthpiece receiver and larger just before the flare of the bell begins. Careful design of these tapers is critical to the intonation of the instrument. Sound is produced by blowing air through closed lips, producing a 'buzzing' sound into the mouthpiece and starting a standing wave vibration in the air column inside the trumpet.".

You were saying, EP?

You blow into a trumpet, the trumpet makes the sound.

You make the sound, the vocoder alters it.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
(WRONG AGAIN...because you don't know much about playing or making music. THAT'S a fact

Same as you, you don't either, that's a fact.

"You make the sound with your lips." Hahahaha.

Either prove you know about making and playing music, or stop saying I don't.

-AC

A microphone...on it's own...is a tool. It doesn't (like something you can use as an instrument) have buttons to push or knobs to turn that can be used in a creative way to be musical with.

You CAN with a vocoder.

You're WRONG.

Please allow us to continue our discussion

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
True, you never say it was, for sure, a sample or synth. But you certainly believed it COULD be, as your quote above implies. I simply wanted to KILL the idea of it being anything other than a guitar effect.
I was just harping on AC thinking he KNOWS everything.

(When in reality when it comes to music making...he really doesn't know a whole lot).

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
A microphone...on it's own...is a tool. It doesn't (like something you can use as an instrument) have buttons to push or knobs to turn that can be used in a creative way to be musical with.

You CAN with a vocoder.

You're WRONG.

Please allow us to continue our discussion

No, read it.

A vocoder does not create anything, neither does a mic. You create the sound, the mic amplifies it, the vocoder alters it.

You blow into a trumpet and the instrument makes the sound.

"Sound is produced by blowing air through closed lips, producing a 'buzzing' sound into the mouthpiece and starting a standing wave vibration in the air column inside the trumpet.".

Reply?

Also, nobody here has proof you know anything about music, but plenty to the contrary. You are the laughing stock of this forum and most would wish you away.

-AC

THIS is one of the most desperate, embarrasing things I think I've ever seen in my life.

You ACTUALLY give a definition, and if front of everyones eyes, ACTUALLY try and alter it to suit your argumetOriginally posted by Alpha Centauri
producing a 'buzzing' sound into the mouthpiece and starting a standing wave vibration in the air column inside the trumpet.".

You were saying, EP?

You blow into a trumpet, the trumpet makes the sound.

NO AC YOU DON'T BLOW INTO A TRUMPET.

YOU "BLOW" INTO A HARMONICA.

YOU "BUZZ"..."BUZZ" INTO A TRUMPET

YOU'RE WRONNNNNNG. YOU GOOFED AND YOU'RE WRONG.

A VOCODER CAN BE USED JUST AS MUCH AS AN INSTRUMENT AS A TRUMPET CAN

Now will you PLEASE let us continue with this thread or I'll report you again you pest!

2D...is there any particular reason you have answered to the second part of the argument? Just curious what you think.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
So what about what I said regarding what Depeche Mode does...do you agree with that at all?

Oh and AC...yes you're right

%100

I admit I'm TOTALLY wrong.

You won AC...you're the "winner".

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
THIS is one of the most desperate, embarrasing things I think I've ever seen in my life.

You ACTUALLY give a definition, and if front of everyones eyes, ACTUALLY try and alter it to suit your argumet

NO AC YOU DON'T BLOW INTO A TRUMPET.

YOU "BLOW" INTO A HARMONICA.

YOU "BUZZ"..."BUZZ" INTO A TRUMPET

YOU'RE WRONNNNNNG. YOU GOOFED AND YOU'RE WRONG.

A VOCODER CAN BE USED JUST AS MUCH AS AN INSTRUMENT AS A TRUMPET CAN

Now will you PLEASE let us continue with this thread or I'll report you again you pest!

No, you BLOW into a trumpet, as it just said, and the buzzing sound is created by the trumpet. READ it.

Caps lock is auto pilot for cool, I understand.

I love the way you cut my quote off before "...producing a buzzing sound.". It actually says this:

"Sound is produced by blowing air through closed lips..." first.

-AC

Oh thanks for stating the obvious AC...kinda like you BLOW into a vocoder then. Right?

WHAT'S YOUR POINT ANYMORE?

Why even continue on this tangent? Do you even know what you're arguing for at this point?

You said something and I proved you wrong...and you KNOW it's wrong. You're just being immature and blocking it out....like you do with EVERYTHING AC. EVERYTHING.

What goes into the trumpet is a SOUND...a "BUZZ".

What goes into a harmonica is "AIR"...NOT a sound

You'd be right if you were talking about a harmonica...but you're NOT. You're atalking about a trumpet. YOU'RE WRONG.

But you didn't know the difference and you goofed...and now you're desperately trying to show that you didn't.

Who are you trying to fool here? Not me because I've seen what you're trying to do.

The ONLY person you're trying to fool is YOU AC. Something you seem to do EVERYDAY...ALL THE TIME.

It truly is a wonder.

And in case you forgot what you were actually arguing about

Regarding what I said about a vocoder being used as an instrument, you said...Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How? By speaking into it? Then it's not CREATING, it's ALTERING. Yeeah...Which is what a trumpet does with the sound that goes into it.

How exactly do you thinkg a trumpet creates a sound anyway AC...just by pressing stuff (like on a piano?)


I've never in my life seen someone so badly argue a point (2 now) that he knows himslef is so clearly wrong, JUST to save face.

But that's basically what AC does half the time...tries to save face (as he's wrong about ANYTHING)

This is something to behold.

Reported for spamming, AGAIN.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Oh thanks for stating the obvious AC...kinda like you BLOW into a vocoder then. Right?

You don't blow into a vocoder you idiot. You speak into it, or sing into it. The sound is created by the voice, THEN it's ALTERED by the vocoder.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You said something and I proved you wrong...and you KNOW it's wrong. You're just being immature and blocking it out....like you do with EVERYTHING AC. EVERYTHING.

No, I'm factually, objectively correct. You can keep believing what you want, but you're wrong, and once again you're alone.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What goes into the trumpet is a SOUND...a "BUZZ".

No a BUZZ is created by the trumped, you don't BUZZ into it, you BLOW AIR into it then sound is then generated by a part of the trumpet, the mouthpiece, then it's vibrated in the tubes. As stated here:

"Sound is produced by blowing air through closed lips, producing a 'buzzing' sound into the mouthpiece and starting a standing wave vibration in the air column inside the trumpet...".

SOUND is produced by blowing air into the mouth piece, which creates the sound, the buzz. As said above.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
What goes into a harmonica is "AIR"...NOT a sound

Same as a trumpet.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
You'd be right if you were talking about a harmonica...but you're NOT. You're atalking about a trumpet. YOU'RE WRONG.

I just showed you a quote telling you how a trumpet works. Do I need to go and get many links? I will if I have to.

Here's another quote:

"Brass Family instruments produce their unique sound by the player blowing air through a cup- or funnel-shaped mouthpiece. To produce higher or lower pitches, the player adjusts the opening between his/her lips. The mouthpiece connects to a length of brass tubing ending in a bell. The shorter the tubing length, the smaller the instrument, and the higher the sound; and the longer the tubing length, the larger the instrument, and the lower the sound. The brass family can trace its ancestry back to herald trumpets, hunting horns, and military bugles. The main instruments of the brass family include the trumpet, horn, trombone, and tuba.".

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
But you didn't know the difference and you goofed...and now you're desperately trying to show that you didn't.

Who are you trying to fool here? Not me because I've seen what you're trying to do.

The ONLY person you're trying to fool is YOU AC. Something you seem to do EVERYDAY...ALL THE TIME.

It truly is a wonder.

And this is what I make you do, I FORCE you to be desperate.

-AC

AC. You're a living wall of denial.

It's truly wonderous.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
WHAT FACTS you AC lover?

AC said you can't use a vocoder as an instrument...he only thinks instruments are "traditional" forms of expressing yourself musically like a trumpet...(but then also went on to say vocoders alter the sound you mouth makes)

To which I said...


The number of times you have agreed with AC on the most outlandish arguments and reasoning involving music is truly a wonder to behold...AC of all people.

Way to go Bardock!

The fact that a pedal is not an instrument.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
AC. You're a living wall of denial.

It's truly wonderous.

But I'm proving that you blow into a trumpet, it's a known fact.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
But I'm proving that you blow into a trumpet, it's a known fact. Good thing the world has a AC!!



To be specific though AC (and it's necessary because you don't know much about music making) you make a "buzzing" sound into a trumpet. You "blow" into a harmonica.

This all started when you said regarding the differnce between a vocoder and trumpetOriginally posted by Alpha Centauri
EP, you BLOW into a trumpet and IT makes the sound.

YOU make the sound and the VOCODER alters it.

Well...you're WRONG.

In the case of a trumpet, you make a sound...not just BLOW in it...and then the trumpet alters it....EXACTLY what you said a vocoder does.


...but just keep lying to yourself AC. It truly, probably is a record (if there was one for such a thing).

Originally posted by Bardock42
The fact that a pedal is not an instrument.

Do you think it would be inaccurate to say that once a guitar is plugged into the pedal that the system as a whole could be said to be an instrument? A mute for a horn isn't an instrument itself but it's use alters the timbre in such a way to evoke a different feeling. Just like a slide isn't an instrument unto itself but using one on a guitar creates a different sonic texture than a plectrum or finger picking.

Yes, I would say that it is an instrument on the whole. The pedal is not though. Just a part.

Originally posted by Ytse
Do you think it would be inaccurate to say that once a guitar is plugged into the pedal that the system as a whole could be said to be an instrument? A mute for a horn isn't an instrument itself but it's use alters the timbre in such a way to evoke a different feeling. Just like a slide isn't an instrument unto itself but using one on a guitar creates a different sonic texture than a plectrum or finger picking. Yes exactly... I was about to use a mute as an example for the trumpet
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I would say that it is an instrument on the whole. The pedal is not though. Just a part.
Well, that's stating the obvious...because the only way a pedal could make a sound on it's own is if you threw it.

Anything you can use to alter sound in a creative way (by using buttons, knobs, sliders, etc...) can be used as an instrument.

oops. double post

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I would say that it is an instrument on the whole. The pedal is not though. Just a part.

Sure, I agree. Unless you want to be really unconventional and use the pedal as like a jam block or something on a drum kit.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
To be specific though AC (and it's necessary because you don't know much about music making) you make a "buzzing" sound into a trumpet. You "blow" into a harmonica.

No, to be specific, as I have provided two quotes from two links, and as anyone will tell you; You blow into both, the buzzing is created by the mouthpiece FROM that, then wave vibrations create the sound.

FACT is, YOU know nothing about music making and have never played an instrument or made a song in your life. Objective truth, unless you can prove me wrong...(OH! What now?).

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
This all started when you said regarding the differnce between a vocoder and trumpet

Well...you're WRONG.

You can keep saying it, but it's not true. This started from the very beginning when you, again, held an idiotic belief "Just because this is how I see it." and do not think for ONE SECOND "Hey...you know, I'm wrong here.".

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
In the case of a trumpet, you make a sound...not just BLOW in it...and then the trumpet alters it....EXACTLY what you said a vocoder does.

No, you blow into it, the mouthpiece makes a buzz, the tubes make it resonate. Fact. Nothing you say is important after that.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
...but just keep lying to yourself AC. It truly, probably is a record (if there was one for such a thing).

Lies.

-AC

WHAT?

You're a laugh.

Dude you blow into a damn Trumpet. Are you some kind of moron?

Reported you for spamming AGAIN by the way. Not for the above post, but for the double, triple, quadruple posting.

Better think about cutting that down, you've been warned once.

-AC

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Well, that's stating the obvious...because the only way a pedal could make a sound on it's own is if you threw it.

That is word for ****ing word what AC said from the beginning.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
2D...is there any particular reason you have answered to the second part of the argument? Just curious what you think.

I told you, time and time again. I have a life, could'nt get to it. Now I have time. Coming right up.

Burden of proof doesn't exist to EP, he thinks he can state a point and say "Prove me wrong.", rather than proving himself right.

He has nothing, so he'll just keep repeating what he's said.

-AC

Thank you, EPIII you just lost.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Anything you can use to alter sound in a creative way (by using buttons, knobs, sliders, etc...) can be used as an instrument. I don't know any musician who would disagree with that.


Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I would say that it is an instrument on the whole. The pedal is not though. Just a part.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yes exactly... I was about to use a mute as an example for the trumpet

Well, that's stating the obvious...because the only way a pedal could make a sound on it's own is if you threw it.

Thank you for proving my point.

WHAT?

Care to exaplain what nonsense you just posted?

Dude, honestly. You blindly stuck up for AC simply because he's disagreeing with me and you want to disagree with me.

He's wrong, You're wrong for backing him up. End of story.



EDIT: Ahh I get it. You're actually saying I'm wrong because you think I disgreed with YOU.

I KNOW what you've said regarding this stuff. That's why I didn't focus on you in my post. I focused on AC...you know, the person you were silly enough to stick up for.

I'd be WRONG, if you're saying he's RIGHT.

Is he right Bardock? I'd LOVE to hear you say how AC is right. Please just say it, so once and for all you two will be in unity in mind together as far as how much you know of what you're talking about