Where do you stand on adding effects to an acoustic guitar?

[johnd]

Originally Posted by Petty1818

I don't really like that argument. I am a minimalist when it comes to using effects but that's because I need more time to develop a sound with them. Guys like Phil Keaggy have experimented and tried different sounds with their acoustics and the results are not only impressive but also inspiring. There are traditionalists and then there are innovators.

Good counter-argument. I don't really have a position on this - as long as it's done well - and like nearly everything in music I think saying there IS a right or wrong answer is wrong. I'm just interested in what others think.

[McShepherd]

Originally Posted by Irish Pennant

Some songs ask for effects, others don't.

+1 to this.

However, in my own writing/playing, I find that the more interest I find in using effects, the more I'm really just wanting to play the piece electric instead of acoustic.

[Laughingboy68]

For some songs I want as close to "pure acoustic sound" as I can achieve.

For others, I'll add EQ, delay, octave, overdrive... In fact, when I play Master Blaster by Stevie Wonder, I create a percussion loop and add all of those effects at once.

If I hear any effect layered on top for song after song (ie: chorus), it gets old really fast.

I feel that same about vocal harmonizers. Mixed low and used with discretion they can be a magical addition. Too obvious, or too constant and it just sounds synthetic and fake - like the singer doesn't want you to hear their real voice.

All effects, if used well will add to the performance. It should make the audience take notice and smile, sing along or get up and dance. Used badly, and the audience just rolls their eyes - that's not what you're shooting for.

Mike

[wcap]

I voted "Only to enrich and enhance the natural sound" (but in the right situation I can see how going crazy with effects could be cool too, or at least fun to play with).

With recordings, adding a tasteful little bit of reverb can make you sound like you are in a place with much better acoustics. When I have recorded my daughter playing flute or singing in church the raw recording usually sounds best. But if she is recorded at home in our heavily damped recording space, the sound is sort of sterile unless we add some reverb (at which point it sounds a lot more like the really lovely sound we get with no added effects in church).

I think playing a guitar through a PA system can be sort of the same way. A bit of reverb can make you sound more like an acoustic performance in a wonderful church or concert hall (particularly if you are playing through pickups rather than through a good microphone).

Interestingly, when I play my Goodall through the mixer and the PA, I have to turn the reverb way up (a lot higher than when playing my Martin 000-15) before being able to hear the added reverb, and then, with this guitar, it really is on the edge or past the edge of being too much reverb - that guitar has built-in reverb effects and it hardly needs any help.

[wcap]

Originally Posted by Laughingboy68

...
All effects, if used well will add to the performance. It should make the audience take notice and smile, sing along or get up and dance. Used badly, and the audience just rolls their eyes - that's not what you're shooting for.

Mike

I have heard several big name acoustic guitar soloists and a ukulele player too performing in person - well known names immediately recognizable by most anyone here. In most cases they (or the venue?) used so much distortion and maybe other effects that these wonderful musicians ended up with really harsh and ugly sounds. In one case the sound was really just downright unpleasant.

It kind of seems like this must have been the musicians' decisions, since I also heard a classical guitar player in this same venue who had really wonderful sound.

[Psalad]

No instrument or sound is sacred. The only thing sacred is the song.. the art... the music. Does the music need it? Do it. If not.. don't.

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by johnd

But I suppose the argument would be "if you want effects, why not use an electric guitar"?

Because certain effects sound completely different on an acoustic versus an electric.

[Yamaha Man]

A little bit of eq and chorus worked wonders for Stephen Still"s "Treetop Flyer".

[barefooter]

For me, mostly a straight acoustic sound through the PA. When I do add something, it is a hint of chorus and reverb.

[philjs]

Originally Posted by johnd

I'm not sure if looping really counts as an effect?

I can't play two acoustic guitars at once (never mind guitar and bouzar at the same time) so, trust me, it's an effect. And I'm sure Phil Keaggy would agree with me...

Phil

[Tarekith]

I run my acoustic through tons of effects, I don't have a problem with it at all. I use an acoustic because I enjoy playing it more than my electric, and it provides a different tone too.

[johnd]

Originally Posted by philjs

I can't play two acoustic guitars at once (never mind guitar and bouzar at the same time) so, trust me, it's an effect. And I'm sure Phil Keaggy would agree with me...

Phil

I can't play and sing at the same time, but if I record each separately I wouldn't say it's an effect

[Irish Pennant]

Originally Posted by McShepherd

+1 to this.

However, in my own writing/playing, I find that the more interest I find in using effects, the more I'm really just wanting to play the piece electric instead of acoustic.

I have a song I recently composed that was first inspired by playing the electric but I moved it to the acoustic. 95% of my playing is done on an acoustic and that's the instrument I take to open mics. This song does have a couple of sections that are colored with a looper and effects.

[BTF]

Honestly, can anyone- electric or acoustic guitarist- finger pick an arpeggio through a Phase 90 and tell me it's not heavenly?!!!

[aknow]

chorus or delay, slight, not overpowering.