You can't really compare guys playing "neoclassical" to guys playing good ole rock n roll. Malmsteen sounds like he does mostly because he's staying inside narrow boundaries, influenced by the "orignals," if you would, of this whole music theory thing (Dating to before Bach and Mozart et al, but similar and the building blocks for those guys). Solo guitar/ smaller stuff like Hendrix is much easier to stretch conventions with improvisation- it's hard to lead 50 people through a solo, yknow?
So I'm going to hop on my soapbox a little, right here. As a disclaimer, I am biased as fuck; I've done the academic route with my music training, and there's a heavy emphasis on theory, mostly for pedagogical, rather than musical, reasons. As such, I'm a big proponent of theory. That being said, I suspect there's a good argument to be made for learning theory, independent of my indoctrination. In all honesty, this doesn't make sense as a question, once you have a better understanding of what music theory consists of, and how it works. That being said, I completely get where you're coming from, and why it seems like music theory could be seen as a set of rules, enshrined by academia, that fail to evolve with the actual music as it changes. It's not. A better view would liken this question to that of asking "Is the theory of the alphabet finished, or still a work in progress". Well, I mean, it's finished, in that all the basic blocks are set out, but the things you can talk about aren't really bounded by its completeness, you know? Essentially, music theory, like any theory, seeks to explain the structure* of its subject. Often, this takes the form of harmonic, motivic or rhythmic analyses, because these are, in the main, the three dominant structures of any piece, and the ones that seem to have the greatest impact on the "feel" of the piece. Of course, there are other elements, and other lenses through which we can, and do, seek to understand what's going on. In any case, the basic language of theory isn't prescriptive, but descriptive. You can delve into certain composers' personal theories, or even stylistic theories to get prescriptive music theory, but it is, in and of itself, just a language for talking precisely about certain structures that occur in the music. *: I'm using the word 'structure' in the sense of answering the question 'what makes X not like Y, but more like Z?' Not only that, but you'll likely find that you understand your own reaction to the music better. That is, what particular things you find "sound good". Likely, because you don't have the language to describe it, even to yourself, you're missing the "big picture" of what it is you like. As a really simple example, maybe you really like the sound of IV and V chords in first inversion, in major keys. Someone who doesn't know any theory would hear a C/E being played in G major, and might decide that it's chord itself that sounds good, and be confused by why it doesn't sound as good to them in other contexts, like in C major. But someone who understands theory can look at the similarities in the relevant structures of the sounds he/she likes, and notice these "larger scale" features, which will allow them to better understand their own playing and what sounds good to them. This is an unbelievable red herring, and it gets thrown about all the time. My ire here isn't directed toward you, but just the Hendrix example that gets thrown around by a metric fuck-tonne of mediocre guitarists (often students that I'm teaching) that try to justify not learning theory for this reason. Know who knew theory and wrote/writes great, soulful music? Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Debussy, Strauss, Rachmaninoff, Coltrane, Davis, Gil Evans, Joe Pass, George Martin, Duke Ellington, Derek Trucks, Jamie Cullum, and on, and on. (And let's be clear, Malmsteen's playing is soulless because he has no soul.) Here's the thing; Hendrix wasn't a great player because he didn't know theory, he was a great player *in spite* of it. You can be a good musician without knowing theory, but you can be an even better one with it, in my opinion. I don't know any musician who ever said "That sounds good, but doesn't make any sense theoretically, so I'm not gonna use it." But I know a hell of a lot of players without any understanding of music theory that take a lot longer to compose variants on the same 3 songs, without realizing that they're just the same songs, and not being able to grow as artists, because they don't know where to start looking. It's not causal, but there's a high correlation. Besides, if music is your craft, it seems to me that you'd be a shitty, hubristic craftsman if you didn't explore what others have said, thought, and written about your craft, and music theory is the language we use to do that. So if you want to treat it as an art, and you want to improve your art for its own sake, I doubt learning something about it could be a bad thing.
Perhaps this was obvious for most, but this changed the way I see music theory quite a bit. As a writer uses letters (words) as his tool to write something, a musician uses the theory - or rather music theory is a way of breaking the music down into letters - is this what you are saying? There are ways that we use the letters (spelling, grammar), but it is up to the artist as to how you arrange it? I don't mean to start to defend what I said, but I had the feeling it would be a bad example right from the start. But fuck it, the example wasn't the point. I was getting at the narrowness mentioned in the post before yours. Then again, we do tend to stick to a certain style when we compose. Granted. Given the way you described musical theory, I am having a hard time disagreeing with you. Like saying that learning how to spell properly will prevent you from being a better writer - using the same example as above. I think this is the most convincing argument. Even though, as I said, I do take inspiration from others, and learn by listening to and breaking down other songs, I still only have my own language I have created in my mind as to how to explain what's happening. This short exchange of opinions has clarified a lot for me, but I think what it breaks down to is my own laziness. Can I be a good musician without learning musical theory? As you said, why would learning more about a subject matter make you worse at it. As mentioned in the rep, great post. You have a firm grasp of pedagogy.
I'm just gonna throw my hat in the ring here, not really addressing any points straight out, but just kind of riffing on the discussion. Theory is the reason I write music. I started on piano, and to this day, I can't read piano music quickly. It takes me days and days to learn a song. However, I caught on to theory very quickly - how to read music (single staff), how to follow chords, what comprises a chord, etc. For me, appreciating music is completely based on theory. And I don't really mean it in the simple "i understand this chord structure and pivot modulation and that is an awesome deceptive resolution" while I push my glasses up my nose type of appreciation. I hear songs, and my brain is analyzing them on the spot. If the progression goes somewhere I didn't expect, I laugh out of the joy of music being free to switch up on you. I am PLEASANTLY surprised. I don't want to know everything exactly, I want to learn it and internalize it, and use it myself - like the "tool box" idea mentioned earlier. I'm gonna jump into a new subject here, but with that same "tool box" point - I majored in Songwriting at college. Now, I got a lot of flak from people saying that "songwriting can't be taught, you can't follow certain rules." However, it's not true. The courses gave me a box of tools that I can use to write songs quickly, with more variety between the choruses and verses, etc... And maybe they weren't trained on it, but one of the most celebrated Rock n' Roll bands knew what was up - The Rolling Stones. How do you make a your chorus and your hook stand out? Lots of ways - one way is to sing longer notes than you sang in your verse. So the Stones went ahead and spent seven beats singing one syllable: Or you can make the notes of your chorus some of the highest in the song: Also, in "Satisfaction," the chords in the bridge ("and I try...") move at double speed compared to the verse and chorus, which creates a sense of forward motion. That, and the fact that each time they sing "and I try," they move up the scale, and it leads to the hook. When I figured out what these tools were, it didn't really lessen my love of music, it made me appreciate songs I used to dislike. I can now listen to Top 40 shit and see why it's so fucking catchy. It's the same with Theory - when I hear these things and understand them, I appreciate it. And if something surprises me, it just makes me love the fact that I wasn't expecting it, and I need to know what it is and why it is. For example (and this is WAY out of left field) - Danny Elfman blew my fucking mind in "Corpse Bride": Seriously, that modulation at 3:07 came out of fucking NOWHERE the first time I heard it. I was watching it in the theatre with my ex and I laughed out loud, pissing her off. Here's a really quick semi-analysis of the different keys. Don't look until you've listened to it, because I don't want to spoil the crazy modulations. Spoiler Verse 1 in Gm Chorus 1 in Bbm Verse 2 &3 in F#m Chorus 2 in Am Scat section in Am modulating to Bbm Solos in Fm modulating to C#m The breakdown verses (the story of the Corpse bride) moving up from Bbm to Bm to Cm to ???? finally ending the story section in Gm...vamping on D (the V of Gm) until suddenly going to the last Chorus in Bm WTF?!?!? Sorry to ramble, it's just something I love to talk about, and I love to discuss.
Dude it's the down-by-minor-third modulation, happens all the time in classical music. So delicious though--we usually expect it to bridge a major key with a minor one, but here he's already in the middle of a transition (it feels like we're sitting on a dominant) from one minor to another, and he just slides down the minor third. Simultaneously confirming and defying expectations--harmonic ambiguity. This is what makes Debussy so beautiful and ravishing-- is Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun in E or B or A or What Major? It's in all of them at the same time, until it isn't.
See, that's why it's awesome. I mean, I can hear the modulation, it's not like it's a complete WTF moment. But he spend the minute or so beforehand doing a cliche Bluesy walking line that centers around the tonic and dominant, going up chromatically. So when he hits the dominant chord, and lays on it, your brain thinks "oh, okay, here we go, he's done climbing, here comes the chorus in this key - what, WHOA!" It's also the fact that Danny Elfman doesn't give a shit that it's a movie, that a younger crowd will be watching it, that he could just phone it in and do some simple harmonic shit that they can animate around - he does what he wants, and that's awesome.
I've gotten into a bad habit of getting drunk and going on Ebay. However, this helped me discover JOYO pedals. They're cheap chinese knockoffs but they sound pretty awesome. I have the vintage overdrive and the tremolo and both sound better than their Boss counterparts. I also decided to buy a mandolin. I'm giving myself 2 weeks to learn it properly before giving up and restringing it like a guitar.
JOYO is getting a good reputation. Because musicians love cheap stuff that sounds good for the price. I haven't had a chance to try them out, but a few of my customers are saying they're very worth it. As for the mandolin, if you don't take to it right away, you might wanna try an Epiphone MandoBird. An electric version with four strings instead of eight. Easier on the hands, anyway. I only recommend it because I have a mandolin, and I just can't get the style down. Although I don't have much practicing time.
I've looked through the first several pages of this thread and found a wealth of information. Since I just restrung my guitar, I'm going to actually stick with learning it but there's a problem. I've looked at the chord circle on justinguitar, I'm reading the lessons on <a class="postlink" href="http://theorylessons.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://theorylessons.com</a>, but I don't understand how it translates to the actual strings. I don't know if I'm skipping something or just being dense, but right now it's like trying to learn Cyrillic from a book written entirely in Cyrillic. Any ideas or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Awesome. I love it when people pick up instruments (particularly the guitar). I'm not really clear on what your particular stumbling block is, so if there's something specific you're having trouble with, or even just an entire article over there you're not getting, it'd be really helpful if you could post about that, and maybe we could break it down? Otherwise, it seems like it may be a problem I see often with intelligent beginners. If there's one thing I've learned from teaching guitar, it's this; breaking out the theory too early can be a real problem. Here's the problem. Judging from your posts on this board, and the way you seem to have gone about learning the guitar, you're a pretty intelligent dude. In all likelihood (and this is possibly groundless guesswork on my part), you've found, throughout your life, that if you can understand the *principles* of why and how something works, then actually learning to do it is much, much easier. Forget that. There's a lot to be concerned about when you're first picking up an instrument; you're learning a lot of new fine-motor skills, and for the first while, you can't make anything sound good. Suddenly, you're trying to build a theoretical understanding, without likely having the necessary foundation. If I say "Hey, so a blues progression is just a I-IV-I-V-IV-I" progression, that's based on an abstraction that's already hard enough to communicate to people who know their basic chords. Adding in the fact that you need to think about how to finger a C chord (I'm making wild assumptions about your level, this might be completely incorrect, please let me know if that's the case) before we can even start talking about a chord progression compounds the difficulty exponentially, in my experience. A lot of the work of theory comes *after* you've learned what seem to be a bunch of disparate elements, and we can tie them in to a coherent whole. But trying to do this without having the basic mechanics and building blocks down can get really upsetting, really quickly. In all honesty, my recommendation to people picking up the guitar is this: Find some songs you like that don't sound too complicated, look up the tabs, and enjoy playing them. Just promise yourself that every time you pick up your guitar to play, you're also going to practice a few fundamentals; a couple scales (the major scale, and the minor pentatonic scale are good choices to start with), that you're going to learn your barre chords, and that you will at least learn the names of the notes on your low E and A string. Once you have those basic building block *then* we have the equipment we'll need to start learning some theory, because at that point, it'll just be a matter of noticing some connections between things you already know. For real, though, I cannot underscore enough that the most important thing here is to find songs that you really want to learn how to play, because really, if you play, you *will* get better, theory or no theory. Anyhow, I hope this helps, but I've kind of assumed a lot about your problem without knowing anything about the specifics of your situation, so if you feel as though the above doesn't apply to your problem, please, feel encouraged to ask more/explain the particulars of what you're having difficulties with.
Your assumptions are pretty accurate, and the intelligence compliment is appreciated. I've been looking at this theory site and these sites for learning. Based on what you've said, that first site is something I should back off from for now, but the other two seem pretty good (based on my limited knowledge) for scales. As for as pentatonic scale, should I simply practice each position and transitioning from one to the next? Based on the warnings in this thread, I don't want to be a year down the road and unable to do anything beyond copy what I read in a tab. For the record: I can play and transition between the basic chords, and almost seamlessly play the riff for Tom Petty's Free Falling, except that my palm keeps getting in the way of the 1st string. Other than that I'm like a toddler smashing two toy cars together because it makes a new noise.
Those second two sites look just fine, and honestly, so long as you aren't having any trouble understanding their content, any theory site any theory site is likely just as good as the other. The first site actually looks exceptionally solid, the only problem being that it clearly isn't designed with the intent of connecting the theory with guitar playing, so I'd imagine that's giving you problems. Most of that stuff would be a good idea to learn, but I'd recommend against that site until you've figured out how the basics apply to the guitar. On that note, William Leavitt's "The Berklee Method" (first book), is a pretty good starter book, and does a decent job of connecting the staff to the fretboard. I have a pdf of it lying around, I think, so if you're interested in that route, PM me, and I can send it over (alternately, if you know how to use the Google, I'm sure you can figure that one out just fine, yourself). A few things. Don't be afraid of using tabs when you start off. There are a few things at play here. We musicians tend to become snobbier and snobbier, as we progress, and we forget what starting out is like, which is a large part of why we rag on tabs so much. We start saying things like "oh yeah, but you should really just learn it by ear." Which is great, if you've been playing long enough to have developed a decent ear, but frustrating as hell for beginners who can't play *anything* that they want, and now, if they want to play something, need to spend hours figuring it out. Sure, you'll improve faster, but, in my experience, you'll also play less, and more time with a guitar in your hands is more important when you're starting out that explicitly developing your ear, IME. So yeah, my point is: don't be scared away from tabs by guys who have been playing for a while ragging on them. *Do* be cognizant of the fact that developing your ear is extremely important, and tabs don't help that. So mix the two. Choose one song that you want to figure out by ear, and work on learning it purely by ear every time you practice. Every other song, though? Fair game for tabs. Best of both worlds. As for the "how to practice scales" thing. Honestly, practice them however you want, but do it with a metronome. I cannot emphasize enough how important a metronome is. It will suck, and be annoying, but you'll improve much more quickly than without one, and your playing with be way less sloppy. Just do it. But yeah, learning all the positions, and practicing transitioning between them is a good way to god about it. Hope this helps.
I just read a really cool blog post by Ben Folds with some advice for aspiring songwriters. Thought I'd share it here. It resonated with me, even though my songwriting has slowed down and I'm not performing nearly as much as I'd like to. But it was a good thing to read, since my friend and I are going to begin working on our second album this year. Spoilered for length. Spoiler To aspiring musical artists who have time to read this stuff: I'm often asked for advice to aspiring musicians and I'm just immature enough to take a stab at it on this flight to Boston. Really, I'm not dead sure of any of this, but here goes... if nothing else, maybe I'm thinking aloud - stuff that I need to remember for myself. Forgive any perceived tone of all-knowingness. It just comes out that way when I'm trying to make sense of it all. "Take my advice - Don't Listen To Me" - Neil Young Aaaaaand! Point number one, with a bullet ... + LIKE THEY USED TO SAY ON VH-1: MUSIC FIRST We talk a lot about how computers and internet have changed and will change music. Usually what people are talking about is the distribution of music and not music itself. That's not really something an aspiring musician should be all overly concerned with. It may become important for you to be savvy about distribution and promotion, but it won't do you any good if you're not making music first. I realize the big question for most aspiring musical artist is how to get your break. There isn't really a break. It's a lot of different breaks, some good and some bad. There will be significant lucky opportunities that you may or may not recognize as such. It's not an exact science and the landscape is constantly morphing. Advice on how to 'make it' is dubious business. I do believe that if you're not ready musically, the best opportunity in the world isn't even an opportunity. ++ WORK DILIGENTLY TO FIND YOUR VOICE "Everything I'm not made me everything I am" - Kanye West Finding your Voice takes a lot of frustrating time. That's a painful period that all artists go through, sometimes more than once. I think that most artists don't want to admit that period ever existed. We all like to pretend we came out special and it all just magically happened. You will eventually find that it takes no effort to just be yourself, but the road to that place can be long and rough. The truth is that most artists would not want you to see the evolution of their Voice. It would be very embarrassing. Imitating your heroes, trying on ill advised affectations. It's all part of the trip. It's why all those Before They Were Stars footage is so cringe worthy. Nobody wants to be seen in that light and so successful musicians do the new generation a disservice by denying their shady artistic past. I for one, will do my best to cover my tracks because I don't want anyone seeing that sh*t! My earliest attempts at singing were painfully affected. I tried to sound like a singer. I gave that up and played in bands with 'real singers'. This was in my late teens and early to mid twenties. I would write a song and coach the singers to perform it the way I heard it. While I couldn't put my finger on why my singing sucked I found that I more easily identified the fake ass singer affectations in others and would encourage them to straighten up the delivery, as if they were sing speaking. As I heard myself coaching them on rehearsal tapes, I heard the Voice that would bring my songs to life. It took no real effort just to be me but it took some time and effort to realize that. We have to learn that we have no control over who we are musically but we do have the choice to be that or to try and be some other motherf*cker. The latter is a lot of work. The thing about writing is that there's such a narrow language that is used in conventional songwriting in any era. I enjoy putting an instructions manual to music, for instance, to see what it feels like to operate outside the conventional lexicon and cadence. Even putting sentiments in your own words, as if it were an email, can be quite un-pop and awkward when paired with music. For me, Awkward = Freedom. Whatever you find that emancipates you from that narrow slice of currently acceptable pop vernacular and pacing might be your freedom. Unless! You're one of those people who just think Rock. They exist. Then you're a Freedom Rocker, one of the proud and few. I'm just a Freedom Nerd, but that could always change. +++ TECHNIQUE AND FORGET ABOUT IT Be schooled in form and technique as much as you can swallow and abandon it when you feel it's nearly killed you. Know how people did it before you. Play covers and have respect for the mastery of what came before. It will make you suck for a while. Any gains you make as a musician, especially technically generally have the side effect of rendering you unfocused for a short period of time. Basically, you can expect to play and write like a goober for a while when digesting concepts. Then it sinks in and you come out of the haze, stronger with a broader palette, sharper pen and more confidence. ++++ FOR GOD'S SAKE, PLEASE TRY TOO HARD! How many times do we say or hear "they're trying tooooo hard!" I say, try try and try again but just put the effort into the right things. That's probably the basis of good musical technique. Intense effort, focused into what it takes to express. All other muscles, thoughts and effort needn't be recruited. Work what it takes to be "in it" and send everything else home. That's tough. For instance, when playing a scale you don't want your other fingers rigid and pointing up to the ceiling. When you're singing, you don't want a clenched jaw. It's a waste of your effort. Paddle like a freak beneath it to keep it afloat but don't wear yourself out paddling against your own team. Same with your artistry. Don't spend effort on crap like... well, being cool. It's a killer. It takes effort to appear as if you don't care. What a waste. By the same token, don't feel you have to beat every note into people's heads and be Guy Smiley all the time. Just make music and have good manners. Training yourself to relax unnecessarily recruited muscles, tendencies, thoughts - it's effort in itself. +++++ NOBODY IS VOTING FOR YOU IN NOVEMBER You're not a politician, you're an artist. We break artistic promises constantly because every moment is different and new and the job of the artist is to surf that. We change our minds. You're allowed. David Bowie was allowed. Madonna was allowed. We are a profession of flip floppers. Ch-ch-ch change when you feel it. You can't make people like you. You just can't. You can't make people who won't understand your music, understand your music. Effort spent trying to win votes steals from energy needed for pure expression. You will probably begin your career by promoting yourself on some level sans management or label. Embark upon said career understanding this: Promotion is not about swaying people's musical taste, or altering your music to fit a theoretical audience. It's about taking the music you naturally make and finding it's home. ON ONE HAND... You may soon find you'll be praised for being you. Be willing to wake up tomorrow and not be 'that guy' that people clapped for. Keep an open mind to the distinct possiblity that you might be moving on. Be willing to release your audience and yourself. Don't try actively to do evolve, just be willing. Some are going to like the way you did it yesterday but they can always relive the magic by listening to your old recordings. When you made those recordings you were likely discovering something in the process. Doing it again is the empty repetition void of discovery. Charting new territory often sounds more like the 'old you' simply because it has the element of discovery. The style may be quite different. As Robert, Darren and I were getting into recording the new record, we realized that imitating our early selves would be instant death. We didn't know what the hell we were doing when we started and that's part of what made it what it was. So we set out into the unknown in some way with each song. The irony is that the record reminds me most of our first record now. ON THE OTHER HAND... You will often find yourself being flogged for being you. That's tough but take some solace in knowing that you're on the right track. You're hitting a nerve and that's why people might bother to beat you up some. Anyway, the beater uppers don't really stop to think about the human behind the artist. We're all guilty of being beater uppers from time to time. If you're being used as a standard, take that as a compliment - I've been slow to realize this. An artist on any level is a symbol to people who will never know them personally. Human nature is to express who we are by sometimes exalting or trashing an artist. Being either symbol is a service so just appreciate that someone is working their little thing out somewhere by taking it out on the symbol that is you or your music crap. Punching bags probably keep people off meds. You can never control what's in or out of style. When you're lucky, your ideas and your style are in. You find your first success when your style is in style. Then, it might recede sometimes. Recently anger went out of style in music and I was apprised of this upon releasing a rather sarcastic record. I felt like a jackass. That record was not quite what most people wanted to hear or feel and maybe it will never be. The actual music wasn't really being criticized - I was personally criticized. Criticism that gets personal invalidates itself, so I shouldn't have let it bother me. Remind me not to do that again. If only a few people cathartically connected to that album (many did), I should have stuck by my guns. I should have said, yeah I was kind of pissed and I made the most of it by writing about it, pounding a piano and making some jokes. It's called expression. One constant about the music business in any era is that the first people to buy your new album do so because they liked your last record. It hurts to disappoint them out of the gate but sometimes you have to. Eventually they'll get over it and those who connected will be grateful that you bothered. In some cases, parts of your audience will grow WITH you. If you try to second guess all of this and keep your audience, you will lose them instead. Likewise, avoid engaging in public criticism of other artists. In fact, don't waste your time doing it in private if possible. You'll just embarrass yourself in the long run and put nasty energy out there that comes back. You'll engage in creative bullying. Nobody needs to be told what they can't do. If they can't do, they'll find out. Lift your standing if you must by the quality of your work but not by pushing somebody else down. If for no other reason, it can stifle your own work as you succumb to the idea that there are rules of what sucks and doesn't suck. It's like letting praise get to your head. If you allow that stuff in, you'll also allow the ugly comments in. Contradiction number seven hundred a forty two: Your success depends on what people think... and you're not supposed to care? That's right and good luck. Wow. How's that for advice. Should I try and be more specific? I hope any of this makes sense. It's the best I can do on the plane. Again no corrections or reading of this. It's a stream of blog.
Felt like bringing this thread back up, with all the guitar talk on the Drunk Thread. I'm considering getting into the "build your own clone" craze. I'm not sure though. I'm not all that great at soldering or making things on my own. Has anybody had experience making your own pedals? For those who don't know what it is: <a class="postlink" href="http://buildyourownclone.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://buildyourownclone.com/</a>
I may as well reply to this, just having seen it now: My friend built one of those, a TubeScreamer, and it sounds quite good. It's not a super heavy technical thing, you just follow the instructions. As long as you're a little bit okay with a soldering iron you should be fine. That "Confidence Booster" looks good enough for you to practice on if you're unsure, and it's pretty cheap too. I might try out that Leeds Fuzz pedal he's got, looks pretty sick.
I just bought one of these kits tonight (chorus). Some of the ones on their forum are absolutely works of art. If I can get it to work, I might worry about making it look pretty. I will post a picture if anyone is interested. I have faith in my soldering abilities and I have been known to follow directions correctly so I am optimistic.
I am cheap, and I'm not a very good guitar player, either. But, even the little bit I do play, it's fun to mess with chasing that perfect tone. I have a few cheap Behringer pedals. One of them is the X V amp that has effects and amp modelers in it. If I spent as much time just playing / practicing as I do fiddling with sounds and settings, I'd probably be a lot better. Anyway, is the point of the b-y-o for the fun of the project or for chasing the tone? Those seem really pricey compared to what's out there already to go. Also, in the "project" department . . . I have a Behringer RV600 (Reverb Machine) that I bought for $5 because it doesn't work at all. The LED doesn't come on, no sound, no nothing. I've taken it apart, checked the board, looked for any swollen caps, loose leads, etc. and I can't figure out anything simple. If I use a 9V battery instead of the AC adapter, the battery gets very hot quickly. Anybody know any simple testing tricks? The local guitar shop and electronics shop here both told me it would be cheaper to just buy another one than to have them look at it.
I think the BYOC culture is for both the fun of making your own pedal AND chasing the tone. Keep in mind, most of the pedal kits they sell are from certain models that are out of production. So if there's a pedal you want (like the Boss Slow Gear), you can build your own and save money instead of hunting for a vintage or rare pedal. Also, the website gives you the basic kits - then there's a forum of users that share their own modifications. Anyway, I don't even own a soldering iron - but I'm considering buying some of these kits just to have some cool effects around. As for the Behringer pedal issue - it takes a lot of time to get in there are fix things on a circuit board. So that makes the labor pay pretty damn high. It really would be cheaper to buy a new unit. At my store, we sell warranties on our used gear - like a one-year maintenance plan for guitars or amps. But on pedals, nothing - the cost for us to send a broken pedal out for repair is through the roof.
Well, one thing I would like to try - one of the BYO of the electric guitar kits. I expect that action will be too high or the neck will warp after a few years or something, but I'd like to give it a shot. It's quite ambitious, but I'd like to try and get one of the LP styles, and mod it like the Alex Lifeson Gibson Axcess model - with the FR tremolo and the piezo pickup. The way that one is made, there are two 1/4" jacks, one for the two humbuckers and one for the piezo. I'd like to build one with just one jack. (Since, I'm not an awesome touring musician with twin wireless packs to manage two cords at once . . .) Then, instead of the 3-way switch controlling neck-neck/bridge-bridge, it would control neck/bridge-neck/bridge/piezo-piezo.
Actually, I'm fairly certain that a Behringer product not turning on and not affecting any part of your tone is a positive thing. You should test how well it fits in your garbage can.