I get the impression FX are far too important for many one here...

tone1

My Pedals are crazy expensive and I’ve just worked out they cost more than my Strat and amp combined..Currently my pedals are..

1.Carl Martin tuner
2.Thorpyfx SI Veteran 
3.Thorpyfx Germanium Veteran 
4.Effectrode Blackbird 
5.EHX big box Small stone Phaser 
6.Providence Chrono Delay 
7.J Rockett Boing Reverb 

Probably over a grands worth and I could sound pretty similar with Amp and a Reverb pedal but I love this shit! It’s like my train set (if I was into trains) I love trying stuff... but I’m under no illusion that it doesn’t make me a better player.
Money is earning dismal interest in the bank and most of my stuff can be liquidised into cash pretty quickly if the need arises...

I love the R.E.M lyric... “Another Prop has occupied my time”     Well that’s how I feel about guitar stuff in general 

TTBZ

I've always been a guitar - overdrive - amp guy but for a long time now I've got so sick of how traditional guitar solos sound. I tend to just widdle away in my bands songs or just avoid a solo rather than make anything interesting. I really wish I was good enough with fx to make these interesting textures and "soundscapes" but I really have no idea where to start other than piling on the reverb and delay and hoping for the best. I'm coming at this from the heavier end of things - stoner rock/grunge where the norm is to slap on a wah and noodle away!

How do you guys who can do the fx thing well approach it? 

Danny1969

No one plays without any effects, whever the dirts in the amp or in a pedal it's still an effect .... likewise reverb. I spose there are jazz players who play with nothing but most people use effects
Truth is guitar reproduced complete flat sounds awful 

I kinda know what the OP is getting at, you can go down a rabbit hole chasing the holy tone with a thousand pedals but all the time your having a good time and playing it's not a bad thing

antifash

https://youtu.be/IQzQ_71-G8w

GavRichList

TTBZ said:

I've always been a guitar - overdrive - amp guy but for a long time now I've got so sick of how traditional guitar solos sound. I tend to just widdle away in my bands songs or just avoid a solo rather than make anything interesting. I really wish I was good enough with fx to make these interesting textures and "soundscapes" but I really have no idea where to start other than piling on the reverb and delay and hoping for the best.

How do you guys who can do the fx thing well approach it? 

From a sound design starting point, or soundtrack, rather than purely on notation. It’s hard to describe really. When I’m writing I tend to hear a part fully formed in my head before I can play it, and that will influence fx choice... but then, like anyone else I have my go-tos and am under no illusion that I’m doing anything that a thousand others couldn’t. Often I’ll have heard something inspiring on a record and try to replicate it in my voice. And by my voice, I mean the voices of 100 robots in a wind tunnel playing kazoos. 

Teetonetal

TTBZ said:

I've always been a guitar - overdrive - amp guy but for a long time now I've got so sick of how traditional guitar solos sound. I tend to just widdle away in my bands songs or just avoid a solo rather than make anything interesting. I really wish I was good enough with fx to make these interesting textures and "soundscapes" but I really have no idea where to start other than piling on the reverb and delay and hoping for the best. I'm coming at this from the heavier end of things - stoner rock/grunge where the norm is to slap on a wah and noodle away!

How do you guys who can do the fx thing well approach it? 

I love my effects, but I'm learning how to put this stuff into music, it's really trial and error, but here's what I think I've learnt of the last 2 years...

For me, piling on the fx randomly over the top of a solo doesn't work, I guess that's what people mean when they say your hiding behind effects. I don't tend to do much with solos, beyond dirt and delay - but I go for quite rhythmic, tempo tapped delay, often with modulation. 

I suppose, get to know your fx, how they interact with each other, you have to learn the sounds and how to play them Try them in odd combinations (way after dirt for example can be very gritty), reverb after dirt in stoner rock can be VERY effective.

The thing that has really helped me is getting a looper. Set up a riff before all the effects. Then you can twiddle the knobs to your hearts content and hear the interaction, without the distraction of playing. 

Finally, space can be a big thing. If you have a lot of effects it can get mushy really quickly and you end up with sonic soup. Delay can be so cool if you let it have the space, and let the repast form part of the riff, I also found this with stutter effects (which I find insanely difficult to use) - they need some space to get going.

Ro_S

siraxeman said:

If your core/base amp/dirt pedal tone is there FX are just the icing on the cake. 

[...]

Its the same with amps really....1 channel and pedals or a 2 channel is all anyone really needs surely. There are only 2 toanz  - clean and dirty.

/the end.

That's just your approach.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Many find pedals an integral part of their rig and sound, and even regard pedals as instruments in themselves.   I doubt you would understand this, though.

meltedbuzzbox

I think I'm with siraxeman, despite the clumsy delivery of his opinion.
I write everything usually on an unplugged electric.
I get all the notes and rhythms right first.
I then know that I love the sound of my jazzmaster into my hiwatt (base sound).
I then garnish the rest with an effect or two here or there.

I do have the occasional freak out though and make some weird and wonderful noises too, they don't lead to songs as often though. My main focus is writing songs, I have no interest in tone chasing and 7 stages of distortion on my pedal board

meltedbuzzbox

Just to add though we all work differently, no approach is right or wrong and I completely agree with @Teetonetal about dull arse done to death, guitar to amp stuff (Bonamassa et al)

You can't ride in telling everyone else they are wrong because of narrow sightedness or your own opinion.

not_the_dj

Big Lol at "Dales" liked vids on youtube

p90fool

I have no particular opinion either way, I love in-your-face guitar and I love some music which was written entirely around a particular effect, but I think a lot of us have missed the OP's point. 

I really can't tell the difference on stage between a 500 quid reverb and a 50 quid reverb, the nuances are generally lost. Sure the good stuff is nice to own, but if you need a jet fighter flanger and a bit of slapback to keep your crazy drunk crowd on the boil it really doesn't matter that much what your pedal budget was.

I reckon we do mostly overthink the microscopic details of FX tone once we have the actually facilities or programmability we need, it's sometimes like an almost deliberate diversionary tactic from actually having to sit down and write a bloody song. 

Teetonetal

siraxeman said:

than they really should be. If your core/base amp/dirt pedal tone is there FX are just the icing on the cake. So sometimes I marvel at how much folks fuss on here about this n that re FX.....and you can't do this because that can't do that etc etc. For me, a decent amp (in my case AC30HW2x) and a couple of nice dirt pedals (nothing fancy....Dano/digitech/Boss) and I can get by just fine...sure I likes a bit of reverb and delay here n  there...but I don't need a Strymon/Eventide/boutique whatever to do it...same with rverb...a mere humble Boss RV or TC HOF will do the trick just nice,  Chorus I use only on 1 or 2 songs in our set, Wah...1 song. Phaser/Flanger/Trem = zero as of now. FX are nice but well overrated/overvalued. I said so..so are is.

Its the same with amps really....1 channel and pedals or a 2 channel is all anyone really needs surely. There are only 2 toanz  - clean and dirty.

/the end.

@p90fool I don't think the OPs point got missed.

He doesn't need that stuff. Sure no issue. Having listened to his tracks, I'd agree. It's no biggie what ever he uses as the FX are nothing more than a bit of colouration. But That's a very, very narrow view of FX and misses out a whole raft of players and playing style. He is only looking at it from a tone chasing point of view. 

Pedals matter to me a lot, how they work, what options they have, how much control etc. I don't get by just fine with the music I liek to create. If I need a mercury 7, a Topanga is not going to cut it. Trust me, here the audience would hear the difference. For me they are not the icing on the cake, they are the cake. 

He said so. He is wrong.

english_bob

p90fool

Fair enough @Teetonetal , I've only ever really chased those details in the studio, I've never had a live gig which was that heavily FX-dependent to be honest. 

siraxeman

p90fool said:

Fair enough @Teetonetal , I've only ever really chased those details in the studio, I've never had a live gig which was that heavily FX-dependent to be honest. 

Most of those types of players remain lifelong locked in their bedrooms and never gig(I said most!). You got my point....others didn't. I have spent a lot of money on FX, most recent purchase was my Helix. Do I regret it? No! I like FX....but I don't try to hide behind them. I'm not saying they are not important, and as someone mentioned a style like the edge depends on delay for example. Tom Morello  liked the odd bit of whackyness (weird noises) in his playing to. But what I'd say is MOST and I mean well over 90% of anybody that's anybody in the guitar world uses FX sparingly - to add a bit of colouration here and there. The icing on the cake rather than being the cake itself. Prove me wrong kids? More than that and it becomes a cheap trick to the majority of players...and punters! Factory presets on multi FX are usually considered bad because they are OTT and as such useless in the real world outside of being a bedroom basher.

Like p90fool said - in a band mix who could tell a HOF from a Strymon ?  

JezWynd

Surprisingly narrow minded attitude from someone who has no problem believing the world is flat.

JezWynd
(bedroom basher)

Teetonetal

Ok. Will if we are restricting this to the very limited fx use of tone chasing then I more or less agree. Beyond personal enjoyment chasing tone is largely pointless. But that goes for amps and guitars too. So long as playability and ballpark sound are there.

A katana with a decent squire would probably be enough of a rig for anyone playing blues / rock. Right? A vox ac30 is certainly overkill.

guitarfishbay

If you have an account on a guitar web forum you’ve already forfeited your cool points anyway, not much point in trying to establish further hierarchy because we are all geeks to begin with... 

People make music because they like doing it, there are a lot of ways to make music the creators and or audience will enjoy.

Lots of styles would be dull without effects of some sort. Some of the biggest gigs these days are in EDM/dance music, plenty of effects going on there.

Grunfeld

siraxeman said:

...I mean well over 90% of anybody that's anybody in the guitar world uses FX sparingly - to add a bit of colouration here and there. The icing on the cake rather than being the cake itself. Prove me wrong kids? More than that and it becomes a cheap trick to the majority of players...and punters!

Yes, but only if you're defining players as the pro and semi-pro players.
I have no of idea the statistics so I'll make some up:
Over 90% of guitar players are not pro or semi-pro.  Or even regular live players.
Lots -- hang on, 80% -- of bedroom noodlers are really happy to have an FX hobby as part of their interest in guitars.

As it happens I take your general point. 
I play live most weekends and no, it probably doesn't matter what's on my small pedal board.
There's one pedal which is highly distinctive but the rest could be swapped out for other brands if I wanted to.

bwets

siraxeman said:

Most of those types of players remain lifelong locked in their bedrooms and never gig(I said most!). You got my point....others didn't. I have spent a lot of money on FX, most recent purchase was my Helix. Do I regret it? No! I like FX....but I don't try to hide behind them. I'm not saying they are not important, and as someone mentioned a style like the edge depends on delay for example. Tom Morello  liked the odd bit of whackyness (weird noises) in his playing to. But what I'd say is MOST and I mean well over 90% of anybody that's anybody in the guitar world uses FX sparingly - to add a bit of colouration here and there. The icing on the cake rather than being the cake itself. Prove me wrong kids? More than that and it becomes a cheap trick to the majority of players...and punters! Factory presets on multi FX are usually considered bad because they are OTT and as such useless in the real world outside of being a bedroom basher.

Like p90fool said - in a band mix who could tell a HOF from a Strymon ?  

Who is hiding behind effects? If someone else apart from Tom Morello or The Edge wants to make sounds from pedals what's the problem?

If you don't care about fancy pedals why have you spent so much money on FX? Why own a Helix? I thought a decent amp and a nice couple of dirt pedals were enough?