Re: [Harp-L] Re: Lone Wolf and effects

["steve warner" <10reedsbent@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Guys,
In my post several days back when I mentioned that it's more for harp is
that it doesn't have wayyyyyyy tooooooooo much repeats etc and it doesn't
suck tone.   When I tested it with a Texas Harp Crude at Mark Wilson's
house, the pedal actually had too much sustain even at a low setting with
that particular amp.   That amp has a beastly sustained rumble and nobody
knows how it would sound in a big room with that pedal.

With a Kalamazoo, Harmony 305 and the 5 watt custom amp I build had more
than enough echo and sustain.   If anyone wants more delay then go with the
other ones.

Now, IMO, Randy can expand the tonal parameters anytime he wants to if
anyone would like more delay.  As a first pedal............He hit the nail
on the head and he can certainly hit it harder or softer with a few
component changes.

As for me?  Thanks, Randy!
On 10/14/07, Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Mike Easton writes:
>
> "I like the fact you can't over dial on the Lone Wolf and kill your
> tone or turn a Howlin Wolf song into a Enrico Morricone soundtrack by
> accident. I use delay to add ambience to the room acoustics rather
> then noticeable echo to repeat notes. We don't play any songs where
> echo is used. A fast decay is more suitable."
>
>
> Which is probably how most harmonica players will use it.  It's just
> not how I would use a delay--well, I do use a delay that way, but
> also like to experiment with it.  And with all effects I use.  I will
> be the first to agree that most harp players (especially blues ones)
> are extremely conservative with regards to effects usage, and the
> Lone Wolf wisely plays to that crowd.  It's just that I think the
> idea that such a device is "optimized for harp" is incorrect--it's
> optimized for a particular section of harmonica players (albeit the
> majority).
>
>
> "Most effects I've tried are more overkill then useful for the harp,
> IMHO. I've heard players that use way too much reverb, octave or
> delay on stage or self produced cd's and it's hard to get past the
> effect to enjoy their playing. Overuse of effects can also date the
> music."
>
>
> I reject that notion entirely.  First, anything can date the music--
> the rhythms used, the way it's recorded, etc...  Music sounds of it's
> time period, and when I hear people talk about something sounding
> "dated" that usually means that it sounds like when they were a
> certain age--rarely do people talk about Little Walter sounding
> dated, but his recordings are very much stamped by the time in which
> they were made.
>
> As for getting past the effect, I again disagree, though it depends
> on how the artist uses effects.  Indeed, I think the use of the term
> "effects" hurts here.  Delay, octaves, chorus can all become
> essential parts of what you are playing.  Madcat, for example, often
> uses a ton of different units to radically alter his basic tone and
> playing, but they aren't really effects so much as an integral part
> of what he is trying to say musically.  Take them away and the
> musical statement is entirely different.  You may prefer the later,
> but it is no better than the former--and the player is neither better
> nor worse talent-wise for the use of effects in such a way (you
> didn't imply such, but it often is put that way on this and other
> lists).
>
>
> "My own take on effects is that the audience should sense it being
> used without saying to themselves, he/she is using a chorus, flanger,
> delay, octave pedal.
> It should create a feeling as the song is being performed rather then
> be analyzed for it's overuse."
>
>
> To take the most overused example, where would you put Hendrix'
> playing?  He used a ton of effects, but were they a part of the
> "feel" or do you find yourself  "analys[ing]" them when you listen to
> his playing?  Few harmonica players make as extensive usage of
> "effects" as someone like Hendrix did (or most guitar players do for
> that matter).
>
>
> "I understand what you are saying about having a lot of options on
> dialing in your own sound. It's just most effects are tone suckers
> and every time the effect is
> changed the amp/ volume or eq needs adjusted to compensate."
>
> Again, it depends entirely upon the tone you are trying to get.  This
> may be true for most harmonica players, especially blues ones, but
> that's not how I look at effects (in part because I run through a pre-
> amp first and then into the effects, and the ones I use have a great
> sound of their own, so I don't believe they "suck tone"--they do
> modify it, though, as I want).  I want the effect to be able to
> radically alter the tone I use.  Hell, often I blend in a bit of ring
> modulation just to give the other effects something more to mangle
> than just standard harmonica tone.
>
> I will be the first to admit that my effects usage is probably very
> atypical.  However, I do know a few others on this list who tend to
> be of the more options variety, so I want to challenge the idea that
> one size, and especially when it's a small size, fits all harmonica
> players--even all diatonic players or blues players.  Perhaps most,
> but certainly not all.
>
>
>
>
> ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
> ()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
> `----'
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
>



-- 
steve
www.thunderharpmics.com
fattest tone on earth!