Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Can Rock Band 3 teach you to play a real guitar?


hepcat

Recommended Posts

I Wanna Rock!

Can Rock Band 3's new, more realistic controller make me a real-life guitar god?

By Nina Shen Rastogi

Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2010, at 12:24 PM ET

As rock-and-roll guitar fantasies go, mine are relatively modest. I would just like to be able to play Joni Mitchell's "A Case of You" someday, perhaps around a campfire. So last year, I went to my local Guitar Center, bought myself a Yamaha Junior—my elf-like hands being too tiny for a grownup guitar—and settled in with a few teach-yourself-guitar books.

I lasted all of two weeks. Sitting alone in my apartment, plonking away in a vacuum—it just felt too much like a chore. Junior has spent the last 12 months on top of a pile of CDs behind the couch.

If books couldn't help me, then how about a video game? Rock Band 3, which came out this week, features an optional, $149 axe that's more akin to a real-life guitar than the game's classic, guitar-shaped controller. While I'm no gaming master, I was willing to give the Xbox method a shot. At the very least, I could pretend to be a champion shredder without aurally assaulting my friends and neighbors.

While the Rock Band franchise has been a big hit since its debut in 2007, it has also faced criticism for failing to capture what it's really like to play an instrument. After all, you played the original guitar controller by pressing five buttons on the neck and strumming a bar that looked like a big light switch. (You use the same controller to play the bass line.) As real-life rock star Carrie Brownstein put it in her Slate review, Rock Band bears about as much resemblance to guitar-playing as Operation does to performing surgery.

Rock Band 3 aims to change that by adding a "pro mode," which vows to take players "into the realm of real musicianship." The key to pro mode is the schmancy "Fender™ Mustang™ PRO-Guitar™ Controller," which has a mind-boggling 102 buttons on the neck—one for each fingering position on a 17-fret, six-string instrument. The light-switch-esque strum bar has been replaced with a set of strings. While this new-fangled faux guitar is still plastic and feather-light, it makes the old controller look like a Tinkertoy. (Rock Band's drum expansion kit, meanwhile, has three improved cymbals, and the brand-new keyboard covers two full octaves.)

I was first introduced to the new guitar at the offices of MTV Games, the publisher of Rock Band. (The game was developed by Harmonix, the controllers by Mad Catz.) Even there, surrounded by several friendly PR folks, the device seemed infernally complicated and the onscreen notation abstruse. In classic Rock Band mode, the screen shows a five-lane highway; as little gemlike bars come speeding down their respective lanes, you press the corresponding colored button and then "strum" at the precise moment the bar reaches the bottom of the screen. In pro mode, the five lanes become six strings and the bars become little colored squares bearing a number from 0 to 17, indicating which strings to press and pluck. Though I tried playing along with the seasoned MTV folks, I couldn't help feeling like I was in the middle of a cocktail party being conducted in Cantonese. (I had a little more success on keys, largely because what you see onscreen is a straightforward representation of the actual keyboard—there's less translation involved between your eyes and your fingers.)

Once I got the game and the guitar home for a little private time, things got better. Rock Band 3 has an extensive set of lessons in its training mode—I started with note basics, which taught me how to play open strings before adding in frets. I'm currently stuck on basic power chords—thankfully, you can slow the lessons down while you practice—but I could eventually work my way up to major and minor seventh chords and arpeggiation.

While this is all pretty standard guitar-lesson material, Rock Band 3 has some advantages over those teach-yourself programs I'd been using. For one thing, I like that it encourages my plodding attempts. When you make it through a round without making a mistake, a big "100%" bursts on the screen; when you master the whole exercise, you are cheered and applauded. Those little carrots keep things fun, but the interactivity also makes for a better teaching tool. The six-string map shows you where your fingers are at all times, which helps you self-correct, and the game can also be set to pause a lesson whenever it senses you're screwing up too much. Text instructions show up on the right-hand side of the screen, and an image of the fretboard pops up on top. You can see where your fingers are and where they're supposed to be; when you connect with the right position, you hear a satisfying little plink!

http://www.slate.com/id/2272761/pagenum/2

I don't see this helping anyone learn guitar, but the fact that you can get a stringed MIDI guitar for so cheap is definitely something I'm checking out. (MIDI is a way of recording digital notes instead of actual audio, then you can manipulate it with different sounds put to it or changing the time, length, velocity, etc - very cool to do with a guitar over a keyboard)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will make the positioning a bit easier, but that is it. There are way too many variations for Rock Band to teach someone how to play guitar. So much muscle memory required, accuracy, etc...even after 7 years of playing I still feel like there is so much to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will make the positioning a bit easier, but that is it. There are way too many variations for Rock Band to teach someone how to play guitar. So much muscle memory required, accuracy, etc...even after 7 years of playing I still feel like there is so much to learn.

Yea I agree, takes a lot of practice and muscle memory to get good at guitar. But I like the technology behind it. I'm a pretty good guitar player and I'm just curious to see what would happen on that stringed MIDI guitar if I played a Doc Watson song and tried to record the MIDI out from it. (look him up if you haven't heard of him...almost made me quit playing guitar)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't they just make a guitar cable that plugs into your game console instead of an amp, so you can actually learn guitar while you play? Honestly it can't be that hard. And whoever finds out how to make that interface will make a billion dollars.

Much harder than you'd think. Difference is digital versus analog audio. If it's going into a computer or game system, it's gotta be digital. A real guitar is analog. That stringed MIDI guitar is as close as you're going to get. Might just get better detail as it advances, because my assumption now is that it's pretty shoddy at picking up even medium difficulty licks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much harder than you'd think. Difference is digital versus analog audio. If it's going into a computer or game system, it's gotta be digital. A real guitar is analog. That stringed MIDI guitar is as close as you're going to get. Might just get better detail as it advances, because my assumption now is that it's pretty shoddy at picking up even medium difficulty licks.

I don't think it's that hard. You can convert analog to digital. Rock band is able to judge the tone of the player singing vocals. In a way, vocals are in fact analog. How much harder would it be to judge if a strummed note was correct or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's that hard. You can convert analog to digital. Rock band is able to judge the tone of the player singing vocals. In a way, vocals are in fact analog. How much harder would it be to judge if a strummed note was correct or not?

Well duh we can convert digital to audio...that's how most music is recorded nowadays. But that is more costly and unnessesarily difficult to do than using a MIDI guitar - which is much more simple. Instead of having to recognize a reproduced sample of an analog waveform from a guitar string being plucked, it just gets sent the information from a spot on the fretboard that represents a note(or notes). Much easier and cost effective for the majority of people using this technology, especially if the MIDI guitar uses strings like a real guitar and can tell where you put your fingers...it's just pointless to do it the other way and far more expensive. It's basically what you're asking...the cord coming out of the guitar just isn't quarter inch but a DIN (MIDI) cable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to learn how to do something you have to do it. Simple as that.

Most people will give up learning once their fingers start hurting. When I learned I was 13 and played for hours and hours until I thought my fingers were going to fall off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to learn how to do something you have to do it. Simple as that.

Most people will give up learning once their fingers start hurting. When I learned I was 13 and played for hours and hours until I thought my fingers were going to fall off.

Truth, truth. Gotta play through the pain. But once you get those nice calysts, playing is fun. I'm primarily a bass player - had a weekly gig at a place in town and through practice and gigs my right hand middle finger spent two months with a huge black blood blister on it. But now I can drag my fingers across a brick wall without even a scrape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In before: "XL sucks, there is no hope." "As long as we have Bryce, none of this matters." My response: "It's X, not XL...we're not discussing apparel sizes, or we'd have to consider XS."  
    • Alain Pierre provides some food for thought on Last Word On Sports regarding Xavier Legette, and his article, though specifically on X, kind of puts me in the mind of QBs being overdrafted and put into situations that they're not prepared for, some ultimately failing due to drafting missteps by front offices who don't necessarily view prospective players within the contextual importance that situations demand.  At this point, Legette looks like a failure in reference to expectations, of not only what a consistently productive NFL receiver looks like, but a first round pick (which he obviously should never have been). But the story on X isn't necessarily completely over. Damn. I seem to be experiencing deja vu...It wasn't X's fault that he was overdrafted, that was a choice by an FO that obviously downplayed actual realized skill vs outstanding measurables and upside. Sure, the FO was impressed by X's one-year feats during his senior season at South Carolina, but it was the NFL god, RAS (a.k.a. Raw Athletic Score), that had Dave Canales's and Dan Morgan's jaws dropping in amazement at the sight of X running around in underwear at the Combine...   "At 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds, Legette brought rare athletic upside to the position. His breakout season at South Carolina showed flashes of dominance that NFL teams dream of. Projecting forward, many scouts compared his physical profile to D.K. Metcalf, and the Panthers clearly believed they could develop him into a true wide receiver 1 over time. The issue was never his talent. The issue was the timeline. Just a few picks later, the Chargers selected Ladd McConkey, a receiver who may have lacked Xavier Legette’s physical ceiling but entered the league far more technically refined. McConkey immediately showed advanced route discipline, leverage awareness, good pacing, and separation ability.  Bryce Young’s game has always depended on timing and anticipation. His best football at Alabama came with receivers capable of winning through precision rather than pure athleticism. Jameson Williams and John Metchie III were excellent route runners and were able to get drafted in 2022. McConkey naturally fit that style of play. Legette, meanwhile, needed significant development in the exact areas where Bryce Young needed help. The Panthers drafted traits when Bryce Young needed reliability."   Yes, the FO was guilty. The good thing is that the execs appear to be improving. Some of that may be attributed to the hiring of Eric Eager (who was hired right after the Xavier Legette draft). Eager seems to have helped the Panthers FO fine-tune their analytical progress, and, at least on paper, they acquired players with a lot of value during the last draft in regards to actually (what I'll refer to as) "underdrafting" talent relative to their position with value already built in.  Look at Chris Brazzell: He may be more of the quintessential project receiver who was arguably more or less just as raw as Legette was when he was drafted, and with a relatively high RAS as well. The notable difference is value, as Brazzell was a round three pick and Legette was a first rounder.    "Unlike the Xavier Legette situation, Carolina’s environment for Brazzell is completely different. "The Panthers are not asking a raw receiver prospect to stabilize this offense for Bryce Young. "Brazzell enters a much healthier developmental situation with far less pressure. With Tetairoa McMillan established as the primary target and Jalen Coker continuing to settle as the number 2 option...Xavier Legette, Metchie III, and Jimmy Horn Jr. are also still in this rotation, fighting for reps. "It gives Carolina something they failed to give Legette when they drafted him: A developmental runway. "Xavier Legette entered the league with expectations attached to a first-round pick and an offense desperate for answers. Brazzell enters a room where he can spend a year working on his route running, learning the playbook, and earning snaps gradually rather than being asked to become part of Bryce Young’s solution immediately. "And truthfully, Brazzell needs that time coming out of college. Despite his elite physical tools, many evaluators have several concerns about his overall polish as a receiver. "His route tree at Tennessee was viewed as fairly limited due to the type of offense that they run. The receivers are expected to run a lot of choice routes, which are dictated by the placement of the defenders. It doesn’t require technical route-running and an understanding of the playbook needed at the NFL level...   "Context changes significantly when expectations change. "The Panthers are not depending on Brazzell to save the offense. They can allow him to develop slowly, expand his route tree, improve his technical refinement, and learn behind a much more stable receiver room... "Traits become much easier to bet on when patience is built into the plan."   It's all about understanding your situation. I don't agree that it's an inherently difficult choice like the author is suggesting in the following excerpt. At the very least, I think that it should be easier as long as all parties involved stay levelheaded and true to their process.    "That is what makes these draft decisions so difficult. "Every front office believes it can find the next Metcalf, Owens, or Marshall. Sometimes they do. More often, they are betting on a development path that may take years to complete. "The challenge is understanding what your offense needs right now. "If a team has patience, stability, and a quarterback capable of carrying the offense while a receiver develops, betting on traits can make sense. But if a young quarterback needs immediate help, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the receiver who already knows how to separate, create throwing , and earn trust from day one. "That’s why the Xavier Legette-Ladd McConkey debate remains so fascinating. "It was never really a discussion about talent. It was a discussion about timing."   For me, Ladd McConkey was talented enough in his own right, that the gap--the upside--was never as big as people are suggesting between not only McConkey and Legette, but McConkey and other receivers drafted in the first round during that draft. The technique divide between Ladd and X was pretty stark though, as was the roughly 35 pounds, but the speed was identical, the maybe 1½ height difference isn't huge (6' and 6'1"), and it may surprise some that Ladd's RAS (9.34) was also enough to put him in the top 10 percent of receivers since 1987. There is an argument that he would've been a better pick for Bryce and the Panthers, regardless of timeline and talent. But, I still appreciate the thesis (if you will) of the article, as it still provides some hope--perhaps a glimmer at this point, that X's RAS may finally translate to the NFL given more time, but, perhaps more importantly, it explains how Dan Morgan and company are showing improvement, even if it appears somewhat understated. My hope is that continued improvement is palpable by this time next year. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2026/05/30/xavier-legette-draft-lessons/#google_vignette        
    • Won’t stop until people stop buying overpriced poo.
×
×
  • Create New...