proof that guitar tone is in the hands...

[Greentone]

You don't always have to defer to your stomp box...
***************

Amen!

[lawson-stone]

hehe, just teasing (a little). My favourite PM is from that infamous "lesson tape", where you can hear his strings acoustically, a fair bit of attack which surprised me, and best dynamics I've heard from him. Great Minor blues lines for days too! (still, no Martino, Wes, Bean, or Rene Thomas etc...).

As far as hands vs gear, a lot of players let their hands take a back seat to the gear, where the gear starts to take over. Consider compression or distortion, there comes a point where your dynamics are absorbed to the point of being lost (as Greentone points out), so you will naturally use minimum effort to enable the "sound" to just come through. Now, you can argue that this is still valid technique given that after all, we are most often playing an electric instrument, so why play it like it's an acoustic, right?

But even though most Rock/Blues/Fusion players seem to develop a "minimum dynamic" technique, the great players in these styles, I maintain, are still very dynamic players and would appear so if you took their sound away- Hendrix, SRV, Jeff Beck, BB King etc ...

You don't always have to defer to your stomp box...

I have made a nuisance of myself insisting that acoustic guitar and electric guitar are really two different "instruments" and I also believe that electric guitar with a certain level of effects is yet another different instrument. Think of keyboards. The same basic "interface" is shared by the piano, the Fender Rhodes electric piano, the accordion, the digital keyboard/synth, a synclavier, and the pipe organ. But nobody playing, say, a pipe organ gets folks saying "But hey, the real test is can you play that on a synclavier!" What they share is a basic arrangement of note-creating tools, an interface, a keyboard in a fixed arrangement which is manipulated by the fingers pressing keys. But they are dramatically different instruments demanding of the player significantly different techniques.

Likewise, the classical guitar, flattop guitar, electric guitar, electric guitar with effects, electric guitar with full board of digital modeling voices... these need to be seen as different instruments. I don't listen to John Scofield and say "Yeah, but can you play that on a nylon-stringed acoustic guitar? Huh? Can you?" Just like I don't listen to a nylon-stringed player and say "I bet you can't get the sustain of a Les Paul out of that thing!" So when I think of these players who have adapted their technique to their chosen sound, I don't say "Player X compromises his technique by hiding behind effects." I say "Player X has evolved and shifted to playing a different instrument, and I don't especially like that instrument, but hey he can play it all he wants." Just because it uses 6 strings and frets doesn't make it the same as any other "guitar" any more than the black keys and white keys on a pipe organ make it "the same" as a piano or synclavier.

This has helped me a lot in letting go of strange comparison "tests" like "If that ES335 doesn't sound good acoustically, it's not a good guitar..." or some such thing. Les Paul developed "the log" precisely because he thought acoustic properties detracted from the electric performance of the guitar. He realized the electric guitar, despite sharing a common interface with acoustic guitars, was in fact a different instrument.

Of course, a guitar's resonant qualities has a powerful impact on the vibration of the strings, and that is captured in the pickup, so a hollow-body does sound different from a solid-body. I like the hollow body sound, and I realize it is part of the larger resonant system. But I don't think that correlates to unamplified sound vs. amplified sound.

I think Les Paul was right, and we should be impressed and even pleased that the "Spanish Guitar" interface has proven so fruitful in siring such an amazing family of diverse instruments, each requiring their own technique to produce the music they are best at.

[christianm77]

I have made a nuisance of myself insisting that acoustic guitar and electric guitar are really two different "instruments" and I also believe that electric guitar with a certain level of effects is yet another different instrument. Think of keyboards. The same basic "interface" is shared by the piano, the Fender Rhodes electric piano, the accordion, the digital keyboard/synth, a synclavier, and the pipe organ. But nobody playing, say, a pipe organ gets folks saying "But hey, the real test is can you play that on a synclavier!" What they share is a basic arrangement of note-creating tools, an interface, a keyboard in a fixed arrangement which is manipulated by the fingers pressing keys. But they are dramatically different instruments demanding of the player significantly different techniques.

Likewise, the classical guitar, flattop guitar, electric guitar, electric guitar with effects, electric guitar with full board of digital modeling voices... these need to be seen as different instruments. I don't listen to John Scofield and say "Yeah, but can you play that on a nylon-stringed acoustic guitar? Huh? Can you?" Just like I don't listen to a nylon-stringed player and say "I bet you can't get the sustain of a Les Paul out of that thing!" So when I think of these players who have adapted their technique to their chosen sound, I don't say "Player X compromises his technique by hiding behind effects." I say "Player X has evolved and shifted to playing a different instrument, and I don't especially like that instrument, but hey he can play it all he wants." Just because it uses 6 strings and frets doesn't make it the same as any other "guitar" any more than the black keys and white keys on a pipe organ make it "the same" as a piano or synclavier.

This has helped me a lot in letting go of strange comparison "tests" like "If that ES335 doesn't sound good acoustically, it's not a good guitar..." or some such thing. Les Paul developed "the log" precisely because he thought acoustic properties detracted from the electric performance of the guitar. He realized the electric guitar, despite sharing a common interface with acoustic guitars, was in fact a different instrument.

Of course, a guitar's resonant qualities has a powerful impact on the vibration of the strings, and that is captured in the pickup, so a hollow-body does sound different from a solid-body. I like the hollow body sound, and I realize it is part of the larger resonant system. But I don't think that correlates to unamplified sound vs. amplified sound.

I think Les Paul was right, and we should be impressed and even pleased that the "Spanish Guitar" interface has proven so fruitful in siring such an amazing family of diverse instruments, each requiring their own technique to produce the music they are best at.

Still sounds like Sco to me.

[princeplanet]

I have made a nuisance of myself insisting that acoustic guitar and electric guitar are really two different "instruments" and I also believe that electric guitar with a certain level of effects is yet another different instrument...

I acknowledged that, and agree to a certain extent. I work in studios for a living and I work with a ton of guitar players, unfortunately not much Jazz, but I do record separate DI (pre FX) track for guitars just as I do for Bass gtr, incase I need to re-amp the sound at mix down. Anyhoo, what I've always noticed is that most players sound like ass when stripped of all their effects, but some actually sound good! Not because of what they're playing, but how. Their dynamic expression tells a story, and what's more you still hear it after the fx and amp hits the mic. Players with too much chorus, compression or distortion often sound like rank beginners when you listen to their DI track.

Knowing this is the reason I mostly practice unplugged, and yeah, it means I need to back off a little from playing too hard when plugging in, but that is easy, takes a few minutes to adjust the attack down. Try asking a "tickler" to attack with more attitude or vigour and you realise they are years away from achieving that- which is probably why they'd never bother...

For me, part of the attraction of the guitar is that it is a percussive instrument, not the fact that it can be played like a synthesiser (to take the other extreme). So I prefer that, and I think I'm allowed to! . Players with little or no dynamics, whether or not due to FX, never seem to hold my interest. Further, I'll dare to suggest that non guitarists seem to also prefer dynamic guitarists to listen to, and given that there are very few these days, I'll wager there's a correlation between that observation and the fact that "Jazz Guitar" bores most people more so than piano, drums or horns.

Am I making a nuisance of myself? ... Of course, YMMV, whatever blows yer hair back, an' all that...

[lawson-stone]

Still sounds like Sco to me.

Well of course. A great organist can still play piano, and likely have a signature style. I'm just saying knocking a player for adjusting his technique to accommodate an effect, like distortion, compression, whatever, is not a departure from purity. He's using the technique appropriate to the instrument he's chosen to play. Thinking of different instruments that all share the same physical method for entering notes helps me to stop applying senseless tests and irrelevant standards to a performance.

Also, if Sco could NOT play that way on a flat-top, it would not phase me a bit, nor lower my enjoyment of the other ways he plays. The flat-top is not the universal standard of all guitar playing.

[christianm77]

I acknowledged that, and agree to a certain extent. I work in studios for a living and I work with a ton of guitar players, unfortunately not much Jazz, but I do record separate DI (pre FX) track for guitars just as I do for Bass gtr, incase I need to re-amp the sound at mix down. Anyhoo, what I've always noticed is that most players sound like ass when stripped of all their effects, but some actually sound good! Not because of what they're playing, but how. Their dynamic expression tells a story, and what's more you still hear it after the fx and amp hits the mic. Players with too much chorus, compression or distortion often sound like rank beginners when you listen to their DI track.

Knowing this is the reason I mostly practice unplugged, and yeah, it means I need to back off a little from playing too hard when plugging in, but that is easy, takes a few minutes to adjust the attack down. Try asking a "tickler" to attack with more attitude or vigour and you realise they are years away from achieving that- which is probably why they'd never bother...

For me, part of the attraction of the guitar is that it is a percussive instrument, not the fact that it can be played like a synthesiser (to take the other extreme). So I prefer that, and I think I'm allowed to! . Players with little or no dynamics, whether or not due to FX, never seem to hold my interest. Further, I'll dare to suggest that non guitarists seem to also prefer dynamic guitarists to listen to, and given that there are very few these days, I'll wager there's a correlation between that observation and the fact that "Jazz Guitar" bores most people more so than piano, drums or horns.

Am I making a nuisance of myself? ... Of course, YMMV, whatever blows yer hair back, an' all that...

Or how about Allan on acoustic?

I think SOUND, tone colour, the HOW of guitar playing is often overlooked because we are so obsessed with the transcription/analysis feedback loop.

Nothing wrong with that, but there are a few players that I think are mostly ‘notes’ players. No names. Often these players to my ears have an uninteresting and undynamic basic tone and try to inject the sound from their rig using delay and so on.

I think it’s why guitar players often miss the point of guitarists like Mark Knopfler who are all about the sound.

It’s not an either/or for me. Part of what makes Jimi great is the way the amp responds to the way he hits the strings. So much of Scos tone is in the acoustic take above, but the chorus and drive complements that basic tone.

Another example - Leni Stern mentions that the first time she heard Bill Frisell he was playing completely acoustic and he still sounded like he was using a reverb pedal.

I can’t think of any players I like who don’t have an strong, interesting and individual basic tone even without effects or heavy amplification. And while you might have to modify your playing between the instruments, the basic character is still there.

It’s the sound and feel that hits the lay listener first. Hip lines are great, but the thing that makes them hipper is the sound and feel.

[christianm77]

Well of course. A great organist can still play piano, and likely have a signature style. I'm just saying knocking a player for adjusting his technique to accommodate an effect, like distortion, compression, whatever, is not a departure from purity. He's using the technique appropriate to the instrument he's chosen to play. Thinking of different instruments that all share the same physical method for entering notes helps me to stop applying senseless tests and irrelevant standards to a performance.

Also, if Sco could NOT play that way on a flat-top, it would not phase me a bit, nor lower my enjoyment of the other ways he plays. The flat-top is not the universal standard of all guitar playing.

I don’t think sco would sound like sco if he couldn’t do that on acoustic.

It’s not about judging players, it’s about making connections in listening that can help one develop one’s own sound. The players with great tone sound great on an acoustic.

Change my mind! :-)

[lawson-stone]

I don’t think sco would sound like sco if he couldn’t do that on acoustic.

It’s not about judging players, it’s about making connections in listening that can help one develop one’s own sound. The players with great tone sound great on an acoustic.

Change my mind! :-)

I don't know. My point of view seems to be a rather pathetic minority of 1. So I think now on every post I'm going to reply "Yeah, but can you do that on a nylon-stringed classical with no microphone in a large hall, just depending on the natural acoustics and your nails? Huh? Can you?"

[christianm77]

I don't know. My point of view seems to be a rather pathetic minority of 1. So I think now on every post I'm going to reply "Yeah, but can you do that on a nylon-stringed classical with no microphone in a large hall, just depending on the natural acoustics and your nails? Huh? Can you?"

Haha

Well I would have thought the exception would be a player like Allan, but I think you’ll agree he sounds rather beautiful on acoustic.

I think it’s because players who get a great and distinctive tone from gear are sensitive to sound. This means when they have just an acoustic guitar they are still making minute adjustments to picking and so on to get a sound they can hear in their heads.

The projection thing is another issue. Most non classical guitarists can’t project single lines purely acoustically and don’t play in situations that require it. But the technique that allows you to do that will tend to increase the natural decay of the instrument, changing the tone. Bluegrass players and Gypsy players are a case in point (and even them they struggle to be heard.) It’s a certain tone....

Classical guitarists play in purpose built halls and resonant churches with a silent audience. If they are doing a function you can bet your ass they will have an AER.

[lawson-stone]

Haha

Well I would have thought the exception would be a player like Allan, but I think you’ll agree he sounds rather beautiful on acoustic.

I think it’s because players who get a great and distinctive tone from gear are sensitive to sound. This means when they have just an acoustic guitar they are still making minute adjustments to picking and so on to get a sound they can hear in their heads.

The projection thing is another issue. Most non classical guitarists can’t project single lines purely acoustically and don’t play in situations that require it. But the technique that allows you to do that will tend to increase the natural decay of the instrument, changing the tone. Bluegrass players and Gypsy players are a case in point (and even them they struggle to be heard.) It’s a certain tone....

Classical guitarists play in purpose built halls and resonant churches with a silent audience. If they are doing a function you can bet your ass they will have an AER.

Good thoughts. I have nothing against acoustics! I have a Martin D28 and a Cordoba classical. I was a John Denver wanna-be during the "Great Folk Music Scare of the 70's" (when it almost caught on). I was a coffee house finger-style player and only started on jazz in the 1990's. But the sound of an archtop played mainly clean (a little hair, sure) and those lush chords, those baroque-like lines that swung so hard... that was what haunted me. I took up jazz guitar also because I got a little tired of "woody acoustic" sounds. Now I like them again, but I know the "north" my inner compass needle always swings back to.

[p1p]

Regarding tone in the hands..

I recently came across this image of Grant Green - who I've always associated with saturated tube tone - looks to be playing through an Acoustic 150 (solid state) amp? I think you can see the lead going into it if you zoom? This photo was from 1975, Oil Can Harry's. He still sounds the same to my ears from that recording.

[medblues]

[pauln]

If his tone is in the backing track, does his guitar really need that clip on tuner or capo, whatever it its?

[Robertkoa]

Overdriven Nylon String...lol

[sgosnell]

If his tone is in the backing track, does his guitar really need that clip on tuner or capo, whatever it its?

Of course he does. Appearances matter, don't you know?

[patshep]

i am not impressed by the 'tone' at all... it sounds like a guitar with the tone knob rolled off so far that there isn't much but the fundamental... playing is good, but that's the type of jazz tone i never liked...
once you amplify any electric, it's not as if they have extremely different tones, i doubt most of us can hear the difference between cheap and expensive guitars in anybodies hands once they are recorded, but for some reason, when you play them, the tiniest nuances in feel and tone seem so important, but nobody else will probably ever notice

[Midnight Blues]

I've never been one to subscribe to that theory. IMHO, I think what most consider to be tone, is in reality, phrasing.

[christianm77]

No

[Greentone]

You can play the exact same phrase on different guitars and it will sound different.

The artist and the phrasing are the same. Must be the instrument.

[patshep]

i remember something kenny werner wrote in effortless mastery... something along the lines of
put bill evans in front of a crappy upright piano and he will make is sound like a steinway
put monk in front of a steinway grand and he will make it sound like a little upright
he wasn't disparaging monk at all... you will be you no matter what, by the time it's gone through an amp and into a microphone, mixed and comes out your speakers, well, it's a wonder how much we all worry about the gear, but it can be fun, and addictive... this clip shows us that tone is purely subjective... i don't like pat metheneys tone, but i love some of his records like crazy... same with a lot of jazz players, i remember the first time i heard grant green, i was like, finally a guy with a nice sound!!! lol... to others that's blasphemy.... same with kenny burrell.... love his tone, because it's got that blues sound in it to me

[Robertkoa]

Proof that half truths are in the mind .

[christianm77]

Someone who plays a bunch of different guitars and sounds radically different on each one is someone who HASN'T got their sound together IMO.

Sound= identity.

If someone wants to define tone to mean only sound of the instrument/amp combination shorn of the players inflections - vibrato, positioning of the pick (if they even use one, that's another can of worms) quality of pick attack (arm, wrist, or finger for instance), angle of the pick in all planes, speed of onset and so on.... that's fine. I'm not really up for disagreeing over a definition.

[Klatu]

These threads become poisonous when the debate becomes one of semantics. Two people passionately defending their positions often are answering different questions. The first step is to define the terms: what is tone? My definition is that tone is the sound of the instrument. If your definition is that tone is the musical identity of the player, then the debate becomes immediately illegitimate.

[christianm77]

These threads become poisonous when the debate becomes one of semantics. Two people passionately defending their positions often are answering different questions. The first step is to define the terms: what is tone? My definition is that tone is the sound of the instrument. If your definition is that tone is the musical identity of the player, then the debate becomes immediately illegitimate.

Well that's not what I meant, for me it's a combination of both. It's an interaction... Your definition of tone may differ from mine - but the - and I would hope you would agree - the idea that anything that is not equipment choice and setup is phrasing (as I understand it) is certainly asinine.

I mean, just talk to a pianist sometime. I have heard numerous world class pianists play the same piano and they all have a different tone (yes not phrasing - tone - radically different onset, sound quality, attack, decay etc etc) and that's an instrument where you press a flipping button and the mechanism does it's thing.

To be frank, I would regard such a sensibility as an impediment to growth as a musician in a student. That's not the same as equipment choice is unimportant, it's critical. But you need a sound to start off with, and an idea in your head.

But on the internet, the success of videos talking about tone when they mean gear is an indication that I am perhaps in a sharp minority when it comes to guitar players ;-)

But then, again to be frank, the majority of guitar players have no sound of their own anyway. They are always chasing other people's.

Anyway, if you wish to 'define terms' in what is a glorious holistic art form, I think it's more to do with internet debates than actual music.

[christianm77]

BTW, has anyone else had the experience of buying some new shiny expensive piece of gear and then using it on the gig waiting for the compliments on your tone, and NO-ONE FLIPPING NOTICES? ;-)

(Again, what goes on in one's own head doesn't necessarily translate to the rest of the world lol.)