proof that guitar tone is in the hands...

[John A.]

That might be a correct historical description but it does not define the present reality. It also does not serve a prescriptive function about what is best, right, most desirable, or standard-setting. Electric guitars WERE "essentially acoustic instruments made to be heard by the aid of electro-magnetic pickups and an amplifier" but that has not been their primary application or function for maybe 50 years at least. For that, you want a flat-top or classical guitar with a piezo or microphone.

There is a major epistemological problem in transitioning from a historical description to an artistic prescription. One does not in any way presume the other. It is in truth, merely one's opinion, and that is all. It's a fine opinion, a valid one, but in no way one that binds anyone else except those who admire the opinion-holder and want to emulate them. Which also is a fine thing, but again, not binding on anyone else.

I don't think it's even historically correct. The first guitars with magnetic pickups were lap steels. And then the first "Spanish" guitars (there's debate as to who got there first) to have magnetic pickups pretty much immediately were used to make sounds that were very different from acoustic guitars. Amplified guitars acoustic guitars that actually sound like acoustic guitars are a pretty recent phenomenon.

And, yes, Is <> Ought

John

[Jazzstdnt]

Ahem. Well, I believe that the quote may have been attributable to Segovia, and I think that it basically meant -

"YOU are responsible for the tone produced when you play the guitar, so you'd better work on that".

Seems reasonable enough, don't it?

But such statements are not scientific of course, give me a break. Of course it's both the player and instrument/equipment (the man and the machine, if you will), and applying the "theory of experiments" to prove it would be too easy. Child's play. (It might be kind of interesting and fun though, now that I think about it).

Anyway, it was a nice post from JZ. No need for a bunch of guys to get all pissed off at each other about.

[christianm77]

I question who needs to calm down; My post with the title 'can one have an opinion????' was removed. I don't know why, but I assume it was because I said something along the lines of; that IMO the Hall\Metheny tone isn't my preference (i.e. I don't find it 'great') and that I prefer a Grant Green type tone.

I don't see where anyone has criticized the chops of any guitar player here, only that we prefer a more 'traditional' (old-school, holly-body,,,,), type tone.

Hey, if my removed post did offend someone, that was NOT my intention. But I do wonder if this current post will be allowed to remain at this forum.

To weigh in at the gear end of the thing, do you think that humbuckers and solid state amps encourage more of a rolled off sound?

Grant Green is a good example of a single cool jazz sound.

Bruce Forman makes an interesting distinction between L5 players and 175 players. 175 players have to roll off to avoid too much ‘plink’ in their tone. So Jim and Pat were both 175 players.

An L5 on the other hand, handles being wide open and responds in a different way.

(I actually find the surprising brightness of the old 175s really suits a lot of the music I play where I actually need a pretty strident sound. Those guitars are pretty bright. Through a Fender amp it can be a bit ice picky even!)

What is true of a 175 is more true of a 335. Thus Adam Rogers. His picking (which I sort of use) with that extreme contact angle acts as a physical tone roll off (you can hear it in his tele and strat playing too) but I also suspect he rolls off on his gear as well.

It’s interesting that Sheryl Bailey who uses a similar technique advises here students not to roll of the treble on their amps or guitars.

Anyway all good examples of how thinking about this type of thing in a reductionist way ‘gear or fingers’ is a bit silly. But I think most of the players I admire in any genre start with the acoustic sound as a basis. I think even Holdsworth falls into this category....

[christianm77]

And of you’re really unlucky you’ll get the ‘why I think my tone sucked on last night’s gig’ essay. I could talk about this shit all day lol.

Anyway I’m sorry people are getting a bit grumpy because some interesting points are being made.

[christianm77]

That's actually not true. On an electric guitar with sufficient levels of gain an distortion, hammer-ons can produce more than enough signal for a truly monumental sound. It does not require a fretting hand and a picking hand. That is a prominent technique in both rock and modern jazz fusion and is the foundation for a lot of prominent players and it's very much like pushing a key.

Then you have players like me who do fret and pick but play with a sufficiently light attack that very little acoustic sound is actually produced. My assumption is that I'm using the guitar to provide a controlled signal to an amplifier and my technique is entirely tailored to that purpose.

To me that’s still taking the acoustic aspect into account.

So you are partly taking advantage of the fact that if you pick softer then the note tails off differently. Amplify that and you have the basis of a more legato, even sound. But otoh because open string resonance etc is now louder you have to focus a more on muting.

You’ll have to forgive me as I don’t know what kind of signal processing you use, but for my own experience when I play modern stuff my tendency is to reduce my pick attack even for clean... then the trick is very much to set the amp in the sweet spot where it responds just right. I’m not aiming for as soft a touch as you I suspect, if only because I find it very hard to mute with my right hand technique, but it’s definitely a spectrum...

OTOH if I play with the Hot Club say, I set it just loud enough to amplify my playing, because I want that attack and tail off.

(Bop is somewhere in between.)

As I do the latter more than the former I find I often don’t quite turn up enough, but I REALLY HATE the idea of being obnoxiously loud, so it’s a tricky one with drums etc. I feel I need to do more of it to get the instinct.

I suppose one aspect is whether or not you play only solid bodies or archtop and whether or not you ever practice without an amp. Personally I do all of these things, but I play a wide variety of styles (prob too many!)

[grahambop]

I'm slightly hesitant to wade into this discussion, but I can speak for my own experience. When I bought my Gibson 175 many years ago, I was somewhat disappointed that it didn't sound much different from the Ibanez Artist solid-body I had been using for jazz until then. I was hoping to sound a lot more like Kenny Burrell etc., I wanted a much bigger and 'rounder' sound, and I thought a 'proper' jazz guitar would give me all that 'out of the box'. But it didn't. I even wondered if the guitar was a bit defective or something.

Anyway I eventually decided it must be down to me rather than the guitar, so I experimented with pick angle etc. and after a couple of years I realised I was getting a much better 'jazz' tone, it was now sounding a lot more like my jazz guitar heroes. Then I discovered that I could get a much better jazz sound from my old solid-body guitar too. In fact I could make my old Ibanez Artist sound quite a bit like my 175.

So in my case the biggest factors turned out to be pick angle (i.e. hitting the strings at an angle), picking nearer the fingerboard, and generally having a more sensitive feel when addressing the string with the pick (I can't really explain this but I can feel it).

All this seems far more important than the gear in how I get my sound.

But as I said, I can only speak for my own experience.

[christianm77]

I'm slightly hesitant to wade into this discussion, but I can speak for my own experience. When I bought my Gibson 175 many years ago, I was somewhat disappointed that it didn't sound much different from the Ibanez Artist solid-body I had been using for jazz until then. I was hoping to sound a lot more like Kenny Burrell etc., I wanted a much bigger and 'rounder' sound, and I thought a 'proper' jazz guitar would give me all that 'out of the box'. But it didn't. I even wondered if the guitar was a bit defective or something.

Anyway I eventually decided it must be down to me rather than the guitar, so I experimented with pick angle etc. and after a couple of years I realised I was getting a much better 'jazz' tone, it was now sounding a lot more like my jazz guitar heroes. Then I discovered that I could get a much better jazz sound from my old solid-body guitar too. In fact I could make my old Ibanez Artist sound quite a bit like my 175.

So in my case the biggest factors turned out to be pick angle (i.e. hitting the strings at an angle), picking nearer the fingerboard, and generally having a more sensitive feel when addressing the string with the pick (I can't really explain this but I can feel it).

All this seems far more important than the gear in how I get my sound.

But as I said, I can only speak for my own experience.

Yeah, exactly how I feel. And, may I say, you have a great tone.

But the gear side of it is still there right? I mean how about strings? I literally can’t play anything lighter than 11s and really only happy on 12s for instance. Not directly for tonal reasons, just because the way I produce the sound on my instrument doesn’t work with a light set up.

Different strokes of course. Holdsworth type players are going to spend a lot of time thinking about other stuff...

[Robertkoa]

The actual proof is that really professional
Jazz and Rock Guitarists for the last 57 years have left both the tone controls wide open on their Guitars and Amps and have controlled the bass & treble response and dynamics of their Guitars solely with their fingers .

No , wait- that's incorrect , never mind that part.

'Tone IS in the fingers - including using your fingers to play the Guitar AND turn the knobs on your Guitar, Amp, Modeler, EFX , sound man live board , Engineer in Studio , Mastering Engineer etc.'


Great tone and fingers are more evident on Acoustic Instruments IMO.

Some Players by skill and will can get more out of an instrument than others of course.

[christianm77]

The actual proof is that really professional
Jazz and Rock Guitarists for the last 57 years have left both the tone controls wide open on their Guitars and Amps and have controlled the bass & treble response and dynamics of their Guitars solely with their fingers .

No , wait- that's incorrect , never mind that part.

'Tone IS in the fingers - including using your fingers to play the Guitar AND turn the knobs on your Guitar, Amp, Modeler, EFX , sound man live board , Engineer in Studio , Mastering Engineer etc.'


Great tone and fingers:

Have you heard Julian Lage? It’s a trip man....

Players differ, gear is important and people on the internet like to make out that points are being made that aren’t.

And the world keeps on turning...

[lawson-stone]

To weigh in at the gear end of the thing, do you think that humbuckers and solid state amps encourage more of a rolled off sound?

Grant Green is a good example of a single cool jazz sound.

Bruce Forman makes an interesting distinction between L5 players and 175 players. 175 players have to roll off to avoid too much ‘plink’ in their tone. So Jim and Pat were both 175 players.

An L5 on the other hand, handles being wide open and responds in a different way.

(I actually find the surprising brightness of the old 175s really suits a lot of the music I play where I actually need a pretty strident sound. Those guitars are pretty bright. Through a Fender amp it can be a bit ice picky even!)

What is true of a 175 is more true of a 335. Thus Adam Rogers. His picking (which I sort of use) with that extreme contact angle acts as a physical tone roll off (you can hear it in his tele and strat playing too) but I also suspect he rolls off on his gear as well.

It’s interesting that Sheryl Bailey who uses a similar technique advises here students not to roll of the treble on their amps or guitars.

Anyway all good examples of how thinking about this type of thing in a reductionist way ‘gear or fingers’ is a bit silly. But I think most of the players I admire in any genre start with the acoustic sound as a basis. I think even Holdsworth falls into this category....

What you say about the L5 vs. ES175 really resonates with me!

On the acoustic question, my replies have been aimed at the very specific claim expressed in two posts. I'm not including the names because it's not a personal thing with either poster, and both have offered ideas and insights on many topics that I appreciate very much. So I'm not dissing anyone, just taking on one of the "sacred cows" that gets expressed from time to time, that somehow the basic acoustic guitar is the bar, the standard, the bellwether, of great playing. I contend that it's a very good thing, of course, but I don't see acoustic playing, acoustic sound, as a sine qua non of "great playing" or "great tone."

So here are two representative statements, again nothing against these guys, they are great contributors to the forum and I hope they stay forever:

Statement #1:
"Tone is in the fingers (and the wrists, elbows, shoulders etc etc)... But the "proof" to me is to hear someone play unplugged, even if it's a solid body. Very few players can make an unplugged Les Paul "talk", if ya know what I mean... If you can sound compelling that way, then you almost can't fuck up the sound with the wrong amp...

Statement #2
...Electric guitars are essentially acoustic instruments made to be heard by the aid of electro-magnetic pickups and an amplifier (or two!).

I have not intended to suggest that the guitar's overall acoustic response has no place. I am talking specifically about the sound of a guitar played with no augmentation of its basic sound, and the ability of a musician to play on an acoustic the same thing they would play on an electric as if that were a standard of excellence. Both propositions I think are worthwhile opinions one can hold, but they are not self-evidently true, nor do I think they hold some place of privilege in thinking about jazz guitar playing.

I'm not upset or angry at anybody either. This is fun! I am used to spirited debate, I'm used to being shown my errors, I'm used to admitting when my claims have been shot down successfully, and I love to advance a square on the great game board of life by learning from my mistakes. Many on this board have been the recipient of retractions and apologies from me and can bear witness to that.

So a guitar's resonant qualities certainly do affect its electric sound, a point I always affirm. But I do not accept (a) that how a guitar sounds without electric amplification is a measure of how good it sounds amplified nor (b) that how a player sounds playing mere acoustic music (no amplification) constitutes a standard for whether their electric playing is successful. In fact, acoustic technique can be a disaster when applied to an electric guitar.

[christianm77]

What you say about the L5 vs. ES175 really resonates with me!

On the acoustic question, my replies have been aimed at the very specific claim expressed in two posts. I'm not including the names because it's not a personal thing with either poster, and both have offered ideas and insights on many topics that I appreciate very much. So I'm not dissing anyone, just taking on one of the "sacred cows" that gets expressed from time to time, that somehow the basic acoustic guitar is the bar, the standard, the bellwether, of great playing. I contend that it's a very good thing, of course, but I don't see acoustic playing, acoustic sound, as a sine qua non of "great playing" or "great tone."

So here are two representative statements, again nothing against these guys, they are great contributors to the forum and I hope they stay forever:

Statement #1:
"Tone is in the fingers (and the wrists, elbows, shoulders etc etc)... But the "proof" to me is to hear someone play unplugged, even if it's a solid body. Very few players can make an unplugged Les Paul "talk", if ya know what I mean... If you can sound compelling that way, then you almost can't fuck up the sound with the wrong amp...

Statement #2
...Electric guitars are essentially acoustic instruments made to be heard by the aid of electro-magnetic pickups and an amplifier (or two!).

I have not intended to suggest that the guitar's overall acoustic response has no place. I am talking specifically about the sound of a guitar played with no augmentation of its basic sound, and the ability of a musician to play on an acoustic the same thing they would play on an electric as if that were a standard of excellence. Both propositions I think are worthwhile opinions one can hold, but they are not self-evidently true, nor do I think they hold some place of privilege in thinking about jazz guitar playing.

I'm not upset or angry at anybody either. This is fun! I am used to spirited debate, I'm used to being shown my errors, I'm used to admitting when my claims have been shot down successfully, and I love to advance a square on the great game board of life by learning from my mistakes. Many on this board have been the recipient of retractions and apologies from me and can bear witness to that.

So a guitar's resonant qualities certainly do affect its electric sound, a point I always affirm. But I do not accept (a) that how a guitar sounds without electric amplification is a measure of how good it sounds amplified nor (b) that how a player sounds playing mere acoustic music (no amplification) constitutes a standard for whether their electric playing is successful. In fact, acoustic technique can be a disaster when applied to an electric guitar.

As the kids around my endz say: ‘fair’

[Robertkoa]

Ha...well I really like Jack Z's guitar reviews - he must be having some fun with us here...

[Jim Soloway]

I don't think I've ever been purged from a thread before. Weird.

[Rufes]

Good tone is very a subjective matter. The guy plays very well.

[lawson-stone]

...

Look, if you are a straightahead type player and you can't get a decent - maybe not ideal, but decent - live sound out of one of the entry level laminate archtops on the market and something like a Fender Hotrod, you really need to do more practice. Those guitars are perfectly good. That's why you see pros touring Godin Kingpins and so on.

But neither does that mean that a great guitar - the right one - won't provide those subtle and not so subtle elements that will make you play and sound better - if only to you. There are loads of stories about players getting new gear and raving about it while their band mates think they sound exactly the same lol... Not always of course, but it goes to show.

But until you go through that process you won't have a clue what the right guitar for you is anyway... For instance, I'm pretty sure I'm not an L5 player. I find those guitars a bit wooly for my style.

OTOH, far be it for me to spoil everyone's fun. Nice guitars are nice!

this is well said. I agree--I can play my old Hagstrom 1 through a 20w "Acoustic (brand, that is)" amp that cost US$50 brand new and sound pretty good on straight-ahead jazz. I also play my cheap Epiphones all the time and actually like how they sound. I even played a "Johnson" archtop for a while and whatever "my" tone is, I seemed to get it pretty much from that guitar. What I do like about the Gibsons I have is that I seem to be able to get closer to what I love, and they also seem to inspire me to hunt for better sounds. Maybe it's psychological, but hey, this is art and intuition, so emotions, perceptions, impressions, intuitions, matter!

[jameslovestal]

Jim, I think the cynic in you is right. A lot of pros leave their fine guitars for the studio and the home while getting cheap guitars for the hazards of travel. And like you, I think Ulf's tone is quite good in the video.

Query: Do we know that the electronics in Ulf's guitar have not been upgraded in some way? And how about the fretwork? Top notch electronics and fretwork can make a cheap Asian made guitar sound and play pretty damn good.

Oscar Petersen concerts were held in fairly large venues (especially for jazz music); I wonder if this is related to the use of a solid body guitars for these gigs. It is my understanding that a solid body guitar is a lot easier to 'integrate' into the sound system of a large venue hall then a holly-body 'old school' jazz box. Just a theory; might be all-wet.

[Stringswinger]

Oscar Petersen concerts were held in fairly large venues (especially for jazz music); I wonder if this is related to the use of a solid body guitars for these gigs. It is my understanding that a solid body guitar is a lot easier to 'integrate' into the sound system of a large venue hall then a holly-body 'old school' jazz box. Just a theory; might be all-wet.

Tony Bennett's guitar player (Gray Sargent) tours with a Godin hollow body and those shows are in the largest venues. My understanding is that he uses the Godin because it is not expensive and is at risk during travel. I saw this guitar in action at a large venue and Gray sounded great. I have seen pictures of Gray with an L-5 and assume he owns better guitars than the Godin. I also assume that he could play a solid body if he wanted, but he chooses a fully hollow body for a reason.

[grahambop]

Yeah, exactly how I feel. And, may I say, you have a great tone.

But the gear side of it is still there right? I mean how about strings? I literally can’t play anything lighter than 11s and really only happy on 12s for instance. Not directly for tonal reasons, just because the way I produce the sound on my instrument doesn’t work with a light set up.

Different strokes of course. Holdsworth type players are going to spend a lot of time thinking about other stuff...

Thanks, yes I use 12s. Would be interesting to see if I can get a similar sound with the 9s I used to use in my rock days!

[sgosnell]

I've liked Gray Sargent's playing for a long time. I'm sure he could sound good enough on almost any guitar. Playing in the studio, or at home in a small room, is different from playing in a large public place. The larger the venue, the less the tone can be heard, and the less it matters. Using a lesser guitar on a tour makes complete sense, but using one that has a familiar shape, weight, and feel is probably rather important. Not that I've ever toured with Tony Bennett, but if by some miracle I did get that call, I wouldn't take a Tele.

[christianm77]

Tony Bennett's guitar player (Gray Sargent) tours with a Godin hollow body and those shows are in the largest venues. My understanding is that he uses the Godin because it is not expensive and is at risk during travel. I saw this guitar in action at a large venue and Gray sounded great. I have seen pictures of Gray with an L-5 and assume he owns better guitars than the Godin. I also assume that he could play a solid body if he wanted, but he chooses a fully hollow body for a reason.

I believe this was Ed Bickert's rationale for using a Tele? That and the fact that the instrument is physically smaller, so might be easier to get into hand luggage on some airlines.

Look, I know many admiring fans and guitar students think great guitar players live in an elevated world of pure A E S T H E T I C S, but they are in fact also professionals working for a living, and really everyone at every level of the biz has to deal with the many of the same basic facts of life - how to get the instrument to the overseas gig is one of them. Your concrete options (aside from 'hope you can take it as hand luggage') become - get an amazing flight case, check it and hope it lives up to the hype, buy a seat for the guitar (even this some airlines can be a jerk about), or, get a cheapo guitar you can live with and stick in a Hiscox in the hold.

Given Larry Carlton himself fetched up to a recent UK date short a 335 - the capricious vagaries of airlines are something that affects EVERYONE working in music. Don't know if that guitar was a vintage Gibson, or something else... In the former case, LC has a stronger stomach than me lol.

Thing is a couple of times airlines can move the goalposts on you. Suddenly in a bloodcurdling moment, you have to check that guitar you thought you had a seat for. Godin in a Hiscox in checked luggage. Known quantity. It might go wrong, but minimise the risk. Easier on the ticker for sure.

[D.G.]

I don't think I've ever been purged from a thread before. Weird.

Me too. Weird. Possibly a mistake or an over-correction from the admins...

[lawson-stone]

I don't think I've ever been purged from a thread before. Weird.

YOU? Good heavens, you are as civil a person as ever posted here; if anyone should be purged it should have been those of us who were more forcible in our debating, I suppose. That's odd.

[lawson-stone]

I don't think I've ever been purged from a thread before. Weird.

Jim-I went back and was able to find your posts in the thread, unless there are one or two that I missed. What posts are not there?

[Hammertone]

I keep trying to purge Jim from my latest Mac Mini, but it won't let me, for some reason, ha!

[Jim Soloway]

Jim-I went back and was able to find your posts in the thread, unless there are one or two that I missed. What posts are not there?

The part that came after our erstwhile friend began getting frustrated up to and including my response to his announcement that he would never darken our door again. I found the entire exchange very odd and more han a little confusing.