proof that guitar tone is in the hands...

[Max405]

The Les Paul is a great guitar for that dark jazz sound. The sound is thick and full and it cuts through. i think the hi-lite of that clip is Pats spirited playing. Sort of like he played on New Chattagua.
I had an Ibanez imitation Les Paul one time that had a DiMarzio dual sound in the neck position with a split coil. It was a very versatile guitar. It nailed the Jay Graydon Strat sound as well as Santana, Guns and Roses and even the George Benson sound. It was stolen out of a rehearsal studio.
Jazz can be played on anything. Heck, I’ve even seen it played on a Telecaster, if you can believe such a thing!
L,J

[wintermoon]

The Les Paul is a great guitar for that dark jazz sound. The sound is thick and full and it cuts through. i think the hi-lite of that clip is Pats spirited playing. Sort of like he played on New Chattagua.
I had an Ibanez imitation Les Paul one time that had a DiMarzio dual sound in the neck position with a split coil. It was a very versatile guitar. It nailed the Jay Graydon Strat sound as well as Santana, Guns and Roses and even the George Benson sound. It was stolen out of a rehearsal studio.
Jazz can be played on anything. Heck, I’ve even seen it played on a Telecaster, if you can believe such a thing!
L,J

Hmm, I should try that!
Love,
Ed Bickert and Ted Greene

[christianm77]

Hang on is this another thread that is turning into ‘get a tele?’

[don_oz]

In Jack Zucker's group of august professionals, Pasquale Grasso plays a Trenier, Paul Bollenback plays a Borys, Peter Mazza plays a Gibson Super V, Vic Juris plays a Borys, Peter Bernstein plays a Zeidler, Gilad Hekselman plays a Victor Baker, Mike Moreno plays a Marchione, Mark Whitfield plays a Marchione so, yeah, tone may well be in the fingers but these fellows are not immune to the charms of nice boutique guitars, too, just like the rest of us.

If you listen to Pasquale's earlier records or videos of him online playing a D'angelico or some Gibson's it still sounds like him 100%

I think those boutique guitars in a way just help them achieve their sound more easily, most of the time they are made to their specs, and I think it helps them not worry about getting their sound as much as with some of the more mass produced guitars.

[Jonah]

Interesting to note, Ulf owns some really lovely expensive instruments too...but he always returns to that LP copy...great player.

I know a pro player who has real 175 but plays almost exclusively a Burny clone with Gibson 57 classic pu for I think 15 years or so... I always envy when people find their guitar.

[Jonah]

I am always at a loss when someone says the tone is good or bad.. I was never really into a tone as it is...
attack, phrasing, articulation... yes.
But the tone... it's very personal. Except of course very obvious cases.


I never thought: I want to have tone like this... I don't know why.

I also noticed that many jazz fans like the tone that is too dull and muffled for me...

For example here Ulf's tone is lacking highs for me.. but for many it seems like great.

As per fingers... of course the rone depends on the player as much as it depends on attac, articulation, phrasing.. yes, tone depends even on phrasing. We often underestimate the complexity of human perception...

[El Fundo]

Let’s take an instrument, other than guitar that is harder to be subjective about when it comes to tone: the flute.

I live in Dallas, which has lots and lots of great jazz musicians, partly due to its proximity to Denton, where UNT is located. Many graduates from its jazz program end up staying in Dallas since, while they’re still at school, and they can really play, start gigging a lot in Dallas since it’s roughly 30 miles from Denton. Many of these great players are saxophonists who double on the flute. I’ve played with most of them and there is only one guy who has what a serious flute teacher would call a great tone. From talking to many classical flute players I learned that getting a great tone on the instrument is very difficult to achieve and very few actually get it. Yes, a great tenor player can whip out a flute and fly around with as much dexterity as he does on his horn. But they will be the first to tell you that their tone really sucks! Flute players spend hundreds and hundreds of hours developing their embouchre to produce even an acceptable tone, which is the number one criteria for a flautist. He or she may have wonderful technique and able to play very fast, complex passages, but if that tone is not there, they don’t get the gigs. That may sound harsh, but in truth it is not a subjective passing of judgement on them, and the saxophonists who double on the flute are aware of that, knowing what a “proper” flute tone is. Only when the flute is their only, or primary, instrument are they able to put the hours into developing a tone that will please a serious flute teacher, conductor, studio producer, etc.

My point? It’s really the same, or should be, for all other instruments, including guitar. So, it’s not really a matter of a subjective preference for bright, dark, etc. but is it a GOOD tone? Is it obvious that tone doesn’t takes a back seat to all other aspects that make a great player? Many musicians, like myself, find it hard to listen to even really great players if the tone is not good. Tone is actually the first thing that the ear perceives, or at least should be.

[rpguitar]

I am the same way. I can't get past a tone (for any instrument) that I don't enjoy. The voice of the instrument is what has the potential to speak in a beautiful, ugly or nondescript way. The notes are not enough. I don't think this is an uncommon reaction, either among musicians or even non-musicians.

Once the tone is established, you still have to say something meaningful with that voice. But it starts with the voice itself. Think of a singer that you enjoy, and one you dislike - and have them sing the same melody. The melody may be classic and great, but you will not want to listen to one of the singers perform it.

[gregunit]

Tone is so subjective - but I agree, It's in the fingers

[John A.]

Let’s take an instrument, other than guitar that is harder to be subjective about when it comes to tone: the flute.

I live in Dallas, which has lots and lots of great jazz musicians, partly due to its proximity to Denton, where UNT is located. Many graduates from its jazz program end up staying in Dallas since, while they’re still at school, and they can really play, start gigging a lot in Dallas since it’s roughly 30 miles from Denton. Many of these great players are saxophonists who double on the flute. I’ve played with most of them and there is only one guy who has what a serious flute teacher would call a great tone. From talking to many classical flute players I learned that getting a great tone on the instrument is very difficult to achieve and very few actually get it. Yes, a great tenor player can whip out a flute and fly around with as much dexterity as he does on his horn. But they will be the first to tell you that their tone really sucks! Flute players spend hundreds and hundreds of hours developing their embouchre to produce even an acceptable tone, which is the number one criteria for a flautist. He or she may have wonderful technique and able to play very fast, complex passages, but if that tone is not there, they don’t get the gigs. That may sound harsh, but in truth it is not a subjective passing of judgement on them, and the saxophonists who double on the flute are aware of that, knowing what a “proper” flute tone is. Only when the flute is their only, or primary, instrument are they able to put the hours into developing a tone that will please a serious flute teacher, conductor, studio producer, etc.

My point? It’s really the same, or should be, for all other instruments, including guitar. So, it’s not really a matter of a subjective preference for bright, dark, etc. but is it a GOOD tone? Is it obvious that tone doesn’t takes a back seat to all other aspects that make a great player? Many musicians, like myself, find it hard to listen to even really great players if the tone is not good. Tone is actually the first thing that the ear perceives, or at least should be.

Different genre's have different standards of what constitutes "good" tone, and also have different expectations with respect to individuality/idiosyncrasy. Charlie Christian, Grant Green, Django Reinhardt, and and John Scofield sound radically different from each other, but all play jazz. Within jazz how you express your musical persona (including through tone) is at least as important as technique. One of the implications of this is that there aren't objective standards of tone, only debates and expressions of preference about tone. This is true across all instruments, and voices. Saxophonists have the same arguments we do about Trane/Sanborn/Bird/Getz/Brecker, you name it. People argue about whether Armstrong had a good voice. Yada yada.

John

[El Fundo]

Different genre's have different standards of what constitutes "good" tone, and also have different expectations with respect to individuality/idiosyncrasy. Charlie Christian, Grant Green, Django Reinhardt, and and John Scofield sound radically different from each other, but all play jazz. Within jazz how you express your musical persona (including through tone) is at least as important as technique. One of the implications of this is that there aren't objective standards of tone, only debates and expressions of preference about tone. This is true across all instruments, and voices. Saxophonists have the same arguments we do about Trane/Sanborn/Bird/Getz/Brecker, you name it. People argue about whether Armstrong had a good voice. Yada yada.

John

I agree with everything you’ve said. But let’s talk about Louis Armstrong. Armstrong’s contribution, not only to jazz, but to American popular music in general, is undisputed and beyond the need for any debate. Yet, had he only been a singer it’s doubtful we would even know who he is. He was an entertainer and a personality, for sure. And his singing is very endearing, but his trumpet playing had much more influence on jazz than his singing. In fact, as a trumpeter, it could be argued that there would not be jazz as we know it. Ask any trumpeter who knows his jazz history what he thinks about Louis Armstrong and they’ll probably say the same thing. As a trumpeter he had all the ingredients and set the bar very high for technique, improvisation, phrasing, swing feel, and, last but not least—tone. When he sang, he was basically doing the same thing he did when his trumpet was in his mouth. The only difference was the sound ( and the words). On its own, his voice probably wouldn’t have gotten him very far, especially if he hadn’t been such a great jazz trumpeter. There’s something kitschy about his voice—more in the realm of novelty. But as a trumpet player he took no prisoners. His voice has become such a huge part of American culture, but his tone is not really what could be called “good”. As an entertainer he has been loved by millions; as a jazz trumpet player he stands as the single most influential jazz musician of all time. People may argue over whether he was a great singer or not, but only
the uniformed may not recognize his genius as a jazz musician first and foremost. And his tone on the trumpet is what set the standard for all improvising musicians to find a voice to express their personalities.

[Jonah]

Let’s take an instrument, other than guitar that is harder to be subjective about when it comes to tone: the flute.

I live in Dallas, which has lots and lots of great jazz musicians, partly due to its proximity to Denton, where UNT is located. Many graduates from its jazz program end up staying in Dallas since, while they’re still at school, and they can really play, start gigging a lot in Dallas since it’s roughly 30 miles from Denton. Many of these great players are saxophonists who double on the flute. I’ve played with most of them and there is only one guy who has what a serious flute teacher would call a great tone. From talking to many classical flute players I learned that getting a great tone on the instrument is very difficult to achieve and very few actually get it. Yes, a great tenor player can whip out a flute and fly around with as much dexterity as he does on his horn. But they will be the first to tell you that their tone really sucks! Flute players spend hundreds and hundreds of hours developing their embouchre to produce even an acceptable tone, which is the number one criteria for a flautist. He or she may have wonderful technique and able to play very fast, complex passages, but if that tone is not there, they don’t get the gigs. That may sound harsh, but in truth it is not a subjective passing of judgement on them, and the saxophonists who double on the flute are aware of that, knowing what a “proper” flute tone is. Only when the flute is their only, or primary, instrument are they able to put the hours into developing a tone that will please a serious flute teacher, conductor, studio producer, etc.

My point? It’s really the same, or should be, for all other instruments, including guitar. So, it’s not really a matter of a subjective preference for bright, dark, etc. but is it a GOOD tone? Is it obvious that tone doesn’t takes a back seat to all other aspects that make a great player? Many musicians, like myself, find it hard to listen to even really great players if the tone is not good. Tone is actually the first thing that the ear perceives, or at least should be.

I play fute... with no ambitions, just enjoy it. And I play baroque traverso flute which is much more challenging for tone than modern flutes.
I mean I know what you are talking about and I agree..
Partly it is also about just 'the sound'... on piano you just push the key and here you go. On guitar it is more complex, on violine even more, and on flute it can be a few years challenge...
But there are other levels behind it... the sound becomes more and more detalaized fo you (especially if you play acoustics, and often it matters mote in a classical music).

So at the ens of it you come to teh point that on any instrument the sound can be cultivated endlessly (and truely -- it should be!)

The personal tone is there even on piano...

I saw a video when a pianist played an old piano and it was out of tune and then Horowitz sits in and it sounds in tune... it is a control over instrument.

But the tone is still the result of complex processes: attack, articulation, touche, accents, dynamics etc. and of course instrument too, But I believe the more one has it the more he allows it come from teh instrument.

With electric guitar there is another problem: there are so many devices involved (thank to Leo Fender and followin marketing) that it may turn it in never-ending process... people change strings, necks, bodies, pedals, picku, pus, amps etc.

With acoustic instrument you face mostly an instrument and yourself...

I once saw a player asking a lutist Hopkinson Smith: what strigs do you use? (on his lute were set different types of strings from differnt producers, materieals and sets)... and He siad: it does not matter, it is all in the fingers.. you have to train your fingers to be so sensitive that once you touch the string you would feel as you touch directly with your soul.

Of course strings matter...he would not have made this crazy setup on lute - but this setup was a result of his own personal years of training this touch.. he just did not want that student woudl focus on specific string sets rather then on his technique and approach

[El Fundo]

Well said, Jonah.

[lawson-stone]

I have one example I always ponder when I think about tone, note quality, etc... Johnny Cash. By no standard was he a fine vocalist. Scratchy voice, wavering pitch, often flat, only a basic guitarist, even the songs could be analyzed as weak... but put them all together in the body and soul of that one man and you have something legendary. Eventually, the worse Cash sang, the more he was loved. I know of no empirical musical standard he came even remotely close to meeting, but something about the calculus of it all made him one of the most listenable vocalists in the history of popular music.

I don't think that all translates over to instrumental music directly, but I do think that a whole set of things interact and combine in the person of the musician to make their performance, even in the studio, memorable.

[mr. beaumont]

Honestly, I've never met a guitar that was set up and played in tune that I couldn't pull a pleasing tone out of. Sometimes you have to work wit what an instrument gives you too...it can actually inspire new ideas...

[John A.]

I agree with everything you’ve said. But let’s talk about Louis Armstrong. Armstrong’s contribution, not only to jazz, but to American popular music in general, is undisputed and beyond the need for any debate. Yet, had he only been a singer it’s doubtful we would even know who he is. He was an entertainer and a personality, for sure. And his singing is very endearing, but his trumpet playing had much more influence on jazz than his singing. In fact, as a trumpeter, it could be argued that there would not be jazz as we know it. Ask any trumpeter who knows his jazz history what he thinks about Louis Armstrong and they’ll probably say the same thing. As a trumpeter he had all the ingredients and set the bar very high for technique, improvisation, phrasing, swing feel, and, last but not least—tone. When he sang, he was basically doing the same thing he did when his trumpet was in his mouth. The only difference was the sound ( and the words). On its own, his voice probably wouldn’t have gotten him very far, especially if he hadn’t been such a great jazz trumpeter. There’s something kitschy about his voice—more in the realm of novelty. But as a trumpet player he took no prisoners. His voice has become such a huge part of American culture, but his tone is not really what could be called “good”. As an entertainer he has been loved by millions; as a jazz trumpet player he stands as the single most influential jazz musician of all time. People may argue over whether he was a great singer or not, but only
the uniformed may not recognize his genius as a jazz musician first and foremost. And his tone on the trumpet is what set the standard for all improvising musicians to find a voice to express their personalities.

Who knows? I get what you're saying about him as a supreme technician on the trumpet and something different from that as a singer. But the fact is, he played the trumpet and he sang throughout his life, and he integrated the two into a single musical personality. You really can't separate the vocalist from the trumpeter, and I think the hypothetical of "what if he only sang or only played?" is a false trail. He was a very expressive and innovative singer (considered by many to have invented scat singing). His "tone" touched people deeply and entertained them. To me, that's good tone. I'd say the same thing about many other great singers who didn't necessarily have technically "great" refined/pretty voices -- e.g., Howlin' Wolf, Bob Dylan, Billie Holiday, Nina Simone. Later in life Armstrong came to be seen by some as sentimental and/or Kitschy, but that's not how he was viewed in the 20s and 30s.

John

[El Fundo]

You’re right, Lawson. And I love me some Johnny Cash! In the realm of popular music it seems that personality and, in the case of Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, Bob Dylan, etc., storytelling is their #1 attribute. It may seem that “tone” is secondary to personality, style, and storytelling. But, try to imagine Pavarotti singing “Ring of Fire”. Or how about Bob Dylan singing a Puccini aria? But all af these singers share one common thing: the ability to command an audience with their unique delivery of a song. And the sound, or tone, they project has just as much to do with the effectiveness of that delivery as their phrasing, maybe even more. Think of how many of today’s pop singers all sound pretty much the same. “Wow! If I sound just like Justin Bieber (who, btw, sounds like hundreds of other singers today) maybe I too can get famous on YouTube or The Voice!” What makes Cash and Dylan unique and very original sounding is their respective unique and original sounding voices, or, their tone. Tone is the first gate to enter toward having your own original voice.

When I hear Coltrane, the first thing I hear is that TONE. That beautiful, haunting, almost disturbing quest toward self-discovery he had embarked on. That’s the Trane that should be chased. Most people seem to miss that Trane and chase the more intellectual side of Coltrane. Fast and complex with a goal of impressing other jazz musicians being the priority. It if they would listen a little closer, then Trane will actually teach them to find their own voice and embark on their own quest toward self-expression and self-discovery.

[El Fundo]

Who knows? I get what you're saying about him as a supreme technician on the trumpet and something different from that as a singer. But the fact is, he played the trumpet and he sang throughout his life, and he integrated the two into a single musical personality. You really can't separate the vocalist from the trumpeter, and I think the hypothetical of "what if he only sang or only played?" is a false trail. He was a very expressive and innovative singer (considered by many to have invented scat singing). His "tone" touched people deeply and entertained them. To me, that's good tone. I'd say the same thing about many other great singers who didn't necessarily have technically "great" refined/pretty voices -- e.g., Howlin' Wolf, Bob Dylan, Billie Holiday, Nina Simone. Later in life Armstrong came to be seen by some as sentimental and/or Kitschy, but that's not how he was viewed in the 20s and 30s.

John

I know. You’re basically saying what I said, but you actually said it better.

[El Fundo]

But then again, if someone held me at gunpoint and forced me to listen to the same ballad 10 times in a row, my only choices of recordings being either by Pops, or another instrumentalist/singer, Nat King Cole, I would choose the latter.

[2bornot2bop]

Great idea starting that forum Jack!

I've been a fan of Ulf's playing since I saw him perform with the late great Oscar Peterson.

[2bornot2bop]

RP, let's face it. This section of this forum is like a bar for alcoholics. Do any of us need more than 2 or 3 guitars? GAS is an addiction.

It is VERY addicting. I became addicted HERE! That said, I'm down to 3 guitars. An ES175, a custom oval hole, and a nylon string. That's pretty good, for just 4 years ago I owned 30.

[sgosnell]

When it comes to wind (at least jazz) instruments, the one which seems to be hardest to get a good tone from is the clarinet. With great tone (Goodman comes to mind) it's sublime, but the tinny, shrieking tone seems to be all too common. I cannot love a clarinet played with poor tone.

And I also didn't miss the irony of jzucker making a post which says that tone is in the hands.

[lawson-stone]

Honestly, I've never met a guitar that was set up and played in tune that I couldn't pull a pleasing tone out of. Sometimes you have to work wit what an instrument gives you too...it can actually inspire new ideas...

Seriously... all those "side by side" and "shootout" videos I've done have convinced me that one reaches a certain point where the differences among many well set-up and properly equipped guitars are mainly felt by the player, not heard by the audience. That counts, of course; but I own, for example, in the L5 family, an L5ces, an Epiphone Elitist Broadway, an Aria Pro II PE180, and an MiK Broadway with a Seth Lover pickup in it. That's really the gamut from $500 or so at the bottom to 10 times that at the top. When I play them, I can sort them out easily. The L5ces is like riding in a Mercedes, the MiK Broadway is a Honda Civic. But none are junk, all are wonderful instruments, all sound great. And evidently I have started unconciously developing "my" tone which, regardless of the instrument, seems to end up coming out of the amp.

I'm still trying to decide if that's encouraging or not.

[John A.]

I have one example I always ponder when I think about tone, note quality, etc... Johnny Cash. By no standard was he a fine vocalist. Scratchy voice, wavering pitch, often flat, only a basic guitarist, even the songs could be analyzed as weak... but put them all together in the body and soul of that one man and you have something legendary. Eventually, the worse Cash sang, the more he was loved. I know of no empirical musical standard he came even remotely close to meeting, but something about the calculus of it all made him one of the most listenable vocalists in the history of popular music.

I don't think that all translates over to instrumental music directly, but I do think that a whole set of things interact and combine in the person of the musician to make their performance, even in the studio, memorable.

Have you listened to Cash's early stuff (e.g., Sun sessions)? That's some great singing -- huge range, in tune, vibrato, dynamics, an ability to swing between scratchiness and clarity, between young and old. His first recording of "I walk the Line" at, what, 22? Man. But lifestyle took a toll on his voice relatively young.


John

[El Fundo]

I crack myself up. I bought a Strat last year and immediately started dialing it in to get as close as possible to the “ideal” tone in my head. Same with the guitars I’ve purchased recently; a Road Worn Tele (with Lollar ‘52s!), and my Godin Montreal Premiere I got just last week. The reason for having these different types of guitars is for versatility, for being ready for any type of gig or studio session. Some of the guitars may get a better rock, funk, blues, country sound than the others, but, at the end of the day, I really don’t care about those sounds, as practical as it is to be able to produce them when needed. But as soon as I get the new guitar home, there I go trying to make it sound like what I REALLY want: a beautiful, clean, warm, “perfect” jazz tone. My ES-275 get’s the closest. The less the other ones sound like THAT, the less they get played around the house. But they’re there when I need them. Life is just too short to master jazz, but I keep after it. And I really couldn’t care less about other styles, which I already do well enough to have made a living playing guitar for 42 years.