Descriptive Terms for Tone?

[lawson-stone]

Like any musician playing an instrument in which we directly shape the actual creation of the notes (unlike, say, piano), guitarists are tone addicts.

We jazz players particularly relish thinking about tone, teaching for the right tone.

I really wish we had some kind of decent, helpful descriptive vocabulary for various kinds of tone found in jazz guitar playing. We typically describe tone in a couple of ways.

We sometimes simply name a player: "That Wes tone" or "the early Jim hall" etc.

Other times we associate it with a particular instrument: "That ES175 sound"

Other times we use terms that basically are "I know it when I hear it" terms: dark, bright, "thunk" etc. I even once heard someone describe one guitarists' tone as "pear shaped." Really? shaped like a pear? I also heard of a pickup that someone said was "honky." To their credit, they explained to me what they meant, which helped.

I have some that even worse. There's a certain sound I like that I call "snurly." Yeah, that's right. It combines "snarl" and "pearl" and I sort of like it. It also vaguely sounds like the tone I"m thinking of. But seriously, I doubt you'd be able to pick out "snurly" tone just from my description. It works for me, and if you heard it, you'd probably be able to link it, but the term itself is not really that helpful (except to me of course).

So I wish we had some terms that were more descriptive. Each of the types above has shortcomings. "WHAT ES175 through WHAT amp?" What period of Jim Hall? That's not "real" "thunk." Other times seriously someone will not accept the tone as "right" unless it comes from a certain guitar and amp.

What about some truly descriptive terms for tone? I'm not sure how to do this, except that I think we need to forget about linking it to specific players or equipment, since these are variable and mediated also through the recording methods and media of earlier days.

I also am not sure a scientific/technical terminology works. Is it possible to have a genuinely musical, "player-ly" set of terms for jazz guitar tone that we could all generally agree on as to what they refer to?

What are your favorite descriptive terms for jazz guitar tone? How do you describe your favorite tone to someone who doesn't listen to jazz guitar? How would you describe your preference for a certain tone to someone who love music but maybe wasn't into jazz guitar?

I have thought about just playing, say, a 16 measure section on every guitar I own, posting the audio, and just asking for descriptions of the tone. Not guessing what instrument, not saying it's "good" just describing the tone quality.

Interested to hear what you have to say!

[mr. beaumont]

In my opinion. Onomatopaeia is most helpful, food references are least.

So thunk...snarl...bark...yep, makes sense.

Buttery? Shut up.

[Nate Miller]

it has never ceased to amaze me how musicians can have some very deep thoughts on subjects that, to the uninitiated, appear to be trivial matters.

Talking about a common standard vocabulary for describing tone for the purposes of communicating ideas on the matter between peers and for teaching students.

I'm impressed. A topic truly worthy of a Friday at the office before a big snowstorm.

[lawson-stone]

it has never ceased to amaze me how musicians can have some very deep thoughts on subjects that, to the uninitiated, appear to be trivial matters.

Talking about a common standard vocabulary for describing tone for the purposes of communicating ideas on the matter between peers and for teaching students.

I'm impressed. A topic truly worthy of a Friday at the office before a big snowstorm.

For what it's worth, I can't even get to my office because of the snow, so I'm working (cough, cough) from home…

I've just been doing some pickup replacements and other little mods on my guitars, so I've been thinking about tone. "Will I really get a sufficiently better tone to tear out what I currently have (which isn't really bad) and bring my B- soldering skills to the table and spend this money and chew up this time, and will it really be worth it?

Putting the 12 pole Kent Armstrong Johnny Smith pickup on my Loar LH650… totally worth it! Adding a tone control to same, yeah, worth it.

Decided that tearing out all the wiring and pots from my Epiphone Broadway was NOT worth it, but still changing the pickups and I have to replace the selector.

All of which circles around TONE. What am I looking for? How can I describe it?

[lawson-stone]

I can imagine a couple of things we might want to think about. Here I have in mind single-note lines, not chords:

• Attack: how does the note start? Sharp? Smooth? other terms?
• Sustain: how and how long does it ring?
• Complexity? Heck, I dunno. Sometimes treble is hard on the ears, sometimes it's softer. Same note, same volume. Why?
• Compression: some classic jazz guitar playing has a kind of "tight" feel.
• Decay: maybe this is what I really mean about sustain.
• Boomy bass or not?
• Woody: is it more acoustic sounding, or moving more toward electric?
• Stringy: Twang or Not? I sometimes think some guitarists are striving more toward a kind of flute-like sound.

Consider this more of a conversation starter, maybe even a cry for help!

[Nate Miller]

I've been thinking about this since I saw the thread a little bit ago....

the idea of a player centric sort of language isn't a bad idea, but whoever you are communicating with would need to be familiar with whatever player, and like you pointed out, even what period of that player's work...

now, one thought I had was to look at it from the perspective of information theory. If we want to communicate an idea, then we have to examine the parameters of the phenomenon we want to describe, and then see what terms can convey those parameter descriptions

From that standpoint, when I think about tone, I think about sound itself. I use words like "round" to mean the note has the high frequencies rolled off a bit and the mid range is strong. The sound is like a big round hollow chime? ...well, sort of.

It is actually not as trivial as the average civilian would imagine. I think we really are in a tough spot because the convention of the English language really seems to fall short. So many of the words that I want to use are so subjective that they are nearly meaningless. Its like I am reaching in my toolbox to make a fine adjustment and all I'll pulling out is hammers and vice grips and a monkey wrench

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

"haunting mids"

[lawson-stone]

I've been thinking about this since I saw the thread a little bit ago....

the idea of a player centric sort of language isn't a bad idea, but whoever you are communicating with would need to be familiar with whatever player, and like you pointed out, even what period of that player's work...

now, one thought I had was to look at it from the perspective of information theory. If we want to communicate an idea, then we have to examine the parameters of the phenomenon we want to describe, and then see what terms can convey those parameter descriptions

From that standpoint, when I think about tone, I think about sound itself. I use words like "round" to mean the note has the high frequencies rolled off a bit and the mid range is strong. The sound is like a big round hollow chime? ...well, sort of.

It is actually not as trivial as the average civilian would imagine. I think we really are in a tough spot because the convention of the English language really seems to fall short. So many of the words that I want to use are so subjective that they are nearly meaningless. Its like I am reaching in my toolbox to make a fine adjustment and all I'll pulling out is hammers and vice grips and a monkey wrench

That's why I tried above to throw out a few points where description might be possible. Attack, for example, can be described pretty well. Doesn't matter why or how, but notes start certain ways that presumably can be described. I think we'd do well also to think about the kind of "gauzy" or fuzzy or soft, even "muffled" (my wife's term) quality we often note about jazz guitar playing--just what is that? What descriptive, pretty much neutral term would capture that?

Sustain and decay also, I think, could be described.

Then the fun part would be to package these. So a soft attack, complex, non-stringy flute-like timbre, a kind of gauzy or soft middle, with more compression at the treble end, and quick decay… maybe one term for that?

then again, re-reading that, who in the world would actually hear that in their head after I said it?

Analogies and metaphors?

[Nate Miller]

I have a feeling this would be easier to quantify mathematically then it is trying to quantify the parameters of tone with English.

so maybe one way to go about it would be to establish the basic parameters...

I like how you pointed out the attack and decay. Those both have a temporal element to them, so that's a good start. There's also the element of the sound between attack and decay that I will call the "Steady State" (term is borrowed from transient analysis in electronic engineering)

So there is the attack, the "steady state", and the decay

I can't think of anything else about tone that has a temporal element

and then there has to be some way of describing the frequency components. The EQ as it were

but what else is there that goes into the sound itself that we would need to develop descriptive language for?

[lawson-stone]

I hear a lot of terms used by folks whose judgment and discernment I really admire, terms like "thunk" and "dark" etc. I think they are getting at a kind of complexity of the sound? What exactly are we looking for when we roll off the tone control? I don't think we want "less" treble, but we want a different kind of treble. Jack Zucker talks about "screw-driver in the ear" treble, which nobody wants. But we want good highs.

Right now I'm listening to Joe Pass playing "Douce Ambience" on the album Appasionato. Playing pretty much acoustic, and I can tell it's archtop acoustic. Why? What's different from flat-top acoustic?

[lawson-stone]

Uhh... No.... ;-)

[Duotone]

I can imagine a couple of things we might want to think about. Here I have in mind single-note lines, not chords:

• Attack: how does the note start? Sharp? Smooth? other terms?
• Sustain: how and how long does it ring?
• Complexity? Heck, I dunno. Sometimes treble is hard on the ears, sometimes it's softer. Same note, same volume. Why?
• Compression: some classic jazz guitar playing has a kind of "tight" feel.
• Decay: maybe this is what I really mean about sustain.
• Boomy bass or not?
• Woody: is it more acoustic sounding, or moving more toward electric?
• Stringy: Twang or Not? I sometimes think some guitarists are striving more toward a kind of flute-like sound.

Consider this more of a conversation starter, maybe even a cry for help!

Savouring the complexities of tone is like tasting whisky. So tools developed on this field might also be suitable for describing tone:

[docbop]

Like any musician playing an instrument in which we directly shape the actual creation of the notes (unlike, say, piano), guitarists are tone addicts.

We jazz players particularly relish thinking about tone, teaching for the right tone.

I wouldn't say that's a Jazz thing more of Guitarist tend to be Gear Slutz (to steal a site name), always on the quest to find something to spend money on. As I've said before if in the 50's you be car slutz hot rodding cars, but with today cars being illegal or too computerized interest has move to guitars. But I don't think everyone is on the endless quest for tone many are in search of the lost chord or the perfect note for the moment.

Okay now that I've ticked off most of you.....

I would says some of things you are calling tone or more about note production. Jazz guitarist as compared to rock are more focused on legato, dynamics, and picking for note production which to me are more about musicality than tone.

[grahambop]

Savouring the complexities of tone is like tasting whisky. So tools developed on this field might also be suitable for describing tone

I strive for a leathery, peaty tone, aged in cigarette smoke absorbed in nightclub walls for 10 years, with just a hint on the nose of hot dusty valves, gently toasted in a vintage Fender amp to which has been added a complex bouquet of spilt beer.

[Robertkoa]

I think a lot of those descriptive terms are fun but I think we can point to a specific Player on a specific Video or two and get or give a really good idea about what we mean.

Even famous " Tone" Guys like Eric Johnson reference Keith Richards and early Clapton etc.

And there are so many great clean tones- clean is more the notes are doing the work- where some distortion is all tension no release .

I really like the Tones a lot of Guys get from ES 175s but OP is so right- there is huge variance in Tones from that Guitar.

So I think if asking how do I get similar Tones to__________ you have to reference a few Videos and Recordings- everybody will get it.

I heard some great Tones from a Forum Member on Soundcloud-

Some of my favorite Tones aren't always
famous people...current best Amps and the best Modelers smoke most Amps from the 50's 60's and even 70's IMO so a great time for Tone..

My vote is snap, pop ,crackle, dark, for fun but reference some Recordings or Videos..with Headphones even these better Android or iPhones give you a good idea of the Tones.

It's very interesting on the 175 -some Players are more dry and percussive and
others are more sustain-y and legato , like Kreisburg...

[christianm77]

My guitar tone reeks of pachouli

[docbop]

My guitar tone reeks of pachouli

Aw I remember those days too well.

[lawson-stone]

I wouldn't say that's a Jazz thing more of Guitarist tend to be Gear Slutz (to steal a site name), always on the quest to find something to spend money on. As I've said before if in the 50's you be car slutz hot rodding cars, but with today cars being illegal or too computerized interest has move to guitars. But I don't think everyone is on the endless quest for tone many are in search of the lost chord or the perfect note for the moment.

Okay now that I've ticked off most of you.....

I would says some of things you are calling tone or more about note production. Jazz guitarist as compared to rock are more focused on legato, dynamics, and picking for note production which to me are more about musicality than tone.

But we still talk about tone. We say "I want that dark sound Jim Hall got" or "I want that sweet mid that Wes got" or "Only the ES175 really has 'thunk'" so regardless of why you think we talk about it (really, just to buy stuff?) the fact is we do talk seriously about tone as if there are a handful of basic qualities that we all know about.

I just think it would be fun to try to describe those. Maybe even helpful. And sure, I've said earlier the playing itself has a lot to do with it, but the guitar, pickup, strings, amp, also play a role.

What's the harm in thinking about the effect of those variables?

[lawson-stone]

Savouring the complexities of tone is like tasting whisky. So tools developed on this field might also be suitable for describing tone:

Wow. I was just, you know, wanting a little definition for "dark" or "thunk."

But hey, I like it.

[lawson-stone]

Savouring the complexities of tone is like tasting whisky. So tools developed on this field might also be suitable for describing tone:

Coming from the heart-land of Kentucky Bourbon, I find this especially helpful. Don't forget the white-oak casks! Whiskey espressed from being soaked into the wood of those casks has its own qualities.

[docbop]

But we still talk about tone. We say "I want that dark sound Jim Hall got" or "I want that sweet mid that Wes got" or "Only the ES175 really has 'thunk'" so regardless of why you think we talk about it (really, just to buy stuff?) the fact is we do talk seriously about tone as if there are a handful of basic qualities that we all know about.

I just think it would be fun to try to describe those. Maybe even helpful. And sure, I've said earlier the playing itself has a lot to do with it, but the guitar, pickup, strings, amp, also play a role.

What's the harm in thinking about the effect of those variables?

I don't think I said stop talking did I. I went on to say that some of those things are more a result of note production than gear. I get we could get into what gear is best for playing minor seconds, what doesn't wobble too much?

[lawson-stone]

I don't think I said stop talking did I. I went on to say that some of those things are more a result of note production than gear. I get we could get into what gear is best for playing minor seconds, what doesn't wobble too much?

You did not indeed, and I spoke out of a little defensiveness. I'm assuming of course that tone and the most important stuff is in our hands and hearts. One thing I used to tell my students when I taught guitar many years ago, though, was that you need the best gear you can afford, especially as a beginner/intermediate player, so that when you actually get it right, the guitar won't let you down.

A master can make any POS sound great.

I am not a master. I need good gear! ;-)

[Robertkoa]

My guitar tone reeks of pachouli

Perfect...mix some of those Indian Rhythms with that Gypsy Style you are playing and should be very exotic with the pachouli ...lol.

Even Bireli Lagrene does not have "pachouli" Tones.

[kofblz]

Practice your arpeggios for better tone.

[christianm77]

Perfect...mix some of those Indian Rhythms with that Gypsy Style you are playing and should be very exotic with the pachouli ...lol.

Even Bireli Lagrene does not have "pachouli" Tones.

I think that might have to be the name of my next project... the Pachouli Tones...

What you have described is not a million miles away from one of my projects actually haha.