Is tone REALLY all in the hands?

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 5 Jan 2003 1:59 am

Recently I had the peassure of hearing Doug "Earnest Bovine" Livingston play on two occasions within a matter of just a day or two. The first time he played a Sho-Bud. The second, a Franklin.

Same hands, same amp. Completly different tone. The Sho-Bud had a thicker and deeper sound (which I personally prefer) The Franklin had a brighter and crisper tone. The difference between the 2 was kind of like the difference between the sound of a Les Paul with humbucking pickups and a Telecaster with single coils.

We hear a lot about how tone is in the hands, and I don't completely disagree, but I think the guitar, the pickup, the amp (and the way it is set) and even the kind of bar used also makes a big difference.

Comments?

Johan Jansen · Post by **Johan Jansen** » 5 Jan 2003 2:26 am

tone is in the player, sound is in the gear

JJ

------------------

Click on the pic!

Al Miller · Post by **Al Miller** » 5 Jan 2003 5:01 am

Johan!!
Not one of us here on the forum could have put that answer Any Better my frend .
Tone is something a select few are born with. sound is something All!!! of us can Buy!!
BOO

Bengt Erlandsen · Post by **Bengt Erlandsen** » 5 Jan 2003 5:20 am

Now if only a couple other players had been there and played those same guitars you would probably have heard that a lot comes from the hands but not everything.

Bengt

Frank Parish · Post by **Frank Parish** » 5 Jan 2003 6:51 am

I was wondering if anybody was going to come up with a topic for good conversation this year. Johan put it as good as I've heard and in short order too however what about this? Ever hear a guy play two different guitars and yet sound the same on each? That's not the case with me but I've heard that from several six string players. I use an Emmons p/p or a Sho-Bud through the same gear and there is a noticeable difference in tone. Both are good but different. If tone were only in the hands the rest of the gear wouldn't matter. I'd be using the lightest stuff I could find. I think tone comes down to the thickness of the speaker cabinets and the type of wood used as well as the speakers or any of the rest of your gear. It's all of that stuff. I read somewhere that birchwood was the most exceptable wood for speaker cabinets.

Post by **Joey Ace** » 5 Jan 2003 7:06 am

Absolutly not! If it was everyone would play the same brand thru the same setup.

It is a given that a skilled player is required, just as it is a given that a good cord is needed.

richard burton · Post by **richard burton** » 5 Jan 2003 8:17 am

A skilled player will only get the best tone that the steel is capable of giving.
An unskilled player will probably never get a good tone, no matter what steel is being played.

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 5 Jan 2003 10:08 am

All of your statements are true to a degree; but have missed the bullseye. The true source of tone comes from the mind and ear of the player. The player will move his hands, feet, and knees in an effort to deliver what his mind perceives to be "his best". He will also "consciously" seek out the hardware which will best aid his delivery. In other words, it takes both,___good hardware and good technique, to attain the best possible tone.

I believe it takes only nominal musical experience to recognize "good tone"; but much playing experience to deliver "good tone".

Excessive speed in playing and excessive volume have nothing to do with "good tone"; but many unaccomplished players attempt to substitute these two excesses for what they are unsure of in their delivery.

I believe the road to "good tone" is to practice (and play to your audience), as if you are, yourself, sitting in the audience and anticipating the best possible tone. And then you will do the things it takes to deliver it.

Rick

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 5 Jan 2003 10:11 am

Different guitars do sound different, as do different amps.

I played a country gig with my Williams and my Webb. A month later, I played with the same singer on a different country gig, using the Williams and my Mesa rack. The singer commented that I should have brought the Webb, because it sounds much "better" than the rack.

I had to admit he was right. The Williams doesn't match up well with the rack. My Sierra, on the other hand, sounds "better" with the rack than it does with the Webb.

Still, there's a lot to be said about tone being in the hands. Often I catch myself sounding brighter or darker on a passage than I expected, simply because my right hand position has drifted. An adjustment of picking angle or lateral position can make all the difference.

I also know that I can sit down at someone else's steel and get a totally different tone, without changing their amp settings. Usually I sound "worse" than them, which leads me to believe that tone is mostly in other players hands.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic), Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6), Roland Handsonic

Dave Birkett · Post by **Dave Birkett** » 5 Jan 2003 10:16 am

I agree with Mike. I think "tone" is poor diction. After all, can I adjust what you fellows are talking about with my tone knob? "Touch" would be a more accurate term. In fact, as our hispanophone members will tell you, the Spanish uses this verb for "play" when speaking of musical instruments.

Jimmie Misenheimer · Post by **Jimmie Misenheimer** » 5 Jan 2003 10:23 am

A good set of hands plays a guitar well. Equipment sounds like it sounds. If you have a rig that sounds like it has a nasal infection, and have an excelent player set and play it, you will have a "honkey" sounding guitar being played VERY WELL.
I was personally never a big fan of one of the most famous of all steelmen ever, because of the tone he seemed to always get. This was what he wanted, and it sure wasn't "wrong", it just wasn't what I preferred. Without a doubt one of the finest ever - I just didn't care for the sound of his equipment. If you set _________, you fill in the blank, at his guitar, it would STILL have the same tonal coloration. If you like it, fine. All that I am saying is, the sound - tone - texture, or timbre of certain types of equipment isn't going to change much from player to player.
Just my opinion - no harm, no foul...

Jimmie

Post by **Joey Ace** » 5 Jan 2003 10:26 am

Your Tele vs Les Paul analogy is right on, Mike. Though they sound different, each is perfect for certain tunes or stlyes.

Since you like the old MSA sound, I'm not surprized that you perfer the Sho-Bud to the Franklin. That's why I wondered in another post if you'd like the new MSA. I haven't heard it, but I understand it's sound is more modern.

I know my Carter has a modern sound, sort of Tele, and will not sound like a Sho-Bud or Fulawaka (Les Paul).

It'll be interesting to hear how the new "aged timber" Carters compare.

I had a Tele custom made to try to sound like a Les Paul or Tele in one guitar. It came close, but never as good as the real thing.

Still the player's skill and taste is the most important element.

Terry Edwards · Post by **Terry Edwards** » 5 Jan 2003 10:33 am

JJ nailed it! Imagine what Jimmy Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughan would have sounded like if they played Les Pauls instead of Stats. They would still have good tone but the sound and the resultant "style" would have been entirely different. To my ears Sho-Buds are like Gibson guitars and Emmons P-P are like Fender guitars in sound. And I believe the feel and sound of these guitars influence the way we play and eventually determine our "style".

Style = tone (technique) + sound (equipment)

Terry

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 5 Jan 2003 10:36 am

The Franklin sounded brighter because I used a buffer amp on a very short cord from the pickup. I wanted a thinner sound that night, because the band had two guitars plus steel.
The Sho-Bud sounded more mellow because I went from pickup to passive volume pedal to amp. I wanted to fill out the lower frequencies that night, because there were no guitars.

Both steels had Lawrence 712 pickup.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 5 Jan 2003 11:00 am

I still love Randy Beaver's statement, made here on the Forum a year or so ago, to the effect that tone is what happens when you've got your technique together well enough that your soul comes through.

This just rings true to me.

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 5 Jan 2003 11:48 am

Earnest, you get it. Bravo.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 5 Jan 2003 1:02 pm

Most of the "tone" is in the equipment, while the "technique" is in the hands! A lot of players confuse tone with technique and sound.

IMHO, Lloyd's playing isn't about tone at all. It's about technique...the perfect intonation (with that wonderful vibrato and slant-bar manipulation), the great sense of timing, the flawless right-hand execution, the beautiful voicings (with just the right blend of notes and chords), the expert volume pedal work, and...his imagination. To suggest that he couldn't sound as good, or play as well, on an Emmons, or any other good guitar, does nothing but cheapen his talents.

There is a great difference between the simplistic "tone", and the sum total of how a player sounds when he plays. Most of us would do well to forget about the "tone" thing, and just learn how to play better.

my2cents

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 5 Jan 2003 2:10 pm

Right on Donny.

James Quackenbush · Post by **James Quackenbush** » 5 Jan 2003 4:49 pm

My feelings are that there are many variables going on at the same time..Different steels have different tones...Different amps have different tones....
Then you factor in the different players with different techniques, and they all sound different...
So I say NO, it's not all in the hands, but the hands, and techniques, do play an important role...

Al Miller · Post by **Al Miller** » 5 Jan 2003 5:07 pm

Donny ,mike and all the others ..
Dont get me wrong I agree with everyones reply.But when I refer to "TONE" im not refering to sound or even a noise for that matter. its HEART ,SOUL, the thing that runs through your blood. some people are born with it and some are not PERIOD.. Now take Tom Kaufman for example that boy has TONE running through his viens . this guy is blind and peels of licks that would make LLoyd green himself stand up and take notice Now thats tone....

BOO

Willis Vanderberg · Post by **Willis Vanderberg** » 5 Jan 2003 5:53 pm

Why doesn't killer sound or tone or whatever stay the same ?I sound good in one place and the same equipment sounds blah in the next venue .I am playing a LeGrande 111.and can't even come close to the sound of most other guitars.This doesn't really bother me as I like the LeGrande.I definately can't get the highs like a Mullen does.I have two Nashville 400's , a new Evans SE 200 and a Emmons LeGrande six hundred.They all sound good in some places and not so good in others.I do notice they all sound better with no lead guitars on the premises.

Bud

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 5 Jan 2003 6:42 pm

I sound good in one place and the same equipment sounds blah in the next venue .

All things being equal, there are a lot of extraneous factors that affect how we sound beyond how loud the rest of the band is playing: the shape of the room, how much clear hardwood in front of your amp, how many people (each human absorbs 1 sabine of sound( you can think of them as large bags of water (for the misanthropes among us)))... it's why the stereo speakers you just bought sounded better in the store than in your living room and why they sound different again when you relocate them.

If I don't sound good, I blame it on the: carpet, ceiling, bass player, Republican Party....

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 5 Jan 2003 6:58 pm

Tone=soul?

Well Boo, we'll just have to "agree to disagree", then! But maybe I can illustrate for you...the difference between "tone" and "soul". When people people talk of "soulful" singers, like Hank Sr., Peggy Lee, Ray Charles, Billy Holiday,or Patsy Cline...nobody ever mentions their "tone", do they?

Soul is painting the musical canvas using a brush filled with feeling, expression, and emotion. Even a singer like Jimmy Durante had it in his version of "September Song".

But his "tone" wasn't all that good! [This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 05 January 2003 at 06:59 PM.]

Johan Jansen · Post by **Johan Jansen** » 6 Jan 2003 2:07 am

To me, tone and soul are the same, and synonymous words in music. You can also talk about 'musical personality.'It's still the same person, wearing another costume.
With a singer you talk about soul and timbre, with an instrument about tone and timbre, or tone and sound.
I also agree by what Jim Cohen mentioned.If a soul speaks through the instrument, then you have music.And that's a long way of study, practice and most of all , talent. But all things need to be on the right place (an instrument with all the amp gimmicks) and the right time. If I hear Buddy Emmons, I recognise his TONE, whether he plays an Emmons, Sierra, Derby,Fender, or MSA. He may have another sound, but the soul will always be recognised. The same for players, like,Paul F, Tommy W, Curly C, Bruce B, Lloyd G, Joe W etc. Those are souls that are playing, getting a tone!!!!!!!

Mike Perlowin · Post by **Mike Perlowin** » 6 Jan 2003 3:45 am

I think we're not in agreement on the definition of tone. I think it's the sound that's produced. Things like technigue, emotional depth, command of the instrument, etc all contribute to the quality of the music, but that's not what I think of as defining the word tone.

Basically I agree with Donny.