Page 9 of 15

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 9:13 am
by Dave Mudgett
<SMALL>Once a string is plucked, the musicians I work with and admire, NEVER stop manipulating the string for tonal purposes.</SMALL>
Thank you, Paul - that is what I was trying to say, but my engineering background got in the way of communicating in plain English. That is what I refer to when I contrast a "driven" oscillatory system from a "free" one.

On a steel, one has the bar to continue this tonal manipulation long after the string is plucked. On guitar, one has left-hand movements to do the same.

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 9:30 am
by Gene Jones
*<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 29 November 2006 at 07:45 AM.]</p></FONT>

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 10:11 am
by Steve Waltz
Don't some people have anything better to do than argue so that they sound like they "are" somebody? Get a life! I'm trying to learn something here and I can't do it while the pissing match is going on.

I want to learn how I might get different sounds out of my guitar from my right and left hands. Can you help me? There have been about four posts that gave actual advise on how to achieve this. Thank you.

Last night I tried some things. I get different sounds mostly from where I pick on the neck and how hard. I can't seem to get any other changes form the other things mentioned. I tried different pick angles and I don't think I'm doing it right because I only hear a little grittiness added from the edge of the pick on the wound strings. I tried bar pressure and I can't get a change. I tried things behind the bar and nothing worked. I tried bar pressure as in how hard I hold it and there seems to be a bit there.
I guess I'll try the extreme amp setting mentinoed earlier that causes you to make up for an intentional lack of high or low end.

Does anyone have any other suggestions for learning how to get different sounds? I'm being vague about "sounds" because you all know what I'm talking about and we don't need to argue about what to call it.

I don't know everything and I'm proud to say it. It's good to listen and learn.


Steve <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Steve Walz on 22 November 2006 at 10:13 AM.]</p></FONT>

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 10:15 am
by Donny Hinson
Well (to stay on topic), I must say that I agree with Reece. I think the player <u>does</u> affect the basic "tone" of the guitar. He does this in the way he excites the string. (I'm taking the left hand entirely out of the equation, so as not to produce any arguments.) Improvement of sound cannot happen without consistent playing technique. If you don't play the same way, you won't get the same result (i.e., the same sound), it's as simple as that. So, I feel the "sound", all we hear, is really composed of only two basic things; the player (his technique), and the equipment used. Each instrument has an inherent individual timbre, or toe, or "sound". That's true, but the timbre, that sound or tone, that combination of complex harmonics that gives each instrument individuality, can most certainly be changed! It's changed by the picking technique; the speed, the force, and the position of the right hand, will change how the note sounds. Ed Packard has done studies on how playing at nodes can the change harmonic structure of a single note. Any time you change the harmonic structure, you're changing the way the note sounds. The overtones, to a large extent, determine the individual sound of the instrument. Change the overtones, and you change the sound. Change the sound, and you're changing the tone (volume changes excepted). Sure, the instrument, be it a steel or a straight guitar, may sound quite similar with different players. But, IMHO, it will almost never sound <u>exactly</u> alike with two different players...unless their playing technique is identical.
<SMALL>That one note will have the inherent tone of the instrument.</SMALL>
I disagree. You cannot determine the inherent tone of an instrument based on one note. If another player plays the same one note (using a different technique), and gets a different sound, the tone had to have changed in some way.

Also, with Bobby's statement...
<SMALL>I can say with confidence that most players will sound at least as bad playing through my rig as I do.</SMALL>
I can only conclude this was a tongue-in-cheek remark. Bobby, if you're serious, and you've never heard a really great player playing your own rig, I urge you to do it, should the occasion ever arise.

And prepare to be amazed (as I have been a couple of times...doing just that).

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 10:41 am
by David L. Donald
As I noted earlier in the thread;
strings have different harmonic responces
at different places on the strings.
Those places also move close to the changer,
and narrower in their relative distances,
as you bar up the neck.

Many I suspect move their hand slightly closer or farther
from the changer to get GLOBAL sound changes.

But this is equally valid when going from low to high strings.
As well as slight variations relative to bar position.

How many actively move their hand toward the changer
as they bar notes for lower pitches,
or lower strings,

and away from the changer for higher strings or higher pitched bar positions?

Or move their thumb lightly closer to the changer
when playing lower strings?

---------------------------------
Paul F. nice to see you here also.

Someone mentioned that they were getting
something aproximating your tone on record,
in their live playing.

I am curious what percantage of your recordings
do you think get into the ball park for reproducing the tone you are making
when you play, or your prefered live tone.
Rough guess if you please.
(But ignore this i you please also Image )

Or if you can reccomend a recording that MOST captures
what you are looking for through the recording chain.

-------------------------------------
Tonmeister Degrees really only existed in Germany
until the last few decades.
And then mostly for classical music heads.
The AES Audio Engineering Society took up most of the slack,
but it was much more a technical forum as an artistic one.

Most other countries just trained players, and you talked you way into a studio in the old aprentice way,
and read a few books.

Berklee didn't really even have a recording technique program until the 80's.
Someone there asked me to teach it a few times,
but I had no time nor inclination for that matter.

So most of the 'trained engineers' got their
practical experience in the trenches as it were.
It was only after some long term cross pollination of techical engineering
and classically train composers
working together with the aim of devising
a cross dialog they BOTH could understand,
that the musicallity and engineering
of music reproduction joined forces.

Addthe research efforts of certain universities,
and IRCAM in Paris, where I did some work.
This was more research than training though.

One thing was always clear;

Bad technique could not be over ridden by fantastic engineering.

But good engineering could at least, and AT BEST,
aproximate the original artists performance.

If the artist's had poor hands or a marginal vocal instrument,
No electronic designing or modification of reproduction could make up for that...
Pitch tracking softwere included.

This includes your steel pickup, through to your speaker cab holding a driver.

How you lip fits the mouth piece, stick fits in the hand,
or you hold your pick, and quaver your bar, is crucial to good sound.
<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 22 November 2006 at 10:50 AM.]</p></FONT>

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 10:42 am
by Junior Knight
Just my cent and 1/2..
Does tone come from your hands? Gary Hogue played Emmons guitars for a long time through diffrent amps and got mainly the same GREAT tone! I have set in on his rig and sounded *^&%$#@!!!!! (BAD).To Me! He would play my rig and to him he sounded bad.
Sounded great to me!! I have heard him play a Sho-Bud maverick and sound like Gary Hogue. He played other guitars over the years and got mainly the same tone. 30 yrs of hearing Gary told me 1 thing: YES...tone is in the hands..for the most part!
You can disagree all you want to..but..REESE is RIGHT in my book!

------------------
Bb is where it's at!



Posted: 22 Nov 2006 10:52 am
by Junior Knight
Just my cent and 1/2..
Does tone come from your hands? Gary Hogue played Emmons guitars for a long time through diffrent amps and got mainly the same GREAT tone! I have set in on his rig and sounded *^&%$#@!!!!! (BAD).To Me! He would play my rig and to him he sounded bad.
Sounded great to me!! I have heard him play a Sho-Bud maverick and sound like Gary Hogue. He played other guitars over the years and got mainly the same tone. 30 yrs of hearing Gary told me 1 thing: YES...tone is in the hands..for the most part!
You can disagree all you want to..but..REESE is RIGHT in my book!

------------------
Bb is where it's at!



Posted: 22 Nov 2006 11:02 am
by John McGann
<SMALL>Berklee didn't really even have a recording technique program until the 80's.</SMALL>
Not true, actually, my friend DD, I took some recording/engineering courses in 1977-79. I know the studios had been there for years before that...

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 11:07 am
by Mike Shefrin
I graduated from Berklee in 1977. I believe the recording studio was built in 75 or 76.
Sorry for the topic drift.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Mike Shefrin on 23 November 2006 at 07:36 AM.]</p></FONT>

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 12:15 pm
by Waisznor
---<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Waisznor on 24 November 2006 at 03:56 AM.]</p></FONT>

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 12:17 pm
by Jim Sliff
"Once a string is plucked, the musicians I work with and admire, NEVER stop manipulating the string for tonal purposes."

Paul, just to clarify, that isn't what I said at all. If you re-read what I think you referring to I was talking about a non-manipulated string.

The short version: when the string is NOT manipulated via bar pressure, vibrato, etc, after it is struck the string maintains a vibration at equilibrium (We can tosss in decaying factor, but that's part of the instrument again under these conditions). Those manupulations, when applied, affect the sound....but the fundamental tone of the instrument is still the same.

Dave - I'm not saying tone begins with the hands. It's there, lying in state, before you strike anything. When you pick a string you activate it - and that picking action does have an affect on the souhnd, but the inherent tone of the instrument is not changed.

If it was, every player would just need to play a guitar they like the looks of with a good mechanical system, because they could manipulate the tone significantly enough to make it sound like whatever they want.

Reece's list is interesting, and valid. Those factors definitely help define a player's style and sound. But the tone of the instrument is what you have to work with, and some are more easily manipulated than others. You CAN'T ignore the inherent tone of the instrument, and that's what invalidates the whole "tone is in the hands" premise (note: Not Reece's tone "begins" with the hands statement). But the "begins" statement is also false IMO, since the instrument has a tone to start with, and that's where it ALL begins. All you hands can do is tweak it.

Metal vs wood; rosewood vs maple; Ginger vs Mary Ann....inherent differences.

"I disagree. You cannot determine the inherent tone of an instrument based on one note. If another player plays the same one note (using a different technique), and gets a different sound, the tone had to have changed in some way."

That's totally false and has been proven scientifically - go buy a book on acoustics and string oscillation.

Once it's in motion the tone is the same *after* the initial strike (as I mentioned earlier, which affects the initial sound...but STILL not the fundamental tone) - whether you're sitting there, me, Paul, or a cow makes no difference. A vibrating, non-manuipulated string on an instrument doesn't change tone based on who's within 2 feet. Try reading what I actually said. Some of the made-up interpretations are downright laughable.

I don't even know what you guys are arguing about - I said I agree generally with Reece's comments about certain factors having an affect - the ONLY difference of opinion is in where it starts. Any decent instrument maker can describe the tone of an instrument they make to you. It doesn't go to zero, only to be usurped by the hands. An instrument has a fundamental tone, period, and THAT's where it starts. The hands manipulate it.

Those who are saying "I can't learn anything with all this discussion going on" might well be advised to read all of it and learn about acoustics, string vibration and tone, as well as hand manipulation of it. It ALL fits together - you can't seperate them.

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 12:42 pm
by Joe Miraglia
My Hands + My Brain + My Mind and Soul = My Tone. Like a finger print or a DNA it's me. I'm the only one with My Tone, it may be a tone no one else likes, but it's mine. Joe www.willowcreekband.com

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 12:50 pm
by c c johnson
Many moons ago while sitting in Reeces office at the factory in South Oak Cliff with Reece, Jerry,and two or three other people; the topic of tone came up. I had never realized this but Reece said on every guitar there is a place between the nut and the bridge where you can pick and the guitar will sound its best. I have tried this on all my guitars and sho-nuff Reece was right.cc

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 1:01 pm
by Twayn Williams
I'd say there are 3 main emphasis areas for tonal manipulation:

1. vibrato
2. pick attack
3. distance from the bridge (changer), both left and right hands

None of these are really important though. What's really important is listening.

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 1:17 pm
by Joe Miraglia
All the suggestions mentioned above will affect my tone. I like to use the word "sound". Along with practice and knowledge of the instrument will improve the sound. I have a question--What sound are we trying to achieve? Please give me an example. Joe

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 1:23 pm
by Steve Waltz
Jim,

I didn't say that I can't learn anything because of all of the "discussion" going on here. I said I can't learn much because of the "pissing match" that is going on here.

I see the original topic as a discussion of what you can do with the bar and your hands. I just want to hear about about that. What is so wrong with that? What do you have to offer about how to use the picks and the bar beyond what you have already said? Please give me some examples of what techniques you use for different sounds. But do not lecture me about rereading your posts. It's statements like that that make you sound like a self made know it all which is not a good thing. Read Bobby S.'s new email letter and ask yourself who he is talking about.

I hope the guy from Germany is not telling me to stop playing steel because I'm asking for ways to achive what so many people on this thread have said, that tone is in the hands. Please...
Steve

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 1:36 pm
by Jim Sliff
Steve - I offered some opinions - some of those agreed with Reece, some didn't. The ones that didn't apprently caused some factions to go off on some kind of crusade.

I've been pretty consistent in what I've said, and it all relates to the subject at hand.

If your particular techniques are not working after you've read the thread, I would suggest finding a good teacher. By seeing you in action, a good instructor can find things for your to correct or improve that are almost impossible to interpret in writing.

I hope that helps.

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 3:47 pm
by Reece Anderson
Jim S....Did you by chance consider Johnny Cox's earlier post. The true story he told about Chet Atkins (which I had heard before)was/is a "shot to the heart".

I honestly have not seen a view posted as yet which sucessfully defends the contrary.

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 4:07 pm
by Sidney Malone
Maybe another approach would be for us to rewind back to when we first started playing steel and remember how bad it sounded. Then as we gained experience and developed our technique on the items in Reece's list, our sound/tone slowly started improving into what it is today.

I'm sure Reece & other teachers see's/hears this on nearly a daily basis while teaching. A beginner, using the same equipment, gaining experience with the items on the list and his/her, sound/tone improving all along.

If I could choose between one of the top pro's hands/touch or their equipment, I would choose the hands without question. I know the equipment makes a difference but I see it more of a way to "shape" or "fine tune" the tone coming from the player.


Steve....I've found that being conscience of the items on Reece's list and knowing how each affect the tone will allow you to experiment, as it sounds you have been doing, with your technique. Spending time with your hands on the guitar with these things in mind, will shape "your" personal tone.

This goes deeper than I have the ability to explain, but somehow the mind will control the muscles to attain the sound/tone your wanting to hear. This don't happen overnight! It takes a long time for some like me and not as long for others. Just knowing (programming the mind) that these things on the list will affect tone will take you a long way (in due time) to the sound/tone your looking for.
<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Sidney Malone on 22 November 2006 at 04:17 PM.]</p></FONT>

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 4:22 pm
by Bobby Lee
One thing that always amazes me is this: when I sit down to play, I sound bad. The tone just isn't right, I'm out of tune (even though I just tuned the guitar), etc. It's just wrong.

Then aften a couple of songs everything's all right. My tone is there. I'm in tune and in time. I haven't changed anything, but my hands are back in "the zone".

I think that this is the component of tone that Reece and others are are talking about. As they say, tone starts in the hands. If your hands aren't happening, you're never going to get the tone you long to hear.

To me, the most important aspects of the "hand tone" are:

1) pick angle (for cleanliness)
2) right hand placement (for fullness)
3) control of the strings behind the bar

The bar placement to sound "in tune" is important to the player's satisfaction, but it's not a part of the definition of "tone" or "timbre", so I tend to eliminate it from "tone" discussions.

------------------
<font size="1"><img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog </font>
<div style="display:none">

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 5:25 pm
by Mike Wheeler
Wouldn't you agree that playing a steel with any degree of proficiency is akin to an athletic activity. So, you'ld need to "warm up" before beginning the event.

I had to do hand and arm excercises backstage before I could expect to hit the stage running, so to speak. Then I'd be good to go from the first note.

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 5:39 pm
by Donny Hinson
Jim,

First off...

Without hands, the instrument (or string, if you care) has no tone. Until someone actually plays it, you can't know anything about it's tone, or it's sound. You may be able to make a crude approximation of it's resonant frequency, if certain data are known; i.e. tension, length, diameter.

But without someone (or something) actually playing, picking, or whatever, there is no sound.

No sound, no tone.

It's a proven scientific fact that if a linear string is plucked at a position that is exactly at the node of a harmonic mode, that node will not be excited, and the missing node will be reflected when the waveform of the note is viewed. In other words, the harmonic structure (the tone) will change, depending on where the string is plucked.

You keep arguing that "once the string is in motion...etc., etc., etc.." We hear you! Alright already!

But...what sets the string in motion?

The player.

BINGO!

And...depending on how the string is set in motion, a characteristic sound, a characteristic tone, a characteristic timbre, will result.

Set the string in motion in a different manner, and the characteristic sound, the characteristic tone, the characteristic timber, will be different.

Don't take my word for it, buy an oscilloscope and try it yourself. Image

A change in the input (the way the string is excited) causes a change in the output (the resulting tone). It's as simple as that.

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 5:59 pm
by Johnny Harris
Opening post from Reece:
"Most will agree tone begins with the hands, so I will confine my thoughts only to that which comes in contact with the strings. (hands, bar and picks)"

I think what Reece intended is to create a thread that we all could learn something here from the Masters' of this instrument. I do very much appreciate what some of the extremely good players have had to contribute, and would love to hear more from Reece, Randy, Johnny,Paul & Jr. as well as any others that may have a contribution, ON TOPIC.
However,I can see why these guys don't want to post by the way this post has been dragged off-topic.It is very clear in the original post what Reece meant to accomplish.
He didn't want to start a debate of who agrees or doesn't agree that tone starts with the hands. It isn't a poll of wheather most do or most don't agree. The tropic should be confined to the "Hands", and hopefully we will re-gain some enlightening posts from the "Masters".
And Jim S:
Please don't ask me to re-read your posts. I have, and you are and have been way off-topic.
I can totally relate to b0b's last post, but can you explain how to find "that zone" when it eludes you all evening?

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 6:13 pm
by Chris LeDrew
"If a tree falls in the forest...?" Now we're getting somewhere.

Image

That Chet Atkins story is definitely a great way of getting across the point of a guitar having no tone unless it's actually played. But if I was the guy who complimented Chet on his guitar sound, I surely wouldn't have complimented him on his modesty and humility after getting an answer like that. Imagine being jealous of your own guitar?

Posted: 22 Nov 2006 6:27 pm
by Eric West
A lot of guys my age really knew in their hearts that they should have liked Mary Ann, but I gotta admit that even all covered up in the perennial evening gown...

I always liked Ginger..

I guess, and the original points Reece posted, seem to put the type of guitar, pickups, amp, etc as being secondary to how you play it.

Possibly the "balls" of playing is as Mr Charleton, (and Bob H seemed to echo,) taught me. To play as hard and with as much definition and feeling as you can, use the bar to "work" the sustain instead of "wiggling it around spastically", and not to count on the amplification to take the place of the aforementioned. That's what I got out of a couple years of lessons with him anyhow.

It's worked to my satisfaction playing steady live gigs for the following thirty years..

I can't wait for the "Elements of Tune."

I have a couple free days....

Image

EJL<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Eric West on 22 November 2006 at 08:43 PM.]</p></FONT>