Guitar Tone - Who would have ever imagined?

[t4mh]

I guess the only other thing I would add to the discussion is that if it didn't sound good, I wouldn't use it...simple

Keith

[ernstinen]

Keith,

I can totally identify with what you just wrote! I recently attended a few jams, and one guy had a Line 6 that modeled every amp in existence. It sounded great! Then, later, I heard a blues jam in a club where there were 3 guitarists. Two of the dudes had big, loud tube amps, and they sounded like sh!t. The third guy played a real nice vintage guitar, had a nice playing style, and sounded great. But his amp was a little Fender. All were unmiked. But the third guy cut through the mix as well as anybody else on stage.

During the break, I walked up to the third guy. "What's your Fender amp? It sounds GREAT!" He said "It's a 15 watt Fender Blues Jr."

So, there ya go. It IS the interaction, basically, of the guitar, your fingers, and your ears. No equipment can compromise that main point.

I know that a better guitar, amp, speakers, pick etc. will make a difference. But it's essentially your talent, and your "ears" on HOW you set up your rig. No one call tell you that better than yourself. THAT, my friends, is to me the art of electric guitar.

Off my soapbox,

Ern

[mazz]

it's the same with any instrument. There's a classic story of a bunch of piano players at a party and Bill Evans was one of them. Now Bill Evans was renowned, even among classical pianists, as having an amazing "touch" on the piano. Anyway, at this party there was a piano, a not very great piano, but a piano nonetheless. All the players took turns playing this piano and when Bill Evans finally sat down to play, everyone there was blown away because you could immediately tell it was Bill Evans playing. He didn't need a perfectly tuned Baldwin or Steinway to get his "sound". That story to me proves that it's not the gear that makes the music, and if the gear becomes the point, then it's just an excuse for not being able to really make music.

IMO.


Mazz

[ernstinen]

it's the same with any instrument. There's a classic story of a bunch of piano players at a party and Bill Evans was one of them. Now Bill Evans was renowned, even among classical pianists, as having an amazing "touch" on the piano. Anyway, at this party there was a piano, a not very great piano, but a piano nonetheless. All the players took turns playing this piano and when Bill Evans finally sat down to play, everyone there was blown away because you could immediately tell it was Bill Evans playing. He didn't need a perfectly tuned Baldwin or Steinway to get his "sound". That story to me proves that it's not the gear that makes the music, and if the gear becomes the point, then it's just an excuse for not being able to really make music.

IMO.


Mazz

Great example, Mazz! You da man! I guess this subject has been turned around on its "ears" lol!

Yea, it sure does depend on your ears, and your touch on any instrument. I picked up an oboe after not playing one in 20 years, and I couldn't blame the instrument, the reed etc. It was ME! How the hell can you expect to play an instument like that well after not playing one for 20 years? You can't. You have to play nearly every day, and let your muse lead you to the next level.

Just IMHO,

Ern

[wta]

it's the same with any instrument. There's a classic story of a bunch of piano players at a party and Bill Evans was one of them. Now Bill Evans was renowned, even among classical pianists, as having an amazing "touch" on the piano. Anyway, at this party there was a piano, a not very great piano, but a piano nonetheless. All the players took turns playing this piano and when Bill Evans finally sat down to play, everyone there was blown away because you could immediately tell it was Bill Evans playing. He didn't need a perfectly tuned Baldwin or Steinway to get his "sound". That story to me proves that it's not the gear that makes the music, and if the gear becomes the point, then it's just an excuse for not being able to really make music.

IMO.


Mazz

Did he take that piano into the studio to make music for film and tv? Did he from that point forsake Baldwin and Steinway? No because that wouldn't be the professional thing to do. I don't think anyone is contesting that a master can make substandard gear sound better than substandard but there is NO WAY he'd consider a piano like that as his "go to" axe... The gear is a reflextion not only of an artist's devotion to quality but also a serious commitment to his craft and his pursuit of excellence. It's never JUST about the gear but check the axe of any pro and you'll find a pro quality instrument, period. With that I've never heard a pro say he doesn't care what his audience thinks of how he makes his music or say he feels the quality of his gear is secondary or irrelevent...

Cup of tea anyone?

[cardell]

That story to me proves that it's not the gear that makes the music, and if the gear becomes the point, then it's just an excuse for not being able to really make music.

Fantastic!

Cup of tea anyone?

Oh, yes thanks...

Stuart

[mojobone]

Lemme see if I can clear sump'm up. the right gear can matter quite a bit on stage, cuz it's not just about the sound; sometimes it's also about the look. Not naming names, here, but I once lost a gig because of my gear choices. (twice, actually) There was a country band that wouldn't consider anybody who didn't play a Tele and a Twin, (their loss) and another that thought an explorer body style stuck out like a sore thumb in a band that played Buck and Merle covers all night, even if it was jacked into a Vibrolux. (mine, but in retrospect, I think they were right) These things can matter on a stage, but music supervisors and libraries won't ask how you got your sounds; (unless they're worried about uncleared samples, heh) they just want the sounds they can sell. It's important to find gear that works for you AND works for the gig; I used to do coffeehouses with an archtop, a volume pedal and a Korg Pandora, and got tons of compliments on the sound. I think we're past the days when a prospective band member isn't considered a serious candidate without a Fender or Gibson guitar and a Marshall, Vox or Fender amp-twenty thirty years ago, imports weren't up to snuff, but times have changed. Gear snobbery hasn't, but I'm okay with that.

[ernstinen]

Did he take that piano into the studio to make music for film and tv? Did he from that point forsake Baldwin and Steinway? No because that wouldn't be the professional thing to do. I don't think anyone is contesting that a master can make substandard gear sound better than substandard but there is NO WAY he'd consider a piano like that as his "go to" axe... The gear is a reflextion not only of an artist's devotion to quality but also a serious commitment to his craft and his pursuit of excellence. It's never JUST about the gear but check the axe of any pro and you'll find a pro quality instrument, period. With that I've never heard a pro say he doesn't care what his audience thinks of how he makes his music or say he feels the quality of his gear is secondary or irrelevent...

Cup of tea anyone?

I'll take a cup, and admit I'm a Libra! I see both your and Mazz's points. Here's my point:

FOLLOW YOUR MUSE!

[wta]

I totally agree, for cattle calls for music, a music sup or library isn't concerned about who they're dealing with let alone their gear. Moving to the next level where your being contracted to produce regularly for a label or music sup, ect they're going to be concerned at every level that you and your gear are professional and I think many people get into this thinking that a computer, some software and a Fender Squire are going to get them rich and famous in the 21 century.
Personally I'm not a gear snob at any level but I only work with professionals and I, like the high majority in the music industry feel that a person's gear is a direct reflection of them, they're committment to they're craft and to they're business. I have seen on occasion guys with chops and business savvy but lacking in gear but they're gear issue was HIGH on their priority list so I'm cool with that but in my experience guys trying to get by on non pro gear are missing other major elements as well and are typically not ready for a career in music in more areas then just gear. Don't get me wrong, do the best with what you have, make goals and work hard is the bottom line and if you're gear isn't where it needs to be now, figure out what it needs to be and work your hinny off to get there... To me the path is more important than the end goal but guys who promote that they're solid state amp w/simulator and Epiphone Les Paul is all they're ever gonna need and is just as good as a Marshall tube amp and Gibson Les Paul and that pro gear is for snobs has be duped by fancy marketing and others at a similar level. It's the difference between good sound and great sound that will make the difference between making your friends nad family happy and impressing industry folk to cut you a check...


Ern, cream and sugar?

[mojobone]

Of course they're concerned with whom they're dealing, Will, it's a relationship business at every level; I thought we were all agreed on that. I'll go so far as to agree with you that your gear says something about you to others, but I honestly believe most young musicians place way too much emphasis on gear. For instance, in the right hands, an Epi Les Paul through a Line6 Spider 2X12 can rip the nads off a Gibson LP and a Marshall stack, (particularly the 800-900 series, heh) at least in certain circumstances. (by which I mean a very small room, of course ) In any case, there's no amount nor level of quality in gear that can compensate for lack of experience, talent, or practice, heh.