"That Tone" tail chase

[djroge1]

I love playing through my favorite amp and one stomp box. I really enjoy the tone. I can play some cover songs without trying to emulate their sound because I think my tone is good enough - to a certain point.

 

The problem is when we do something by David Gilmour it just doesn't sound as good without a little flange, chorus, or delay. Some people who are not guitarist can hear the difference too.

 

For me we are talking about 2 separate but intertwined topics.

 

1. cover song tones

2. personal tones.

[milod]

djroge1

 

I think the concept of "cover songs" depends on where you're playing for money and your songlist.

 

As I wrote above, yeah, some rock and country venues "expect" a sound that's awfully close to a recording - but I'm not so sure that even most venues have that expectation. We do - they likely don't care nearly as much, especially in a saloon or at a "dance."

 

Yeah, there's a certain cachet for a true cover band, but... other than putting "Twist and Shout" into waltz time, I'm not sure there's a need to sound like this group or that. The Beatles did that one as a "version," but I don't think there was an attempt at a direct cover, for example...

 

I'm not saying that trying to have a ballpark sound of the original is "wrong," but over my lifetime I've seen quite a few versions of the same song by different artists/bands that ain't nowhere close to what the original sounded like.

 

Another example: Joe Cocker's version "little help from my friends."

 

m

[Riffster]

When audiences as a whole just hear semi-musical mud, regardless of style, I think they mostly stop caring about the "music."

 

m

 

Amen.

[djroge1]

djroge1

 

I think the concept of "cover songs" depends on where you're playing for money and your songlist.

 

As I wrote above, yeah, some rock and country venues "expect" a sound that's awfully close to a recording - but I'm not so sure that even most venues have that expectation. We do - they likely don't care nearly as much, especially in a saloon or at a "dance."

 

Yeah, there's a certain cachet for a true cover band, but... other than putting "Twist and Shout" into waltz time, I'm not sure there's a need to sound like this group or that. The Beatles did that one as a "version," but I don't think there was an attempt at a direct cover, for example...

 

I'm not saying that trying to have a ballpark sound of the original is "wrong," but over my lifetime I've seen quite a few versions of the same song by different artists/bands that ain't nowhere close to what the original sounded like.

 

Another example: Joe Cocker's version "little help from my friends."

 

m

 

Milod,

 

I don't think the beatles were exactly known for their tone. Perhaps when they first came out people thought so, but I never hear anyone trying to sound like George. Perhaps unless they are playing the intro to Revolution. They did play great rock songs, seemed to have fun doing it, and did some great stuff in the studio.

 

Pink Floyd however, IMO needs a certain amount of tone to sound good. To get those tones it depends on the song but flanger and delay can go a long way.

[sellen]

The tone chase is a never ending story, what sound perfect today might change next week. When i look at all my gear and i know how my skills is, it's kinda sick. But it sure gives me pleasure to have it and that's what it's about i guess. Other guys buy cool cars, boats or travel around the world. I like to buy nice guitars and amps

[milod]

No, I hear you about specific band "sounds," but I'd argue that the Beatles didn't have "tone" in their stuff, even the early material. It may not seem so today, given all the electronic stuff you can add, but in "the day," it wasn't seen that way. In fact, it was certainly enough to sell a lot of Rickenbackers and violin basses.

 

The question to me is the degree to which a given audience will "require" a specific type of treatment that sounds more or less like "the record," or if a different version of a given song will do every bit as well.

 

You could make a case that the fuzzed guitar rif in the Stones "Satisfaction" is mandatory for the thing - but that's not how I found it to be even in "the day."

 

I know that no rational argument will mean beans when there's an emotional content on the other side - and I think all musicians have an emotional content in their personal aesthetic of how a piece should be played.

 

But I'll also note that there are many, many musicians playing the same song as has been recorded somewhere, some time, without trying to present a clone of the record.

 

Again, I think the clone concept tends to be more in rock and country - and then only in certain market segments.

 

How the given artist determines to present a given piece is his or her personal aesthetic bounded by several other factors ranging from available sound-making equipment to acoustics of a given venue.

 

Granted, I'm "old," but we've always had that dialectic between a copy-type "cover" and a somewhat different "version" of a song that ranges from expanded or contracted arrangements to an entirely different sort of arrangement.

 

In one country band I played in years ago the decisions were specifically to have a Merle Haggard sound 'cuz the main lead singer had a clone of Haggard's voice. So arrangements were as clone-like as possible.

 

That made sense and it made money. I'll admit it wasn't as much fun for me as doing my own thing in a more freely operating ensemble or solo gig. But hey, it helped me buy some more guitar "stuff."

 

m

[charlie brown]

To go even further, a lot of the "original artists," that made the records,

don't even do their songs, exactly the same way, all the time....sometimes,

they never do it that way, again. "The Eagles," Live...seem (to me) to sound

exactly like their records, to the point, of being their OWN "Tribute band!"

However...Someone like Eric Clapton, NEVER plays the same solos, twice! I've

seen him, countless times, and have never been disappointed...but, he always

plays from his heart! Sure, the basics are the same, or near enough so, but

he plays quite differently, when it comes to his solos, and even his "fills."

And those, are only 2 examples...I'm sure other's here, have a lot more.

 

As to The Beatles not having a "tone???" HUH??! Most bands, "way back then,"

have/had very distinctive tones, as well as an overall, and immediately recognizable sound.

You could tell, right away, who it was! That (at least to me) is much harder to do, band to band,

nowadays!

 

When the Record Companies got too heavily involved, in shaping the sound, by who they

decided to sign, or not (just to make more money), that's when things started to homogenize,

and sound the same. The same thing, happened, in Country Music, as well..IMHO.

CB

[Riffster]

The opposite happens too Charlie,

 

Some players are able to recreate very similar tones with less and I mean a lot less equipment than the original artists, seems your point of view is based on trying to replicate vintage tones.

 

Playing a song different live is a different subject though. Some bands try to sound like the record some others don't.

[charlie brown]

Actually, I don't (really) care, about replicating anyone else's "tone"...

at least, not anymore. If, in the course of my own playing, and experimenting,

I find that particular tone (and, providing I can remember how, I got it), that's

fine/cool. But, some folks, musician's and audience alike, seem to feel that

particular artists songs, when covered, need to be either, Very Close to the original,

or COMPLETELY different...as in Joe Cocker's version, of The Beatles "A Little Help

from My Friends" (for just one example)...which I think was brilliant!!

 

I like, how this thread is progressing, too.

 

CB

[milod]

CB et al...

 

Actually I think some folks don't really want a truly "individualistic" tone, regardless what they say and think they want. For example, how many electric 12-strings with the bass pushed on the fingerboard pup do you hear in blues or rock or even country? How many rock players using a classical guitar?

 

There seems to be a bit of a cycle of what this or that general style of music considers proper. E.g., fuzz and phasers and such compared to a real Leslie or a tube trem with a bit of reverb... Or the late 1950s sorts of sounds you'd get from a lotta pickers from Duane Eddy to stuff behind the Everly Brothers. You very seldom hear that from current "rock" because it's not the current "thing."

 

Then there's "jazz" with a hollowbody HB sound and then variations where it's s'posed to have guitars that sound like something else.

 

I think "we" all have this tendency to consider certain types of sounds as appropriate or inappropriate for certain types of music, and exclude others. For example, when's the last time you heard an accordion with a Bluegrass band or a clarinet in country or a trombone in rock? Even electronically modified guitar sounds don't model on those "inappropriate" sounds. A fuzzed up guitar can sound sax-like, but ... the sax seldom gets into a "rock" band.

 

The tenor banjo once was a keystone of very early "blues." When's the last time you heard young folks wanting one doing rhythm in their Chicago blues band?

 

<grin> Naaah. I think "tone" largely is to follow the crowd and to seek relatively small variations inside a given playbook. You seldom hear a mountain dulcimer backing up a "cowboy" presentation, but 125 or so years ago it would have been likely. And a fiddle fit almost anywhere until rock took a big side road from generalized pop mixed radio play on the teen and 20 stations.

 

m

[djroge1]

To go even further, a lot of the "original artists," that made the records,

don't even do their songs, exactly the same way, all the time....sometimes,

they never do it that way, again. "The Eagles," Live...seem (to me) to sound

exactly like their records, to the point, of being their OWN "Tribute band!"

However...Someone like Eric Clapton, NEVER plays the same solos, twice! I've

seen him, countless times, and have never been disappointed...but, he always

plays from his heart! Sure, the basics are the same, or near enough so, but

he plays quite differently, when it comes to his solos, and even his "fills."

And those, are only 2 examples...I'm sure other's here, have a lot more.

 

As to The Beatles not having a "tone???" HUH??! Most bands, "way back then,"

have/had very distinctive tones, as well as an overall, and immediately recognizable sound.

You could tell, right away, who it was! That (at least to me) is much harder to do, band to band,

nowadays!

 

When the Record Companies got too heavily involved, in shaping the sound, by who they

decided to sign, or not (just to make more money), that's when things started to homogenize,

and sound the same. The same thing, happened, in Country Music, as well..IMHO.

CB

 

Guys I never said the Beatles's didn't have tone nor did I say they didn't have a good tone. I said they were not known for their tone. They were known mostly for great songs. What I was trying to get across is that you seldom hear people today saying their tone is the best or they are chasing the Harrison tone. In fact, I even implied that in their day they did have the tone people tried to emulate.

[charlie brown]

And yet, IF it was presented right, and done with aplomb, and inventiveness,

and great musical quality, I think people would accept almost any instrument,

and/or "Tone," in any genre! The trick is, to do it with an original twist,

that's both inventive, and unique. Do that, and the instrument becomes only

the means, or tool (as it should be), not the result. It's not enough, to do just

"original" material, in the traditional sense...as that's a given. People

crave cleverness, and originality, of direction, as well. "Pop/Rock" groups,

in the '60's did that...The Beatles, Frank Zappa, The Who, and other's, all

used unusual (especially, for "Rock") instruments, and styles, at that time.

Now, they might seem "common place," but...not then! "It's a Beautiful Day,"

was one of the more unique sounding bands, of their time. Even Jethro Tull's

use, of the flute, was, as well..."back then!" Heck, even an early Deep Purple

album ("Deep Purple" w/the Bosch cover art) used a harpsichord, at times.

I would love to see/hear, all the instruments Milod mentioned, used in areas where

they are NOT expected. As long as it "works," who cares...if it's "odd?"

 

Do it Right, people will listen/accept it...IMHO. It might take awhile, as folks

can be resistant, to change, especially too quickly. What's disheartening, is the

banality, of "pop" and "country" music, nowadays...where it's (basically) manufactured,

for the masses, so as to be little more, than "elevator" music, with lyrics. But,

that's "commerce," more than creativity, if you ask me. <_<

 

CB

[charlie brown]

Oh, I don't know about that. I think a lot of "Beatles" lovers, have always

chased "George's" tone...John & Paul's too, for that matter. There is a myriad

of questions, on this, the Rickenbacker, and the Epiphone forums, about how to

get The Beatles (basic) tone, and the individual player's tone, as well.

Those folks, spend thousands of dollars each, quite often, buying Gretsch,

Rickenbacker, Epi Casino's (even Strat's and Telecasters), and Vox or Fender amps,

to get it, too. So, there was a lot more, to them, than just those remarkable

songs. That was the basis, but the execution, was equally brilliant, even in some

of the simpler ones. But, that's just my totally biased opinion...I LOVE The Beatles,

and that whole initial "British Invasion," really.

 

CB

[Harmonics101]

I remember thinkin' that Rat Box or that Digitech JamMan is gonna make me sound like a superstar.

 

THEN , you realize you have to get all the electrical cords out and plug the box in and this and that.

 

I deal with electronics at work , i don't need to flippin' put up with electronics at home for cryin' out loud !

 

Everytime I plugged in , i was rather disappointed and the effects seemed pretty one dimensional and not true to the genre of playing that i do.

 

Probably the only reason I even dabbled in tone modification was because of Zappa , and i think he achieved most of it pretty simply and didn't use many REAL special effects , although i could be mistaken.

 

Anyway , getting that i'm old and play around the house with socks on , i figure the less time i waste by pulling out the special effects , the less chance i have to electricute myself.

 

For the past 8 years , the sound effects have been religated to the back of the closet and i don't miss them one iota.

 

I can get enough tone chase from the variations with my left and right hand and no risk of strangulating myself with the cords,

 

Harmonics101

[milod]

Going back to those days of yore...

 

Yeah, I think younger players see anyone going after "Beatle tone" as not the same as going after ... younger players' "tone" combination of guitar, stomps and amps that are apparently more complex.

 

But CB is right in terms of how many early Beatle contemporaries went nuts trying to find the tone of "Hide Your Love Away" on acoustic guitar alone.

 

There were things done with the recording process, the miking process, etc., etc., that made some of the Beatle tone a target as sought after and as elusive to find, as the newer stuff.

 

In a sense, though, I think you're correct in the sense that the Beatles were producing material that was artful as a whole even to their emulators as opposed to something perceived as a lead guitar guy and a backing band. As a parallel, it's more a string quartet than a solo violinist with some guys chording and playing rhythm behind him. Of course, rhythm guitar guys, bass players, keyboard folks and drummers might not care for that analogy within their own world.

 

Don't forget, too, the efforts players went through, from the techie types to Les Paul to Link Wray, etc., to get that something extra or different. Trumpet players do it too, in their own way.

 

m

[Harmonics101]

I can see if your playing puts food on the table then tone chase might definitely be very essential IF your not striving to YOUR originality and are trying to emulate covers.

 

Thank goodness , i can do my tone chasing sitting on the living room couch :)

 

Harmonics101

[milod]

Okay... I'm gonna open a side of me I seldom admit to.

 

When it comes to guitar playing I very much enjoy playing in a band, but... bottom line is that I'm probably happiest when I do what and how I wanna do stuff and if people don't like it they can go ... uhhhh ... jump in a lake.

 

That's probably in ways my biggest strength and biggest weakness in music and probably other stuff.

 

It also probably explains why I've not been, per se, a tone-chaser even though I'm probably as concerned about getting good tone to an audience as anybody here.

 

But we've all gotta remember what the few pros here realize regardless of music style: We're above all entertainers and when we forget that, we're probably not going to do all that well as a picker regardless of talent and skill.

 

m

[D-poland]

 

 

And I also agree with Searcy's Bubba ethos. I'd like to get a really cheap old guitar and a crappy old S/S amp just to see what I could do with them. I'm sure they'd be just fine for most purposes.

 

P.

Pippy is your real name Jack white? and yes it sounds like the truth to me! :-"

[charlie brown]

Okay... I'm gonna open a side of me I seldom admit to.

 

When it comes to guitar playing I very much enjoy playing in a band, but... bottom line is that I'm probably happiest when I do what and how I wanna do stuff and if people don't like it they can go ... uhhhh ... jump in a lake.

That's probably in ways my biggest strength and biggest weakness in music and probably other stuff.

 

It also probably explains why I've not been, per se, a tone-chaser even though I'm probably as concerned about getting good tone to an audience as anybody here.

 

But we've all gotta remember what the few pros here realize regardless of music style: We're above all entertainers and when we forget that, we're probably not going to do all that well as a picker regardless of talent and skill.

 

m

 

Oh, I think a lot of us, have that feeling. Maybe even more so, the older we get?

Still, I'm actually happiest, in a "band" format, as opposed to being a solo performer. But, it's all

good! Just whatever works best, for each person.

 

CB

[milod]

CB...

 

Yeah, I think age has something to do with it.

 

OTOH, I almost hate to admit that it's been a yoke I've borne as long as I can remember. Playing with some guys is a joy almost without regard to style, though, and playing with others even with stuff I tend to prefer can be "not fun" regardless. @#$%#$%#$%

 

I think the "not fun" tends to be with guys who want the exact replica of a given recording. I guess I don't and never have wanted the money that much regardless that at times I've pretty much needed it.

 

Hmmmm. I think I sound like a grouchy old man. Well, 50 years ago I probably sounded like a grouchy young man. Whatever.

 

Actually sometimes the solo gig can be more difficult because I wanna have the crowd figured, so I can do a more appropriate set. That itself can create difficulties because who knows what might hit a given crowd. I dunno.

 

So the bottom line tends to be for me to tell myself just to do what makes me happy and if it makes others happy, I'm super happy and if it doesn't, c'est la vie...

 

m

[charlie brown]

Yeah, I always try to have "good tone," but I don't chase it, all that much, anymore.

And, I much prefer playing what "I" want to play...at least in genre, within a band

format. At home, of course, I can play any damn thing I want! Luckily,

my other band mates, are of similar feelings, for the most part. Of course, we do

compromise to one another, now and again. But...that's cool.

 

I'm not sure, what to do, nowadays, regarding playing to audience preferences, and/or tastes,

or strictly to our own??? Often times, I want to just play what WE want to play, and hope

they "come along, for the ride!" Other times, I think it might be wise, to do other things.

Right now, we're in a compromised position, of a little of both/all. Well, actually...we're

on temporary hiatus, until we can find a replacement drummer (AGAIN!)

 

What IS it, about "Drummers??!" :(

 

CB

[Markini]

I think this may relate to tone. I was jamming (noodling) with a buddy last night and we got on the "tone" discussion or rather the sounds that different guitars produced.

 

Example we messed around with some Santana stuff. We swapped guitars because he is the better strummer and I am the better lead player. I played a PRS SE and he played a Fender thinline Tele semi hollow, Reason is because those two guitars came closest to the Santana tone we were noodling around with. Amps were a line 6 Spider jam and a Fender twin reverb.

 

Another example when we jam Jimmy buffet songs he uses the Gibson Custom Classic and I use the PRS HB II. Once again those two guitars come closest to the tone we were looking for.

 

Tom Petty songs, we like to use the Birds and a Martin or Takemine 12 string.

 

I'm in the school of thought that tone is more a guitar thing than an amp or special effects. But i do have several amps and each is suited for different genres, but I can get by using the same amp, but fifferent guitars to get the "Tone".

[zigzag]

Edit.

[heymisterk]

I chased the "Live at Leeds" sound for years, and that record started my love affair with P-90s.

 

But I was not going to buy a modified HiWatt amp and a vintage Univox fuzz pedal to get there. And I am not Pete Townsend. I got as far as my SG Classic, SuperFuzz, and Mesa.

 

But in chasing a certain tone, if you are smart about it, you come to realize what tone you prefer, and that often becomes your "go-to" tone.

 

You also come to realize that there are certain bands you love (Led Zeppelin), but you are not crazy about their tone singularly (Jimmy).

 

Okay, that's enough...

[RaysEpiphone]

Ummmm, yeah I see your point and I do have a minimal set up for my electric guitar. Marshall Class 5 and a Marshall Jackhammer stomp-box. Would love to find an old Marshall Drivemaster peddle and be able to afford a nicer guitar and a Fractal unit for time based effects.

 

Don't think I'd want much more than that as far as the rig goes, maybe a full stack with 4 X 12 cab's w/green back's and a vintage Super Lead head if I ever played a big room. I don't see me doing that right now so the Class 5 is fine for my current need's.

 

As a studio guy I can see why some one with the need would want several different guitar type's but I think that 1 custom Strat and a few select Gibson's, both solid body and hollow body would do the trick for most any sound.

 

Acoustic instruments are a different animal all together.