Tone is not in the fingers...

[OrovilleTim]

A little while ago, I would of stuck to my "it's in the fingers". But, I think that in the tone pie, a main ingredient is definitely the amplifier.

What's changed? Well, the addition of a 65 Fender Twin Reverb. It influences the way I play. But, at the same time, so does my Marshall. But, they both influence the way I play in different ways. As does if I pick up my Strat (owned solely so I will quit looking at them in guitar shops.)

When I plug that Tele straight into the Twin... it's like Twang magic! But, if I hand it to my kid, I don't get the same result, do I? All just ingredients, with some with more of an effect than others.

[Mark Davis]

Originally Posted by TelZilla

No. Not at all.

OK then where does the persons sound come from them or their gear?

I say the same person will always sound like themselves and changes in guitars or amps can make a small difference but not so much of a difference that it changes the persons basic sound we all have inside us.

I have a video of SRV playing a Tele and he still sounds like SRV.

[0le FUZZY]

...Sum folks cornfuze tek-neek with tone IMHO.


0le FUZZY

[petebradt]

Originally Posted by TelZilla

Some of you may be missing the point of the original post.

Of course, the player is the most important part of the equation. I thought that went without saying. Let's take that as a given.

What I'm getting after is, what do you think has more influence on your sound, your guitar or your amp? Which would you trade first if forced to choose?

BTW, Pete, how did you get that custom faceplate on your Tweed Super (saw in another thread)? Make it? Buy it?

Yeah, I got it from a place in Indiana...BNP Lasers. I got one for the Champ, too.

WRT to your re-worded question, I think the amp is far more important. But in the triumvirate, the player is always most important.

[tele12]

I think the "Tone is in the Fingers" expression is a very misleading expression. What I think people really mean by it is a player's phrasing, timing, dynamics and note selection add up to that players signature sound and people mistakenly call that "tone". I think if a really good player is playing most people do not really notice or care about the tone very much.
I have also noticed the player seems to discern subtle differences in tone far easier than a person listening.

[11 Gauge]

I think I know what Tel is driving at.

First, if a guitarist can sound identifiably like themselves through any amp, why do we have so many different amps to choose from? And if fingers make all that magic happen, why not just play the cheapest solid state amp available? Tubes, classic circuits, legendary speakers - just deep 6 it all. If the musician can do it all without the amp, then they are wasting boatloads of money on unnecessary amps.

So, who's gonna notify EJ that he's gotta give up all of his gear and go out and get a Line 6 Spyder III to replace it?

I like that Tel has made me think of another facet in regards to this subject - how (some) guitarists alter their technique to compensate for different amps.

The first guy that comes to mind is Pat Metheny. After hearing nothing but a clean jazz tone from him for decades, I was shocked to hear him playing a number with overdrive back in the late 90s. You could tell it was him, but the way he was working the strings was clearly different - he was trying to work around the distortion without it being a ridiculous chromatic mess (and he succeeded, IMO).

The second guy that comes to mind is John Jorgenson. He has succinctly different styles depending on what he's trying to convey. His phrasing and note choices seem to be tailored to the amount of overdrive. John is a true chameleon, and seems to capitalize on the tone he's using.

What's amazing to me are the guitarists that are adaptable, flexible. They can bend their style to work with a clean amp, or an overdriven amp. The guys that can get the exact same style to work for both are pure geniuses. With overdrive, you have to work around the overtones, the slurring of notes, jazz chords going to mush...With clean tones, there's little margin for error, plus a great opportunity to get complex chords to ring with authority, masters of hybrid picking become apparent...

[ibobunot]

Originally Posted by tele12

I think the "Tone is in the Fingers" expression is a very misleading expression.

[fezz parka]

The player makes the sound.

The order of importance is as follows:

1. The player.
2. The amp.
3. The guitar.

[Larry F]

How about sub-dividing the player's skills:

1. Non-physical musicality: sensitive timing and rhythm, good accompanying styles, good and innovative ideas in improvising. Good listening skills and ability to complement the song.

2. Physical musicality: firmly depressed notes and secure bends, good left-right hand coordination, speed adequate to the task, nuances in timing, attack and other articulation, broad expressive vocabulary of fretting and picking techniques.

3. Musicality in using guitars, amps, and accessories. Knowing which strings are best for the task, knowing which pickup to use for a honky-tonk rhythm accompaniment played with a muted palm through a tweed deluxe with 2 10" speakers. Being adaptable if the speakers are replaced by 1 15" speaker. (This last part attempts to explain why a certain player sounds the same on any equipment--it is because he know how to adapt hand technique and guitar controls when using a non-preferred amp.

[toadman]

i think the signal chain starts right betwixt your ears! it goes down your arm through your hand into the pick. then through the strings, pickups. ash,alder, mahogany, whathaveyou, through whatever cable, into whatever amp at whatever volume in whatever room. then it goes back to your ears back into your brain, which reads the result of all those variables and makes you adjust so you pick harder or turn up the treble or just groove with it or whatever.

Toad has spoken

[bender-freak]

Originally Posted by Larry F

How about sub-dividing the player's skills:

1. Non-physical musicality: sensitive timing and rhythm, good accompanying styles, good and innovative ideas in improvising. Good listening skills and ability to complement the song.

2. Physical musicality: firmly depressed notes and secure bends, good left-right hand coordination, speed adequate to the task, nuances in timing, attack and other articulation, broad expressive vocabulary of fretting and picking techniques.

3. Musicality in using guitars, amps, and accessories. Knowing which strings are best for the task, knowing which pickup to use for a honky-tonk rhythm accompaniment played with a muted palm through a tweed deluxe with 2 10" speakers. Being adaptable if the speakers are replaced by 1 15" speaker. (This last part attempts to explain why a certain player sounds the same on any equipment--it is because he know how to adapt hand technique and guitar controls when using a non-preferred amp.

a musician is a craftsman, just like a carpenter or portrait painter....they should know how to coax the best that can be had out of what tools they have to work with...

i remember the video posted (YouTube.??)from some months back of Jerry Reed and Chet Atkins both playing on identical teles...Jerry sounded like Jerry and Chet sounded like Chet...was it the guitars or the players...?....amps were an unknown quantity in the equation as they were unseen, but i would imagine this being a taped TV show Chet used whatever was provided....i have seen Chet play Gretsch, Gibson, Hofners, D'Angelicos, etc and he ALWays sounded like Chet...Jerry has played Fenders, Gibson 335's, Peavey T-60's, and he sounded like Jerry...

it was all technique, knowledge, and skill in knowing how to use the instrument and how to set the parameters on their amps.....i personally think the amp is only going to amplify what is being put into it...the heart and soul of the person with the fingers and the picks...

[tele12]

Originally Posted by fezz parka

The player makes the sound.

The order of importance is as follows:

1. The player.
2. The amp.
3. The guitar.

I will say thing I think you get to a good amp at a lower price point than you get to a good guitar.

I think a Pro Jr. at $340 or a Blues Jr. at $450 are much better amps than a MIM standard is a guitar at $400. And I think a Hot Rod Deluxe at $599 is a better amp than a Nashville Tele or Jimmie Vaughan Strat is a guitar. And at $849 for a DRRI you are just a little more than HWY 1s or Classic Player Series.
A bassman is a few hundred cheaper than a 52 RI tele and a 57 twin is less expensive than a Nocaster.

[Mark Davis]

Originally Posted by bender-freak

a musician is a craftsman, just like a carpenter or portrait painter....they should know how to coax the best that can be had out of what tools they have to work with...

i remember the video posted (YouTube.??)from some months back of Jerry Reed and Chet Atkins both playing on identical teles...Jerry sounded like Jerry and Chet sounded like Chet...was it the guitars or the players...?....amps were an unknown quantity in the equation as they were unseen, but i would imagine this being a taped TV show Chet used whatever was provided....i have seen Chet play Gretsch, Gibson, Hofners, D'Angelicos, etc and he ALWays sounded like Chet...Jerry has played Fenders, Gibson 335's, Peavey T-60's, and he sounded like Jerry...

it was all technique, knowledge, and skill in knowing how to use the instrument and how to set the parameters on their amps.....i personally think the amp is only going to amplify what is being put into it...the heart and soul of the person with the fingers and the picks...

I agree 100% with everything you said.

A guitar cant make any sounds without a player. An amp cant make any sounds without a guitar. These things dont play themselves people play them.

So the guitar and amp sounds like the person thats operating it.

If I pickup a Strat and play it thru a Marshall I dont automaticly sound like Jimi. I can even use all his same techniques and I will stll always sound like me as does everyone else.

Just because a vocalist switches mics from an SM57 to an SM58 their tone or sound doesnt change from Janis Joplin to Martina McBride. Janis would always sound the same and so does Martina.

Like I said before each person has their own unique tone or sound and its as unique as a persons fingerprint.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Pete Galati

Tone is in the brain of the player. Not his fingers.

Spot on Pete IMHO. Never heard it said that way round, but i reckon your're on to something there ....

(If there was thumbs up emoticon I would have used that)

[Vladimir]

The phrase "Tone is in your fingers" should be banned from all guitar forums because it's redundant as "Water is wet".
Of course we know nothing subsitutes the player, but here we discuss gear. To those who keep repeating that phrase, I ask: do you get the same tone playing an archtop through a JC120 as with a humbucked strat through an overdriven Marshall amp. There is a reason why there are so many different types of Teles, pickups, amps, strings etc.

Now, back to the original question. I also think that the pickup is a big part of the equation. I rember AB-ing two identical Ibanez guitars where one had the pickup upgraded to a Dimarzio SuperII through the same amp, and the difference was quite noticeable.
In my town many bars have their own amplification and usually you are better of with a higher quality pickup if you want to sound consistent. However, nowadays most gigging musicians just carry around their signal processors so they get to sound pretty much the same where ever they go.

[byrdbrain]

I'm sure I would prefer the sound of a Squier 51 through a Fender Champ
to the sound of a CS Tele through a a Squire Sidekick.

[Tim Bowen]

Originally Posted by TelZilla

Some of you guys are making this much harder than the question I was asking (or at least the question I thought I was asking). In retrospect, maybe I should have avoided the provocative title.

I just hear that all the time (tone is in the fingers), and people say it like it's some profound thing. All it really means is players who are good will sound like they are good and players who suck will sound like they suck, right? Well, duh. That stikes me as so obvious it's not worth typing anymore.

the question at hand should be answered without any respect to the skill of the player.

What I'm asking is whether you think YOUR amp or YOUR guitar are more important to YOUR tone. That's all.

Fair enough. I'd say my pedals. Unless I'm playing mandolin, banjo, or harmonica.

Seriously, after thirty plus years of dinking with signal chains, I've settled on my extraneous circuits, cables, and approach for good reason (education via hard knocks). I like to have a VOX AC30, an old brown Deluxe, or a reissue '65 Deluxe sound cool with a Tele, a Mexican Strat, or an LP Special or SG with P90's, sound good. Throw the wrong circuit in with the mix and it sucks eggs. Don't ask me about making a humbucker-equipped instrument sound good, I can't seem to make it happen, especially as to rhythm sounds.

Give me a fabulous sounding amp without the capability of quickly boosting the signal via my feet or via the knobs on my guitar, and I'll demonstrate for you the musical epitome of Larry, Curly, and Moe. Tone is in the feet.

What sounds bad? Well, whatever I don't dig, of course! Note choice, chord voicing choices, touch sensitivity, dynamics, listening and awareness as to musical history - all that stuff figures in.

I'll go with carefully chosen stomps.

[Tele-Caster]

Like the rest of us, I have an ideal guitar tone in my head. Translating that into a form that can be shared with others relies on my fingers getting the message from my brain and responding properly to that message. It also requires making correct choices in equipment while avoiding incorrect choices that will not get me the tone(s) I am looking for.

What I am looking for is probably different than most people who post here. I am not looking for "classic Tele twang." I am not looking to copy the sound of a famous Telecaster player, either.

The tone in my head is clean and very close to an acoustic tone, but with increased sustain. Essentially, I want my Telecaster to take the place of an acoustic guitar while offering the benefit of being easier to play, being able to play at very high amplitude without unwanted feedback issues, even in situations that are less than ideal, and having greater sustain, with the latter attribute complementing my playing style.

If I picked the kind of Telecaster that those into maximum twang would pick, and then paired it with some of the amps that seem popular among posters here, I'd certainly get a tone that a lot of folks like, but it wouldn't be the tone I hear in my head when I think of myself playing Amazing Grace in front of 1,500 on a Sunday, as I did back in California.

So I narrowed the Telecaster field when I went shopping by focusing on their unamplified tone first, weeding out many contenders in the process, then a/bing the remainder through the same amp. The one that sounded the best to me amplified is also the one that sounded best to me unplugged and the one that I could feel resonate against my body moreso than the others.

Before I walked out of the store with it, I requested that I try it through a high fidelity amplifier -an acoustic guitar amp, keyboard amp, or powered P.A. mixer board. When I found I could get the guitar to make the sound I heard in my head through a hi-fi amp, I bought it.

When I went shopping for an amp to practice in the living room with, I picked a "sonically clean" solid state Fender Frontman 25R -an amp that many here would derride as junk unsuitable for plugging anything into. Before buying it, I ab'd it against a couple of hi-fi acoustic guitar amps and found I could get the tone in my head through it at less cost than a hi-fi amp. I normally don't use this amp when I play out.

In fact, I don't use an electric guitar amp at all when I play out. I either play it direct through my Kustom P.A. setup or through whatever the house has in the way of a powered P.A. mixer board.

Since that is what I do, the ability of an electric guitar amp to color tone isn't relevant to me.

That said, I know that the choice in an electric guitar amp is a huge factor in resulting tone. In truth, my Telecaster doesn't sound all that great through some of the more popular tube-type electric guitar amps mentioned on this board. It definitely doesn't duplicate the sound I hear in my head.

But I've been able to get the sound I am looking for through just about every solid state, hi-fi amp I've run my signal through, and I can get it quickly and easily.

Again, I am basicially looking at my Telecaster as a "solid body acoustic guitar" -albeit one devoid of piezo acoustic snap that real solid body "acoustic" guitars have and which I find annoying now that I don't need to deal with it or listen past it. No, nobody confuses my tone with that of a Martin, but it makes a better, more acoustic-sounding "acoustic guitar" than the Ovations that I played previously ever did. It might not be a Martin tone or a classic Tele tone, but that's okay because it is my tone.

Why not just play an acoustic guitar? Most of the playing out that I do is in churches. Sometimes, the sound gear and the people who run it are pro grade. Sometimes they aren't. But I need to get a listenable tone, regardless. That tone needs to fit musically with my vocals, my playing style, and the music that I play. It needs to be as close to "plug in and play" as possible. I need a gigworthy instrument, and the Telecaster is as gigworthy as a guitar gets, IMHO. Mine also has the best neck in terms of compatablity with my own anatomy of any guitar I've ever played or owned. I need the most resistance to feedback that I can get and the increase in sustain that I get with the Tele vs. Ovations and other acoustics compliments my playing style well.

I've gone through all of that because even though I know that the electric guitar amp is a key component in tone for most Tele players, it only is for me by default. Like I mentioned above, my Tele doesn't sound all that great through some of the more popular tube amps to my ears. It does when plugged into a solid state hi-fi amp. Which one, however, doesn't seem to matter much.

So for me, it really is brain, fingers, guitar, and effects chain more than the amp I play through that contribute to my tone(s).

[TelZilla]

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The phrase "Tone is in your fingers" should be banned from all guitar forums because it's redundant as "Water is wet".
Of course we know nothing subsitutes the player, but here we discuss gear. To those who keep repeating that phrase, I ask: do you get the same tone playing an archtop through a JC120 as with a humbucked strat through an overdriven Marshall amp. There is a reason why there are so many different types of Teles, pickups, amps, strings etc.

I totally agree...

Lots of good discussion on this thread(Larry F's post is, as usual, spot on with regards to technique). I agree with all the guys who are saying it starts with the player, I just don't really think it bears repeating. Is there anyone on this board who would say it doesn't?

I guess I envisioned this thread as more of a gear discussion thing, but I'm happy it got so much response. You put it out there and it's interesting to see where it goes. I just used the title to get people to look- it appears to have worked.

I just think "tone is in the fingers" is one of those tropes I don't need to read any more.

[Flat357]

Originally Posted by Mark Davis

OK then where does the persons sound come from them or their gear?

I say the same person will always sound like themselves and changes in guitars or amps can make a small difference but not so much of a difference that it changes the persons basic sound we all have inside us.

I have a video of SRV playing a Tele and he still sounds like SRV.

Mark .
I hear what you are saying , but consider this :

If Santana or SRV play the tunes and notes that they are associated with , then they will more than likely sound like themselves through many combinations , because our brains say .... aaagh... Texas flood ... Stevie for example , but if they were both to play totally different scales and totally different styles of music , then would you still say .... that's Stevie , or that's Santana ? Especially if they had different gear ?
I used to be able to nail SRV to a point that if it was recorded , you would have to wonder if it was him , so I certainly wasn't sounding like me , but more copying him .
I'm fairly sure that with a bit of effort , I could probably nail the Santana thing too , or the Ford , or the Knopfler , or the Gatton , and people would say ' wow ' , that sounds just like....... etc , but I certainly couldn't sound like any of them with the wrong equipment .

If I am improvising , I will probably always sound like me , as the note / phrasing / dynamics etc are from my own musical DNA .
Change my equipment though , and you change my tone .

[Durtdog]

Originally Posted by Flat357

Change my equipment though , and you change my tone .

It's even easier than that.
I can turn a knob on my guitar and change my tone.