fezz parka
---------------------------
This is all about technique, not gizmos.
This is all about technique, not gizmos.
fezz parka said:This is all about technique, not gizmos.
See, that comment implies that sustain is inherently a good thing.
See, that comment implies that sustain is inherently a good thing. Is it always? I mean, half a century ago most people thought distortion was a bad thing while others embraced it. I don't want my guitar notes to sing for days. I want it to sound like every note is a struggle; a fight to the end between my hands and this wretched, wooden old tool. I don't want perfect every time. but yeah, I agree... I want my guitar to sound "crappy," I guess. Just like so many people are foaming for guitars that look crappy these days. I guess it's style over substance for some. Bark without the bite.
I remember those guitars. I had one.dsutton24 said:Maybe you aren't old enough to remember the crappy guitars of the '60s and '70s. There's nothing like a plywood body, trapeze tailpiece, basswood bridge to not sustain. Add to that a set of Black Diamond strings, and a pickup that wouldn't so much as click if it was put on an anvil and bashed with a lump hammer, and you've got the musical equivelent of a chain link fence.
This is the only thing I can think of besides using your hands:
![]()
This is all about technique, not gizmos.
I love ya fezz, but with all due respect, you can't believe that gear has nothing to do with it. You're telling me the Ventures would sound the same with EMG pickups and Randall amps?
What about a set of flatwound strings?
Yes, they would sound like the Ventures. Nokie sounds like Nokie. Bob (RIP) would sound like Bob. Don sounds like Don. The player makes the sound. The greater the player the greater the sound, even through "inferior" equipment.