quote:

---

...and although it is 20 years old sounds better than my 2006 model x. Why is this so??

---

Can I be perfectly frank?

It's because you have a somewhat narrow perception of what you think a steel should sound like. Now, that's not an insult, nor is it necessarily a bad thing...but you should, at least, realize it. Someone else could listen to your "brand x" and think it puts everything else to shame, and that your MCI sounds thin and weak in comparison.

Terms like "best", "worst", "good" and "poor" are usually highly subjective determinations. They're based on past experience, peer pressure, expectations, recommendations by pros, irrational comparisons, really all sorts of inputs can come into play. To Chet Atkins, Stevie Ray Vaughn's tone sucked. To Stevie Ray Vaughn, Jimmy Bryant's tone sucked. And to Jimmy Bryant, Don Rich's tone sucked.

Different sounds, different tones, different styles, different music, different mindsets, they're all out there.

Do you get the idea?

My own interpretation of the whole "best" anything argument is that it's pointless, really. There is no best sound, no best tone, and no best guitar, and no best amp. They're merely different! Accept what you like, and reject what you don't. Then realize that not everyone will agree, ever.

I can honestly say I've never heard a "bad sounding" guitar.

Nope, never.

I've always been able to get a good sound out of every one I've ever played. I'm probably also one of the few people who realize that it's the player, and not the instrument, that's responsible for the sounds that come out.

I played just about every brand of modern pedal steel in St. Louis this year. They all had their unique qualities, although I must admit they had a lot of similarities as well.

HOWEVER.......none sounded like James Morehead's "Cooped-up" Professional or Herb Steiner's Emmons original. There's no way I will subscribe to the notion that tone is completely subjective, "in the hands"....whatever. I heard with my own ears the tone these vintage steels can deliver. You might be able to convince me that the owners of modern steels prefer the ease of mechanical ability, but I have a hard time believing that these same modern steel owners could knock the tone of the classics. In fact, I believe the only reason you see major players with newer models is because they need mechanical reliablity and a lighter-weight guitar. Most have their old beauties at home, so they can sit down and revel in the superior tone.

I firmly believe that the instrument is simply a foundation from which a good player can make magic happen. Sure a good player can make any axe sound "better" because of his playing technique. That's a given. But, then, why don't they prefer just any old guitar? It's because the guitar matters to their sound. The tonal qualities of the guitar enhance their resulting performance. I don't, and have never, believed that tone is only "in the hands"...regardless of what definition for tone is used. Obviously, a player's hands enable him to draw the very best out of any instrument, but even Buddy can't make a Fender 400 sound like the Blade. To an accomplished player, the guitar becomes a part of him, an extension of himself, as he plays...some guitars just seem to resist and won't "cooperate".

The qualities that are available in a any given steel will be judged as "good" or "bad" by the player himself. Along that same line of thought, certain qualities may be deemed desireable by a majority of players, in general. Whether it's mechanics or tonalities, or some combination, it is these guitars that become famous as "the best"...they "encourage" the player to play his best.

Personally, I don't strive to sound like anyone else...I like being, and sounding like, me. Still, the guitar I play must enhance that which I am trying to communicate. Not just any old guitar can do that. BUT, just because I could play any old guitar and be recognized as myself, doesn't mean the guitar has no importance in achieving "my tone". My guitar plays a very collaborative roll in achieving that.

I'll second that. There's another thread going with similar statements. A good player can make any guitar sound decent - but it's STILL going to sound like that guitar, no matter who plays it.

I think players who make the "tone is in the hands" statement mistake stylistic qualites for "tone". Attack, hand position, speed of movement...those things can have an effect on the sound produced...but NOT the inherent tone of the instrument.

And I HAVE heard some bad guitars. Lots of them. No matter how good your hands are, you can't make a dead, non-resonant, dull-sounding hunk of wood sound "alive". A good player will sound decent on one because his playing skill and style allow him to compensate somewhat for a lousy (tonally) instrument...but the inherent tone of the instrument is what it is.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 19 November 2006 at 09:54 AM.]

quote:

---

... you will discover that your view is in direct conflict with a number of the "great" players.

---

True, but hadn't you noticed...most of those are trying to sell you something?

I'd wager that in the group of top 10 players, no more than two are playing the same guitar. That alone should blow all the arguments of "best tone" and "best sound" etc. right out of the water. Sure, these guys want a reliable axe. but their reputation is built around their "sound". They wouldn't play a guitar that didn't cut it just because it was reliable, ir because it was easy to change. Contrary to popular belief, most pros aren't making changes in their setups every week like a lot of players here. They've pretty much found what works for them, and a new lick by Paul just doesn't rate very high on their "things I gotta change to impress someone else" list.

As far as instruments having individual and unique voices, I'll concede that, but I don't think most of you realize the real crux of my argument. And that is that it doesn't matter what you play, really! It's the player that makes the instrument famous, not the other way around! If Stevie Ray Vaughn played a Gibson SG, would he have failed to achieve stardom? If Chet had spent his life playin' Epiphones, would he have never earned the "Mr. Guitar" moniker? If Paul McCartney had played an Ampeg bass instead of a Hofner, would the Fab Four have remained nite-club act?

So go ahead, give "God-like" emphasis to your "tone", your "sound", your "gear" if you like. (It is far easier than improving your chops.) Just remember, one day, you may be playing in front of someone that puts most of the emphasis on ability, imagination, and style, and he could care less that you're playing Mooney's original guitar, through Garcia's original amp, using Buddy's own picks and bar, and Paul Bigsby's original pedal.

Yeah, he may actually expect you to impress him with your playing!

Chet, Buddy, and others like them, play the particular instruments they've chosen because they like to perform on them. I seriously doubt that anyone ever heard Chet, going into a recording session, or a live performance, say "find me some kind of guitar to play". No, he chose carefully, one based on exacting criteria. Sure, he could have played just about any kind of axe and sounded "good", but he didn't, did he?

"I firmly believe that the instrument is simply a foundation from which a good player can make magic happen. Sure a good player can make any axe sound "better" because of his playing technique. That's a given. But, then, why don't they prefer just any old guitar? It's because the guitar matters to their sound. The tonal qualities of the guitar enhance their resulting performance. I don't, and have never, believed that tone is only "in the hands"...regardless of what definition for tone is used. Obviously, a player's hands enable him to draw the very best out of any instrument, but even Buddy can't make a Fender 400 sound like the Blade. To an accomplished player, the guitar becomes a part of him, an extension of himself, as he plays...some guitars just seem to resist and won't "cooperate"

Db

------------------

"Promat"
~when tone matters~ www.promatsteelguitars.com

I'm almost getting used to it though. Only took me three years

Try to take a listen to the tune "Twin" on this MySpace site. That is me and my MCI at work (Actually the session is 1 1/2 years in the past by now).

click here

------------------
Klaus Caprani

MCI RangeXpander S-10 3x4
www.klauscaprani.com

Donny grabbed a few players identified with particular guitars out of context. McCartney played the Hofner when the Beatles were at their biggest, but has played innumerable basses...mostly Rics lately...for tonal AND feel reasons. Cheat played many different models of guitars from a company that sponsored him. SRV favored Strats - more than one, all different sounding if you read the interviews - but also played other guitars. Jimmy Page is a good example of a player who uses different tonal tools - Les Pauls, Teles, and Danelectros - because they all tonally fit certain things he's playing.

If I have a choice between a flashy player with lousy tone or a stylish, but less fancy player with great tone I'll take the second one every time.