Reece, I think you meant to use the word "implied." Very common error, though...

quote:

---

... my point is that IMO tone *starts* with the instrument, and it's not actually "tone" that's hand-manipulated.

---

To avoid hijacking this thread, I put my response to that general idea in a different thread: http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/013904.html

Even though I have a somewhat different view, I don't actually think it really matters that much whether we call it "tone", "timbre", "sound", or "style". But what I think is important is that the clearly stated point of this thread is to discuss the various ways that the hands can manipulate what emanates from the instrument. I am absolutely convinced that hands are at least as important as equipment, even though I of course acknowledge that certain equipment may be required to get certain types of sounds.

Another point. I have been, long before I ever started playing steel guitar, a guitar player. I have played blues, jazz, country, hard rock, old rock, rockabilly, bluegrass, heavy mental, surf, punk, folk, whatever. There is an attitude among many electric (and also acoustic) guitar players that the equipment defines the sound. A huge industry has developed around that idea, and rock stars everywhere are paid big bucks to push that nonsense on the unsuspecting populace. Rock guitarists typically have miles more tone manipulators than most steel players use - a huge diversity of guitar types, pickup types, effects, different types of amps, speakers - you name it. Still - what is the main issue? The hands. As long as it's reasonably playable, a really good player can take a junk guitar and plug it into a $100 Crate solid-state amp and make it sound great, while a hack can take the finest $400,000 '59 Les Paul Standard and plug it through a Bradshaw rack loaded up with the greatest imaginable effects and into the finest '59 Bassman you ever heard, and it's still going to sound like garbage. I have seen it time and time again - quite seriously, in my vintage guitar shop several years back and continuing at guitar shows I go to - and I don't think it's any different for us steel players. Yes, various contraptions may be needed to get certain signature sounds - but I think the amount of hand-manipulation required to get that good tone is often underestimated.

You're out playing and feelin' mighty fine..great tone..

"I'm a man on Fire with Tone "...

then a fellow Steeler comes up and says.

"hey dude.. it sounds pretty good but it needs a little more bottom end "...

A good amount of tone comes from the technique of the hands, but I can certainly show you how to mess up great tone with lousy electronics, or out of wack eq, etc. All those device are there to enhance the natural tone of the guitar and the player if used properly.

If any one player IMHO has an identifiable (is that even a word) it would be Lloyd Green. I can spot his playing a mile away. It is probably as much as his unique style but he has a sound that no one else has.

I have heard a couple of licks here and there that come close, but no one sounds like Lloyd except Lloyd.

Enough Rambling,

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone and count your blessings (even if your tone is only half as good as the pros).

Mark T.

[This message was edited by mtulbert on 21 November 2006 at 05:39 PM.]

quote:

---

then a fellow Steeler comes up and says.

"hey dude.. it sounds pretty good but it needs a little more bottom end "...

---

------------------
“Back then, everything was different, and you only saw it once; now everything’s the same and you see it over and over again"
-Peter Case

To the contrary I'm impressed with the dignity, consideration, insight, intellectual input, and overall respect displayed within the thread, especially when considering sound/tone is such a "hot button" topic.

Incidentally, the word I used (inferred) was intentional, which as you know means, "to derive as a logical consequence".

Hope you enjoyed the Tony Bennett special as much as I. The arrangements production and performances were as good as I've seen in many years!

Randy B....If you're not an expert, I don't know who would be! I most sincerely hope your comment about not taking part in further discussions was simply "tongue in cheek".

I had no idea what I was getting into when I posted on this subject. You can bet that won't happen again! I'll leave that to the experts.

Randy, don't leave us!!!! As Reece put it you are in the expert class of player in my and many other's humble opinions. There are lots of us who value your opinions and your opinions count!!! Especially with your track record.

The type of information that you have given to many players here is a valuable tool to help us who want to improve on the steel.

Regards,

"I've owned so many guitars of every brand over the years, and I've studied this question mighty hard. It's been an ongoing "research project" for the last 25 years or so, you could say for me. Here are my conclusions - so far:
1. At least 75%, if not more like 90% of what we perceive as "tone" comes from the player himself (hands, heart however you want to subjectively define it...this cannot be objectively measured). You can either play, or you can't...AND other people will either like it or not...that simple.

HOWEVER...

2. The other 10 - 25% of "tone" IS affected by the type of guitar/gear one uses. Every guitar is a bit different; even ones that are made by the same manufacturer. For example, I've owned seven (7) different Emmons guitars in my career, and they ALL sounded a bit different, but still retained some basic element that defined them to my ears as Emmons'. That includes 5 push/pulls and 1 Legrande, & one LG II. I've also owned Deckley, MCI, MSA, Carter, Sho-Bud, GFI, Mullen, Zum, and I may be leaving something else out...bottom line is, I think I know from where I speak. I still own three different steels, a vintage Sho-Bud, a Carter and a Mullen. I use them for different situations and applications, although I could be pretty happy with just one of any good guitar.

Furthermore, I think that most all guitars made today are truly good, quality instruments, and in the right hands, they will ALL sound pretty good. So it basically comes down to what an individual prefers in that other elusive 10-25% of "tone", coupled with playability, etc.

BUT, I can almost GAURANTEE this: John Q. Public will not be able to discern the difference between a Carter Starter and a Mullen or a '65 wraparound when all are played by the same person in a live band situation.

Of course not. You talk as if it's a black and white issue though. They are VERY similar, especially in the way construction and electronics affect the tone of the guitar and how the hands can manipulate that basic tonal platform.

You're on some kick branding me as the "six string" guy when I have just a little experience with 40 years of instrument sound...not just 6-string guitar...including college courses on acoustical foundations of music that included the physics of both acoustic and electric instruments.

So stop with the "validity" arguments - you're standing in quicksand, and it's getting tiresome, honestly. I hate playing a credentials game, but as far as I know, the only ones you have are that you can type

"f you don't think hands have a blanking thing to do with tone, then you have nothing to say, do you?? PLEASE!!! STAY ON TOPIC!!"

Mike, I don't think anybody said hands have no effect on the sound at all, at least in the posts I read. But equipment is a valid part of the equation and it directly affects the hands...because certain types of equipment can either limit or expand the role the ands play in sound manipulation. You can't separate the two, as any change in equipment requires a change in use of hands to either overcome deficiences, alter the sound, change the attack, etc. If instead you're bothered because some people don't think that tone *starts* with the hands...well, that's just the way it is.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 21 November 2006 at 08:49 PM.]

As David Wright said you hit the nail on the head,
and from an historical perspective.

You named major leage players,
in the same time period,
essentially playing the same equipment,
and get very divergent and individual tones.

In other words all things being equal,
their hand technique was the differing factor.

Certainly some will (no doubt) argue they set the amp differently.
But there is only so far from typical
you can tweak a Twin and not sound odd...
The clear difference stated was hand technique.

So I postulate :
if you like a particular steel like a PP or Fessendon
for it's inherant sound, fine play through that,

but at the same time you can get a larger difference
in that instrument's POSSIBLE sounds
by the application of hand techniques.

If you DON'T seriously investigate your hand technique,
and how it excites the strings,
then you are likely losing a lot of sounds
your prefered instrument can make.

I think Damir might agree I got a MUCH different tone from his Promat than he gets.

So who came first the chicken or the egg?

Your amp settings,
or your fingers plucking the strings
and bar creating a vibrational distance
and it's harmonic series?

I gotta go with the fingers, bar and strings.
After that it's all just manipulation
of the sound energy.

Secondly... Garbage in garbage out.
No amount of amp and instrument tweaking
can make poor string tone,
good tone. Let alone GREAT tone.

Jim P. nice to see you here too.
Interesting comment also.

People sound like themselves on several different instruments.

I wonder of Bobbe has had similar expirence
with many people passing across many different steels.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 22 November 2006 at 04:02 AM.]

For any of you out there that want to learn how to control your sound better with your hands you could try a thing I do. To get a brighter sound I play through the crappyest amp around and turn off all the treble and mids and turn the bass all the way up.Then I practice like that for a few days or until I can get the brightest, snappyest sound possible. I even play harmonics like that.

Then I do the opposite to get a beefy, bassy, full sound. I turn the treble all the way up and the bass and mids all the way off on a little crappy practice amp. I play like that for days or weeks untill I can get as much bass out of the amp as possible in every note.

Lately I've been playing one note, like the note B right below middle C, on every string I can. Real slow and over and over again. I try to make each note B sound exactly the same no matter where I play in on the neck. Its pretty subtle but really pays off when it comes to expression. I'll never play as well as Johnny Cox, Randy, Buck or Reece but I figure if I can train my hands to make what I can play sound good I got at least a little something going on.

------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website

If we spent 20-30 years hearing a steel amp up close and personal,
vs a drummer and the rest,
then we no longer hear in the freq. bands
that correspond to our

choice of amp settings,

and the harmonic content relative to the preponderance of music we have played.

We THEN start compensating for our aging
AND work related hearing deficentsies,
with the amp controls...
When somebody comes up and says, like was noted above,
you could use more bass in your sound...
Well it JUST MIGHT BE SO.

You just don't know it.
But you resent the suggestion of somebody mucking
with 'YOUR SOUND'

Yet your sound is NOT
what you think it is...
cause ya just ain't hearing reality no mo!

I KNOW that I don't hear top end like I used to,
But I have enough experince to not
over do it while mixing.

I also started doing more acoustic or low level music 15 years ago.
One benifit of jazz, is
it just ain't so loud.

Now all the above has some negative affects on your sound.

But if you leave your amp settings conservative,
then by using good technique,
you likely can draw out the best tone from your instrument,
without trying to blindly compensate with amp settings.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 22 November 2006 at 10:01 AM.]

------------------
John Drury
NTSGA #3

I, like many players, came from a 6 string background. I used to study Chet's style. Not so much for his chordal methods, but for the tonal palettes he could create. When I began playing steel, I naturally applied the same technique to it. Pick control will definitely affect what is heard.

Here's another simple experiment to demonstrate how the hands effect your tone....

If I angle the pick so that the string rolls off the rounded edge, I get a mellower tone. If I angle the pick so that the string comes off the flat surface, I get a sharper tone.

The strength of the attack also plays a roll. A strong attack emphasizes the harmonic root moreso than a lighter attack, which brings out more of the harmonic content.

The pick's position relative to the pickup is another variable, as has been mentioned before. Closer to the pickup produces a sharper tone. Conversely, farther away gives a more mellow tone.

Each one of the above can easily be demonstrated on any guitar and each has a slightly different effect. There are, of course, several more variables, but just taking these alone, one can, by mixing the 3 variations, produce a wide palette of tones.

The above will demonstrate what this thread is about. The hands have an important and unmistakeablely direct effect on the resulting tonal characteristics of the note played.

The amp, and any other electronics that may be used, can manipulate the frequency spectrum and gain structure, but can't really change the initial character of the note.

If you choose to confine the definition of tone to "that which comes out of the speaker", that's fine. The point is that the interaction between the hands and the strings creates an initial tonal character for the note that persists throughout the signal path. That note may get manipulated, distorted, or otherwise changed, but it's source is still the same. By changing the note's character at the source you will change the tone of the note coming from the speaker.

;-)

But as far as what you said - the angle, the shape of the pick and the pick material all combine with strength and speed of attack to affect the initial fraction of a second of sound that's projected. That little piece of time along with vibrato and choice of notes and timing is what defines a player, and what a player can manipulate with the hands.

quote:

---

Once the string is vibrating at some level of equilibrium (assuming the bar or pedal is static at the time) the hands have done their thing and the tone *is* the equipment.

---

Yes, Jim. I don't disagree with that. I'm just trying to focus on the role of the hands, in particular.

Wouldn't you agree that if the player changes only the way he picks the note, all else being the same, the resulting tone, or sound, would change? Could you elaborate on your pick technique? I would love to hear your perspective. How do Tele players get that "string rattling against the fret" kind of sound?

(edited to correct punctuation)

[This message was edited by Mike Wheeler on 22 November 2006 at 05:30 AM.]

Sound yes - tone no. I know it seems like semantics, but it's really a fundamental principle of acoustic engineering. "Schooled" studio engineers (those that actually go to school to learn it) are well aware of these things, which are in published papers.

With Tele players, because the "normal" instrument is so unforgiving and has such precise articulation, they use a wide variation in attack to get that first "hit" that makes a player sound distinct. But once you dig into a G played at the 12th fret on the 3rd string and let it ring, the instrument reproduces its inherent tone, and the right-hand influence becomes moot (assuming a "normal" note and not a "false harmonic", if you all know what I mean).

This is something proven by both scope traces and slow-motion video.

FWIW a piano is set up so the "hammer" strikes the strings at a point that is NOT limited to certain frequencies at the initial point of impact. It's a complicated design set up to optimize the full harmonic content of each string at the point of attack.

A good study of some of these effects plus other acoustic theory is the book "The Acoustical Foundations of Music" (or very close to that title). I forget the author - my son has my copy right now. A lot of "common knowledge" gets debunked rather quickly in scientific studies, where tests and physical proof back up the realities.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 22 November 2006 at 06:49 AM.]

This is independant of how far up you are from the bridge, what kind of overdrive you're inducing by volume changes, whether your overdrive/compression is cutting off some of the initial attack, whether you're hitting the strings horizontally or more vertically, and a lot of other stuff that keep guitarists arguing into infinity. A lot of purists claim that equalization and compression are vices, without understanding that the amp manufacturers have already spent a lot of time and effort building equalization and compression right into their amps, in a way designed to please their target audiences. Peavey calls their compression "DDT", and their mid-shift control is a specific parametric EQ.

Different variations in which frequencies are emphasized can absolutely change the proportional volumes of notes. I have a graphic EQ and a parametric EQ on separate channels of my home rack, and I can reshape the loudness and proportional tonal content of various sections of the fretboard of either a steel or a six-string. AMPS ALREADY DO THIS TOO - the engineers have just already decided for you what frequencies should be emphasized and cut. AND, this can't help but affect how you use your hands to try to bring out different sounds for different musical effects - at least, I sure hope not.

If you want to know what your steel really, really sounds like, plug it into a (non-tube) direct box, then straight into a power amp, then straight into some PA speakers, preferably with high-end tweeters or horns so you can really hear and feel that high-end treble bite. The reason your steel doesn't normally sound like that is because, mercifully, some engineer somewhere decided that he didn't want you making those kinds of noises.

[This message was edited by David Mason on 22 November 2006 at 07:33 AM.]

------------------
Turn Up The Steel
Johnny Cox
MSA Steel Guitars

quote:

---

Sound yes - tone no. I know it seems like semantics, but it's really a fundamental principle of acoustic engineering.

---

I don't mean to be combative, but nonsense, IMHO. It's semantics. I don't care whether you're an engineer (I am, Ph.D. electrical engineering) or a musician (I also am, school of hard knocks). The generally accepted definitions for "tone" and "timbre" relate to the frequency response of an instrument, which can change significantly with the exciting source, which is the strings being struck. I started a separate thread to try to get this semantic debate off here, so this thread could continue its journey about how the hands affect what is produced by the instrument - I don't think it matters a whit whether you call it "tone" or "sound". I'm going to call it tone - you can call it sound. Can't we leave it at that and stay on target to discuss how the hands affect this - whatever you want to call it?

quote:

---

Once the string is vibrating at some level of equilibrium (assuming the bar or pedal is static at the time) the hands have done their thing and the tone *is* the equipment.

---

Sounds like you're saying, as Reece did, that "Most will agree tone begins with the hands". This is a driven oscillatory system, not a free one. Both hands and the physical instrument, not to mention strings, affect the tone - the frequency response of the the ouput. I use the term "driven" because that is the generally used technical term - engineers distinguish between "driven" versus "free" oscillatory systems. The tone during and shortly after a string is struck is heavily controlled by how it's struck. Only after a period of time and the vibration settles into its free decaying oscillation does the instrument take over. They are both important to tone.

In my experience on guitar and steel, every single little tiny thing that is done affects the tone (yes, I said tone) of the instrument by changing the way the physical instrument responds to the excitation produced by the strings. Well-trained ears and brain take in and process auditory feedback, which the hands then use to adjust the overall sound - that which they hear - to their liking. In the process, they have changed the tone of the instrument. IMO, this is the biggest difference between a good-sounding player and a poor-sounding one - a poor player can't process this auditory feedback and make adjustments to get "their tone".

I just picked up a 1949 Gibson Electraharp, and spent a day cleaning and setting it up. It has a markedly different nominal tonal signature than the typical modern all-pull, and reacts quite differently to the way strings are struck. No amount of tweaking of effects and amps makes the nominal timbre of this guitar like a LeGrande, for example. But even with a couple of cursory days of playing, it's clear there is a huge range of timbres within this instrument, if one adjusts the way the hands are used. I don't need a spectrum analyzer to hear this. I think that is even more true with a typical all-pull, which, to me, appear to be more flat, from a frequency response point of view in the important midrange frequencies, than a wood-bodied guitar like the Electraharp or let's say an wood-bodied Sho Bud.

Another critical factor is clearly the strings. That is what the hands actually interact with, and is a part of the nominal timbre of the instrument. The way I use my hands depends heavily on the way the strings react, which depends on which strings I am using. String gauges, materials, tensions all affect the final outcome, because their vibrations "drive" the vibratory system that is the physical instrument itself.

If I have read your post correctly, you believe, along with a few others on this thread, that once the string is picked the players hands are through and the instrument of choice, along with its amplification, does the rest which provides the complete tone we here.

Once a string is plucked, the musicians I work with and admire, NEVER stop manipulating the string for tonal purposes. This renders your professors theory pointless. If professional musicians do not play instruments in such a manner, as to hold the note without any further manipulation, then beyond building instruments that knowledge is useless when it comes to performing good tone.

Reece offered up a good start for you and others to learn from. He doesn't have to do that. He clearly tried to avoid the instrument and amplification arguments you presented, trying to focus on all the elements that picked the strings.

Bob,

When it come to performing music, the mind, hands and soul of the player controls and provides most of the tone we listen to on a daily basis. Amps and instruments also matter. This forum could sit down to your rig and amp settings and all would sound completely different.

Its easy to change instruments and amps for a difference in tone. It much harder to master the actual playing of the instrument which is the only method that can provide the tone we all dream of having.

Paul

So I'm talking left hand/bar hand, here.

When someone walks up to me and asks "how to get that tone", and I may sound like a jerk for saying this, but it happens at every single gig I play, starting when I was 16 playing a korean no brand tele copy through a roland cube, to today playing a 75' tele through a boogie, I always say it's A CONTACT SPORT between the hand and the neck.

I've seen player struggling to get any "twang" out of their tele + twin, and watching them play, I could tell it was always a lack of pressure on the left hand...

I was actually surprised to learn that Reggie Young has some really heavy strings on his guitar -- .11 for the high E, or something crazy like that -- because he says that he puts so much pressure on the strings to control his TONE, that with lighter strings, he always goes pitchy.