------------------
Rick
Kline Cadillac U-12, Nashville 112 and 1000, Hilton Volume Pedal

------------------
Bobby Lee
-b0b- quasar@b0b.com
System Administrator
My Blog

[This message was edited by b0b on 16 December 2006 at 09:56 AM.]

Reece - IMO the answer is perfectly valid and true. Can you accept that neither position nor observation is wrong?

b0b - Not just Fenders. Herb Steiner's wraparound push-pull, for example, has a very distinctive tone even among push-pulls. My MSA Classic definitely had a distinctive tone...one you wanted to run away from ;-) And my GFI sounds completely different from the couple of Shobuds I've had - smoother highs, more mids, a fatter, rounder tone.

There are a lot of variations, but as Paul noted, the trend nowdays is to make them all sound pretty much the same. For me...and I know quite a few others that I've discussed it with...that's very limiting. Of course, more steel is played in country music than anything else, and I'm sure Paul's right that the recording industry in that arena wants the consistency that a single-tone platform offers.

For those outside that style, or who play country and other styles, a lot of discussion circles around things like multiple pickups, tone/volume circuits, pickup taps, series/parallel switching, etc. Many guitar players who take up steel wonder at the lack of features - some add them. One example...not of a modern guitar, though...is my Fender 400 with two pickups and a Tele-style control system, but with 1meg pots. No matter what setting you use, it still sounds like a 400 - but with a wide range of variations. I think Baz has done the same thing to his as well.

Both of Reece's past few Topics on tone and the hands are extremly valuable and and I thank you Reece. I agree that tone is in the hands. Although I can identify the tone of a Bigsby, Rickenbacker, or a Fender 400 most of the time. The tone of a players attack and hands it was makes us individuals. This is what it comes down to . I would say the instrument is more like a flavoring or a enhancement of our natural tone.

You can call this style, but it is no doubt tone as well. This may be easier heard on acoustic and non pedal steel (to me) since there are so many variables in a non pedal approach..... timing of a slide to a note (there is always a minute fraction of a difference of timing spent to a note and the amount of vibrato spent on that specific note before the next note is picked ) I see this difference in all players. Also vibrato, hand pressure and more that has already been mensioned from the left hand. Then the right hand attack, position, angle ect ect ( so many variables that have already been mensioned I won't try and list them all).

These are the factors that give us our individual and unique sound. As much as some of us would like to immitate some one else's tone, it all comes down to the way we approach the instrument. In some frustrating ways I will always sound like me when I play, but I am thankful as well.

I seem to remember some liner notes on one of Buddy Emmons' albums to the effect that "his" amp was not available for a certain session, and he ended up using one with an eight inch speaker on the spur of the moment.

Possibly too that the times he played "Four Wheel Drive" on a Fender were maybe one in a thousand overall during his playing career. Maybe there's a count somewhere..

I remember when he got a Sierra, and I thought "gee, I'm glad someone can get a decent tone out of one of them...

Just now, playing a Tele in the end of my first year back onstage with one, I've decided on the "tone" I like. If I had to play a Les Paul I'd see if there was a coil spitter on the bridge pickup, turn up the highs on the amp, and whack the strings a little harder fretting a little lighter to get that "Burton Buzz™"

Maybe I should read all 6 pages of this like it was a tuning thread, but I have a life this weekend, and a gig to get ready for tonite.

Maybe by the time I get back there'll be 7 pages..

EJL

It's very surprising and I believe unfortunate you felt harassment was taking place and made the decision to delete some posts.

I most certainly acknowledge your right to do so, just as I'm sure you recognize my right to disagree with your decision.

But nothing compared to many in the relatively recent past.
But maybe because I put it the FAQ list,
you felt it should be made an example also.

Reece, Are you saying you changed your mind to include only "most commonly used" guitars after posting the initial statement noted above?

in·her·ent
–adjective
1. existing in someone or something
as a permanent and inseparable element,
quality, or attribute:
an inherent distrust of strangers.

[Origin: 1570–80; < L inhaerent- (s. of inhaeréns), prp. of inhaerére to inhere;
—Related forms
in·her·ent·ly, adverb

—Synonyms 1. innate, native, inbred, ingrained. See essential.

American Heritage Dictionary
in·her·ent (ĭn-hîr'ənt, -hěr'-)
adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

*********************************************

AND :
tone
noun, verb, toned, ton·ing.
–noun

1. any sound considered with reference to its quality, pitch, strength, source, etc.: shrill tones.

2. quality or character of sound.

4. a particular quality, way of sounding, modulation, or intonation of the voice as expressive of some meaning, feeling, spirit, etc.: a tone of command.

8. Music.
a. a musical sound of definite pitch, consisting of several relatively simple constituents called partial tones, the lowest of which is called the fundamental tone and the others harmonics or overtones.

b. an interval equivalent to two semitones; a whole tone; a whole step.

c. any of the nine melodies or tunes to which Gregorian plainsong psalms are sung.

11. Art. the prevailing effect of harmony of color and values.

c. normal sensitivity to stimulation.
13. a normal healthy mental condition.

14. a particular mental state or disposition; spirit, character, or tenor.

15. a particular style or manner, as of writing or speech; mood: the macabre tone of Poe's stories.

16. prevailing character or style, as of manners, morals, or philosophical outlook: the liberal tone of the 1960's.

17. style, distinction, or elegance.
–verb (used with object)

18. to sound with a particular tone.

19. to give the proper tone to (a musical instrument).

20. to modify the tone or general coloring of.

23. to render as specified in tone or coloring.

24. to modify the tone or character of.

25. to give or restore physical or mental tone to.
___________________________________________

OK, so we have the relevant definitions.

Some relvant to an instruments vibrational and 'output' qualities.

And also to the social dialog we are,
on again off again, involved in here.

Can you change the output quaility
of an instruments 'Inherant Tone',
with your hands.
Yes.

Can you change that quality beyond that which is built in,
without making modifications
No.

Can you make modifications to an instrument to accentuate
the quality in relation to
a.) your mental picture of good sound,
b.) your ability to create a vibrational source for these sounds
Yes.

Can an instrument be set up
and it's down chain reproduction neccesaries
changed,
so that it inhibits the production of a sound quality,
that you search for.
Yes.
And also the inverse.

So I postulate :
We as individual players,
choose and setup instruments and down chain reproduction parts,
to accentuate the quality of sound were are making with our hands,
to get as close as possible to our 'minds ear imaging'.

So the answer is BOTH!

The hands doing the job,
as we each see it,
to create the source vibrations of our end sound,
AND
our choosing the instrument chain that best reproduces
that personal physical manifisation of our minds ear;
it is, in effect, a symbiotic whole.

No either or answer.

BUT bad hands and $30,000 of tools,
makes bad sound, that never approaches
the minds ear image.

It all starts with the hands/mind,
then you have a multitude of choices to make.

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 19 December 2006 at 09:12 PM.]

------------------
Bb is where it's at!

[This message was edited by Junior Knight on 19 December 2006 at 11:10 AM.]

quote:

---

I fail to understand how anyone who was not pursuing a personal agenda, could interpret that I changed my mind.

---

Well put. Personal agenda is an understatement

[This message was edited by Tim Harr on 19 December 2006 at 12:42 PM.]

David D....Great in depth post and final analysis! I can appreciate the research that went into your post.

Rick J....You have email!

Jr. K....You certainly know "Bb is where its at", so I don't understand why you're confused.

Anapeg?

Franklin?

Millenium?

Magnum?

Whitney?

No personal agenda at all, but you've changed the terms Reece. I wasn't speaking specifically of Fenders or Bigsby's, but they would be included in your original question and are now you have decided they are excluded.

The "personal agenda" comments border on unpleasantness, though.

Anyway - are any of the ones on the list above also excluded? How do you define "commonly used?

David - The dictionary is a wonderful tool when it's used in context, but pulling out definitions and using them as standalone statements was considered bad form even back in the High School English courses I taught. "Commonly accepted usage" - especially with subjective terms, such as those used to describe intangibles, are always considered more acceptable. But you can stick whatever definitions on you wish, as the definition is always up to the speaker or writer...especially if it's commonly known or accepted terminology and you as reader/listener know what's meant and are simply using the definitions as an argument to debate semantics.

"BUT bad hands and $30,000 of tools,
makes bad sound, that never approaches
the minds ear image."

That's absolutely true though. The hilarious thing is that nobody is saying anything different...people are just convinced certain terms or writers are "more correct" than others.

The music doesn't change.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 19 December 2006 at 09:12 PM.]

A common source of reference makes
discussion of ever narrowing definitions clearer for all,
who would agree the definition is correct
in todays usage.

I didn't provide an definition for "it",
so don't worry be happy, :}

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 19 December 2006 at 09:26 PM.]

But I feel I misread your intent on that basis. Nice post.

I believe "it" in this context, is that which is the defining element!

There are those who are convinced if they have a certain name guitar they have in essence "inherited" a specific tone. However take the same guitar that person is convinced is "it", place it out of sight along side other like guitars playing through the same amp, using the same volume pedal, cords and tuning, and I maintain "it" will not be consistently identifiable when compared with other guitars, no matter who's playing the guitar.

But as I've stated before...and not just applicable to Fenders and Bigsby's...I stringly believe, as do others with decades of experience as well, that many guitars DO have an identifiable tone....and that's a GOOD thing. The idea (not that anyone has suggested this) that one tone is suitable for all players is both wrong and a sad thought.

I ponder, though, the whole "hands" question when certain guitars are now eliminated from the comparison...and my question regarding other specific brands wasn't addressed, also rendering the use of "any" as an all-inclusive phrase in conflict with later selective comparisons. Reece, I wasn't the one who started a thread that was all-inclusive and later changed it because some guitars didn't fit my premise. The comparisons seem to be in flux though, and I would like to (as I think others would) what guitars ARE exceptions and have such distinct tone that they ARE identifible. You implied Fender and Bigsby fit that bill - any others? Soem of us intentionally look for guitars with specific tonal qualities, and it's not an argumentative thing - it's a helpful one.

"it would be nice to get to the topic at hand and stop babbling. if its not on this topic go start your own topic.then recite all you want."

I personally like definitions that are as fixed as the last dictionary printing (which tend to incorporate "common usage")as opposed to "poetic license". Thanks for the input DD.

It is hard to resolve some subjects via verbal gymnastics and opinions...it becomes like politics and religion discussions...they are "fun" also.

Jimmie M....I'll have to respectfully disagree with you this time. I believe much has been learned within this thread about both the topic and perpensity of dispositions.

In my last post I again expressed my belief that an inherent tone cannot be consistently identified. Were I to believe otherwise, I would view this as the perfect opportunity to make it known that I could consistently identify an inherent tone.

Ed P....I believe this topic has the possibility of going far past that of opinion. Baseless opinion is what has perpetuated the inherent tone myth for many years. I believe it's time this long standing myth is debunked or proven.

We may have to get DD to get the definition(s) of MYTH as it appears to have a different meaning in higher criticism than in street talk.

May I assume you believe that the prevailing "myth" is based upon 90% plus imagination and 10% marketing (or something like that).

Personally, I think that I am more likely to be able to tell which instrument it is NOT than which one it is in a blindfold test...even more so if the test is an AB (same time frame/same picker/same ame style/same tune.)

This has already been done in the mid to late 1970's at the old MSA factory. All the major guitar makes were there--Emmons, Sho-Bud, MSA, and folks could even bring their own guitars in. Results: not one single person could identify the entire menagerie. This same type test was also done on amplifiers, by Peavey, according to Mike Brown:

"Back in the late '90's, we did a blindfold test among twenty or so top Nashville guitarists that A/B'd one of our latest Transtube amplifiers against the most popular guitar tube amps on the market. No effects were used. They played their favorite guitar through each of the amps. Not one player could determine what or which brand of amp that he/she was playing through. True story.
mike brown"

Same with identification of some tunings. I recall one year in Dallas Reece Anderson played his entire set using a MSA with E9 Universal tuning on it and everyone there thought he was playing his Bb6 tuning, and even made comments to the same.

And so goes the expert theories, ideas and bragging rights; some good, some bad, and some badly misinterpreted. Oh well, Merry Christmas everyone.
Phred

------------------
"From Truth, Justice is Born"--Quanah Parker-1904

In response to your questions:

It is my belief there is no inherent tone associated with any widely used steel guitar, therefore no inherent tone can be perceived on a consistent basis by listeners.

I agree with you, we need to ask our "resident expert" David D. if he will provide the specific definition of the word "myth". My interpretation is that of a "fantasy".

I also agree with your analogy that inherent tone is myth based at 90% and a much smaller percentage to marketing. Back in the 70's that could have come close to being a much closer percentage.