I'd qualify that to say "dead" strings. Some "old" strings don't really deaden tone - electric bass often sounds better with well broken-in strings, and it takes a LOT to make them "dead". A lot of dobro players also don't care for the sound of brand-new strings and like them played in - and again, it takes a lot to make them "dead"."

There's the whole post. We were discussing strings as a part of the whole sound puzzle, and I was just making a distinction between "old" and "dead", which are two different things and using examples in the stringed instrument/guitar family.

I also certainly wasn't "rebuking" anyone, and I sincerely doubt b0b saw it that way. It was a qualification, not a correction.

The post was a note regarding string tone and age vs wear...and mentioning other instruments in the discussion might be found informative by some, especially dobro (if you find bass irrelevant so be it - but it is a "guitar" and a "stringed instrument" - others mentioned "any instrument"; "any guitar"; stringed instruments".)

Let your saw get dull or your strings go dead,
and you can't cut it...

That said I do have year old strings on my 6 string bass.
Some nights I want to change tham and others
I say why bother, they sustain too long anyway.

I do have a extra set,
but if it ain't broke why fix it.
On the steel, well they don't last like that.

Merry Christmas y'all

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 23 December 2006 at 03:06 AM.]

Another great example was Emmons when playing a Sierra....although the guitars were completely different, he still sounded "uniquely" Emmons.

No matter what he is playing today or plays in the future...I have no doubt the sound will contain his tonal signature.

;-)

Wait - that was just a joking post - But I added this note because I realized that piano strings don't GO dead. And they get "old", but it's not an issue at all. Why are they any different than other strings? If a guitar (or any other "fretted" instrument) has strings on it for years but for some reason isn't played, when it finally IS played the normal thing is to put "fresh" strings on it. Given the piano comparison - why? The piano would seem to completely negate the idea that "old" strings are an issue at all...even old strings on a lightly or seldom-played instrument.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 23 December 2006 at 07:37 AM.]

If I remember correctly, Curly switched from the Sh0-Bud amps to Peaveys around the same time he switched to an MSA guitar.

I am not sure if he ever recorded his Bud with the Peavey. Cox could tell us for sure.

From my experiences, some amps can bring more of a color change than an instrument. Back then Peavey amps were more hard and punchy and the Sho-Bud amps were warm and smooth on the top end.

I agree, a good sounding (BLACK) guitar and amp provide inspiration. Playing flows like water when the player hears the sound he or she wants to express. However, if a player does not have "the touch", it does not matter what amp or guitar they playing.

My observations have been: a player’s signature tone and sound come from the hands! Most know every guitar has certain tonal characteristics. Don't ever under estimate what the master’s touch brings to the equation.

Happy Holidays to All

I would tell you why some changed, but it has little to do with the instrument, and a lot to do with business issues in most cases.

Notice that even when Sierra was in the ashes Joe Wright kept on playing Sierra, and still does.

One Brand, one basic construction method, many different players and styles....there is something there for the "in the hands" crowd.

Reece, that's a great example of a "player's" signature...but has little to do with the tone created. All those players will sound like themselves on any instrument - but their playing is so unique and stylish you don't notice (or care) about any tonal differences. That is the simple thing many of us have been saying all along - "style" and "tone" are seperate animals (as Bobbe so clearly presented a while back in one of his "tips" emails - and if some of the others with that view aren't being considered "credible" I don't think you can discredit Bobbe Seymour's knowledge, which likely is far deeper than most pros who are "just" players)...but they combine in certain cases to create a certain tonal example of that player. Sometimes...especially with more modern instruments as Paul so clearly noted...it's hard to tell any tonal difference because they're made to sound as close as possible.

I believe it was at the NAMM show in Atlanta, many years ago. Down the Isle from our booth, there was an Australian luthier's booth. He had a number of good looking electrified 2 X 4s hanging there, and a fine looking jazz box (arch top). Being a jazz box nut, I wanted to try it (acoustic). He and I jammed a bit, he went to deal with a customer, and I got lost in the instrument...nice sounding box. I was playing over my head from inspiration.

When I came back to this world, there were a lot of feet standing in front of me...oh oh how do I get out of this gracefully...stand up turn around, hang up the instrument, and go silently into the crowd.

The brown boots directly in front of me had long legs covered with grey trousers with a very sharp crease. As I got up, the boots and pants spoke to me; they said "that is a mighty fine sounding gi-tar...do you mind if I try it?"...I looked up to see Chet and his entourage.

After the advent of pedals, string breakage was a problem from continual pedal stretching so I had to change certain strings often to preclude them breaking during a performance.

To answer Reece's post, In my opinion no.

Reece-I don't feel I am qualified to get in the Tone discussion of your Excellent post. I always felt like my tone wasn't good enough to suit me....al

(edit for spelling)
------------------
My Website..... www.cmedic.net/~almarcus/

[This message was edited by Al Marcus on 23 December 2006 at 04:54 PM.]

You can't read everything and have it
be JUST what you believe.

Some will never believe other than
what they already believe.

Some have minds open to new information,
some don't.

Ya kin kick an old dog,
but somethimes ya jes cain't teach him new tricks.

For me tone is part of style. Inseparable.

Is this the last word... I doubt it!

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 24 December 2006 at 12:33 AM.]

His credibility as far as instrument tone and where it comes from I don't think anyone would even attempt to discredit. His credentials are impeccable as a player (stage and studio), builder (MSA) and service/sales (Steel Guitar Nashville).

He continues to play professionally even after opening his shop, which continuously has a wide variety of steels passing through.

I think if there's any one person most qualified to render an opinion on steel guitar tone and how it is developed/ delivered...and the difference between that and style...it's Bobbe. he's said exactly the same thing many of us have been saying all along, so it'd be interesting to see the folks who simply agree with "it's in the hands" but do not offer any supporting information themselves go back, re-read Bobbe's newsletter and posts in other threads about it - and refute him (because in simply agreeing with other viewpoints; mine and others; those posters are also saying Bobbe's wrong, or has the opinions of a "beginner"...).

"Some will never believe other than
what they already believe.

Some have minds open to new information,
some don't."

David - quite a good statement IMO. My own position (which seems to have been twisted by some along the way) is that 1) instruments have an inherent tone, and some have a uniquely identifiable tone when compared under like conditions, which often carries through in "real world" playing". 2) The hands (especially those of a highly-skilled player) can manipulate the sound created, using that tone as a base, in ways to sometimes approximate the sound of other instruments.

FWIW I've been in the same camp as Bobbe and dozens of others who have chimed in that "tone" and "style" are different things.

But I've also said I don't think Reece is fundamentally wrong about the impact of the hands, and the discussions of certain hand techniques have been invaluable to me and many others - I found a whole new right-hand approach for certain things simple due to this thread, and I thank Reece for that.

It doesn't change the idea that tone starts with and is inherent in the instrument. Some agree with that, some don't , but the discussion brought out tremendous information in playing examples, instrument examples, testing - just a wealth of information, which was why (I hope) Reece hasn't closed the thread.

I think that the only ones who have minds that are "made up" and not open to "new information" are folks who just agree with one position or the other, or argue about people posting about it...they're firmly agreeing with someone (and there are some on both sides of the discussion) without ever posting anything in the way of "information", nor backing the agreement with anything.

It seems to me that "I agree with so-and-so" is much more credible and useful when the reasons why (pertaining to the actual subject, not other posters) are included somewhere along the line.

I'm getting great practical application information from Reece, Paul and many others in this thread; also a lot of information (I've gotten, and hopefully given some) regarding instrument tone and test methods/results. To me all the opinion posts on actual the subject matter have been tremendously useful.

[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 24 December 2006 at 07:49 AM.]

If there really are those who are still convinced inherent tone is brand name dependent, what better way than here and now on the forum to express their belief they have the ability to do so.