Wood affects tone (Anderton's video content)

martinw

The idea that 'the audience don't care' is bandied about now and then. Whether it's true or not (might be the case in the Dog when they're all pissed, probably not true at other times when the audience are actually listening to the sounds you're making) it's not really relevant is it?

Musicians ought really to be striving the make the best noises they can, as they perceive it. Music is about sound after all. To paraphrase Homer, via ICBM, they might not know about different woods, but surely we're not saying that all audiences are so wooden that they can't appreciate a pleasing sound?

I mean, I'm an elementary guitar player, but I can appreciate a good guitar tone that comes as a consequence of careful choices of elements as listed above. Even when I'm down the pub!

guitarfishbay

martinw said:

The idea that 'the audience don't care' is bandied about now and then. Whether it's true or not (might be the case in the Dog when they're all pissed, probably not true at other times when the audience are actually listening to the sounds you're making) it's not really relevant is it?

Musicians ought really to be striving the make the best noises they can, as they perceive it. Music is about sound after all

True, but once you're within the recognisable boundaries of 'broad stroke A' for the sake of argument, the player matters more than the gear - and the sum of the parts (rest of band + their equipment + venue sound&soundman&equipment) matter more than the player in isolation.

I would definitely classify having suitable gear as a requirement of getting within 'broad stroke A' though.  A lot of the time I hear crap sound live it is because the PA is rubbish or/and the guitar speaker cabs are poor quality or/and there isn't anyone there (band member/soundguy) who knows how to get the most from what they have.  But equally I've heard some nice gear sound terrible because the players don't really have the skill to play the music properly.

It isn't all about guitars, is my point.  You need to get ballpark of where you need to be but beyond that you can't make an entire band sound good on your own.  'The chain is only as strong as its weakest link' to use a cliche'd saying. 

Drew_TNBD

Chappers is less annoying than Koneguitarist.

Drew_TNBD

martinw said:

The idea that 'the audience don't care' is bandied about now and then.

This is something that idiot-underachieving-can't-be-arsed-to-put-in-110% shit musicians say, and I hate them and hope they drown in lakes of blood.

It actually shows a blatant disregard and disrespect for the audience on their part, and if I heard any musician or band talking like that, they'd be off my "go to their gigs" list.

digitalscream

Drew_fx said:

This is something that idiot-underachieving-can't-be-arsed-to-put-in-110% shit musicians say, and I hate them and hope they drown in lakes of blood.

It actually shows a blatant disregard and disrespect for the audience on their part, and if I heard any musician or band talking like that, they'd be off my "go to their gigs" list.

I'd agree with this. The audience may not be able to point to the exact difference that tiny changes make, but what they will notice is when all those tiny changes add up to make it all sound exactly as the musicians intended.

It's also often the bands who put all of that extra effort into their sound who have punters who leave the gig with a smile on their faces at the end of the night.

impmann

Erm - thats more than a little harsh...

TBH, its only musos that worry about whether there's the right sound on a particular track. A broad brush stroke would be for example: Money for Nothing - is the sound distorted and in tune? Can the guy play the riff? Good enough.

A muso will go mad that the player is attempting to play a cheap stratocaster through a modelling amp and that doesn't give anywhere near the "correct" sound for that tune. And "correct" to that muso...

If the audience like it - who the hell cares? Clearly Drew, above... but I wouldn't call the player in this scenario an  idiot-underachieving-can't-be-arsed-to-put-in-110% shit musician as that isn't fair at all.

TBH, as has been said above there are many factors that influence what a guitar sounds like. For example I have two SGs that sound VERY different acoustically (see Gibson Tune-o-Matic thread). Neither sounds "bad" they just sound different. 

Drew_TNBD

I think it is perfectly fair. You may love playing down the local bar through a Line 6 spider in front of a few pissed up cowboy builder mates, but I tend to think of music as way more important than that. Sorry for being an asshole! (although I don't really believe in apologizing for what is natural)

There is a reason I am still playing my back-breaking Les Paul, instead of any of my lighter guitars. By all supposed objective measures any of them should be just as good as any other, the Les Paul "sounds" and "feels" .... "correct" for the music we've written.

*shrugs*

Basher

martinw said:

The idea that 'the audience don't care' is bandied about now and then. Whether it's true or not (might be the case in the Dog when they're all pissed, probably not true at other times when the audience are actually listening to the sounds you're making) it's not really relevant is it?

Musicians ought really to be striving the make the best noises they can, as they perceive it. Music is about sound after all. To paraphrase Homer, via ICBM, they might not know about different woods, but surely we're not saying that all audiences are so wooden that they can't appreciate a pleasing sound?

I mean, I'm an elementary guitar player, but I can appreciate a good guitar tone that comes as a consequence of careful choices of elements as listed above. Even when I'm down the pub!

I think it is relevant in that players can become utterly obsessed by the supposed tonal differences is wood types, ages etc. when this aspect makes an infinitesimally small contribution to the overall sound of the music. 

I think that most audiences don't care about specific instrument sounds that much because they are too busy caring about the far more important matter of the sound of the performers. 

I'm sick of seeing idiots on youtube blathering on about "tone" when they seem incapable of tuning their guitar or playing in time.

I was watching a covers band this weekend who were very good. I thought the guitar sounds were not that good - both players used (the almost ubiquitous) Blackstar amps with the gain too high and, as a result, I really didn't notice that one of the players had switched from strat to LP for the second set! Fortunately the audience (including me) didn't care. That's because the singing was great, the choice of material was OK, the band were mixed well and everyone seemed able to play in tune and in time.

I think you're right that we should be striving to make the best noises we can but, once we have gear that is capable of sounding Ok (and that's most of it, these days) the single most important thing we can do is to learn to play better both as individual musicians and as band members. 

ThePrettyDamned

After you've all finished working out which piece of wood you want your guitars to be made from, play it with a few picks. All of a sudden, you might find that makes too much difference (I think it's one of the biggest and most important differences, and I play mostly high gain rawk).

the conclusion, really, is to make a sound you like and works however you need to. Then make music. Bit different if you're in a covers band, but I take what I have (I can't afford a CAA amp or a prs private shop custom thing) and I make it sound the best it can. Is it good enough?

Yes. Actually, I quite often prefer my sound to that of people with much better gear. Perhaps I dial in better? Maybe my pick attack graduation across the strings suits the music? Maybe I'm just stupidly biased, but I have had complements over my tone ("huge, like a punch in the chest" was my favourite) when using a rented Peavey bandit, my Ltd and a jazz iii pick. The other guitarist less so - despite it being a Marshall dsl head, v30 loaded 2x12 and a similar guitar. Actually, without his bass boosted, super scooped sound, I'd have sounded shrill and a bit naff. But punters don't care for emulation in original music, just that it sounds good and recognisable, and that should be the goal.

So I agree with Drew_fx. Basically.

randomhandclaps

To me it always seems like Lee has wood when he's with Chappers.... whether that affects his tone I couldn't say.

digitalscream

ThePrettyDamned said:

After you've all finished working out which piece of wood you want your guitars to be made from, play it with a few picks. All of a sudden, you might find that makes too much difference (I think it's one of the biggest and most important differences, and I play mostly high gain rawk). 

Aye...people always seem to laugh at me when I turn up to gigs with a range of picks. I use different picks on different songs - if there's something mellow-ish, I'll tend to use a wooden pick to take the aggressive attack down a notch or three. Conversely, if it's something a bit more raucous, I'll use nylon or metal picks for that extra zing.

Drew_TNBD

^ Wisdom for the pick-fiends.

guitarfishbay

Drew_fx said:

martinw said:

The idea that 'the audience don't care' is bandied about now and then.

This is something that idiot-underachieving-can't-be-arsed-to-put-in-110% shit musicians say, and I hate them and hope they drown in lakes of blood.

It actually shows a blatant disregard and disrespect for the audience on their part, and if I heard any musician or band talking like that, they'd be off my "go to their gigs" list.

The audience do care, but on average they care about the sum of the parts more so than specific guitar elements like us guitarists do.

Again - I do strongly believe you need the right ballpark equipment to get to where you want to be.  If you want a good modern high gain sound you are best off using a humbucker guitar, modern voiced high gain high wattage (50+) head and at least a 2x12 but preferably a 4x12.

Broad changes within each category will make a difference.  Eg a Marshall JCM 800 vs a Dual Rectifier Red/Modern will sound noticeably different to the audience, as would a T75 cab or a V30 cab.  But I don't think narrow differences such as Superstrat A with high output pickup A and Superstrat B with high output pickup B will register on the same scale.  Likewise amps from the same series/lineage don't tend to be earth shatteringly different.

There are loads of tests online that show that narrow differences sound fairly similar when you hear them back to back - this obviously takes the 'feel' part out of the equation, and I still maintain that is important to the player (but only to the audience to the extent that the feel is necessary for the player to perform).  I'm probably picking things that support my viewpoint and am happy to be proved wrong but here we go -

Watch in HD.

Most of these sound pretty similar (clips start at 36 seconds)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3YzI3sd2WA

Peavey 5150 lead channel and EVH 5150 lead channel sound pretty similar, Soldano sounds noticeably different.  Especially at 36-38 seconds where EVH switches to Peavey, I'd miss that change with no visual cue, but I'd pick out the Soldano blind pretty much every time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5kf5CuB8FA

youtube seems to be messing up for me now, can't get it to load.

Was going to post videos about tone differences between speaker cabs, but youtube won't load.  So will have to reference myself!  Same guitar (LP) amp (Ironheart) and mic (57) but different cabs.  Blackstar (v30) Marshall (t75) and EVH (greenbacks).

https://soundcloud.com/maxmoujaes/laney-ironheart-irt120-guitars

https://soundcloud.com/maxmoujaes/ironheart-ironheart-irt120

Honestly at high gain I reckon once you've got a decent amp and guitar (amp matters more than the guitar if you get a decent humbucker guitar IMO) the cab and speaker matter more.

Drew_fx said:

There is a reason I am still playing my back-breaking Les Paul, instead of any of my lighter guitars. By all supposed objective measures any of them should be just as good as any other, the Les Paul "sounds" and "feels" .... "correct" for the music we've written.

*shrugs*

I can 100 % agree with the heavy guitar sentiment.  I can never get the right feel from a lightweight guitar for playing rock/metal, and all humbucker guitars I've bought in person after A/Bing with similar models have been on the heavier side.  I just don't like that squishy feeling when you dig in on a flyweight guitar.  

EdGrip

I would say that if you can turn up and be plugged into a pocket pod though the PA and still give the crowd the best night using classics like showmanship and crowd interaction and songwriting, you've the confidence to not worry about being an underachieving idiot. I know that a couple of my favourite guitarists are still using the guitar/amp that they were using when they were skint nobodies, because they know and like and trust the paintbrush to paint their picture. It may be they looked into getting "better" gear but decided against it, or it may be that they don't want to change their voice or just that they're too busy being successful artists to think about it. The audience just has to put up with it. Poor audience. I wish those artists would give them more respect and go out and buy some better gear so their sound can be objectively better in a way that the audience can really hear.

guitarfishbay

digitalscream said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

After you've all finished working out which piece of wood you want your guitars to be made from, play it with a few picks. All of a sudden, you might find that makes too much difference (I think it's one of the biggest and most important differences, and I play mostly high gain rawk). 

Aye...people always seem to laugh at me when I turn up to gigs with a range of picks. I use different picks on different songs - if there's something mellow-ish, I'll tend to use a wooden pick to take the aggressive attack down a notch or three. Conversely, if it's something a bit more raucous, I'll use nylon or metal picks for that extra zing.

Wow that is quite dedicated, genuinely.

I went on a pick quest myself and decided the best philosophy was to pick one series of pick and vary thickness according to need.  Then I could concentrate on consistency, or so the theory goes!  I noticed Andy James mentioned something similar about guitars on a tutorial video on youtube - he recommended not changing guitar too often if really nailing your technique is important to your playing.

My issue was I was using Jazz IIIs (small and firm) for electric playing but normal sized and more flexible picks for playing acoustic.  I found I couldn't really switch between them well enough and at the time playing acoustic was more important than trying to learn how to play Paul Gilbert tunes on the electric.  

I just use Dunlop Nylon Max Grips these days for playing - usually 1mm for electric or .60 for acoustic, but I will vary if necessary.

Pick attack makes a ginormous difference to tone.  I've punched in on recordings to tidy up parts recorded by our other guitarist and even using the exact same gear I can't sound like him unless I really concentrate on changing my pick attack.  Mine is very strong, his is very relaxed.  I tend to make instruments sound bitey and tight, he will play the same guitar and get a smooth and loose sound from it - if we're playing as we prefer to play normally.  We've been working on hitting a middle ground recently, I'm un-metalling (lol made up word) my pick attack with this band and he's trying to get a bit more power behind his.

impmann

Whatever works for you for whatever occasion :-)  

Point of all this is the differences, once in the real world, are reasonably subtle. And in the main, the guitarist in the band (and maybe the guitarists in the audience) are going to notice those more. Plus those differences aren't quite as black and white as made out - one wood may have a tonal reputation for being "blah" but as trees are organic things, one piece of wood may not be as "blah" as the next one.

guitarfishbay

guitarfishbay said:

 I noticed Andy James mentioned something similar about guitars on a tutorial video on youtube - he recommended not changing guitar too often if really nailing your technique is important to your playing.

Youtube working again,

1:30 - 1:50 ish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JFhsfENYRA

I'd give Andy James a wisdom for that one if he was on the board.

digitalscream

guitarfishbay said:

Wow that is quite dedicated, genuinely.

I went on a pick quest myself and decided the best philosophy was to pick one series of pick and vary thickness according to need.  Then I could concentrate on consistency, or so the theory goes!  I noticed Andy James mentioned something similar about guitars on a tutorial video on youtube - he recommended not changing guitar too often if really nailing your technique is important to your playing.

My issue was I was using Jazz IIIs (small and firm) for electric playing but normal sized and more flexible picks for playing acoustic.  I found I couldn't really switch between them well enough and at the time playing acoustic was more important than trying to learn how to play Paul Gilbert tunes on the electric.  

I just use Dunlop Nylon Max Grips these days for playing - usually 1mm for electric or .60 for acoustic, but I will vary if necessary.

Pick attack makes a ginormous difference to tone.  I've punched in on recordings to tidy up parts recorded by our other guitarist and even using the exact same gear I can't sound like him unless I really concentrate on changing my pick attack.  Mine is very strong, his is very relaxed.  I tend to make instruments sound bitey and tight, he will play the same guitar and get a smooth and loose sound from it - if we're playing as we prefer to play normally.  We've been working on hitting a middle ground recently, I'm un-metalling (lol made up word) my pick attack with this band and he's trying to get a bit more power behind his.

Well, my main picks are all from Timber Tones - I use the ebony ones when I want a smoother attack, and the aluminium ones for more aggression. The advantage there is that they're the same shape, so there's not a huge amount of adjustment to be made.

I do tend to go through a lot of them, though (both the aluminium and wooden ones). They might be coming out with some titanium ones soon, which should last longer than the aluminium picks. My problem is that the music I'm playing now is a lot harder on picks than my previous bands, so it's an expensive habit

Interestingly, their bone picks are a lot more hard-wearing than any of the other materials and they glide over the strings like nothing I've ever tried before; I can't play with them live, though, because they slip out out of my fingers too easily. I've yet to try their new Grip Tones, but they could well solve the problem there. They're also brighter than any of their other picks.

guitarfishbay

digitalscream said:

guitarfishbay said:

Wow that is quite dedicated, genuinely.

I went on a pick quest myself and decided the best philosophy was to pick one series of pick and vary thickness according to need.  Then I could concentrate on consistency, or so the theory goes!  I noticed Andy James mentioned something similar about guitars on a tutorial video on youtube - he recommended not changing guitar too often if really nailing your technique is important to your playing.

My issue was I was using Jazz IIIs (small and firm) for electric playing but normal sized and more flexible picks for playing acoustic.  I found I couldn't really switch between them well enough and at the time playing acoustic was more important than trying to learn how to play Paul Gilbert tunes on the electric.  

I just use Dunlop Nylon Max Grips these days for playing - usually 1mm for electric or .60 for acoustic, but I will vary if necessary.

Pick attack makes a ginormous difference to tone.  I've punched in on recordings to tidy up parts recorded by our other guitarist and even using the exact same gear I can't sound like him unless I really concentrate on changing my pick attack.  Mine is very strong, his is very relaxed.  I tend to make instruments sound bitey and tight, he will play the same guitar and get a smooth and loose sound from it - if we're playing as we prefer to play normally.  We've been working on hitting a middle ground recently, I'm un-metalling (lol made up word) my pick attack with this band and he's trying to get a bit more power behind his.

Well, my main picks are all from Timber Tones - I use the ebony ones when I want a smoother attack, and the aluminium ones for more aggression. The advantage there is that they're the same shape, so there's not a huge amount of adjustment to be made.

I do tend to go through a lot of them, though (both the aluminium and wooden ones). They might be coming out with some titanium ones soon, which should last longer than the aluminium picks. My problem is that the music I'm playing now is a lot harder on picks than my previous bands, so it's an expensive habit

Interestingly, their bone picks are a lot more hard-wearing than any of the other materials and they glide over the strings like nothing I've ever tried before; I can't play with them live, though, because they slip out out of my fingers too easily. I've yet to try their new Grip Tones, but they could well solve the problem there. They're also brighter than any of their other picks.

I've actually never heard of those picks, they look interesting, but very expensive! 

Those two bolded sections are the exact reason I use Dunlop nylon picks.  I wear down any pick I enjoy to play with, even Ultex ones.  I've not liked 'alternate' materials when I've tried them, except a Dava pick with a metal tip when going for a Brian May feel (much easier than using a sixpence!).  

On balance Dunlop Nylons feel and sound good to me, grip really well (especially the newer Max Grip line) and are about £5 a dozen.  If I wear them down or lose them I just buy another dozen.

Basher

impmann said:

Whatever works for you for whatever occasion :-)  

Point of all this is the differences, once in the real world, are reasonably subtle. And in the main, the guitarist in the band (and maybe the guitarists in the audience) are going to notice those more. Plus those differences aren't quite as black and white as made out - one wood may have a tonal reputation for being "blah" but as trees are organic things, one piece of wood may not be as "blah" as the next one.

Very much +1 - but spare a thought for the so-called guitarists who can't even tell if the band are using bolt-on neck, ash/alder bodied single coil instruments or mahogany and maple set neck humbucker ones. They must be complete shit-for-brainses and no mistake.

In my defence I was into my eighth pint of an IPA/Black Sheep mixture so I think my neurological auditory processing system may have been slightly compromised at this stage.