What is great tone? Is there such a thing? Does it even matter?

[Notes_Norton]

This is all my personal opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree.

 

What is great tone?

 

1) There is no such thing as great tone, just different tones. What is good and bad is totally subjective.

 

2) Great tone in ad-speak is just something to get you to buy something (and we want to buy music toys)

 

3) My guitar tone depends on the song I'm playing. I might want clean, neck P90 for one song, compressed and fuzzy bridge humbucker for another. I have P-Rail pickups and I use them in all 4 configurations, I have many different settings on my amp/sim/fx box, and I twiddle the tone knob on my guitar. --- My sax tone depends on how I shape my mouth, the mouthpiece I've chosen, throat growl, overblow/underblow, breath support (or lack of) and so on.

 

The audience doesn't care about your tone nearly as much as they care about what you are playing and how you are playing it. If you are conveying your expression to them, that's all that matters.

 

After all:

 

1) They listen to low bit-rate mp3s on lo-fi earbuds. Before that there was a string of low-fidelity, tone robbing formats like cassettes, 8 tracks, 45rpm records and so on.

 

2) If they cared about tone singers like Dr. John, Stevie Nicks, John Lennon and so many others wouldn't have ever had a hit record. But these people expressed themselves in a way that affected millions of listeners.

 

3) Who has good tone on the guitar anyway: Hendrix? Pass? Slash? Burrell? Santana? Les Paul? Wylde? May? Gale? Hall? Clapton? Page? Beck? BB King? Albert King? EVH? SRV? May? Young? Richards? Satriani? Guy? Lifeson? Garcia? Malmsteen? Hammett? Walsh? Petrucci? Howe? Prince? Moore? Dimebag? Berry? -- and on which guitar? Which amp? Which FX? Which Song? Jimmy Page got more out of an el-cheapo Danelectro than I can get out of my Parker with Duncan P-Rails.

 

4) How about sax? Coltrane? Getz? Lovano? Hamilton? Prez? Turrentine? Rollins? Gordon? Shorter? Hawkins? Webster? Brecker? Redmond? Zoot? Stitt? Parker? Desmond? Bostic? Cannonball? Woods? Cole? Dulfer? and so on. Charlie Parker got more out of a Grafton Plastic sax than most of us can get out of a Selmer Mark VI.

 

IMO if the tone is 'in the ballpark' for the genre of music you are playing, it's great tone. Now what matters most are the notes you choose to play, the dynamics you play each note, the subtle timing that you play them, and all the playing effects/ornaments like attack, bends, hammer-ons, attack, slides, vibrato, whammy, wah, and so on. Can you give your guitar/sax/synth playing vox humana? If so, nobody is going to care if your tone is the greatest.

 

The same thing goes for sax, voice, synthesizer, and everything else. Each instrument has it's own ways of allowing you to express yourself. You have to find out what your instrument will do, practice each expressive device until it's so automatic that you don't have to think about it, and then coax expression from your soul to the soul of the listener.

 

Does that mean we shouldn't care about our tone? No, I didn't mean that. I think we shouldn't obsess about it, and pay more attention to technique which allows us to get what is in our heads to the ears of the listener.

 

You have the right to disagree.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[1001gear]

What brought this on?

 

Here's some great tone anyway.

 

[video=youtube;hwti6ll5fDg]

[Phil O'Keefe]

1) There is no such thing as great tone, just different tones. What is good and bad is totally subjective.

 

I'd take that one step further and say that tone is situationally relevant. A good tone (or rather, an appropriate tone) in one situation may be totally inappropriate in another context.

 

There's no such thing as good or bad notes.... just ones that are played at the inappropriate time. IMHO, the same can be said for tones.

[AlamoJoe]

Great tone is what sends shivers down your spine...If you are the one delivering it, even better.

 

[nat whilk II]

Well......we don't want instrument makers to start thinking there's no such thing a great tone, that it's all just relative and subjective. Or microphone makers. Or playback systems designers. Or that kid you're trying to teach to play the bassoon.

 

'Cause there are standards of sorts, with some objective elements, to "great" tone in the traditions of instrument creation. Now these are not absolutes - people so often seem to think that calling a standard "objective" is the same as crowning an absolute of some sort. But as guidelines to creating the best instruments, these standards of tone are uber-important.

 

Things like clarity, evenness, powerful sustain, fullness, richness, dynamic range, purity and sameness along the full range, balance, etc., etc., all have objective elements that can be seen in waveforms and spectrum analyzers.

 

Sure, even among the "great" tones, there are differences that appeal to one taste or another, but it's not 100% arbitrary and subjective. Most of the best instruments share strong points in the same list of objective qualities.

 

nat

 

[Ernest Buckley]

I was assisting in a session years ago in which we were recording a 4 piece rock band live. The sound was phenomenal but it was the guitarists tone that really sold the sound of the band. The tone worked perfectly within the context it was sitting in. It would not have worked in any other genre but the tone just drooled of sweet honey. Hard to explain really...

 

I was watching a documentary on David Gilmour last night and I was again reminded of how truly unique his sound is. He is not an over the top player. He has a minimalist approach and there is so much space but its where he puts the notes and its the tone he uses that draws the listener in. His tone works within the Pink Floyd (and his solo stuff) context, not sure it would work anywhere else.

 

Anyway, tone like good art, draws the observer in. It makes contact with that inner part of us that is striving for the divine.

[Notes_Norton]

What brought this on? The addition of posts here and in other forums where the players obsess about tone instead of expression. I heard some recordings of people bragging about their beautiful tone (not here, on another forum - which is why I posted it here - I don't want to point any fingers) and the tones were nice, but the notes were empty.

 

I've heard quotes like "The art is in the details" and I interpret that to "the art is in the nuances"

 

I think that music is in the details more than the tone.

 

The little nuances that ornament the notes we play are the most important things to me. A little pitch bend here, a grace note there, a pause between two notes, another one accented, using a vibrato to express an individual note in context with the song instead of using the same speed/intensity for all notes, a mordent, a trill, taking a musical phrase and doing things like dragging the start of the phrase and speeding up to catch up by the end, a bit of distortion on a single note preceded by a clean one, starting a note flat and bending up to pitch, articulation, and hundreds of other subtle to not so subtle expressive devices take empty notes to me and make music out of them.

 

Some people may hear a guitarist, vocalist, saxophonist or other musician and think the tone is what they are appreciating, and tone is important, but what makes the music with that tone is your technique and how you use it to convey your musical thoughts to the listener.

 

You would think bebop music, with it's blinding array of fast notes don't depend on nuances. But I listen to some players like Charlie Parker and Richie Cole and enjoy the music, while other players just seem to be reciting scales. The notes are the same, the tone is all appropriate for bop music, but the difference is in the subtle and not so subtle nuances that the players apply to those notes.

 

But tone is something guitar companies, sax companies, piano companies and other musical instrument manufacturers can sell. So they do. And yes, we all have GAS and are a partner in that. It's fun to buy new gear. But that new guitar or new sax or new piano isn't going to do you any good if you don't know how to get the nuances out of it.

 

And again, tone is important. I have my preferences. Stan Getz's tone on saxophone gets to me much more than John Coltrane's. And I like Getz's expression better as it speaks to me more personally (both were genius tenor sax players). But I play rock/blues so my tone is more like a traditional "Texas Tenor" sound. With my playing I use a lot of nuances that I learned from both Coltrane and Getz as well as others. I borrow from organists, singers (especially singers), guitarists, trombonists, and everybody else I hear. I take what I like from them, and it comes out as me (for better or for worse).

 

Ernest mentioned Gilmour. I like David's playing a lot, and I do like his tone as well. If he added more distortion, or played more with humbuckers instead of single coils, I would still like his playing. He's expressive, even with his minimalism.

 

It's the nuances, the slides, the dynamics, the timing of the notes and so on that get to me.

 

I look at music as part tone, lots of technique, and the ability to use that technique for the art of expression. And the art of expression is not only hard to define, but what it's all about to me.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it

[1001gear]

Well......we don't want instrument makers to start thinking there's no such thing a great tone, that it's all just relative and subjective. Or microphone makers. Or playback systems designers. Or that kid you're trying to teach to play the bassoon.

 

'Cause there are standards of sorts, with some objective elements, to "great" tone in the traditions of instrument creation. Now these are not absolutes - people so often seem to think that calling a standard "objective" is the same as crowning an absolute of some sort. But as guidelines to creating the best instruments, these standards of tone are uber-important.

 

Things like clarity, evenness, powerful sustain, fullness, richness, dynamic range, purity and sameness along the full range, balance, etc., etc., all have objective elements that can be seen in waveforms and spectrum analyzers.

 

Sure, even among the "great" tones, there are differences that appeal to one taste or another, but it's not 100% arbitrary and subjective. Most of the best instruments share strong points in the same list of objective qualities.

 

nat

 

I don't like the term "subjective". That the term is even applicable is an opinion and subjective. I say, "like what you like", but as you say, there are standards and those standards help to define the craftsmanship that drives musicians.

[dboomer]

"The audience doesn't care about your tone nearly as much as they care about what you are playing and how you are playing it. If you are conveying your expression to them, that's all that matters."

 

I can draw a similarity to reading a book. I don't really care what type font the book is printed in as long as I can read it with relative ease. Same for "tone". As long as it's not offensive it's usually not a deal-breaker to me.

 

OTOH, without guitarists constantantly looking to achieve that god-tone, the music store business would all but dry up

[Notes_Norton]

Tone is easy to sell.

 

Technique is teachable (music lessons and practice)

 

The Art part can't be taught, and that is the most important piece of the puzzle.

[Anderton]

For me, guitar tone is about getting a sound that I like. If I like it, I'm happy. If I'm happy when recording, I play better music. If I'm happy on stage, then it's infectious and the audience gets happy too.

 

I do think what qualifies as "good" tone is, as Phil said, situational. In isolation, a guitar might sound wrong but fit in perfectly with other instruments.

[Ernest Buckley]

Years ago when I was writing reviews, I heard this songwriter... she played bass and sang and on one occasion she had her friend play guitar. He had a wonderful tone. I remember being really impressed with the tone and the space he left between the notes in the first song... then the second same came and it was the same thing... great tone, simple playing... this went on for 40 minutes. The songs were ok but I really loved his tone but he lacked creativity. He played the same riffs, he played with the same dynamics, he played with the same character no matter the subject... it got boring quick.

 

Then I heard him a couple of days later with his own band... again, the same thing. Decent songs, great tone but the same attitude and approach to every song. Great tone can only take you so far. The tone also has to serve the song.

 

It always comes back to serving the song... doesn`t it?

[1001gear]

Years ago when I was writing reviews, I heard this songwriter... she played bass and sang and on one occasion she had her friend play guitar. He had a wonderful tone. I remember being really impressed with the tone and the space he left between the notes in the first song... then the second same came and it was the same thing... great tone, simple playing... this went on for 40 minutes. The songs were ok but I really loved his tone but he lacked creativity. He played the same riffs, he played with the same dynamics, he played with the same character no matter the subject... it got boring quick.

 

Then I heard him a couple of days later with his own band... again, the same thing. Decent songs, great tone but the same attitude and approach to every song. Great tone can only take you so far. The tone also has to serve the song.

 

It always comes back to serving the song... doesn`t it?

 

Obviously a crappy musician then!

[Notes_Norton]

<...snip...>

 

It always comes back to serving the song... doesn`t it?

I couldn't agree more.

 

I never meant you should be unhappy with your tone, just that in the scheme of things, sometimes we tend to overemphasize it over expression.

 

And yes we have to be happy with our tone, but to obsess about it to get perfection to me is a waste of time - I'd be better off practicing technique so I can get out of my instruments what I feel in my soul - YMMV.

 

If I were guess about my personal ratio, it would be 20% tone and 80% expression.

 

You?

 

Notes

 

 

[WRGKMC]

Good tone is only one ingredient in the recipe of music. Its a key item that helps drive the emotional content and also enhances a listeners attention to the music. Tone doesn't have to be good or bad, it simply has to be right for the music to be presented as intended. I think we get caught up with Mo is Better and that simply isn't the case.

 

Using tone in a crafty and suitable manor that retains a listeners attention one minute and hypnotizes them the next can do allot more then simply presenting bigger then life tones that leave no room for the imagination. Some of your best films use sound strategically to emphasize the emotions of the actors and they do leave silence where its needed the most.

 

Ever watch a movie where the music is constant throughout oftentimes overshadowing the actors and having nothing in common with the acting?

Having the same tone throughout a song can do similar things. If you're always trying to make things sound bigger then life the ears will quickly tire and seek other entertainment. The mind is always looking for change because it never rests. Without tonal contrasts between good bad, large small, warm sterile, fat thin you really don't have a well planned work of art, you simply have a monotone recording.

 

It may have great musical composition and performance, those are very important too but why not use tone in crafty ways which further enhance imagination. Its surely not easy but there are plenty of example of great tonal changes that take the music to and even higher level of excellence.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Well......we don't want instrument makers to start thinking there's no such thing a great tone, that it's all just relative and subjective. Or microphone makers. Or playback systems designers. Or that kid you're trying to teach to play the bassoon.

 

 

 

Of course not. I agree with your basic point, but OTOH, nearly every serious engineer I know owns one (or more) microphones that they prize not for their sonic faithfulness, but rather their trashy, unrealistic and heavily "colored" sound. Sometimes "bad" can be a beautiful thing. Another example: the first fuzz was an accident - a board channel was having problems - but they went with it since it was a unique sound, and it - the song and the effect - became a hit.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

It always comes back to serving the song... doesn`t it?

 

 

This x 1,000. It starts there and ends there.

 

 

[RockViolin]

Tone mostly matters when it matters most, and it doesn't really matter when it really doesn't matter.

 

The main thing is the main thing.

 

There are plenty of players out there that have second instruments for when tone doesn't matter as much as the health of the instrument with the great tone.

 

If you're playing solo Bach in Carnegie Hall to a packed house, tone matters, but not as much as playing the right notes, in tune, with passion-all of which can be assisted to an important degree by an instrument with a beautiful, appealing, great tone. There are some violins that don't have that no matter what context you put them in though admittedly they might be just right for the drunken fiddler scene in some old western.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

If you're playing solo Bach in Carnegie Hall to a packed house, tone matters, but not as much as playing the right notes, in tune, with passion-all of which can be assisted to an important degree by an instrument with a beautiful, appealing, great tone.

 

 

In my experience there's a lot to what you're saying here. The audience may not always be musically educated or sophisticated enough to hear the difference, but if the sound the musician is hearing is inspiring to them, that can have a significant effect on how they perform, regardless of whether the audience appreciates the tone in quite the same way the musician does.

 

[nat whilk II]

Sorry, guys. I still find the statement that "great tone doesn't matter" pretty nonsensical.

 

So you're an experienced musician say, and you own three or four really good instruments 'cause you've been around, have experience, and developed tastes. Ok, you play a particular way that gets a particular nuance of tone out of one of your fine instruments. And you can get different tones out of your various instruments. This is obviously the way it always is for all musicians with some accomplishment.

 

Now take away those fine instruments and replace them with some real crapolas. No Les Paul, but say a bottom line Sears Silvertone, the type with an amp and speaker in the guitar case. Jeez, your tone is gone. No sustain. The low E buzzes. You can hardly hear the high E. The G string doesn't even sound anything like the other strings. You would care, really, obviously. You'd do the best you could, but.....you spent a lot of time and effort to get to where you could coax great things out of a great instrument.

 

TONE MATTERS.

 

Saying it doesn't matter is like saying being in tune doesn't matter. Or whether your snare has a 6" rip in the head. Or it doesn't matter that your synthesizer is the FM one in one your computer motherboard or a Moog Voyager.

 

I smell more confusion about absolutes here. To say there are many great tones, and you need to find and create the nuances of tone that just fits what you're playing - yes, yes, yes. But there's no need to then run around saying that tone "doesn't matter" just because there are a bunch of different tones and none of them can be crowned the "absolute best".

 

Sure, you can make interesting noises with kitchen pots and kazoos. But you can't make great tone with 'em. And don't say, "yeah I can if it fits the song it's great! No, if it fits the song then it's a clever use of a crappy tone.

 

I'm going to buy a TONE MATTERS t-shirt.

 

nat

 

 

 

[lou david]

Can I add this as great tone????https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5o7DP8jQiM

[RockViolin]

 

 

In my experience there's a lot to what you're saying here. The audience may not always be musically educated or sophisticated enough to hear the difference, but if the sound the musician is hearing is inspiring to them, that can have a significant effect on how they perform, regardless of whether the audience appreciates the tone in quite the same way the musician does.

 

Thanks Phil. Some things are only possible with an instrument that speaks well, or has great tone. And yep, an instrument that fights you every step of the way, that doesn't bloom when you give it the sunlight can lead to a lackluster performance in quite a few ways. Whether the audience is aware of the tone, or the lack of is not even the issue at that point.

 

I've known guys that take their only day off from the gig in weeks to go shop violins in the never ending quest for something better.

 

One's tone is their voice, the better part of it anyway. We could just as easily talk about singers. Does Rod Stewart's tone matter? Of course it does. It's the one thing that most makes him Rod Stewart.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Sorry, guys. I still find the statement that "great tone doesn't matter" pretty nonsensical.

 

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm certainly not saying tone doesn't matter... only that what constitutes a good tone is 1) subjective and 2) depends on the context.

 

 

Think of it this way. Is a G# a "bad" note? Not in an of itself. It's just a note. The context it's used in makes all the difference. If the song is in the key of G and you throw down a lot of G#'s, you're probably going to get some funny looks from your bandmates, and maybe even make the audience unhappy, but if the song is in the key of G# you'll just be playing the tonic a lot.

 

 

Is the tone on the guitar solo for Cinnamon Girl "bad"? It's bright, trebly and somewhat annoying if you think about it, but the sound fits the song and Neil Young's minimalist approach to the solo perfectly IMO. Drop it into another context and it may not work as well.

[RockViolin]

 

 

 

Sure, you can make interesting noises with kitchen pots and kazoos. But you can't make great tone with 'em.

 

 

 

Well, I checked a while back and my wife's KitchenAid mixer mixing bowl has a fine tone. Any percussionist that can still hear would find it's sonorous claaaang to be worthy and far more appealing than our Farberware pots and pans. But then a composer/producer approaches the matter from a different perspective and sometimes needs something that goes 'clunk' instead of 'claaaang'

 

I think that for players the consensus of decades-centuries carries some weight and that the matter of what constitutes great tone is not entirely subjective. Some people prefer Strads. Some prefer Guarnerius, particularly for chamber music. And there are plenty of violins that will never have a right to be in the same room with either. Same for guitars, pianos, etc. I imagine.

 

Nobody will be hired because the tone they commonly get from their instrument is thin, shrill, and shriek-ish and is just perfect for the gig... except for maybe a scary movie gig. And a good player can probably produce that to whatever degree is necessary from an instrument that is capable of producing pleasing sounds as well anyway.

[sharkbait]

A bit of classic arguing-past one another, forum style, going on here. I agree with your disagreement with Notes- tone matters.

 

But you're applying your own tastes (bordering on prejudices) in a blanket way to others. There are plenty of "experienced musicians" that love a whole range of sounds that you're giving low ranks to- your example of the Silvertone with the case amp specifically is a gold standard to some- check out Southern Culture On the Skids' fine guitarist, or Syd Barrett, or Jimmy Page on Kashmir.

 

Pardon me for not knowing what you do (besides express intelligent, measured opinions here) but do you record your music? Probably. Once upon a time, popular-opinion appreciation for low-tech, minimalist recordings was limited to early Sun purists, doo-wop lovers and the like, but in the pop mainstream, most Boomer music lovers I knew grew up with more-is-better preferences in recording quality- more dynamic range, more fidelity and clarity (less distortion/noise). I think many enjoyed raunchy sounds anyway... but the movement was toward a certain notion of perfection based on clarity.

 

Not anymore. Over the years, I've known multitudes of musicians whose standard of perfection are the wobbly sound of Lee Perry's Mu-tron, or the (possibly ripped) snare sound on the early Freddy Fender recordings, or the magnificently brutal guitar sound Kearney Barton achieved recording The Sonics. These records might sound as they do because of the financial restrictions of the music makers, their "crappy" guitars, amps and recording facilities, but they wouldn't sound as good any other way.

 

Subjectivity in popular music has opened wide, and it's a great thing.