Am I the only one here who prefers guitars with less sustain?

[[J.K.]]

I mean, whenever I solo, I rarely hold onto any note for more than a few beats at very most, and my vibrato is good enough to control how much life I want each note to have. And chords just sound so much more alive when they punch out quick.

Anyone else with me here on guitars (and amps) that hit strong and fast?

Are we just revering the tired old paradigm simply because its heritage?

[lp_junkie]

Just you, I love thick sustain. I may play a solo that only has three notes, so sustain is a key element to my style.

[paulskirocks]

I love sustain... If I didn't, I might try banjo...

[docjeffrey]

There's no such thing as too much sustain, but there is such a thing as too little (Jaguar) sustain.

[pixelchemist]

i like my sustain long enough that i can hit a note, go make a sandwich, and then come back to finish the solo

[paulskirocks]

There's no such thing as too much sustain

 

Sure there is... They call it feedback!

[lp_junkie]

I use feedback as a technique as well....... the trick is to control it and bend it to your will.

[BoneNut]

 

I mean, whenever I solo, I rarely hold onto any note for more than a few beats at very most, and my vibrato is good enough to control how much life I want each note to have. And chords just sound so much more alive when they punch out quick. Anyone else with me here on guitars (and amps) that hit strong and fast? Are we just revering the tired old paradigm simply because its heritage?

 

 

Could that be because of the music you prefer?

[soundcreation]

Huh? No way....sustain is amazing....and if you don't have it on one of your guitars there is nothing you can do to improve it. But if you want your short punchy chords on a guitar that sustains well all you have to do is learn to palm mute. So really I don't see any advantage what so ever to having a weak sustaining guitar...unless it provides a sound you can't possibly get anywhere else.

[jordan8865]

 

I mean, whenever I solo, I rarely hold onto any note for more than a few beats at very most, and my vibrato is good enough to control how much life I want each note to have. And chords just sound so much more alive when they punch out quick. Anyone else with me here on guitars (and amps) that hit strong and fast? Are we just revering the tired old paradigm simply because its heritage?

 

 

i do find it interesting having to move quickly on to something else. i love jack white and most of the guitars he uses in the white stripes dont sustain for {censored}

[211dave112]

i wouldn't buy a guitar based on how long it sustains. i don't think it would annoy me if one did sustain for ages but i wouldn't buy it for that reason. but then i don't play solo's per se.

[Pascal]

 

Anyone else with me here on guitars (and amps) that hit strong and fast?

 

 

Jazzers: strong attack and short sustain is what archtops (and gypsy jazz guitars) do.

[Willyguitar]

 

Huh? No way....sustain is amazing....and if you don't have it on one of your guitars there is nothing you can do to improve it. But if you want your short punchy chords on a guitar that sustains well all you have to do is learn to palm mute. So really I don't see any advantage what so ever to having a weak sustaining guitar...unless it provides a sound you can't possibly get anywhere else.

 

 

No - that makes it sound like you are palm muting.

 

I think there are advantages to having relatively little sustain in some instances. As the OP suggests, you can get more jangle and chime to chord work with relatively little sustain. I find that my AC30 doesn't sustain as much as other amps, but it is superb at low levels of gain for playing a springy rhythm section.

 

I would argue that having a bit less sustain is not necessarily a problem at all, if you just use a compressor or booster pedal to achieve it in other ways.

[rusholmeruffian]

I think anyone who plays a Ric semi or a Danelectro has cast their vote in your direction. Of course, a lot of Ric players use a {censored}load of compression, starting with Roger McGuinn and continuing on through guys like Peter Buck.

[soundcreation]

 

No - that makes it sound like you are palm muting. I think there are advantages to having relatively little sustain in some instances. As the OP suggests, you can get more jangle and chime to chord work with relatively little sustain. I find that my AC30 doesn't sustain as much as other amps, but it is superb at low levels of gain for playing a springy rhythm section. I would argue that having a bit less sustain is not necessarily a problem at all, if you just use a compressor or booster pedal to achieve it in other ways.

 

 

If you are good at plam muting you can make the sound "fade" out like a guitar with little sustain. Palm muting doesn't always mean a karate chop stopping of the sound. My strat has plenty of jangle and still sustains well.

 

If you are using a compressor or a boost pedal then you sound like you are using a compressor or a boost pedal. Not the sound of your guitar through and amp and nothing else. Pedals have their place but sometimes you might not want that coloring.

[Willyguitar]

 

If you are good at plam muting you can make the sound "fade" out like a guitar with little sustain. Palm muting doesn't always mean a karate chop stopping of the sound. My strat has plenty of jangle and still sustains well. If you are using a compressor or a boost pedal then you sound like you are using a compressor or a boost pedal. Not the sound of your guitar through and amp and nothing else. Pedals have their place but sometimes you might not want that coloring.

 

 

I realise that, but it can be tricky to get it exactly right when actually having a guitar that sustains a bit less will work better and be easier to play. I read somewhere that Pete Townsend actually decided to play SG classics because they had a bit less sustain, and worked for his style.

 

I agree that sustain is a good thing to have in a particular guitar. Lower guitar vol can also cut sustain as well of course. But not having it is not necessarily bad. Quite a few of the mid 60s records, which are based on equipment that many people around here would love to possess, involve guitar sounds that are essentially quite 'un' sustained, being played out on hollows and semi-hollows, for example.

[Metalrulez]

I find this odd but it is just that I love sustain. I am not lead player by a long shot I play rhythm and love a chord or single note I can hit and it will hang in the air for eternity before fading into controllable feedback. But, this is one of the great things about music and art. What the one playing likes and enjoys is what counts. I play as stress relief.It is a fun hobby for me and I could not give a {censored} less if anyone else likes what I play or even finds it musical.

[[J.K.]]

 

Could that be because of the music you prefer?

 

Brilliant deduction.

...But that's reductive.

I listen to too wide a variety for that to be even remotely valid.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I won't say that I don't like sustain but I have never in 30 years of playing considered it or cared about it in a guitar. If it's there, fine. If it isn't, I do not notice.

[Mermph]

The Edge modded a lot of his guitars to reduce the amount of sustain.

[BoneNut]

Brilliant deduction. ...But that's reductive. I listen to too wide a variety for that to be even remotely valid.

 

Why would that it be reductive? It's just a fact.

 

Do you play Blues? I'd think you might want some more sustain for that. If you play in a style that calls for a very percussive sound from your guitar, then sustain isn't even in the equation. I'd rather have a guitar with good sustain, for when I want/need it and learn the necessary techniques to make it sound percussive when I want.

 

It's like having a car that does 150 but you want to drive at 50. There's absolutely nothing wrong with going 50 but wouldn't rather have that extra 100 in reserve for when you want it? I'd say the proof of that is how you can find players who play musical styles on guitars that aren't traditionally used with that style... Death on a Tele?

 

As far as ams, I'd imagine you'd prefer a high power SS for the immediate response, since tube sag and bloom might not be what your looking for.. or maybe a very high powered tube amp?

 

... and stop being defensive, no one is attacking your preferences.

[[J.K.]]

Why would that it be reductive? It's just a fact. Do you play Blues? I'd think you might want some more sustain for that. If you play in a style that calls for a very percussive sound from your guitar, then sustain isn't even in the equation. I'd rather have a guitar with good sustain, for when I want/need it and learn the necessary techniques to make it sound percussive when I want. It's like having a car that does 150 but you want to drive at 50. There's absolutely nothing wrong with going 50 but wouldn't rather have that extra 100 in reserve for when you want it? I'd say the proof of that is how you can find players who play musical styles on guitars that aren't traditionally used with that style... Death on a Tele? As far as ams, I'd imagine you'd prefer a high power SS for the immediate response, since tube sag and bloom might not be what your looking for.. or maybe a very high powered tube amp? ... and stop being defensive, no one is attacking your preferences.

 

I wasn't being defensive.

A) You're the one with the long response.

B) You speculated I preferred a certain music, and I said that's reductive because I'm without strong preference (as in I listen to a wide variety).

C) Do you know what reductive means?

D) Your car analogy doesn't work in this context at all. Plus there's a difference between having percussive "technique" and a simple guitar with less sustain.

E) As for amps, I prefer my Hiwatt DR103. And personally, I associate "sag and bloom" more with tube rectifiers anyway. Simply saying tube amps sustain more and SS sustain less is simply wrong.

[BATCAT]

I mean, whenever I solo, I rarely hold onto any note for more than a few beats at very most, and my vibrato is good enough to control how much life I want each note to have. And chords just sound so much more alive when they punch out quick. Anyone else with me here on guitars (and amps) that hit strong and fast? Are we just revering the tired old paradigm simply because its heritage?

 

In general, I'm the same. I prefer guitars with a lot of attack, rather than a lot of sustain, like Jags.

 

I also use a lot of reverb; I dig the sound of sharp, short attack and spring reverb.

[[J.K.]]

In general, I'm the same. I prefer guitars with a lot of attack, rather than a lot of sustain, like Jags. I also use a lot of reverb; I dig the sound of sharp, short attack and spring reverb.

I'm not a reverb fan at all, but when I got this old twin style amp at an auction a couple years ago, I cranked the reverb and came up with a couple psychobilly songs just for kicks with a friend. Not my thing, but always fun to mess around.

[Faber]

I like long sustain but I also like a quick and snappy attack - I like that about fender styles, they can have the sustain, but they seem to have a bit more pronounced attack than a lot of set neck/short scale guitars.