“Tone is in the fingers” my ass. (RANT)

I am actually surprised. I guess Nuno has enough skill to sound however he wants and was just a little bit exagerrating (creative people are sometimes predisposed to that) or maybe paying respect to the man.

In my opinion it is composer/songwriter skill that sets apart guitar heroes more so than guitar playing skills. For example, there was Anton Oparin, who covered Scarified and other PG’s songs when he was 12-13 years old. Technically he nailed ‘em. But do you see him playing big gigs like PG? Hardly so.

So technically, most of the legends can be reproduced technically, but not their creativity.
Exactly! When guys makes lists of the best electric guitarists it really ends being a list of guitarists that were the best composers that played well enough to deliver their ideas. If you're just a great guitar player that doesn't seem to be enough. In my area of classical guitar we're only judged on how well we play our instrument lol. I wish it was more like this on electric where we can actually distinguish between playing well and composing well. Not too many actually are great at both. In classical I actually can't name one example lol. I think there's just too much focus involved at doing just one of the 2 at a high level
 
Exactly! When guys makes lists of the best electric guitarists it really ends being a list of guitarists that were the best composers that played well enough to deliver their ideas. If you're just a great guitar player that doesn't seem to be enough. In my area of classical guitar we're only judged on how well we play our instrument lol. I wish it was more like this on electric where we can actually distinguish between playing well and composing well. Not too many actually are great at both. In classical I actually can't name one example lol. I think there's just too much focus involved at doing just one of the 2 at a high level
In classical guitar to me it seems like a contest in who plays a classical piece written centuries ago with maximum technique. It is a perfomance race.

In contemporary music creativity is free to unleash, there are no boundaries in songwriting. So it is a different field altogether. Biggest names in rock and metal are far from the most technical ones. Easy example is Angus Young vs Guthrie Govan.
 
In classical guitar to me it seems like a contest in who plays a classical piece written centuries ago with maximum technique. It is a perfomance race.

In contemporary music creativity is free to unleash, there are no boundaries in songwriting. So it is a different field altogether. Biggest names in rock and metal are far from the most technical ones. Easy example is Angus Young vs Guthrie Govan.
Well actually at least half of the repertoire most classical guitarists play these is music written with the last 20 or 30 years, so it very much is contemporary music, but some of the music isn't as accessible to some listeners. Much of the music also borrows some ideas from rock, blues or jazz, but spiced up to be more sophisticated either in harmony, rhythms, textures or all of the above lol, so there is freedom for sure, but to your point none of these players or composers in this field are really famous outside of this specific circle/niche and that's a real shame imo since some are so talented

Also, in classical guitar it's about presenting a complete package of both technique and feeling/musicality and being able to play all styles well (modern, romantic, classical, baroque, renaissance, etc). It's not enough just to be able to play fast, clean and accurate. You have to also be musical and heartfelt conveying what the piece means to you personally so that the audience can also feel and connect with it and ideally be moved by the performance. When you get the rare find of one that has both the technique and the feeling it's like 1 plus 1 adds up to more than 2 and pretty magical to witness. That Russian-Azeribaijani player that came here recently is one of the rare examples of a player that has both and part of why was able to win the GFA (super bowl of classical guitar competitions basically lol)

Also, back on topic to this thread, in classical guitar this tone is in the fingers aspect actually is valid to a greater degree, but I'd also consider nails and right hand finger tip flesh part of the gear lol, but the right hand technique itself can legitimately make big differences in tone itself, not just the playing/style part of it that I think many misinterpret to be tone
 
Last edited:
Well actually at least half of the repertoire most classical guitarists play these is music written with the last 20 or 30 years, so it very much is contemporary music, but some of the music isn't as accessible to some listeners. Much of the music also borrows some ideas from rock, blues or jazz, but spiced up to be more sophisticated either in harmony, rhythms, textures or all of the above lol, so there is freedom for sure, but to your point none of these players or composers in this field are really famous outside of this specific circle/niche and that's a real shame imo since some are so talented

Also, in classical guitar it's about presenting a complete package of both technique and feeling/musicality and being able to play all styles well (modern, romantic, classical, baroque, renaissance, etc). It's not enough just to be able to play fast, clean and accurate. You have to also be musical and heartfelt conveying what the piece means to you personally so that the audience can also feel and connect with it and ideally be moved by the performance. When you get the rare find of one that has both the technique and the feeling it's like 1 plus 1 adds up to more than 2 and pretty magical to witness. That Russian-Azeribaijani player that came here recently is one of the rare examples of a player that has both and part of why was able to win the GFA (super bowl of classical guitar competitions basically lol)

Also, back on topic to this thread, in classical guitar this tone is in the fingers aspect actually is valid to a greater degree, but I'd also consider nails and right hand finger tip flesh part of the gear lol, but the right hand technique itself can legitimately make big differences in tone itself, not just the playing/style part of it that I think many misinterpret to be tone
I of course understand all the complexity to classical guitar scene. I just presented my simplified vision of classical music in general.

I wonder, what if thew welcomed novelty as much in classical guitar scene as much as in electric? Could be cool!
 
I of course understand all the complexity to classical guitar scene. I just presented my simplified vision of classical music in general.

I wonder, what if thew welcomed novelty as much in classical guitar scene as much as in electric? Could be cool!
I don’t think they’re necessarily opposed to novelty in it, but part of the problem is if you’re really creative, but your technique isn’t good enough to deliver it won’t be given a chance usually and sometimes they miss out from that

If anything I’d like to see the quality in composition and technique be applied more to electric guitar. I play classical guitar mostly for the quality of music and playing aspect of it that I enjoy more, but for sound electric is still my favorite instrument hands down and if the music itself was as deep and we were actually judged separately when it come to playing and composing maybe I would’ve stuck with electric over classical guitar. That’s why I’m basically a classical guitarist that is also a huge gearhead lol, but not really a great electric player
 
Last edited:
It’s both.
Guitar, amp, strings, pick.
Hand and pick attack and individual personality.
How could it not be?
 
It’s both.
Guitar, amp, strings, pick.
Hand and pick attack and individual personality.
How could it not be?
No argument there, but the thing is for most things tonally that guys on here try to figure out (myself included) we tend to zero in on the parts that have to do with the gear. The main reason I think why this stupid saying can cause frustration is because when I was a lot younger I used to sometimes ask certain players I saw how they got that sound (when I was impressed with it). I knew it was gear related (many of them weren’t even good players), yet I’d often hear that stupid answer “tone is in the fingers”, but at least eventually I could figure out what they did with their gear to get there. They could’ve just saved me a lot of time by just properly answering the damn question lol, but many guys in guitar I find tend to be lazy or many just purposely nebulous, not sure lol
 
Also, I don’t know about you guys, but when I was new to guitar growing up and I saw a great player the last thing I’d do would be to ask about his tone because I’d be too busy instead asking lots of questions on their actual playing and technique lol (like how did they play that part so smoothly or fast like that)

The guys I asked tone related questions to tended to be guys that played simpler stuff, but had a great sound that I didn’t yet know how to achieve

Even today if I hear a great player, I get so focused on that part that I can’t answer if their tone was good or not lol. I have to listen again (when it’s a clip) and focus now on the tone part and evaluate that now
 
No argument there, but the thing is for most things tonally that guys on here try to figure out (myself included) we tend to zero in on the parts that have to do with the gear. The main reason I think why this stupid saying can cause frustration is because when I was a lot younger I used to sometimes ask certain players I saw how they got that sound (when I was impressed with it). I knew it was gear related (many of them weren’t even good players), yet I’d often hear that stupid answer “tone is in the fingers”, but at least eventually I could figure out what they did with their gear to get there. They could’ve just saved me a lot of time by just properly answering the damn question lol, but many guys in guitar I find tend to be lazy or many just purposely nebulous, not sure lol

Fair enough.
An example I can think of is Mustaine Vs Friedman.
Extremely similar rigs, wildly different parts and attack.
 
I get the expression but when someone makes a post on a gear forum asking; "What gear would you suggest for <insert guitar hero>'s tone?" there will always be those guys that post 'toan is in the fingers'. It is kind of irritating.

I say tone is everywhere. Change your pick, your tone changes. Change the weather, your tone changes. Change your wall voltage, your tone changes. Change your battery, your tone changes. Tone is everywhere...including fingers. But context, a Tweed Deluxe is not a VH4.
They’re definitely not talking about Adam Jones, no of course not. His rig is what you get when you turn a washing machine into an amp with a huge pile of money.
 
Last edited:
Regarding that first sentence. I totally agree.

“Touch, technique, phrasing etc”—do you usually refer to those things as tone? Just curious.
Yeah, of course. I think you've amalgamated your own peculiar definition of 'tone,' but if you consider the actual defintion of it then you'd see it's centered on technique and quality of expression more so than the frequencies, clipping, etc. You can even infer the same concepts as it concerns it's definition related to color. Check out the definition below and you'll see.

Consider this: just to play a single note that sounds good, technique is required. Anyone can pick a note, but not everyone can pick one note and sound good. You have to put the right pressure, the right pick attack, make the note without moving the string, and be able to sustain it. If there are flaws in any of those things, it will affect the quality of tone... Granted, certain nuances are inherent characteristics of individual styles, but still must be done right to put forth a note that sounds right.

Have you ever noticed how many players always do a vibrato when they sustain a note? It doesn't sound good when there's a vibrato on every note they hold. Yet, many players do that because they can't really strike a good sounding note and let it sing on it's own.

Not only is it technique, phrasing, touch, etc., there are many factors contributing to tone such as guitar setup, electronics, cables, tuning, etc. Yet all of those things are in the standard skill set of guitarists. Therefore, those things are also a significant factor of an amps input. You can't play a nice sounding, plain note if there's string buzz or if the intonation is off. Thus, in addition to playing technique, there are instrument skills that contribute to an amps input.

An amp simply amplifies input. It doesn't 'produce' tone necessarily, rather, it imparts whatever qualities and characteristics particular to it's electronic make up in the amplification of the input signal. This isn't a technical explanation but a very simple, practical perspective for the sake of explanation.
The players who are going to have the best tone are the ones who can sustain a good sounding, individual note without any manipulation other than letting it ring; or players who can play a series of notes or chords with articulation, even dynamics, without making any extra noise, etc. A lot of people compensate for certain features of their technique with work-around techniques. They too are capable of conveying good tone if they have the right recipe.

I understand what you're trying to say but you can't isolate electrical output characteristic to a piece of gear as 'tone' because it's inextricable from the physical actions and properties that create the input. The phrase, "tone is in the fingers" is indisputable even though the quality of amplification contributes to the ultimate product of amp input.

Honestly, (this is not directed at anyone) a lot of the people making arguments against such a sayings have resigned to limitations in skill or have become suspended in a rather underdeveloped playing ability. They see their skill set as being adequate to a minimal degree and don't see the value of continuous development. The truth is that anyone that improves their technique improves their tone.

Therefore, we each need to honestly acknowledge our own technique and technical ability in order to evolve. David Gilmour doesn't have great tone because he uses $200 instrument cableso, nor does Eric Johnson have great tone because he plays a $40,000 Dumble.

I tell you this: bad technique sounds worse as you go from a low quality amplifier to a higher quality one because that's the nature of boutique amps. Not only that, a player’s tone can improve with a better guitar setup. No one in the world is going to be able to distinguish between Alpha and CTS pots, so it's certainly not always the quality of components. You can try to argue with people who say, "tone is in the fingers," but it's futile.

1 : vocal or musical sound of a specific quality
spoke in low tones
masculine tones
especially : musical sound with respect to timbre and manner of expression

2
a : a sound of definite pitch and vibration
b : whole step

3 : accent or inflection expressive of a mood or emotion

4 : style or manner of expression in speaking or writing
seemed wise to adopt a conciliatory tone

5 : a particular pitch or change of pitch constituting an element in the intonation of a phrase or sentence
high tone
low tone
mid tone
low-rising tone
falling tone

6 : the pitch of a word often used to express differences of meaning

7
a(1)
: color quality or value
(2)
a : a tint or shade of color
b : the color that appreciably modifies a hue or white or black
gray walls of greenish tone

8 : the effect in painting of light and shade together with color
 
Last edited:
Groove comes solely from one’s gear, tone is all in the fingers, and guitars are just there to look cool and for whichever one has the most striking looking top. That’s what counts. You also get extra street cred for an ebony board (clearly that’s better by default). Nothing else matters for affecting playing or tone. End thread
Boom. End thread.
 
I forget what professional guitarist it was but there was a player who had the opportunity to play thru EVH's live rig and said he didn't sound anything like him. I think it is so varied.
Interesting.

Maybe I’m in the minority here. If someone—anyone—was playing though Ed’s rig I’d describe it as that guy’s playing, Ed’s tone; regardless of what came out of the speakers. I’d think of course it didn’t sound anything like him because it wasn’t him. But to me by definition it would be Ed’s tone.

What someone is able to get out of Ed’s rig is another matter. I’d call that a matter of technique, style, phrasing and so on.

It’s wholly confusing because everybody uses terms like Marshall tone, Dumble tone, strat tone, clean tone, lead tone, tone-wood, tone-chaser etc etc.

Seems like the ‘tone is in the fingers’ statement only comes up in goofy debates and whatnot. In any other context—ie AC/DC tone, Greenback tone, plexi tone, tweed tone, rhythm tone, edge of breakup tone etc—we all know precisely what tone means.
 
The issue is that you're trying to isolate the term tone to a single thing. It's not and almost never used that way. The tone is what comes out in the end and is comprised of everything used to get it, from individual vibrato and picking style/technique, to specific pickups, guitar, cables, amps, effects, and speakers. I can confidently say that everything in the chain from beginning-to-end contributes it in some manner. Our individual approach to the instrument is probably the single largest item in terms to determining what we get out. That doesn't mean anyone thinks the rest is unimportant, even critical to the final sound of the instrument.

The term "tone is in the fingers" is almost always used to discuss when people spend all their effort in purchasing gear, rather than refining their playing. I've never used it, but it reminds me of the guys who come in and want an authentic fuzz box (pick particular performance) so they'll sound just like Hendrix.....then you listen to them play and realize the issue isn't the lack of a 100% accurate fuzz box, but their lack of ability/practice/experience.
 
Yeah, of course. I think you've amalgamated your own peculiar definition of 'tone,' but if you consider the actual defintion of it then you'd see it's centered on technique and quality of expression more so than the frequencies, clipping, etc. You can even infer the same concepts as it concerns it's definition related to color. Check out the definition below and you'll see.

Consider this: just to play a single note that sounds good, technique is required. Anyone can pick a note, but not everyone can pick one note and sound good. You have to put the right pressure, the right pick attack, make the note without moving the string, and be able to sustain it. If there are flaws in any of those things, it will affect the quality of tone... Granted, certain nuances are inherent characteristics of individual styles, but still must be done right to put forth a note that sounds right.

Have you ever noticed how many players always do a vibrato when they sustain a note? It doesn't sound good when there's a vibrato on every note they hold. Yet, many players do that because they can't really strike a good sounding note and let it sing on it's own.

Not only is it technique, phrasing, touch, etc., there are many factors contributing to tone such as guitar setup, electronics, cables, tuning, etc. Yet all of those things are in the standard skill set of guitarists. Therefore, those things are also a significant factor of an amps input. You can't play a nice sounding, plain note if there's string buzz or if the intonation is off. Thus, in addition to playing technique, there are instrument skills that contribute to an amps input.

An amp simply amplifies input. It doesn't 'produce' tone necessarily, rather, it imparts whatever qualities and characteristics particular to it's electronic make up in the amplification of the input signal. This isn't a technical explanation but a very simple, practical perspective for the sake of explanation.
The players who are going to have the best tone are the ones who can sustain a good sounding, individual note without any manipulation other than letting it ring; or players who can play a series of notes or chords with articulation, even dynamics, without making any extra noise, etc. A lot of people compensate for certain features of their technique with work-around techniques. They too are capable of conveying good tone if they have the right recipe.

I understand what you're trying to say but you can't isolate electrical output characteristic to a piece of gear as 'tone' because it's inextricable from the physical actions and properties that create the input. The phrase, "tone is in the fingers" is indisputable even though the quality of amplification contributes to the ultimate product of amp input.

Honestly, (this is not directed at anyone) a lot of the people making arguments against such a sayings have resigned to limitations in skill or have become suspended in a rather underdeveloped playing ability. They see their skill set as being adequate to a minimal degree and don't see the value of continuous development. The truth is that anyone that improves their technique improves their tone.

Therefore, we each need to honestly acknowledge our own technique and technical ability in order to evolve. David Gilmour doesn't have great tone because he uses $200 instrument cableso, nor does Eric Johnson have great tone because he plays a $40,000 Dumble.

I tell you this: bad technique sounds worse as you go from a low quality amplifier to a higher quality one because that's the nature of boutique amps. Not only that, a player’s tone can improve with a better guitar setup. No one in the world is going to be able to distinguish between Alpha and CTS pots, so it's certainly not always the quality of components. You can try to argue with people who say, "tone is in the fingers," but it's futile.

1 : vocal or musical sound of a specific quality
spoke in low tones
masculine tones
especially : musical sound with respect to timbre and manner of expression

2
a : a sound of definite pitch and vibration
b : whole step

3 : accent or inflection expressive of a mood or emotion

4 : style or manner of expression in speaking or writing
seemed wise to adopt a conciliatory tone

5 : a particular pitch or change of pitch constituting an element in the intonation of a phrase or sentence
high tone
low tone
mid tone
low-rising tone
falling tone

6 : the pitch of a word often used to express differences of meaning

7
a(1)
: color quality or value
(2)
a : a tint or shade of color
b : the color that appreciably modifies a hue or white or black
gray walls of greenish tone

8 : the effect in painting of light and shade together with color
Yeah I’m not interested in futile arguments or anything. All the stuff about vibrato, touch, articulation, phrasing etc. I agree, of course. I think we all do.

It’s simply this: I call that stuff chops, not tone.

To me one’s tone is that which carries the chops to our ears. ie the rig and all it entails.

I’m not onboard with “an amp simply amplifies input.” Respectfully, that’s just nuts. It can distort it, compress it, accentuate certain frequencies, embellish harmonics, exaggerate dynamics and on and on—amps color the sound, big time. Does a dimed plexi sound like an unplugged electric guitar, just really loud?

Aside from that I agree with most of what you said. I don’t think anyone is disputing the massive impact fingers have on tone. I’m certainly not. We share plenty of ground philosophically.

The issue is just one of semantics. Everything the fingers do I call chops—or style, technique etc. Everything the rig does I call tone.
 
zQ7eGMR.jpg




Welcome to R/T @heavision. :cheers:

You will learn not to argue with Mr. Guitar.

PS: I believe Tone in the context of guitar amplification is the sum of all the parts. Also, one could argue that it is not really your fingers making the tone - it is your brain followed by nerves followed by muscles followed by feedback to the brain . :yes:
 
Back
Top