they say tone isnt in the fingers..?

[CrystalSky]

Yo, let's hear a clip from you.. before you start pontificating on anything up in hear.

Buy me an SM57 and recording equipment and I will be recording a new vid every day for you

Jokes aside, I didn’t say you did anything bad, it just looked like random improv and fooling around.

And this one is actually good!

 

[nightlight]

More evidence that I have horrible fingers. I do this weird pull off on the low string when I'm playing the verse riff of this. Makes this horrible squawking sound.

 

[Ben Waylin]

is that a red flame ML in the back??

 

[braintheory]

I don’t listen to Ed much, like I know only couple of his songs. Don’t get crazy over his tone either, SLO gets me there easy if I ever need it.

What we are talking about is phrasing and groove/rhythm feeling of a player, not like the tone itself.

And actually I even think that personal flavor of groove and phrasing can be replicated too, it is just our psychology affected by star status of person in question sometimes making us listen with our eyes in a way “Oh this is not Ed himself, definitely can’t be as good”. I would love to see some blind tests on the subject.

To me the main thing about all the guitar heroes is their composer gift to come up with those great riffs and melodies.

Celebrity aura affects people a lot, like people be pissing their pants about some Sydney Sweeney for example “omg Sydney, she is so extra” and I on the countrary only see a butterface hooker with a nice pair of tits.

I can’t say for sure how much this translates to music world, as I don’t get bands touring here at all and I mostly base my opinion on videos and albums, not “in the room” feel.

Agreed. Those “guitar heroes’s” talent was really more in artistic creativity in writing music and coming up with sounds. In terms of actual guitar playing ability (both in feel and technical proficiency) there are many that are way better, but that skill alone hasn’t seemed to be enough by itself for most to care for better or worse. I just would prefer more clarity in classifying one is more of a great player or composer. I don’t know anyone that really is top notch at both. These guitar heroes mostly are more so I think “heroes” at composing for the guitar and can play well enough to say what they want to

 

[TheGreatGreen]

It's partially a linguistics issue. If your definition of "tone" is "the way the gear itself changes the signal fed into it" then no, "tone" is not in the fingers. But if your definition of "tone" is "the end result of the sound you attribute to the 'guitar part'" then "tone" is anywhere from partially to mostly in the fingers depending on the kinds of rig you're talking about, which I'll go into more detail about in just a second.

In my opinion, for that reason, the phrase "tone is in the fingers" is kind of a confusing and ultimately useless axiom which only really breeds misunderstandings like "oh so you're saying I can make a Twin on 1 sound like a fully gained out 5150 on 10 because 'tone is in the fingers' huh."

The other confusing thing about saying "the tone is in the fingers" is that the truth of it changes massively depending on how much gain you use. For example if you're using a 5150 with the gain cranked, the only thing your fingers are really going to be able to meaningfully do is play the notes as clearly and controlled as possible while your other fingers mute the strings that aren't supposed to be ringing. Don't misunderstand, that itself is no small or easily attained skill, but still, most any seasoned heavy guitar player is going to achieve roughly the same sound through a rig like that. But if you're playing an AC30 set just on the edge of breakup where the system is so sensitive that you can practically hear yourself blinking through the speakers, then the nuances of any given player will be vastly more influential on what comes out of the speakers. In that situation, any two musicians are going to sound much more like they're playing through two entirely different rigs than musicians in the high gain scenario I mentioned above, and that is exactly the kind of scenario where "tone is in the fingers" is truest in the most straightforward sense.

 

[stephen sawall]

But is it tone or peronal style in the end? To me tone is about amps. Differences in playing and feel I attribute to style, phrasing, skill, groove etc.

Tone

 

[CrystalSky]

It's partially a linguistics issue. If your definition of "tone" is "the way the gear itself changes the signal fed into it" then no, "tone" is not in the fingers. But if your definition of "tone" is "the end result of the sound you attribute to the 'guitar part'" then "tone" is anywhere from partially to mostly in the fingers depending on the kinds of rings you're talking about, which I'll go into more detail about in just a second.

In my opinion, for that reason, the phrase "tone is in the fingers" is kind of a confusing and ultimately useless axiom which only really breeds misunderstandings like "oh so you're saying I can make a Twin on 1 sound like a fully gained out 5150 on 10 because 'tone is in the fingers' huh."

The other confusing thing about saying "the tone is in the fingers" is that the truth of it changes massively depending on how much gain you use. For example if you're using a 5150 with the gain cranked, the only thing your fingers are really going to be able to meaningfully do is play the notes as clearly and controlled as possible while your other fingers mute the strings that aren't supposed to be ringing. Don't misunderstand, that itself is no small or easily attained skill, but still, most any seasoned heavy guitar player is going to achieve roughly the same sound through a rig like that. But if you're playing an AC30 set just on the edge of breakup where the system is so sensitive that you can practically hear yourself blinking through the speakers, then the nuances of any given player will be vastly more influential on what comes out of the speakers. In that situation, any two musicians are going to sound much more like they're playing through two entirely different rigs than musicians in the high gain scenario I mentioned above, and that is exactly the kind of scenario where "tone is in the fingers" is truest in the most straightforward sense.

Yeah this is probably the right explanation. To me tone is mostly “the gear itself changes the signal”.

 

[braintheory]

It's partially a linguistics issue. If your definition of "tone" is "the way the gear itself changes the signal fed into it" then no, "tone" is not in the fingers. But if your definition of "tone" is "the end result of the sound you attribute to the 'guitar part'" then "tone" is anywhere from partially to mostly in the fingers depending on the kinds of rig you're talking about, which I'll go into more detail about in just a second.

In my opinion, for that reason, the phrase "tone is in the fingers" is kind of a confusing and ultimately useless axiom which only really breeds misunderstandings like "oh so you're saying I can make a Twin on 1 sound like a fully gained out 5150 on 10 because 'tone is in the fingers' huh."

The other confusing thing about saying "the tone is in the fingers" is that the truth of it changes massively depending on how much gain you use. For example if you're using a 5150 with the gain cranked, the only thing your fingers are really going to be able to meaningfully do is play the notes as clearly and controlled as possible while your other fingers mute the strings that aren't supposed to be ringing. Don't misunderstand, that itself is no small or easily attained skill, but still, most any seasoned heavy guitar player is going to achieve roughly the same sound through a rig like that. But if you're playing an AC30 set just on the edge of breakup where the system is so sensitive that you can practically hear yourself blinking through the speakers, then the nuances of any given player will be vastly more influential on what comes out of the speakers. In that situation, any two musicians are going to sound much more like they're playing through two entirely different rigs than musicians in the high gain scenario I mentioned above, and that is exactly the kind of scenario where "tone is in the fingers" is truest in the most straightforward sense.

I think for the most part tone comes from the gear and different players (aka "fingers") can accent the core tone differently enough sometimes to the point where it comes off sounding quite different overall to some ears depending on what one is listening for

For example, my voice when I talk (aka my core tone) is what it is, but if I were to speak in a completely different accent or talk louder/more intensely or did other things to change dramatically my execution in how I use my voice some might think my voice is suddenly very different, but my voice still just is what it is. I think it's similar with gear and I listen I think more to the core voice and if I'm focused more on the execution aka playing I won't be as aware of what I think of the tone and will have to listen again separately to evaluate that. Hard for me to focus a lot on both at once

 

[Ben Waylin]

This was a fun tone to play with..

 

[Briman24]

 

[Ben Waylin]

Here's another cool tone to play with.

 

[DISTORT6]

You should see the case…

 

[Ben Waylin]

This is a cool tone as well..

 

[RaceU4her]

Gilmour too believes that a player can never escape what they sound like no matter the gear they use. He said earlier this year:

"Every set of fingers sounds different. And, believe it or not, the guitars, the amps, the effects pedals — all those things are subsidiary to the fingers. And they do the work, and they do the talking, and they are what creates the sound."

 

[CrystalSky]

Gilmour too believes that a player can never escape what they sound like no matter the gear they use. He said earlier this year:

"Every set of fingers sounds different. And, believe it or not, the guitars, the amps, the effects pedals — all those things are subsidiary to the fingers. And they do the work, and they do the talking, and they are what creates the sound."

Now have Gilmour play an E chord through several amps, have ten other folks do that and present in a blind test to the crowd. I guess crowd would easily separate lets say some gain dimed IIC+ from a Bassman, but not the players

 

[japetus]

Now have Gilmour play an E chord through several amps, have ten other folks do that and present in a blind test to the crowd. I guess crowd would easily separate lets say some gain dimed IIC+ from a Bassman, but not the players

 

[RaceU4her]

Now have Gilmour play an E chord through several amps, have ten other folks do that and present in a blind test to the crowd. I guess crowd would easily separate lets say some gain dimed IIC+ from a Bassman, but not the players

dude loves digital!!



Though he hasn't yet jumped on the digital amp bandwagon for his live shows, things are much simpler for him at home.

“I will be using physical heads and cabinets on the tour – but at home I have this thing that’s now 30 years old called a Zoom,” he explained to GW.

“It’s a tiny little gray box, and I use that most of the time when I’m working on the early version of songs. Because I know how to work it – it’s got lots of good sounds and I know how to adjust them.”

 

[CrystalSky]

dude loves digital!!



Though he hasn't yet jumped on the digital amp bandwagon for his live shows, things are much simpler for him at home.

“I will be using physical heads and cabinets on the tour – but at home I have this thing that’s now 30 years old called a Zoom,” he explained to GW.

“It’s a tiny little gray box, and I use that most of the time when I’m working on the early version of songs. Because I know how to work it – it’s got lots of good sounds and I know how to adjust them.”

I do too, helps me let go the fear of something going wrong with an expensive ass amp

 

[Metalhex]

Tone is in the donuts!
Seriously, I they had these at my local apple cider mill. I had to take a pic.