Wiadomość #369051

[gizmi7]

Podoba mi się jeden z komentarzy pod tym filmikiem od @rafalek:

Lemme try to explain this the best I can.
Tone is a very different thing from what it is commonly paraded as. There is a huge misunderstanding, particularly in the guitar/bass world, about what tone is that persists because of stubborn people insisting what it is. Tone has never been IN your hands, it is a result of the gear that you use. Before you get the pitchforks, let me explain this to everyone. Here is the definition of musical tone:

Tone- a musical or vocal sound with reference to its pitch, quality, and strength. The quality or character of sound. The characteristic quality or timbre of a particular instrument or voice.
"the piano tone appears monochrome or lacking in warmth"
synonyms:   timbre, sound, sound quality, voice, voice quality, color, tonality
"the tone of the tuba"

That being said, tone has always been in it's most correct and original definition, to be a product of the equipment used to produce the music. Now this is the part where I get hit with a million anecdotes about Ted Nugent or SRV or EVH or Dimebag or whomever and quotes they said, ok, these guys weren't the best at music terminology you dig? They used tone as a buzz word for any kind of sound you make while playing the instrument, and because somebody did way back then, now everyone does it. No, just plugging into their gear will not get you to SOUND like them as the legends say, but it will give you their tone. You strum an A chord, it will have the almost an identical tone as their A chord. Look at the video above for reference. Tone and sound are not synonymous, like many will have you believe. If you wanna get Hetfield's tone on Ride the Lightning, you won't get there on a Danelectro neck pickup plugged into a Pignose, ok? No matter what you do with your hands. Hell there is a video where he is playing part of Fade to Black and his pickup selector shorts out and cuts his output and distortion. Where did his tone go? His hands were doing the same thing were they not?

Tone in the music world is like colors and types of paint to a painter. Sure you can have the same palette and colors that Van Gogh used to paint Starry Night, but that doesn't mean you can paint Starry Night, unless you have his TECHNIQUE. Your color is still Van Gogh's color just like if you were to play through somebody else's gear, you will have their tone. TECHNIQUE is where things get different. Your music is a product of your Tone and your Technique. A painter's technique is in how they arrange their colors into a painting just like a musician's technique is how they arrange their tone into music. It's that simple and easy, PLUS it means those nifty little stories that you didn't get a chance to tell me about that I've heard a million times anyway ARE STILL VALID AND THEIR POINT STILL STANDS. The tone already resides in your instrument, but your hands bring it out. That is the correct terminology. If tone just meant sound too then we wouldn't have the separate words; there is a difference. There's gold in them hills but it isn't in the hands you're using to get to it.

It is a huge misconception that just persists through the guitar world for practically no reason other than tradition's sake. There are more too, like "electric guitar strings" technically being guitar WIRES or the "tremolo bar" actually being a VIBRATO bar or the "bolt on neck" is actually a SCREW ON one. They're everywhere. For example: most "guitar solos" you recognize aren't even solos. A SOLO in music implies that only one musician is playing. Most "solos" you know have other instruments playing in the background, supporting the one playing the lead parts. So it isn't really a solo unless ONLY one instrument and one performer is playing during it. This makes them in strict and literal music terminology not solos at all, but SOLIS.

Guys, your gear is important ok? Sure Jeff Beck will still sound like Jeff beck through the Danelectro and the Pignose just like Da Vinci will still paint like Da Vinci with only shit brown and blood red as the colors he uses, but they both know better... The job of your hands is to excavate the tone from your gear; to squeeze the tone out of it, it does not RESIDE in your hands.

Even Adam Jones from Tool said this, "A lot of people say it's the guitarist, not the guitar. But that's not true, it's definitely the guitar." And it bugged a lot of people, but you have to acknowledge his point. If you take the guitar away from a guitarist, you don't have much. Sure you have a musician but they have no means of conveying their art. It's like a painter without a brush or canvas. You can't be a guitar PLAYER without a GUITAR. Having a better guitar or gear in general can in fact help you become a better player. Better gear will usually respond to your playing nuances better or at least in a more controlled manner, helping you develop your skills. Having good and efficient gear is part of being a professional musician. Doesn't have to be a vintage Gibson or Fender into a plexi that Billy Gibbons humped once while he was drunk or anything, just something that is reliable and sounds great.

So what is my point in saying all of this? Why did I just write a full blown essay on youtube? Well because I had a TON of coffee at like 5pm and now I can't sleep, but MAINLY because of this: If someone ever tells you that "tone is in the hands", be aware that it is a stubborn misconception and also realize that the best musicians seek tone through gear for a reason. There is no shame in chasing the dragon by doing what you can to find gear that gets you the tone you are after. Do not let people discourage you. Hell I always recommend that if a parent wants to get their kid started on learning an instrument or if someone wants to start themselves, then they should get a GOOD instrument, probably a pricey one. This does a few things.
1. Creates a larger investment for the person learning. If more is at stake, people are more willing to ride things out. When you have something like an instrument, there isn't much to lose and a whole lot to gain by practicing, and this is a good motivator.
2. Provides good TONE to the person wanting to learn. This will give them more incentive to keep playing because they KNOW that they have a good instrument or set of gear in their hands, meaning if something sounds off, it is on THEIR end, and they can learn how to fix it. Meanwhile if someone gets a cheap, junker instrument, they can spend a whole world of time practicing and still not sound that good because their guitar can't get a good tone or even stay in tune right, leading to less incentive to keep playing and more of a chance they will quit.
3. It gives you something to be materialistically proud of. Sure this is pretty shallow, but it rubs your subconscious and more basic instincts the right way. Just looking at a pretty and well renowned guitar can be motivation to keep it out and around or pick it up every now and then, and that really is all it takes sometimes.
4. The instrument will have better resale value. If you buy a junker, you will never resell it. If you do it will be for chump change. It is a poor investment. With a better instrument, you get greater chance at resale, so you can sell it for more money, most likely making back most of what you spent on it, sometimes capable of getting back what you spent on it and then some in some cases.

Your gear is important, treat it like it's important, seek it like it is important, and understand its significance. You can work on both Tone and Technique at the same time. Let nobody tell you otherwise. And if EVEN I, A BASS PLAYER OF ALL THINGS, can understand this, then you should have no problem.