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

rstites said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could be just a semantic thing, but vibrato I’d say doesn’t change the core tone itself, but more so just further brings out things about the tone that is there or also can reveal things lacking in the tone too. For example, in amps lacking tonal complexity/richness (aka most amps made today) they sound really bland/sterile if you do a milky, expressive vibrato or bend, while with good gear you can squeeze out much more overtones and other nuanced goodies outta the notes with a good vibrato, but the inherent tone still is what it is (even if Kirk Hammett played it with his vibrato lol). This is actually one of the things I always do when trying to evaluate new gear I try and most of it fails in this department lol

I think the pick itself is part of the gear that can of course shape the tone, but as long as the pick itself is kept constant as a variable I don’t think the picking style/technique is really changing the core tone, but again more so emphasizing different aspects of the tone that is already there and of course emphasized differently depending on how you pick/play it. I think basically the playing or fingers part can emphasize or de-emphasize aspects of the tone, but the core tone from the gear still is what it is and on here that’s the part we’re really talking about and focusing on, so when others say “tone is in the fingers” it’s really not applicable and those who say that generally just don’t get it. I think most of us here understand well the distinction between playing a certain way to get certain sounds and also the gear part of it to get certain sounds
 
heavision said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think again the problem is most guys don’t differentiate between tone quality, playing quality and music quality, so if the tone is at least not terrible and they play with good vibrato, finesse/touch and phrasing a lot of guitarists will just think the tone is great since the overall package is great even if the tone itself is mediocre. I don’t think tone is necessarily always the most important thing at the end of the day, but I do think it’s a shame that many guys just hear one package and can’t really say what are the good and bad parts that make up the overall package

For example, I love listening to Randy Rhoads leads, but I still recognize that I don’t think the tone is great, the playing imo is good but not like unbelievable, the the music quality though is amazing, so the overall package is amazing still to me
 
rstites said:
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.
Click to expand...
That makes sense to me. Good call.

Philosophically it’s spot on.

Personally I’d say to the guy; “you can go out and get that fuzz pedal, and a Marshall and a strat etc You can get the tones you’re after, but that doesn’t mean you can play like Jimi, you’re not gonna sound like Jimi.”

I might also ask him if he’s trying to get something Jimi used or are you trying to do something Jimi did. Two totally different endeavors.

I’d say if you want that tone, buy that gear. If you want those chops, practice.

Again: semantics.
 
heavision said:
That makes sense to me. Good call.

Philosophically it’s spot on.

Personally I’d say to the guy; “you can go out and get that fuzz pedal, and a Marshall and a strat etc You can get the tones you’re after, but that doesn’t mean you can play like Jimi, you’re not gonna sound like Jimi.”

I might also ask him if he’s trying to get something Jimi used or are you trying to do something Jimi did. Two totally different endeavors.

I’d say if you want that tone, buy that gear. If you want those chops, practice.

Again: semantics.
Click to expand...
I agree, we can match or at least get close to other’s tones, but trying to play exactly like them I always felt was silly. That’s imo kinda like trying to match exactly someone else’s finger print. Hendrix or EVH themselves I’d bet couldn’t copy well tons of other players even if they wanted to, but it doesn’t matter because they did their own thing well. When I see a lot of players with good chops trying to nail Yngwie, EVH or other guys I think they’re short changing themselves because maybe they could be their own player that is even better than those guys or at least be unique
 
braintheory said:
I agree, we can match or at least get close to other’s tones, but trying to play exactly like them I always felt was silly. That’s imo kinda like trying to match exactly someone else’s finger print. Hendrix or EVH themselves I’d bet couldn’t copy well tons of other players even if they wanted to, but it doesn’t matter because they did their own thing well. When I see a lot of players with good chops trying to nail Yngwie, EVH or other guys I think they’re short changing themselves because maybe they could be their own player that is even better than those guys or at least be unique
Click to expand...
Totally.

I can see spending some time trying to cop a bit of someone else’s style as a sort of exercise. One could try and learn some Yngwie to work on their speed, or learn some Beatles to expand their chord vocabulary and songwriting skills. Stuff like that.

It is frustrating when you dig someone’s tone, but have no aspirations to play like them—not even the same musical genre—and someone assumes that you’re wanting to imitate their playing style so they drop the fingers bomb. These guys are completely missing the point.
 
heavision said:
Totally.

I can see spending some time trying to cop a bit of someone else’s style as a sort of exercise. One could try and learn some Yngwie to work on their speed, or learn some Beatles to expand their chord vocabulary and songwriting skills. Stuff like that.

It is frustrating when you dig someone’s tone, but have no aspirations to play like them—not even the same musical genre—and someone assumes that you’re wanting to imitate their playing style so they drop the fingers bomb. These guys are completely missing the point.
Click to expand...
Yeah those guys are just I think being shortsighted or presumptuous. There are so many bands or guitarists where I love the tone itself, but hate the music and don’t think the playing is good either, so it’s really just their tone in trying to figure out. I would hate to play like them lol

In the case of Yngwie I loved his feel and vibrato in the playing, love his early tones, but think the musical content itself generally sucks, but as an overall package I like it because of the good parts. Guys should be able more able to imo to have the awareness of what they do and don’t like within something vs these guys that are just like “dude that sounds killer bro” or “right on man”
 
Philhouse said:
Click to expand...


I can’t remember which book I read it in, probably Sammy’s but it was something along the lines of Paul inviting Ed to do the song then trying to show Ed the changes, Ed was tanked and wasn’t able to transpose since he was down a half-step. Paul tried to politely rescind the offer but Ed was just “Naahhh man it’ll be great!”
 
heavision said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, what I said was, "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."
 
Last edited:
I get what you are saying, but I am a tone is in the fingers guy. Simply because if we admit that vibrato, picking attack/slant. right hand dynamics, and phrasing/timing all influence TONE, than how can tone NOT be in the fingers? We know this because 10 guys can play the same amp and sound diff. So as much as you hate it..it's a fact.
 
Kapo_Polenton said:
I get what you are saying, but I am a tone is in the fingers guy. Simply because if we admit that vibrato, picking attack/slant. right hand dynamics, and phrasing/timing all influence TONE, than how can tone NOT be in the fingers? We know this because 10 guys can play the same amp and sound diff. So as much as you hate it..it's a fact.
Click to expand...

I would argue that what you are describing is style or technique, not tone. 10 people can play the same gear and "sound" different because their style emphasizes some idiosyncrasies in their playing over others. but it doesn't change their core tone.

I don't care who you are, no one will ever make one of those battery powered pignose amps sound like a cranked 100 watt NMV Marshall with their fingers.

Or to put it another way; and this may sound silly but it makes a point.... Have you ever heard someone say "Man, he can really scoop those mids out with his pinky finger?"
 
I think the whole tone in the fingers thing is mostly how hard you pick and and how aggressive you attack the fretboard.

Those two make a huge difference, however, so does the gear.

It's both together so the old saying is half true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top