Pick types and technique

[Steel and wood]

I think what happened to me was that I strummed from the beginning using Dunlop thin picks and over time developed my flat picking using the same thin pick. (Even if I'm strumming these days I tend to incorporate some flat picking into my strumming and I'm not an "out and out" flat picker). Again, I hold the pick on a slight angle close to its point for more control. (There is not much "floppiness" going on).

With thicker picks (and this could just be me), I can't feel them hit the strings in the same way and to my ears they either "scrape" or provide more of a "thud" than a "ring" or even a "jangle" if I'm strumming. (And besides, the Dunlop's are cheap).

The older I get the more I realize there is no right or wrong, just personal preference.

[Charmed Life Picks]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

Agreed, and said as much in post#39. Mass matters only if you're throwing the pick at the strings.

Of course, what does it mean when a physicist and engineer agree.

Keeping the shape constant, hardness and stiffness of the material account for most of the difference in tone. And I am still baffled by the idea that a thinner pick has "better" tone. It is quite different, but "better" is largely a matter of preference. I don't think a thinner pick offers better tone, but I can't quantify "better". If I want to be objective, I can try to describe the differences in tone.

I'm certainly neither an engineer or a physicist, but I respectfully disagree. If you swung your arm with a twig and hit someone over the head with it, they wouldn't feel a thing. Then take a billy club and use the same motion of your arm. Why did the guy crumble to the ground? The mass and speed of the arm haven't changed. The only variable in that controlled experiment is the mass of the object being swung.

I'm sure there's a scientific explanation that disproves the above example, and I look forward to hearing it.

I've listened to several hundred picks over the last two years. Thin picks made of the same material have demonstrably better tone, no matter the material. As to the science or the physics of why this is, I couldn't say.

thanks,
scott

[Charmed Life Picks]

We're just gonna have to disagree on this one, Todd. I think we can at least agree that the player is far more important than the tool, but that is far from the whole truth.

I'm in total agreement with you for my own playing, and for your playing too. I can’t stand thin picks. I rarely play below 1.0 mm, and am usually playing 1.15-1.25. But I think we have to be careful about the assumptions we make, about projecting our own preferences onto other players who get as good or better results than us with completely different tools. Unless I’m reading your post incorrectly, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who plays with thin picks is automatically an amateur, uninformed, and/or an inferior player.

I have a friend in our regular jamming group who has the strongest attack, the loudest solos, and is by far the best acoustic player in our circle of about three dozen players. I was shocked recently to discover that he plays a Fender Large Triangle Medium (.75 mm). How does he do it? I have no idea. But it seems to suit him just fine. He gets terrific results with a very thin pick.

And here’s a quote from the Internet: “Doc Watson, the grandfather of American flatpicking, swears by Herco Medium picks.” Not only are those picks .75 mm, but they’re made from Nylon, which is far more flexible than celluloid.

People play what they play. Some players—not most, but some—get terrific results with picks well below 1.0 mm.

scott

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Guitar Picks

I'm certainly neither an engineer or a physicist, but I respectfully disagree. If you swung your arm with a twig and hit someone over the head with it, they wouldn't feel a thing. Then take a billy club and use the same motion of your arm. Why did the guy crumble to the ground? The mass and speed of the arm haven't changed. The only variable in that controlled experiment is the mass of the object being swung.

I'm sure there's a scientific explanation that disproves the above example, and I look forward to hearing it.

So you're saying an object that is stiffer, and also has more mass, imparts more energy to whatever is being struck? Isn't that the opposite of what you're saying about thin versus thick picks?

In this case the difference in mass of the object (club vs. twig) at the end of the moment arm is significantly different. The stiffness is too.

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Guitar Picks

I've listened to several hundred picks over the last two years. Thin picks made of the same material have demonstrably better tone, no matter the material.

Again, we have to separate "different" and "better". I do not hear "better" when I hear a thin pick.

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Guitar Picks

Unless I’m reading your post incorrectly, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who plays with thin picks is automatically an amateur, uninformed, and/or an inferior player.

You are indeed misreading it. What I am saying is that anyone who prefers a very thin pick has different tonal goals and preferences than I do. That is true for many flat pickers. Most use a fairly heavy and stiff pick, usually over 1.0mm, and many well over that.

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Guitar Picks

And here’s a quote from the Internet: “Doc Watson, the grandfather of American flatpicking, swears by Herco Medium picks.” Not only are those picks .75 mm, but they’re made from Nylon, which is far more flexible than celluloid.

While Doc could get better tone out of those picks than most others, he was not primarily interested in acoustic tone on stage. He used a variety of pickups, mostly Fishman UST's. Dan Crary does the same. Both are great pickers, but their stage sound is pickup based. (Or was in Doc's case. RIP)

[adaw2821]

Thanks everyone for the input. And for keeping civil. I'm not trying to start any arguments here, which can easily happen with topics like this.

So I definitely agree with anyone saying that thicker picks 1.00 mm and above are better for flat picking. However, again, flat picking isn't really my primary style.

I cannot get a thicker pick to sound good strumming. And I believe, unless there is something that I'm not seeing, that my ability to control the pick is not an issue here. And I believe that the unattractive noise I hear is coming from the pick hitting the strings and not coming out of the guitar itself.

The tone coming out of the guitar may indeed be better, worse, red, or blue. Don't know because I can't get past the harsh clicking sound. I'm exaggerating it some but its still very annoying and does distract me.

I still have yet to try anything above 1 mm, as anytime I've moved up to say a .6 or .73 I get the above results. I would like to get a 1.5 primetone and see how it sounds.

That may very well be the solution. Although I really have no complaints with my .46 nylon for strumming and never really would have started this experiment if I hadn't stumbled across the overwhelming opposition to thin picks here on AGF.

I'm all for getting a better tone and trying new things and techniques, but if I can't get a pleasing result with a thick pick in the end, Ill stick with what has worked for me for years.

[Charmed Life Picks]

Originally Posted by adaw2821

Thanks everyone for the input. And for keeping civil. I'm not trying to start any arguments here, which can easily happen with topics like this.

So I definitely agree with anyone saying that thicker picks 1.00 mm and above are better for flat picking. However, again, flat picking isn't really my primary style.

I cannot get a thicker pick to sound good strumming. And I believe, unless there is something that I'm not seeing, that my ability to control the pick is not an issue here. And I believe that the unattractive noise I hear is coming from the pick hitting the strings and not coming out of the guitar itself.

The tone coming out of the guitar may indeed be better, worse, red, or blue. Don't know because I can't get past the harsh clicking sound. I'm exaggerating it some but its still very annoying and does distract me.

I still have yet to try anything above 1 mm, as anytime I've moved up to say a .6 or .73 I get the above results. I would like to get a 1.5 primetone and see how it sounds.

That may very well be the solution as IMO
.46 nylon = floppy
.73 = snappy/clicking noise strumming
1.0 or above = ?

Adaw, good idea for a thread; thanks for beginning it.

scott memmer

[Charmed Life Picks]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

So you're saying an object that is stiffer, and also has more mass, imparts more energy to whatever is being struck? Isn't that the opposite of what you're saying about thin versus thick picks?

In this case the difference in mass of the object (club vs. twig) at the end of the moment arm is significantly different. The stiffness is too.


Again, we have to separate "different" and "better". I do not hear "better" when I hear a thin pick.


You are indeed misreading it. What I am saying is that anyone who prefers a very thin pick has different tonal goals and preferences than I do. That is true for many flat pickers. Most use a fairly heavy and stiff pick, usually over 1.0mm, and many well over that.

While Doc could get better tone out of those picks than most others, he was not primarily interested in acoustic tone on stage. He used a variety of pickups, mostly Fishman UST's. Dan Crary does the same. Both are great pickers, but their stage sound is pickup based. (Or was in Doc's case. RIP)

Thanks, Todd. I do think a lot of this is subjective, especially as regards tone.

As for Doc, yes, he played with a pickup, but mainly because, being blind, he had no way to see how far away the mic was. This was just a practical and necessary evil for live performance. But you'll notice he also plays into a mic at the same time, even outdoors.

With all due respect to you and Doc, Todd, I see it as a real stretch to make a point to say one of the greatest flatpickers of all time lacked technique (or needed to use "better" question, a thicker pick) to maximize his sound. Doc Watson? Really? I daresay there are hundreds of thousands of players who would disagree vehemently with that statement. HE doesn't seem to know he's playing inferior equipment.

Here's a vid of him playing with Chet without a microphone. Sounds pretty good to me.


[url]www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqPZbpqGV2M[url]

And this completely ignores the hundreds of studio recordings he made without using a pickup, playing directly into a microphone. Doc lacked tone? He could have sounded "better"?

People play what they play. Doc became one of the greatest flatpickers of the century using a .75 mm Herco nylon pick. No one ever did it better, and we all owe him a huge debt of gratitude. RIP, indeed.

sm

[Charmed Life Picks]

Just another short comment here.

A couple posts back Todd mentioned Dan Crary in relation to this topic. Interesting, cuz about a year ago and a half ago I saw him at a small outdoor Bluegrass festival here in CA. It happened to be a very windy day, so he was playing with a pickup (I don't remember if he was also using a mic out front, or whether he usually does or not).

My point is this -- and this is not a diss on Dan or the guitar he was playing (the brand of which I won't mention since that's not the point and I have no axe to grind with any guitar makers) -- the point is, he sounded horrible. Just abysmal.

Let me explain: I hate pickups. Not some pickups, ALL pickups. Even the best ones sound terrible. None of them can touch a $100 Shure SM-58 out front. I understand the need for them due to feedback, but I rest my case.

Anyway, Todd, in terms of straight tone, the sound of the guitar was abysmal. I don't know if Dan uses a thin pick or not. The guitar had that electro-acoustic, garbage-y, plasticky, factory rig sound to it, with NO wood in it.

That's it. I can't believe how many solo players use pickups only, without at least throwing a mic out front as well. Does no one remember what a real acoustic guitar sounds like.

cranky memmer