Develop YOUR Sound

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Pheof

Music, in general, has become a multi-billion dollar industry today. It rarely has much to do with talent. Think about what talent actually is to you: is it speed? Fluency? Influence? Emotion? Technical ability? The model of guitar you play? The clothes you wear and the image you portray? Something else? Because, let's face it, the industry doesn't employ highly skilled musicians at the age of 55. They only want the 20 yr. olds who can sell an image. Today everything's about Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, McDonalds vs. Burger King and Martin vs. Gibson. And if you don't fit the mould, you're not in the game.

This sounds like you’re very frustrated Pheof. Sorry to see that but I'll disagree with you to some extent. I think you're correct about how jaded the industry is but I know plenty of over 55 musicians out there making a living at playing music that you won’t find on commercial radio and I’m one of them.

Originally Posted by Pheof

You have to practically be a virtuoso to even get recognized, and once you are you're confined to a box full of simplistic formulae in order to create a product that sells.

Well, many of my colleagues are not only masters at what they do but are not at all part of the simplistic formulae machine that you speak of.

Originally Posted by Pheof

List 3 new highly skilled players over the age of 40 who are selling CDs and videos by the millions.

Grant you, there aren’t many. But you don’t have to sell millions of merch in order to earn a very good living at playing the music you enjoy playing, even if the music is not within the industries ‘box.’ And... you can be highly skilled at doing it.

Originally Posted by Pheof

So why do we switch guitars so often? Because talent is useless and fantasies mean everything. If we have the right look, the right sound, use the most popular pick, strap, wear a blue jean jacket with ripped sleeves and can sound like Justin Beiber with his signature Gibson Hummingbird, we think we'll be in the game. it's no coincidence that Country players use Gibsons, Bluegrass players play Martins and modern players and church worship leaders almost always use Taylors.

If the game you’re trying to get into is the one that you describe then I can probably see why you’re sounding so frustrated at the industry. I mean, if I wanted to 'make it' in that sense I'd be pretty darn frustrated myself.

[sweiss]

Originally Posted by Pitar

..........Indy! That's where the musician dwells. Everyone else is chasing the Pied Piper and playing accordingly.

There hasn't been any new music since cave people blew into hollowed out reeds and banged on stretched animal skins. Music has certainly evolved and branched out in many directions over the millennia, but every twist and turn it takes grows out of, and is connected to, music that came before it.

Music is not created in a vacuum. I don't care what you call your type of music...every players style is the sum of whatever type(s) of music he likes and has grown up with, and what he subconsciously adds of himself to the music he plays.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by Pheof

Music, in general, has become a multi-billion dollar industry today. It rarely has much to do with talent. Think about what talent actually is to you: is it speed? Fluency? Influence? Emotion? Technical ability? The model of guitar you play? The clothes you wear and the image you portray? Something else? Because, let's face it, the industry doesn't employ highly skilled musicians at the age of 55. They only want the 20 yr. olds who can sell an image. Today everything's about Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, McDonalds vs. Burger King and Martin vs. Gibson. And if you don't fit the mould, you're not in the game.

That's absolutely true. But, it's not like older guys are the only ones who've got it bad. The industry is more statistic driven now and talented musicians of every age have to fight to get anywhere. The other side to it is that, even though the ability to make it big is smaller than it has been in decades, the ability to be heard is open to EVERYONE. The big-money rockstar dream is mostly dead but for those content to do what they love and eek out a living, music is still alive.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Pitar

Influence over originality is the first order of things to straighten out.

Genre has built in impediments to sounding original. The Blues, for one, does not allow for originality. It's a very narrow road guiding progressions of blue-print conventions. No matter how you attempt to reshape it, you sound like everyone else. Or, you develop a style based upon it and it's no longer The Blues. Like soft jazz, you'll water yourself down and lose your mainstream appeal unless your style strikes a popular nerve.

I totally disagree.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by BlackmoresNight

Agreed. I am still perplexed when, for example, some people won't use anything but Elixirs because of the string noise. I wonder why they won't just adjust their technique if string noise bothers them that much. I also wonder when being able to avoid learning proper technique became a selling point.

Jeez, that's pretty far off the mark.

Anyway, regarding the OP's topic, I have often thought if someone had just one good guitar and really spent time with it, knowing it inside and out how to milk various tones out of it he would learn more about tone control than having various guitars he only partially knows how to control. However different guitars have different tone palettes and if you like to play a variety of styles, one guitar won't do.

[Digits_Only]

I see, what I believe, too many young players migrating from guitar to different guitar looking for a sound - instead of learning to make "their sound" with the instrument they have.

This assumes that everyone's got a half-decent guitar already capable of producing "their sound"...whatever that is...which I'm convinced almost no player, especially when starting out, has any idea what it might be for them. Even the pros change "their sound" from recording to recording, often changing instrumentation in the process.

An acoustic guitar player, playing acoustically, has very little influence over the sound of their instrument. The guitar will sound like the guitar based on its construction and tonewoods. The player's job is execute the music to the best of their ability which is mostly about technique rather than artistic interpretation. Absent technique, there is no artistic interpretation.

It's not the instrument's job (because it can't) to make you/us a better musician.

Sure it can. If an instrument is easier to play and it sounds better (Sears vs Martin) by any measure you are suddenly a better musician. Why? Because what you play sounds better. Harder passages are easier to play which decreases the technical requirements of the piece allowing the player more artistic freedom. The music you make is what matters.

Why then, aren't all the pros playing crap guitars? Heck, Pat Metheny's nylon string costs $30K. Do you think he thinks he would sound just as good with a $300 Ovation?

Chet Atkins said "There are no shortcuts."

Chet also had more than 60 guitars in his collection.

In the book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell says that it takes roughly ten thousand hours of practice to achieve mastery in a field.

Many people mistake the products of vast quantities of hard work as "talent."

visitor to New York City policeman …
“Officer, can you tell me how to get to Carnegie Hall?”

policeman to visitor …
“Practice, practice, practice!”

[RustyZombie]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Jeez, that's pretty far off the mark.

Interesting that you make a contrasting statement without any argument or proof behind it.

[Placida]

Originally Posted by PastorSteve

I responded to a thread recently that made me think of man vs. guitar. In decades past, musicians frequently had less money and toys. They (I would like to think we) had one guitar that they played and, I believe, that helped shape their signature sound. I see, what I believe, too many young players migrating from guitar to different guitar looking for a sound - instead of learning to make "their sound" with the instrument they have.

You/we likely purchased the instrument you have because you liked the way it played and/or sounded. So now, why not take the time (hours upon hours upon hours - hundreds of them not just today and tomorrow) getting the most out of that guitar? Take the time to set up, tweak, test dozens of strings, picks and techniques - to develop your sound with that instrument instead of (generally incorrectly) hoping that a different instrument will give you something you haven't yet earned - your signature sound.

You see, it's your/our job as a "musician" to get the most out of the instrument. It's not the instrument's job (because it can't) to make you/us a better musician. Someone recently asked what the difference between guitarist and a musician is - I believe that is it. A guitarist plays a guitar. A musician plays - any guitar.

Excellent post, PastorSteve. At some point it's time to stop guitar shopping and start searching within yourself. Great advice to all of us who haven't "found" ourselves yet, me included. But I'm working on it.

Thanks!

[Pheof]

I should have just said I simply like variety. That would have been a better response.

I like variety.

[DenverSteve]

Originally Posted by Digits_Only

This assumes that everyone's got a half-decent guitar already capable of producing "their sound"..

An acoustic guitar player, playing acoustically, has very little influence over the sound of their instrument.

Actually, it's an observation - not an assumption. And, per my original post, an acoustic guitar player has ENORMOUS influence over the sound of their instrument. Again, if you read (or re-read) my post I list several ways (and there are many more) to change/influence the sound of your guitar. That's my thesis, too many people who want to play have no idea how to do so and then blame the guitar. Many, many players have done wonderful work with low quality guitars. Because they didn't blame the instrument, they worked long hours every day to develop their ability.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by BlackmoresNight

Interesting that you make a contrasting statement without any argument or proof behind it.

Yeah, mirrors your statement, except not flat out wrong

[RustyZombie]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Yeah, mirrors your statement, except not flat out wrong

The things people will believe to avoid an unpleasant truth. If you don't feel the need to improve a particular aspect of your technique, that is your choice. You can play your guitars however you want. But that doesn't change what good technique is or isn't for anyone else.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by Pitar

The Blues, for one, does not allow for originality. It's a very narrow road guiding progressions of blue-print conventions. No matter how you attempt to reshape it, you sound like everyone else.

You're getting some pushback for this, and I don't mean to pile on but --

Ever taught someone basic 12 or 16 bar blues, building up complexity, and then said -- OK, now I'll do my style -- and then ask them to just play and see what they come up with? Everyone knows it's the blues, but we all sound a bit different.

Must be some blues players you like better than others.

Genres provide structure, but don't have to stifle originality.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by BlackmoresNight

The things people will believe to avoid an unpleasant truth. If you don't feel the need to improve a particular aspect of your technique, that is your choice. You can play your guitars however you want. But that doesn't change what good technique is or isn't for anyone else.

Figured that was your logic - the only reason anyone would use Elixir strings is to help hide their bad technique, and if they just played better they would not use them. Pretty laughable considering, but enough time wasted.

[RustyZombie]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Figured that was your logic - the only reason anyone would use Elixir strings is to help hide their bad technique, and if they just played better they would not use them. Pretty laughable considering, but enough time wasted.

That isn't what I said. I simply attacked one of the reasons people use coated strings versus something else. I just happened to use Elixirs for my example, as they are on of the more popular coated strings. There are plenty of reasons to use coated strings, it's just that string noise isn't a good one.