how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
- Thread starter appar111
- Start date
JeffB
Let it B
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
Amen brother. When he switched over to the 2205 around 1984 that was a big step backwards, and then the duncan custom,and no wah was another big step backwards in the 1990s. His current tones are even smoother and darker. With no dynamics. His tone for 30 years has been pretty generic where previously it was completely unique and dynamic. But ears get old and certainly we all gravitate towards different tones than when our ears were fresher.
Amen brother. When he switched over to the 2205 around 1984 that was a big step backwards, and then the duncan custom,and no wah was another big step backwards in the 1990s. His current tones are even smoother and darker. With no dynamics. His tone for 30 years has been pretty generic where previously it was completely unique and dynamic. But ears get old and certainly we all gravitate towards different tones than when our ears were fresher.
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
Actually, after thinking about it for a bit I have an alternative viewpoint.
I'm wondering if the players that you're talking about would even be on your 'tone radar' to start with if they'd had access to all the gear that they wanted...in many cases early in their careers the artists work with what they have and the result is the earlier tones that some folks prefer. Also, the fact that some of their older output is better, in terms of the writing and performance, may make the tone less important anyway.
I do want to say that I much prefer John Petrucci's newer tones to his other sounds...way less thin now. I think his sound peaked with BC&SL.
Actually, after thinking about it for a bit I have an alternative viewpoint.
I'm wondering if the players that you're talking about would even be on your 'tone radar' to start with if they'd had access to all the gear that they wanted...in many cases early in their careers the artists work with what they have and the result is the earlier tones that some folks prefer. Also, the fact that some of their older output is better, in terms of the writing and performance, may make the tone less important anyway.
I do want to say that I much prefer John Petrucci's newer tones to his other sounds...way less thin now. I think his sound peaked with BC&SL.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
There are lots of exceptions. I'd say that the early albums tend to be better than a group's latter albums, and not put numbers on it. Electric Ladyland was Hendrix's masterpiece, as was Cream's Wheel of Fire, and the first two Zeppelin albums were incredible.
There are lots of exceptions. I'd say that the early albums tend to be better than a group's latter albums, and not put numbers on it. Electric Ladyland was Hendrix's masterpiece, as was Cream's Wheel of Fire, and the first two Zeppelin albums were incredible.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
+1 on all counts. Exactly what I was gonna write.
+1 on all counts. Exactly what I was gonna write.
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
I think the 1997-1999 timeframe was the high point of his live sound. But in any case, recent years are just "meddal".
I think the 1997-1999 timeframe was the high point of his live sound. But in any case, recent years are just "meddal".
atreidesheir
New member
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
I used to get mad when someone would put on Led Zeppelin III. I listened to it in the car about a month ago, and when you don't compare it to the first two and the mid period zep, it is actually pretty good.
Schenker was better when his pickups were lower output. I love his wah tone from the mid to late 70s.
Metallica never had great guitar tone. Their drums and bass were a step above to me.
I always thought Vai had better tone than Satriani, but I love the Fred pickup. Vai's tone was killer with David Lee Roth. He is still cutting edge and experimental so props to him.
Lots of people lost their edge when they replaced the PAF Pro.
Clapton had great tone on "From the Cradle." Most of the time it doesn't seem he even cares. He did sound good on Journeyman too with lace sensors and Soldano SLO heads.
Thankfully Dave Gilmour stopped using his signature pickups and went back to passive pickups. He sounds better.
I used to get mad when someone would put on Led Zeppelin III. I listened to it in the car about a month ago, and when you don't compare it to the first two and the mid period zep, it is actually pretty good.
Schenker was better when his pickups were lower output. I love his wah tone from the mid to late 70s.
Metallica never had great guitar tone. Their drums and bass were a step above to me.
I always thought Vai had better tone than Satriani, but I love the Fred pickup. Vai's tone was killer with David Lee Roth. He is still cutting edge and experimental so props to him.
Lots of people lost their edge when they replaced the PAF Pro.
Clapton had great tone on "From the Cradle." Most of the time it doesn't seem he even cares. He did sound good on Journeyman too with lace sensors and Soldano SLO heads.
Thankfully Dave Gilmour stopped using his signature pickups and went back to passive pickups. He sounds better.
Last edited:
BRHGM
New member
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
Clapton is deaf as a post and so is Jeff Beck. I also find Clapton's earlier sound to be more interesting. Unfortunately these guys are chasing endorsements and don't seem to be as serious about the music anymore. I saw Aerosmith on American Idol a few nights ago and I thought it sounded like crap. So yeah I know what you mean. Slash is still Slash, but he's chasing a different sound. Michael Schenker seems to be playing much better these days when he's sober. I don't care for David Gilmour outside of Pink Floyd.
Clapton is deaf as a post and so is Jeff Beck. I also find Clapton's earlier sound to be more interesting. Unfortunately these guys are chasing endorsements and don't seem to be as serious about the music anymore. I saw Aerosmith on American Idol a few nights ago and I thought it sounded like crap. So yeah I know what you mean. Slash is still Slash, but he's chasing a different sound. Michael Schenker seems to be playing much better these days when he's sober. I don't care for David Gilmour outside of Pink Floyd.
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
As with many actors and other celebrities, some will do things for money now that they wouldn't have done before, to build bank accounts that ensure their kids and grandkids are taken care of.
As with many actors and other celebrities, some will do things for money now that they wouldn't have done before, to build bank accounts that ensure their kids and grandkids are taken care of.
metalmachine
New member
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
great post
great post
che_guitarra
New member
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
I've had a few theories on this over the years:
1) Your creativity/tone/style peaks in your late twenties.
2) Once you've 'made it' or become financially secure, you lose an element of creative edge.
3) You have a window of about three albums to maintain a connection with fans, after that interest and intrigue will move in different directions.
4) Overproduction ruins raw vibe/tone.
I've had a few theories on this over the years:
1) Your creativity/tone/style peaks in your late twenties.
2) Once you've 'made it' or become financially secure, you lose an element of creative edge.
3) You have a window of about three albums to maintain a connection with fans, after that interest and intrigue will move in different directions.
4) Overproduction ruins raw vibe/tone.
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
Yeah, I suppose if they have been around long enough, then there's nothing wrong w/ making some money based on that... hell, they've earned it.
Yeah, I suppose if they have been around long enough, then there's nothing wrong w/ making some money based on that... hell, they've earned it.
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
Some of my favorites just seemed to keep getting better. Concrete Blonde only got things in order around their 3rd or so (first few were lower budget, poor digital mastering on the CD releases at least). Sound changed radically on some of the later albums, but I still liked them (Mexican Moon, for example, where he ditched his custom guitar into Hiwatt and Matchless DC30 for a strat into a bassman and still pulled an amazing variety of tones out of it in the studio).
I didn't really care for Joe Satriani's tone (as opposed to his playing!) until his 3rd, the overprocessed generic pedal tone of the 2nd (Surfing with the Alien) didn't do anything for me. First was better, but a bit thin. Don't know about the Fred vs Mo' Joe, but I do think the custom pickup did work better for what he was doing than the hotter JB he used a lot on the earlier albums...
Corrosion of Conformity and Dream Theater have stunningly bad early albums (to my tastes, but that brand of punk and nutsinavice aren't my thing). But by the 2nd or 3rd album after some lineup rearranges they produced some pretty amazing stuff. I stopped following Dream Theater after Petrucci started messing with downtuned guitars, seemed to be just chasing trends and lost what I liked about them.
Sure, a lot of bands peak early, or maybe what you liked about them was something they did to get noticed and wasn't what really interested them so they dropped it later on.
But I don't think it's good to try to avoid change, and wind up stagnating. No risk, no reward. But it may be better to admit you aren't the same band and move on, in some cases...
Some of my favorites just seemed to keep getting better. Concrete Blonde only got things in order around their 3rd or so (first few were lower budget, poor digital mastering on the CD releases at least). Sound changed radically on some of the later albums, but I still liked them (Mexican Moon, for example, where he ditched his custom guitar into Hiwatt and Matchless DC30 for a strat into a bassman and still pulled an amazing variety of tones out of it in the studio).
I didn't really care for Joe Satriani's tone (as opposed to his playing!) until his 3rd, the overprocessed generic pedal tone of the 2nd (Surfing with the Alien) didn't do anything for me. First was better, but a bit thin. Don't know about the Fred vs Mo' Joe, but I do think the custom pickup did work better for what he was doing than the hotter JB he used a lot on the earlier albums...
Corrosion of Conformity and Dream Theater have stunningly bad early albums (to my tastes, but that brand of punk and nutsinavice aren't my thing). But by the 2nd or 3rd album after some lineup rearranges they produced some pretty amazing stuff. I stopped following Dream Theater after Petrucci started messing with downtuned guitars, seemed to be just chasing trends and lost what I liked about them.
Sure, a lot of bands peak early, or maybe what you liked about them was something they did to get noticed and wasn't what really interested them so they dropped it later on.
But I don't think it's good to try to avoid change, and wind up stagnating. No risk, no reward. But it may be better to admit you aren't the same band and move on, in some cases...
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
From what I hear on the Made In Stoke CD, he's chasing his Appetite sound and has seemed to have gotten it again with his sig Marshall and the APH-2 pickups, which were made for his stage guitars to have the sound like the Appetite Les Paul, as I posted before. Doesn't seem like he's going after a different sound much at all, just trying to retain an old one.
From what I hear on the Made In Stoke CD, he's chasing his Appetite sound and has seemed to have gotten it again with his sig Marshall and the APH-2 pickups, which were made for his stage guitars to have the sound like the Appetite Les Paul, as I posted before. Doesn't seem like he's going after a different sound much at all, just trying to retain an old one.
Gearjoneser
Gear Ho
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
Besides the truth of a lifetime of ideas going into the early recordings, and less than a year going into everything after, I'll get back to the gear aspect.
Almost always, upgrading introduces fatness and gain, rather than low output and neutral EQ. And on tape the latter usually sounds better.
Notice SRV on El Mocambo then the 2 Austin City Limits DVD's. Each step gets fatter and gainier, and progressively sounds worse. The gear got better, fatter, and gainier.....and worse.
AC/DC could also be an example like that, but they always sound good regardless.
A lot of metal bands that went from Duncan/Gibson/Charvel/Marshall to Dean/Jackson/EMG/Mesa did the same thing. Fatter and gainier. This difference is really obvious because of the total gear change. Upgrade....not. It may sound better with no band, but in a mix, the passives, good wood, and upper mid Marshalls cut better live with a band IMO.
Besides the truth of a lifetime of ideas going into the early recordings, and less than a year going into everything after, I'll get back to the gear aspect.
Almost always, upgrading introduces fatness and gain, rather than low output and neutral EQ. And on tape the latter usually sounds better.
Notice SRV on El Mocambo then the 2 Austin City Limits DVD's. Each step gets fatter and gainier, and progressively sounds worse. The gear got better, fatter, and gainier.....and worse.
AC/DC could also be an example like that, but they always sound good regardless.
A lot of metal bands that went from Duncan/Gibson/Charvel/Marshall to Dean/Jackson/EMG/Mesa did the same thing. Fatter and gainier. This difference is really obvious because of the total gear change. Upgrade....not. It may sound better with no band, but in a mix, the passives, good wood, and upper mid Marshalls cut better live with a band IMO.
Last edited:
blueman335
Mojo's Minions
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
+1.
+1.
T
tonello
Guest
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
Hetfield switched to EMGs before Metallica had really taken off. While I think the Invader was better for him, I think more of the tone is in he playing style then the gear he uses. You can always pick out a Hetfield riff from others.
Hetfield switched to EMGs before Metallica had really taken off. While I think the Invader was better for him, I think more of the tone is in he playing style then the gear he uses. You can always pick out a Hetfield riff from others.
mwalluk
New member
Re: how many of your favorite guitarists sounded better w/ off the shelf gear?
Expanding on this a little more, also keep in mind that record labels push artists to bang out albums. The going rate used to be to put out one album per year, if not one album every 8 months.
Bands are constantly touring, between recording, publicity in terms of events, radio stations, etc, they barely have down time. So when they do go into the studio, do you honestly think their tone is going to be polished? It's like the have a month to mass produce an album. There's a trade off here.
and yes, bands musical taste will change and so will their tone. They have to advance with the times. Look at what Metallica did with their music. Same with Aerosmith. We can argue on whether it's any good or not all we want but the fact of the matter is they adapted with the times.
Most bands will try to switch it up in the end. Take Ac/DC for example. Had some good material. Except all their songs were the same chords and the same tone. Do you really wanna play that over and over and over again?
Speaking personally, after playing my originals with my band for the last year straight, I don't want to play those songs again for a while. My band got tired of the sound, so we're switching it up.
Expanding on this a little more, also keep in mind that record labels push artists to bang out albums. The going rate used to be to put out one album per year, if not one album every 8 months.
Bands are constantly touring, between recording, publicity in terms of events, radio stations, etc, they barely have down time. So when they do go into the studio, do you honestly think their tone is going to be polished? It's like the have a month to mass produce an album. There's a trade off here.
and yes, bands musical taste will change and so will their tone. They have to advance with the times. Look at what Metallica did with their music. Same with Aerosmith. We can argue on whether it's any good or not all we want but the fact of the matter is they adapted with the times.
Most bands will try to switch it up in the end. Take Ac/DC for example. Had some good material. Except all their songs were the same chords and the same tone. Do you really wanna play that over and over and over again?
Speaking personally, after playing my originals with my band for the last year straight, I don't want to play those songs again for a while. My band got tired of the sound, so we're switching it up.
