Tone, were they as bothered about it as us?

[cheddatom]

just butting in as i'm a big Les fan...

I think you could recognise Claypool's style through any rig, but style is not tone. He's had so many different tones over the years. Of all the players I can think of, he's the last person i'd expect to read "the tone's all in the fingers" about. He uses all manner of basses and effects and has created such a wide variety of tone over the years... Unless you were a musician I doubt you could tell it's all the same guy.

[bassmachine2112]

hiho,here we go-After many years chasing the elusive sound/tone and amassing a collection of basses and amps n stuff.
I now have a core setting for my amp,pre amp set up which sounds good with whatever gets plugged in but every bass has it,s own sound/tone.With loads of tweeking I can get them all sounding similar,not the same but similar apart from my Rick.Leaving everything the same,eq,gain etc,they all have their own voice ,If your on a musicman although they have a big sound it would be rude not to have a wee bit of slap and tickle on it but I always sound like me.Some basses make you play, sound different.When I play my t-bird I do play F,B the low ones up the neck cause it,s a long way down the deep end,whereas my p-bass feeling shorter gets the deep end treatment even though I changed the neck and didn,t notice it had an extra fret till I tried to intonate and wondered why the saddles had to be moved so far forward-ooops.Musicman is shorter feelin again although they all have the same scale length and I know the Rick is 3/4 of an inch shorter.
It,s in your fingers has a bearing as well cause we attack the strings different and hear dynamics differently or should I say interpret the tune in our own way whether it,s clank time , thumpy dub or slappy happy time which you can do in real time with your hands which sometimes you can see the faces all looking your way with delight sometimes and what the f$%& was that at other times.
Hard one to answer if there is an answer.
Moral-listen to the tune ,play for the tune and be yourself,it doesn,t work all the time but you can have some real magical moments when it hits the spot.
It,s fun and frustrating sometimes but it,s fun none the less or I,m turning into a BASS nurd.

[Prosebass]

[quote name='SteveK' post='1250210' date='May 30 2011, 12:59 PM']Yeah, I think there is an unhealthy fixation with [i]getting this bass, getting that rig[/i] trying every conceivable combination in the search for "that sound", when, in most cases, the player would do better looking closer to home.
Yer Palladino's and Di Piazza's etc are quite happy to turn up and plug into anything available...me too![/quote]

This is so true.
Photography is a great analogy here. As an ardent photographer of many years I am amazed at the attention paid (on forums) by photographers as to what gear they should use to produce their work and the merits of different equipment to enable them to achieve this. The end product (the photograph) is often overlooked and the fact that it is not the equipment, but the photographer, that is the main element in producing it.

Using a Leica M series camera and some black & white film will not turn you into Cartier Bresson

[cheddatom]

Each photographer has their own style. However, some photographers use filters and other effects to dramatically change the original image. Sometimes this requires special equipment to acheive. While a style may be recognisable accross a group of pictures by the same photographer, clearly all of the pictures don't share the same effect/hue/look the same.

So, while Les Claypool has a style all of his own, and you might be able to recognise that accross his multitude of tones, in no way do all of his tones sound the same. Therefore, the tone is not in the fingers.

[Prosebass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='1258079' date='Jun 6 2011, 09:09 AM']Each photographer has their own style. However, some photographers use filters and other effects to dramatically change the original image. Sometimes this requires special equipment to acheive. While a style may be recognisable accross a group of pictures by the same photographer, clearly all of the pictures don't share the same effect/hue/look the same.

So, while Les Claypool has a style all of his own, and you might be able to recognise that accross his multitude of tones, in no way do all of his tones sound the same. Therefore, the tone is not in the fingers.[/quote]

I think the real discussion here is a definition of style, tone and sound.
To my way of thinking recognisable bassists have a certain tone. Different music has a certain style (rock, pop, reggae) Basses and amps make a sound.

What I was trying to draw attention to and emphasising SteveK's comments is that bassists like photographers agonise over gear choice way too much rather than concentrating on technique. If you put the bass of doom and an Acoustic rig in my hands I will not sound like Jaco Pastorious , and neither will anyone else for that matter.

[cheddatom]

We need to define "sound" and "tone" really. For me, the word sound is too vague, but even "tone" takes into account all sorts of performance factors such as where you're plucking with your right hand etc.

On the one hand, I could "sound" or have the same "tone" as jaco, simply using a squire jazz, a decent chorus pedal, and an amp with flexible EQ.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be able to re-produce the performance aspects to his sound.

Or looking at it from the gear point of view, I don't need an SVT or a MATAMP to sound like i'm playing through one.

...so I don't think i'm really disagreeing with you Prosebass!

[alexclaber]

Historically most bassists were just trying to find a way to be heard - 'tone' was secondary!

Tone is the sound of specific notes and is determined by the string vibration patterns, the pickups, the preamp and then anything else in the recording chain. The string vibration patterns are determined firstly by the player (plucking device, position, intensity, direction, and damping). and secondly by the strings and the instrument.

However as soon as a note is placed in the context of a piece of music you can no longer separate it from the player's other musical decisions - and indeed that of the band, and of any engineers and producers involved...

[4000]

I use the word "tone" to describe the sound I'm hearing. Now this is obviously where it gets slippery; we often describe Jaco's "tone" as a general thing but if you want to get specific he had a number of "tones", or sounds that he used.

Using the Claypool, JE or MK examples, the sound produced is not always the same sound. However if you're using the broader terminology they may all have the same tone, as in "LC's tone", "MKs tone" etc. I often use it in that more general context too, but if we're being specific I apply it to the actual sound I'm hearing and if that sound varies then using my terminology the tone is different. Of course others may use the term differently and whether my terminology is technically correct I have no idea (nor do I really care); that's how I hear things and that's how I describe what I'm hearing.

Actually I've missed an obvious example of what I'm saying which relates to JJ Burnel himself (who has had many sounds over the years); compare In the Shadows with Nice N Sleazy.

Edited June 7, 2011 by 4000

[Prosebass]

I think what most of us are attempting to say is this.

We can define what bass and amplification is being used by the 'sound' of it.
Further to that we can identify the bassist by the multitude of playing nuances that that certain bassist has.

[alexclaber]

Actually I'd almost completely disagree with that! See what I said about the string vibration patterns above...

[Prosebass]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='1260054' date='Jun 7 2011, 06:30 PM']Actually I'd almost completely disagree with that! See what I said about the string vibration patterns above...[/quote]

Fair enough if we all agreed there would be no debate !