overtones are the thing that makes each of us sound different.the way each of us make a note sound is by the shape the mouth is in.no amp can make you sound fat if you`re not.if you learn to control overtones as you play you can go from thin to thick on the same note.i spend time just holding one note for a long period and form the A,E,I,O&U also just move my tongue around to find different tonal changes.it seems to me that it`s like a singer controls their voice and changes tone through the overtones.same thing with the harp.blues guitar is the same thing ,the best blues in my ears are the stuff that manipulates overtones. blues it`s a singing art form.......
A,E,I,O&U It's no accident that language developed vowels to articulate the mouth positions necessary to maximize TONAL range to communicate. I've taught the vowel strategy many times -credit to the great Pierre Beauregard.
I practice this excercise everyday and give it to my students. There's no magical "fat tone" or "that tone", there's ability to control overtones while you play. ---------- Excuse my bad English. Click on my photo or my username for my music.
And a lesson I will pass on from Deak Harp - experiment with head/neck angle. Try this - draw a single note, starting with your chin down at your chest. Slowly raise your head. Listen. Be Amazed. ---------- /Greg
I'd like to add to what Greg said. This is very important in achieving a full tone. Play with good posture! Do not play slumped over looking at the floor. If you eyes are facing the floor when you play. Straighten up and tilt your head back alittle. Think of having your mouth, throat and lungs wide open with without any sharp angles! Thats how you get a BIG TONE! Watch old footage of Muddy Waters. Little Walter always stood straight slightly bent backwards faceing the ceiling when he was wailing!
mental image and force of will help. At a class I taught at Augusta, I took a little slip of a girl to the front of the class and demonstrated that if she started to "see herself" as a big black woman in her minds eye, her tone would improve = and it did.
Tilt the back of the harp up. You get much more efficient airflow this way.
Imagine a laser light coming out of the center of the hole. You want it aimed at the center of the throat, not the roof of your mouth. This makes more mass of air available for control and richer tone.
Tone doesn't always have to be fat & thick to be good, but it's difficult to see any flattering connotations to "thin tone" which suggests something that doesn't sit easy on the ear.
Variety is the spice of life but always try to keep it pretty & warm. Bright, hot, chimey maybe but avoid shrill. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Sep 28, 2011 1:46 PM
One of the best ways is actually taking vocal lessons just for the breathing and relaxation exercises alone because vocals and harp technique is often quite similar and most players do NOT play relaxed and often play very uptight as a general rule and the theory of the vocalist singing with a very open throat clearly applies to harmonica as well because it allows greater projection with less strain and effort and the tone is bigger and fuller.
The big tone, be it sweet or nasty, depends on breathing technqiue and also the ability to play resonantly. When your breathing is correct, you'll be playing resonantly and what happens is that when you're playing, you put emphasis on the EVEN numbered harmonic overtones, which to the human ear, sounds sweet, warm, big and pleases the ear, but most players are NOT doing this and so their playing is NOT resonant, and when this happens, you place very heavy emphasis on the ODD numbered overtones, which sounds thin, tinny, and extremely harsh to the human ear (and even more so to a dog's ears and don't be surprised when they start barking or growling at you or worse, attempt to chew your leg off to make you shut up).
Many players embochure is definitely too stiff and like vocals, ALL of your facial muscles and chest muscles must be fully relaxed and to form the vowel sounds as Boris articulates and something I find is very important with harp playing being the vowel sounds, you HAVE to be 100% fully relaxed to get this right.
Now, for once we have a REALLY good tone thread here that doesn't get into the usual crap and crutches with mics, amps, and effect pedals and talking a bout REAL tone. Thanks everybody, because I appreciate this finally being here instead of the usual crap from the gear heads on this subject that just often bores and annoys me to death. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
I hear you Bob! I will add this little bit. I prefer hearing a simple player like Wolf or Jimmy Reed over the multitudes of generic, deep toned, players out there today. Why? Because guys like that have thier own sound. Copying is easy and todays harp world is full of players that have copied, and cut and pasted different artists tones and riffs. Finding ones own unique sound is a lifetime dedication to ones art.
Also when one hears a recording with an acoustic harp and vocals by the same person, using the same mic, you are not really hearing the true tone of the harp. The voice and harp are in total conflict with tones. The harp and voice conflict for most voices on the high and mid eq'ing. For me the harp is coming through much more shrill on my recordings than it sounds naturally because if I mix it to sound natural, the voice gets muffled. This is true of most any artist recorded using the same mic for singing and vocals in a studio and most of the classics we love with a band behind the harp/singer, was recorded using 1 mic. Today, with overdubbing, most will go that route to get the tones right for each. SBWII chess recordings or buster brown on Fire are great examples of the 1 mic compromise to try and get both tones in the good sounding range.
Even amplified harp is messed with on mixing for recording sessions. These cheap youtube camera videos do no justice to tone. I am constantly confused as to how people say "listen to this guys killer tone" and all I hear is overly compressed sound done with a cheap condesor mic built in the camera. My biggest odessy for the past 10 years is trying to find a mic that will catch both the natural sound of the harp and voice. I did a session with some good friends over the summer and the mic my friend mark picked was a EV RE 20. It is used as a radio dj mic. It cuts off some of the highs and gets the mids real nice. Mark has engineered on many platinum and grammy recordings and felt this mic did a better job at catching my vocals and acoustic harp than a Neuman U 87. He is going to loan it to me to see what I can do with in my studio. Also playing on a rack changes the tone because there are no hands (padding/sound deading) involved. Even just holding a harp in your hands cuts down on the highs and adds to the mids and lows. This is why I use the bob dylan/jimmy reed cheapo $8 harp rack over the big time money ergonomic ones. With the cheapo, I can easily move my neck up and sideways while playing to help change tones. Here are some song samples of that mic in action. Give a listen to grandpas rocking chair and going to the blues graveyard. The true test is sitting down with someone and they blow an unamplified harp in the flesh. Walter
---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
junior wells' tone was in many recodings quite 'thin' but great! he's the best example of likeable thin tone i can think of (of course he could also lay it on thick!). ---------- ~Banned in Boston!
Walter, I don't know who these "generic deep toned players" are, can you enlighten me? I bet most of them don't have a tone half as thick as Wolf's...;-)
Barry C - Junior's tone wasn't thin, it wasn't hugely thick but it was warm & pretty, much like LW's...but Walter's was somewhat smoother, more legato. Check out Jr's United & States sides like Junior's Wail, Blues Hit Big Town & the cuts with Muddy like Iodine in my Coffee & Standin' Round Cryin', Goin' Down Main Street. Yes, they are fairly bright & hot but they're dead sweet with it...on the surface they appear easy enough for a player with green chops to get in the ball park...but they are not. These were cut in the early days of amplified harp recordings, amps weren't as flexible or developed as they are today, it took a craftman's touch for Jr to get those sounds...given the same tools I doubt that your average player could coax such a sweet sound.
Roll on to Hoodoo Man Blues and Jr's tone straight to the desk was warm & thick.
Here's some later Jr from Blues Brothers 2000, note it's really quite smooth.
"Thin, weak, tinny"...none of these things are good sounds for any musician, whatever their instrument. There are many ways to make a pretty sound, but if it IS a pretty sound at the end of the day, then it isn't "thin".
Butterfield is another case in point, a lot of guys hear that strident, raspy 545/Super Reverb combination and draw all sorts of conclusions (unsubstantiated, unless you can find someone in whom PB himself confided) about how he played & his tone, but the PBBB album has some of the sweetest harp tone ever recorded...what sounds apparently simple/accessible frankly isn't.
There's a reason why these guys were top of the tree.
---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Sep 26, 2011 1:59 PM
I had a lesson today solely on tone, and the most important part here was indeed de IAOEU and tremolo initiated from under the throat, I was very impressed by the effects this 2 hours had on me.
It is so difficult to maintain that tone when you're playing. I need to learn every song, lick I know, all over again.......
Another question, I only read about overtones. Ben Bouman, spoke about Over and under tones and the one the middle (the normal sound of the note so to speak), so basically what I understood was that there are three tones which you can use?
BBQ Bob is completely right. Vowels are important even if you're 100% relaxed.
I still think that Junior Well's tone usually sucks (except early recordings), weak harmonic content, no fundamental tone, especially on his so called "video lessons". I still think that he was great bluesman and performer but not so great harmonica player in the mean of tone and phrasing, sometimes better sometimes worse, but very imperfect comparing so Little Walter and Big Walter, I don't say about Dennis Gruenling. ---------- Excuse my bad English. Click on my photo or my username for my music.
"I still think that Junior Well's tone usually sucks (except early recordings), weak harmonic content, no fundamental tone, especially on his so called "video lessons".
Big Jr Wells fan that I am, I have to admit that the lessons video does make me shudder. Still think that "sucks" is a bit harsh an evaluation of Jr's tone, his 4&5 draw wails especially were outstanding.
5F6H: "Walter, I don't know who these "generic deep toned players" are, can you enlighten me? I bet most of them don't have a tone half as thick as Wolf's...;-)"
Most of the new blood seems to go after that deep tone and yes I agree with you about the wolf's tone! I also love junior wells tone. I use to hang around with him in the late 70's when he and buddy were still doing some killer stuff. Juniors personality was about that tone he got. Most people that never saw him live will never know the whole package. His personality oozed bigger than life. He would just blow through his vocal mic. No fancy gear, no talk with soundmen. Just sing and blow. There was never talk like there is today about harp construction, custom amps, etc. Guys like junior were bigger than their instruments. They grabbed your attention while they sat at a table havng a drink. This is presence. This is what I mean about having ones own sound. I learned by just being around him. Sitting backstage, driving in a car, listening about his life, his pains, his worries, etc. That was the real teaching I got. The harp sounds were just the icing on the cake.
I use to get my marine bands real cheap when I worked at an older gentlemans flea market booth in Sonoma county Ca. His name was Sid and he was from Chicago. He told me stories about the pawn shop he owned there. Junior would come in as a little kid and hock his harps. Sid always gave him a few dollars knowing he was pretty much on his own and the harps he kept hocking were all wore out. He said Junior had his own sound even back then. Like him or hate him, he has his own sound. That is more than 90%+ of harp players today. But they have deep tone..... Walter
---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
Hi Boris: Tone, like all music, art, is totally subjective. If you think his tone no good, then it is no good just as I think it is good. We all are 100% legitimate with our opinions with art and music. That is why disagreements over these subjects makes no sense to me. The bottom line is if the player likes his sound that is all that matters. If more musicians focused on what they believed in, instead of what they think will sell/be accepted, the face of music/art as we know it would be totally different that what we have today. If one really thinks about music today, it is a very conservative thing, as much conservative as most any regular day job. One has to fit in the box or not exist. I always have been of the belief that art should have no boxes, just open horizions to seek out with joyful persuit. Take care. Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
"That is more than 90%+ of harp players today. But they have deep tone..... Walter"
Who? I can only think of a few. If 90% of players today have it (they don't), then "it" just becomes the average, rather than particularly deep.
It may just be my perspective that's the issue here, "deep" to me means significantly deeper/fuller/thicker than what is commonplace. Many of the guys who were/are well known over the last 60yrs have/had a sweet tone...that's what set them apart from the herd. I think it's been a pretty consistant factor over the years that the more revered players had a good sound, if not necessarily the same/similar sound. You make it sound like it's an easier thing to get in the modern day...I'm not sure that it is. Perhaps communication is better nowadays, with e-mail, the internet, the fact that players are more open about what they do (lots of older players have mentioned that if you had something back in the day, you kept it to yourself), there's more & more accessible harp...full toned & otherwise but I'm not struck by a huge general swing to, or necessarily a liking for particularly thick tone.
Sweet, pretty, thick, deep, can all dovetail, but they don't necessarily all live together. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Correct me if I am wrong,but what Walter is saying is that back in the day,most harp players had their own "sound"-be it different tone,attack, what have you,that made them easily recognizable. Walter is saying 90% of todays players are devoid of that originality-and I would have to concur.
Like him or hate him, he (Junior Wells) has his own sound. That is more than 90%+ of harp players today.
I agree with this. People like Junior had 50 years to hone their craft. His music evolved with the passing of time and the thousands of gigs he played. Most players don't have that luxury of time and/or practice. Junior developed his own sound.
Junior also took artistic risks. Leaving the Muddy Waters Band to start his own thing was risky. Performing Ray Charles and James Brown tunes to a very conservative blues audience was risky. Adding a big horn section to a harmonica-led band was sort of risky. Junior took a lot of heat from critics for some of his choices and decisions throughout his career, but his music stands the test of time.
"back in the day,most harp players had their own "sound"-be it different tone,attack, what have you,that made them easily recognizable."
You're talking about players from the past who were at the top of the tree and are still listened to today.
What about the thousands of average players from that era,who were like most of us,journeymen players. Did they also have their own distinctive sound ?
I think not.
The top players of today have their own distinctive sound too. By this I mean style and phrasing.
For Walters "generic deep toned players" read Bassman with a bullet mic. Even though no two players, regardless of ability,will sound the same through one rig.
TMF714 - Sure, I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent, but largely I'm with 7LimitJI on this one...we are looking back retrospectively at a fraction of the guys who must have played harp over the last 60yrs, or more & pointing out the same dozen or so players who had a distinctive sound...
There were copyists back in the day too, Dr Ross made it a bit of a parlour trick to imitate other players, look too at the recently debated re-release of the Sun version of "Off The Wall"....a rip off of the LW track and several guesstimates as to the player. Look at the confusion as to which Walter, or even whether Jr, played on which Muddy tracks (not helped I'll admit by Chess's often innacurate sleeve notes), look at the guys who reference recordings of Muddy playing 19 yrs old with Cotton...it never happened (never recorded & released I mean, not that they never played the song together).
When I listen to today's well known players, admittedly in the genre that I am familiar with & in my sphere of interest, I find them pretty distinct & recogniseable (I don't want to get into naming names, some guys don't like comparisons, others expect to be compared with certain greats, I don't seek to upset either camp)...yes, at times I hear someone who passingly sounds like someone else from time to time, but typically not consistently. Exceptions might be guys like Paul Lamb's uncanny Sonny Terry style playing, Sugar Ray's occasional Big Walterisms (Duke Robillard's T-Bone Walker moments in the guitar arena), but any set or album has much more than just that.
It can be common for someone to capture an aspect of another's playing, or even recreate fairly it closely occasionally, but sounding like a facsimile is a far reach.
Sure there are guys whose sound is lost in the general thrum & who fail to sound distinct & individual (& we are exposed to a lot of playing on a daily basis thanks to things like youtube)...but I'd be very surprised if there haven't always been...there have been as long as I have been playing at any rate.
I agree whole heartedly with Walter's previous point, " These cheap youtube camera videos do no justice to tone. I am constantly confused as to how people say "listen to this guys killer tone" and all I hear is overly compressed sound done with a cheap condesor mic built in the camera."
I too often hear, "Hey listen to this, he sounds just like ####?" then I'm played a wheezy Youtube camera phone clip that sounds like, well, frankly nothing else (though it might well be enjoyable in it's on right). Youtube is great like a snapshot, sketch pad but it's not "currency" in the context of comparison with studio tracks...unless it's a high quality studio/live recording (John Nemeth & Lynwood Slim both have some outstanding live videos on YT)
Once you are familiar, a lot of player's sounds are as distinct as their faces, or voices...hell, even the backs of people's heads, or their footsteps can be highly distinctive if you are exposed to these aspects often enough.
Similar? Evocative? Sure these things are achievable, but things are only the same when they are "the same", otherwise they are different. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Sep 27, 2011 12:51 PM
When i say "most" back in the day,I am excluding the journey men. I am reffering to the Walters,Cotton,Wells,Butterfield,Sonny Tery and the like. AS for modern-I would include Dennis Gruenling,Rod Piazza,William Clarke,Mark Hummel and Steve Guyger as non 90 percenters-forgive me if I left a few out. Most players today are trying to sound like someone else. Joe L and I are on the same page.
Last Edited by on Sep 27, 2011 1:45 PM
harp players trying to sound like another is called assimilation all the great went through this when learning too.also look at all the guitar players using ALBERT KING stuff,I`d say the most copyied blues man ever...so if you can`t develop your own sound you`ll sure have a natural ball trying...do it to it. also,put all harp players in front of a sm-58 and play acousticly then you,ll hear who has any tone worth talking about...
Last Edited by on Sep 27, 2011 2:15 PM
Most players have some unique characteristics in their playing. Tone, note shaping, note selection, phrasing are all characteristics that help identify the player.
Twenty-five years ago, I did a lot of listening and studying to many many post war Chicago players. It got to the point that I was able to identify most players (including many not listed in this thread) by listening to a recording. I was also able to do the same thing with many guitar players. Life got busy and I had other things to do. That skill has eroded. I can't do it anymore.
When a person cares to learn that sort of thing, it can be done. It takes time and a lot of listening.
I've decided my ear and my knowledge is insufficient to explain what I mean by good 'thin' tone, at least when it comes to harmonica, so I'm going to resort to vocals.
The note Michael Crawford sings at about 4:50 is what I'm trying to convey when I say 'thin'. It's also, if you are familiar with Phantom (my choir sang it in high school) the difference between Carlotta and Christine's voices, although Carlotta might not be a good example of thick tone since she's designed to annoy people.
The hard thing vocally (and I think harmonica-wise too) with 'thin' tone, at least as I'm using the word, is that it's light and airy which means any little mistake or fluctuation in volume that isn't executed absolutely perfectly sounds terrible. When it's done perfectly though...
So, is that what other people are defining as thin tone? If not, what is the word you'd use to describe what I'm describing?
Our ear and brain works very interesting. If we have regular harmonic series with omitted fundamental frequency we still hear the same note, but with thin timbre. Every note and overtone needs certain volume of air to resonate in mouth and throat. Actually if tongue and throat are not relaxed there's no place in mouth and throat to allow fundamental tone to resonate. That way we hear only overtones but no fundamental tone, this is thin tone. Completely scientific description. I still thin tone usually is not great for any pro musician. Maybe sometimes it can be great in some content, but I absolutely shure that any player must have ability to control fundamental tone.
There's another nice way to play with overtones. With opened throat we have all frequencies including fundamental tone, but using some vowels we can emphasize some overtones. Best example is Steve Baker's signature tone. Most of the time he emphasize 3-rd harmonic (2nd overtone, octave + 5th higher than dundamental tone) with prominent great fundamental frequency. Kim Wilson emphasize fundamental tone only and minimum harmonics ("fat" tone). Chris Michalek very often emphasized 2-nd harmonic (1st overtone, octave higher than fundamental tone), of course keeping fundamental tone. This 2nd harmonic made his tone signature (of course with his incredible vibrato).
On bunch Well's recordings including "Cheaper to" fundamental frequency is omitted. You may like it or not. I don't like it. "I'm Going Move to Kansas" is ok. ---------- Excuse my bad English. Click on my photo or my username for my music.
Last Edited by on Sep 27, 2011 7:36 PM
Nacoran, Crawford's note at 4:50 is delicate, a higher frequency (thick/thin tone is not directly related to frequency, it is about relative harmonic content, warmth & envelope/attack...e.g. someone with a full tone playing an A 880Hz will still be playing 880Hz fundamental but might be able to imbue that note with richer harmonic content than someone with a thin tone) but it is warm & rich.
@Boris "On bunch Well's recordings including "Cheaper to" fundamental frequency is omitted". Expain please, "Cheaper" is amplified, of course subject to some filtering, "Kansas" is acoustic & presumably less so (all recordings are typically corrected at a mixing desk, whether acoustic or amplified)...you are simply identifying acoustic & amplified recordings on the day, yes we only hear what is recorded but Jr's tone is the essence of both sounds. When I talk about someone's tone I mean how they sound, as it's the root of both acoustic & amplified tone. It's often said that for good amplified tone you need good acoustic tone, but it works both ways, the guys who have great amplified tone still have that essence of how they sound when they play acoustically, they go hand in glove.
Amplified vs acoustic, high pitch vs lower pitch don't strike me as relevant to thick/thin tone as in the context of being relative to a particular player. A thick sounding player with a F harp will sound thicker than a thin sounding player with an F harp, amplified or not. Vice versa with a G harp. You can dial off highs with an amp/PA/desk, but you don't get thick tone if it kills the high frequency & detail, you just get mud (is this what you mean with the Wells "Cheaper" clip Boris? You perceive a deliberately dialled out high frequency element? If so, listen again to "Kansas", it's pretty mellow & warm, same essential character as "Cheaper")
There also seems to be an "either/or" element to this thread too...Thick strikes me as thicker than datum/average, thin as thinner than datum/average...the concept of a regular, normal tone seems to be missing from this discussion. Certain references to thin tone actually seem to describe sounds/players that are on/above par.
---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Sep 28, 2011 5:38 AM
"Tilt the back of the harp up. You get much more efficient airflow this way."
If one is LPing, the advantage of tilting while using deep embouchure is that it gets the holes of the harp deeper into the mouth so they PAST THE TOP FRONT TEETH which makes for a larger more unobstructed oral resonance chamber = improved tone.
If one is TBing, one can get the holes of the harp in the mouth past the top AND bottom teeth, so there is no need to tilt.
If what Boris says is true, you should be able to analyze recordings and assign characteristics of "tone" on particular notes. Most of the rest of what is said here comes down to Walter Tore's comments, either you like it or you don't.
To make things even more complex, if you watch someone play, you might not hear what they are actually playing!
5F6H Of course I mean his acoustic tone. No matter amplified he played or not. Amplifer even tend to add some subharmonics. ---------- Excuse my bad English. Click on my photo or my username for my music.
Yeah, man. Check out Chet Baker's singing and listen to his trumpet playing. THE SAME, especially when he scat sings. ---------- The Iceman
Last Edited by on Sep 28, 2011 9:50 AM
I hear you the Iceman. Chet Baker was one who found his sound. Many people write me off as a nut for how I do music. That is ok with me. I enjoy writing these posts. They help me reflect on my journey to this point. It helps me realize my life has been completely driven by my need to make music and it has come to fruitation in ways I never really thought it would. It mainly gives me faith to keep walking blindly and better things will continue to come just as they have to this point. I fought it for a long time, thought I could control my destiny, but now am surrendered to it. Peace I have found! Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
Walter - Many modern players come at this from a different perspective that is almost mathematical or scientific in it's approach. They are learning from books, not performing artists or recordings. They don't take the time to absorb what does/doesn't fit in the musical context of a song. There is more time spent on learning technique and little time spent on delivery of the musical story. Consequently, a lot of players may have learned some solid technique, but their playing can often sound stiff.
You are among the few whose musical journey has taken you down a road that is less traveled these days. You learned the old school way. You lived it.
Hi Joe_L: Thanks! I continue to hang around here to offer a different perspective. Unfortunately the younger generation hasn't picked up the ball with keeping live music a healthy thing. As you know, experiencing a performer many times, in the clubs they are happy in, leaves an impression that books, videos, never can. If one is lucky enough to get onstage with these people, be in their bands, live/tour with them, then a much deeper impression is gained. I still am discovering memories from these encounters. Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
waltertore Completely agreed about expressing personality. This is the main thing of any art, not only music. Weak technique can be good. Great example is Chet Baker. He had absolutely weak trumpet technique comparing to Freddie Hubburd and Dizzy Gilespie, weak vocal technique comparing to Frank Sinatra. But he 100% controled what he does on his solo recordings (there was some fails when he played as a guest, when he was out of his comfort zone). His weak technique didn't bother him to express himself. Technique is nothing to worry about, but you have to control any amount technique you have. When playing go out of control it become a noodling. Noodling is not a expressing personality but just going on. Noodling make music worse.
But there's bunch examples, when weak control on instrument bother to express personality. E.g. Bob Dylan's harmonica, which actually not under his complete control (sometimes some melodies, sometimes noodling) really make his music worse, I completely sure. Well's playing is often under control. Sometimes it was ok, sometimes not. When it was not ok it bothered him to express his personality and made his music worse. ---------- Excuse my bad English. Click on my photo or my username for my music.
Last Edited by on Sep 28, 2011 11:45 AM
It's a hell of a lot easier to change/develop your tone than your personality (see also the current "Vocal" thread), so I have trouble thinking that the 2 things are intrinsically & rigidly linked. I have seen many players develop their tone almost unrecogniseably, continue to do so & done it myself. Tone is flexible, moreso than character.
Phrasing, timing, attack...yes these things are very personal, but if you can't change your tone, if it is intrinsic to your personality then we wouldn't sound any different to when we were total beginners, we would just string it together better?
Personality, attitude etc, come out in the music, but a captured tone is pretty tangible, it's what goes down on the recorded medium on that day...it stays the same on that recording from day one, til....whenever - irrespective of how an individual grows, develops or changes. An individual's tone may grow change with a change in life, or temperament, over an artist's career (perhaps less noticably once they are established)...or it may not. As we've been talking about Jr Wells let's stick with it, compare the Jr & Muddy tracks with those posted above, phrasing & timing changed massively, more similarity perhaps between BB200 & Come On in this House, compared to the earlier stylings, which were pehaps more rigid, less personalised but still had a quality to them.
I think we're mixing the more ethereal aspects with the tangible now. ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Sep 28, 2011 1:52 PM
with all the talk on junior wells and tone,all i can hear thinking on J.W. is the song VIET CONG BLUES,to me one of the deepest blues ever played.and after the song coming to the end,J.W. SAYS "mothers,fathers,sisters,brothers,this is for you " then blows one big fat note with fantastic vibrato. thats all the song needed, 1 note,amen...
Last Edited by on Sep 27, 2011 4:04 AM