When Ted Nugent started playing through Eddie's gear, a funny thing happened …

Messages
12,568
Again?
Has nobody watched Pete Thorn vids?
A- he can play 'like' EVH, at least to a casual listener.
B- he sounds different when he changes gear
C- he can sound good through many combinations

Did Ted (or whoever) try to play like EVH through EVH gear? Did he learn where all the settings and techniques were to pull out those sounds?

This 'debate' has always been a dumb troll question..
To me Pete just sounds like Pete (and a lot like Eddie when he wants to). The gear differences are minor to me. I mean, there are subtle differences, but the differences are mostly trivial and non essential. The gear he uses does not matter, in that there are many ways he could go. The music would come across essentially the same. As a general rule. Obviously, if he makes a weird sound effect by diming the speed knob on a phaser, then to get that exact sound effect you'd have to do something along those lines. But the musical effect could still be achieved in a variety of ways.

Gear is trivial. I mean, sometimes getting in the neighborhood of something is sort of important if you compulsively have to have something exact, but mosly that's a psychological hangup, in terms of creativity and music.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,568
The real skill of sounding like another player is getting inside their head and heart a bit to get the sound goal, combined with the exact same skill an impressionist uses to imitate speech. It's a good ear! Then it's connecting the ear to hands. And lots and lots of listening.

I can get very close to a Page, Gilmour or Hackett, for example, and it has nothing to do with gear. It's ear. It's imitating speech. It's the same thing. Music is very much like talking. And expressing particular "feelings".
 

boo radley

Member
Messages
2,350
I like the story where an Iraq war vet goes on a caged, exotic animal (err, "high fence") hunt with Ted, and says the experience was nothing like combat.
 

Astronaut FX

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
8,478
@jimijimmyjeffy I think most people understand the points you're making, and few would dispute them. I would suggest that only a very, very small percentage of players truly believe that all that is needed to sound like _______ is to use the same gear that ________ uses.

But the whole, "tone is in the fingers" is a very condescending, tired, and frankly inaccurate way of making this point. The term "tone" itself can have different meanings/interpretations. Some use it literally to mean the actual notes being played (in which case, yes, that is all in the fingers). Others use it to describe the total sonic characteristics of the resulting sound (in which case, gear has a pretty big role). Neither is really inaccurate. But the interpretational differences make this debate one that will never be resolved.

I could absolutely get behind a rebranded stating of the importance of working on the playing aspect. Perhaps something along the lines of "tone begins in the fingers" would be more accurate. Because with respect to gear, you are correct, there are some things that can be accomplished on most any rig. But on the extremes for example, no player, regardless of skill, is going to be able to plug into a Fender Twin and make it "sound like" a high gain Diezel.
 
Last edited:

83stratman

Member
Messages
6,270
And as a example of that, back in the '90s during the every band had to play SRV era...

Two bar cover bands. Each one with a hot shot guitar player from the same area. We will call them band/player #1 and #2.

Band #1. Player #1 played SRV note for note. Didn't sound right or that good. Don't know if it was the skill set of hot shot #1 or if #1 didn't have the ear or not. SRV just sounded off.

Band #2. Player #2 played SRV songs close enough/got the vibe right. Band #2's SRV songs sounded so much more "right" despite the guitar parts not being "right". Player #2 has the ear and the brain/hand/ear connection that #1 does not have.



The real skill of sounding like another player is getting inside their head and heart a bit to get the sound goal, combined with the exact same skill an impressionist uses to imitate speech. It's a good ear! Then it's connecting the ear to hands. And lots and lots of listening.

I can get very close to a Page, Gilmour or Hackett, for example, and it has nothing to do with gear. It's ear. It's imitating speech. It's the same thing. Music is very much like talking. And expressing particular "feelings".
 

83stratman

Member
Messages
6,270
I'm going to have to disagree with everything you stated in this post.

First, you would be surprised how many think gear is the way to sound like so and so. This thread and your comments prove that.

There is nothing "very condescending, tired, and frankly inaccurate" about saying tone is in the fingers. Ask almost any professional virtuoso level musician and hear what they have to say about the subject. Just because you don't experience it (yet) and refuse to believe it, doesn't make it wrong, or "very condescending, tired, and frankly inaccurate".

Of course you could get behind a "rebrand"! Everyone wants to be right!

@jimijimmyjeffy I think most people understand the points you're making, and few would dispute them. I would suggest that only a very, very small percentage of players truly believe that all that is needed to sound like _______ is to use the same gear that ________ uses.

But the whole, "tone is in the fingers" is a very condescending, tired, and frankly inaccurate way of making this point. The term "tone" itself can have different meanings/interpretations. Some use it literally to mean the actual notes being played (in which case, yes, that is all in the fingers). Others use it to describe the total sonic characteristics of the resulting sound (in which case, gear has a pretty big role). Neither is really inaccurate. But the interpretational differences make this debate one that will never be resolved.

I could absolutely get behind a rebranded stating of the importance of working on the playing aspect. Perhaps something along the lines of "tone begins in the fingers" would be more accurate. Because with respect to gear, you are correct, there are some things that can be accomplished on most any rig. But on the extremes for example, no player, regardless of skill, is going to be able to plug into a Fender Twin and make it "sound like" a high gain Diezel.
[/QUOTE]
 

filtersweep

Member
Messages
4,905
I’d much rather hear Ted than VH personally.
What exemplifies Ted’d most interesting playing? Honest question. When I listen to Ted- or what I’ve heard of him- it is pretty clear to me what he is doing, and reasonably within my grasp. It is pretty basic stuff. Without the feedback and showmanship, there isn’t that much to it.
 

Astronaut FX

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
8,478
I'm going to have to disagree with everything you stated in this post.

First, you would be surprised how many think gear is the way to sound like so and so. This thread and your comments prove that.

There is nothing "very condescending, tired, and frankly inaccurate" about saying tone is in the fingers. Ask almost any professional virtuoso level musician and hear what they have to say about the subject. Just because you don't experience it (yet) and refuse to believe it, doesn't make it wrong, or "very condescending, tired, and frankly inaccurate".

Of course you could get behind a "rebrand"! Everyone wants to be right!

@jimijimmyjeffy I think most people understand the points you're making, and few would dispute them. I would suggest that only a very, very small percentage of players truly believe that all that is needed to sound like _______ is to use the same gear that ________ uses.

But the whole, "tone is in the fingers" is a very condescending, tired, and frankly inaccurate way of making this point. The term "tone" itself can have different meanings/interpretations. Some use it literally to mean the actual notes being played (in which case, yes, that is all in the fingers). Others use it to describe the total sonic characteristics of the resulting sound (in which case, gear has a pretty big role). Neither is really inaccurate. But the interpretational differences make this debate one that will never be resolved.

I could absolutely get behind a rebranded stating of the importance of working on the playing aspect. Perhaps something along the lines of "tone begins in the fingers" would be more accurate. Because with respect to gear, you are correct, there are some things that can be accomplished on most any rig. But on the extremes for example, no player, regardless of skill, is going to be able to plug into a Fender Twin and make it "sound like" a high gain Diezel.
[/QUOTE]


Not one post in this thread comes close to suggesting that all one needs to sound like EVH is to play through his rig. Not one.
 
Messages
12,568
And as a example of that, back in the '90s during the every band had to play SRV era...

Two bar cover bands. Each one with a hot shot guitar player from the same area. We will call them band/player #1 and #2.

Band #1. Player #1 played SRV note for note. Didn't sound right or that good. Don't know if it was the skill set of hot shot #1 or if #1 didn't have the ear or not. SRV just sounded off.

Band #2. Player #2 played SRV songs close enough/got the vibe right. Band #2's SRV songs sounded so much more "right" despite the guitar parts not being "right". Player #2 has the ear and the brain/hand/ear connection that #1 does not have.
Yes, another example.

Just started studying Since I've Been Loving You again, looking for tunes to jam on with a bluesy drummer. Listened to a youtube guy playing it. Awful. But the notes as would be on a page were almost perfect! But he was missing the attitude and feeling part, playing mechanically. It boils down to listening to it like speech and you want to be able to imitate the WORDS they say, and the sentences, with all the inflections and pitch changes etc. It's like listening to Christopher Walken and then imitating him back. Just repeating the words on a page isn't near enough.

I don't plan on copying every note of the Zep tune, in the end, but nonetheless I want to learn or relearn most of it so I can make the guitar "talk" like Page "talks." If you can nail the attitude, no one will mind when you veer off into some other notes. But it has to be seamless. Or you can play it totally different, which is great too. I'm just enough of a fan that I want to nail the attitude. But without that, I'm hard pressed to listen . Some jazz fusion guy named Herring does the best version, IMO, and he doesn't copy the notes, but gets the spirit and attitude. Not exactly but close enough. I think solo copier people are often clueless that copying the notes isn't really where it's at, per se. It could be where it's at, if the spirit and attitde and feelings are there. But how often do the two qualities coexist?
 
Messages
12,568
What exemplifies Ted’d most interesting playing? Honest question. When I listen to Ted- or what I’ve heard of him- it is pretty clear to me what he is doing, and reasonably within my grasp. It is pretty basic stuff. Without the feedback and showmanship, there isn’t that much to it.
I'm not a giant fan of Ted's philosophy of the universe necessarily, but I do like his playing on the earlier stuff through Free For All. I think the strength of his playing is that his solos are fairly purely rock and roll, such as on Stranglehold. It's not how good he is per se, in terms of a guitarist, though he was very good.

But not every player can rock with a rock spirit. When you can achieve a sort of purity of rock spirit, like a Walsh or Young, it achieves something I want. I want to be able to play rock and have it be purely rock, not that I would choose to do that always. But Ted is a guy who could or can rock. I haven't listened much to his new stuff.

He knows how to play rock. That sounds like damning with faint praise, but it's not. A lot of people don't know how. But listen to Joe Walsh jam a little bit and you can get blown away with how whatever is good about rock, he has.

You shouldn't think less of music just because you can play it IMHO, lol. It's like paraphrasing the Groucho Marx quote -- "I'd never listen to any music I could play". ;)
 

GitGeek

Legendary Member
Gold Supporting Member
Messages
394
This is the video referred to earlier in the thread. This is obviously not his Strat, as he seems a bit tripped out on the floating trem and how well its staying in tune. It's not his gear, but the tone certainly is. Anyone who knows and loves his playing could listen to the audio only from this and know its him.

I knew it was him doing the Beat It solo the minute I heard it on the radio with my friends. At the time they were all saying BS that not him and that Eddie wouldn't be on a MJ song. I knew what I was hearing. That was before the Internet. It took a while to prove to them I was right but it was still a good feeling when I could say "see, I told ya". :)

I could sit and watch him noodle like this all day. People ask what era I like most and I say the Eddie era. I could care less who's singing. I would pay the ticket price to watch them perform as an instrumental group.

 

Astronaut FX

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
8,478
This is the video referred to earlier in the thread. This is obviously not his Strat, as he seems a bit tripped out on the floating trem and how well its staying in tune. It's not his gear, but the tone certainly is. Anyone who knows and loves his playing could listen to the audio only from this and know its him.

I knew it was him doing the Beat It solo the minute I heard it on the radio with my friends. At the time they were all saying BS that not him and that Eddie wouldn't be on a MJ song. I knew what I was hearing. That was before the Internet. It took a while to prove to them I was right but it was still a good feeling when I could say "see, I told ya". :)

I could sit and watch him noodle like this all day. People ask what era I like most and I say the Eddie era. I could care less who's singing. I would pay the ticket price to watch them perform as an instrumental group.



Indeed sounds like Eddie. Sounds like Eddie playing a Strat.
 

beanbass

Member
Messages
1,856
1596417450595
I was going to use Jeffrey Dahmer as an example. same point.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: unk

GCDEF

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
28,881
What exemplifies Ted’d most interesting playing? Honest question. When I listen to Ted- or what I’ve heard of him- it is pretty clear to me what he is doing, and reasonably within my grasp. It is pretty basic stuff. Without the feedback and showmanship, there isn’t that much to it.
Someone like Ted needs to be put in context of the era. Hot shots back then were Hendrix, Trower, Winter, Marino, Clapton, Page and others. Nugent could hold his own technically with any of them, except perhaps Marino. For someone not using shredding techniques, he is fast, his timing impeccable, his use of controlled feedback is unique, and his stage show was second to none.

Technique has evolved way beyond what any of them can/could do, but at the time he was up there with the best of them. I think it's a bit of an understatement to say there isn't much to his playing.
 
Last edited:

roswell

Member
Messages
526
Likewise, I don't see being able to shred as a compliment or a level of instrumental achievement.
Ever hear of a writer being lauded because he or she could "shred" on their typewriter? When put in those terms, the fallacy of the whole "shred" thing is laid painfully bare, and the pure visual aspect becomes apparent, i.e. listening to music with your eyes and not your ears.
 




Top Bottom