Hot_Grits wrote:Many would disagree with me, but I don't find Slash's tone on appetite particularly nice, but it works great for that record.
Yeah, I've often though that too. Like if there wasn't the association with the great songs, would his tone stand up by itself? Probably not. It's quite bland really. As much as people like to bag him, he really was one hell of a guitarist in his GnR days.
Double agreement. I've never thought the "Appetite" tone was something to chase. I always thought the UYI tones sounded way huger. The Appetite "sound" of the album, and the band in general, was about being raw and unpolished, really, for me.
Tsuken wrote:
Slash's tone - at least with GnR - stands out for me as one I really really dislike intensely, and cannot fathom why anyone likes it. It's scratchy and thin and fizzy/buzzy, and ...
thehenderson wrote:I used to make things and break things and Jesus I was evil
yeah, love that tone, so raw
Hurdy Gurdy.... some how... and I'm not entirely certain how mind you, an instrument that sounds like someone has shoved a nest of angry hornets into a goose with a kazoo bill and is randomly slapping the poor creature with an accordion.... Sounds amazing.
listened to cult of personality on the radio this morning... that tone is total @rse, but works for vernon...
Some Bozo wrote:dogs represent the qualities we like to see in a friend, and cats represent the qualites we'd like to be able to get away with in ourselves
Most of the Seattle bands I loved had horrible tones, left over from their days of playing metal in the garage. Cobain was a classic example of this, but it was more about his songs over his sound. Alice In Chains and Soundgarden had some pretty grim tones earlier on and Smashing Pumpkins sounded like everything was just cranked up to 10 and beyond. I found PJ and STP, who arguably used a bit less gain, to be much more pleasant sounding on the ears.