Dunlop "Flow" picks

Gear
#32

I read an interview with Jim Dunlop (in 2008), where he explained

I have the opportunity to work with the greatest guitar players of our time. Like I said, I equate what I do to making paintbrushes for artists, and there’s brushes for different strokes, and brushes for different landscapes, and you’ve got a fine brush, and you’ve got a wide brush… picks are the same way. You know, if you want a different tone, it starts with the pick. If you use a metallic pick, you’re going to interact with the strings differently; it’s going to be very bright, like a harsh sound. If you go for a celluloid pick, it’s going to be a soft tone. It’s a very soft pick, and it’s going to give you a more mellow tone.

I’m sure that what he’s saying is true, but I’m done, I’ve (somewhat arbitrarily) picked the 2.0mm Flow as my pick.

#33

Sometimes that is the best way, I think that sometimes we get obsessed with trying to find ‘the ultimate’, instead of getting on with what we have and putting in the time. I even stopped coming on this forum in recent months because I found myself reading more about guitar than actually playing it! Lol

#34

The dreaded chirp is why I always go back to tortex or carbon nylon. However, the non-chirpy materials seem to wear out super quick!

#35

Yes, there is no doubt that the 2.0mm Flow (in Ultem) “chirps” like crazy in some places, and now I’m actually trying to develop some trick sounds/effects by bouncing it off the unwound strings… I’d love to capture a recording of that sound and see if I can filter it out. However, I am now wed to the 2.0mm Flow pick, so I will have to deal with it one way or another.

#36

I haven’t gotten a chance to record witht he Petrucci Flows yet (which definitely chirp more than the 2.0 ultex ones) with something with a bridge humbucker, but I’m really curious how it’s going to sound in the mix - it may actually not be obtrusive/unpleasant, based on my experience jamming along with backing tracks using them. I think solo’d it’s more obtrusive.

#37

Here is the video you were referring to, the pick conversation is just at the very beginning:

Although Guthrie is one of my TOP 10 favorite guitarists, and although I think he is one of the most articulate and insightful guitar teachers I have ever listened to, with the thin picks argument, I think he is somewhat wrong.

The example of the rubber pencil is not that close to reality because the thinner picks made of the most common materials (delrin/tortex, nylon, etc) returns to his neutral/flat position after crossing the string much faster than anyone can pick, and they don´t give that much. You really can´t outrun a thin pick, so you can play with all the control you want. It feels different, but you can do it. It will take something really soft (like a piece of cloth) to experience something like what Guthrie suggest in his example.

In the other aspect he mentions, the loss of dynamic range, he is absolutely right. If the pick is thin enough there is no way to play above certain level of loudness, it simply doesn´t happen, and you won´t be able to play really really loud.

But for that to be really noticeable you have to use a really thin pick of a soft material. It will happen considerably with a Dunlop .46 nylon pick, but with a 0.50 Tortex/Delrin pick the difference is almost pointless.

I love thin picks. LOL

#38

For me thin picks do not work when i want to play fast, i need thicker picks, at least 1.00, and stiff material.
Maybe with a lot of practice it would , but the i don’t like the sound and feel of thin picks. For strumming on the acousticthey are great.

#39

Perhaps what Guthrie is trying to say is that when the picks flex it is much more complex to control them, particularly for short strokes that are comprable to their bending distance. Perhaps the main benefit of a “point” (in the sense of a Flow pick) is more obvious feedback about the string crossing; I don’t think the point is required, but it might be good for tracking purposes.

I’ve seen some very think but stiff picks from Pickboy, and they’re awesome, but I think that I can “strum” my guitar (no more than 4 notes at a time) no problem with my 2.0mm pick, given the broad shoulders of its edge.

#40

This is quoted from the EVH website in 2014, and is Eddie Van Halen responding to a question about pick width.

"This month, Collin Kinsella of Wisconsin poses a serious query about the legendary guitarist’s choice of picks.

Kinsella: Hi, I saw you with Van Halen at Rock USA this year – by the way, great show – but at the end of the show I ran up to the front and got one of your guitar picks. It is now my most prized possession in the world. But, I saw it was only a .6 mm pick, and I know that is really thin for a guitar pick. So, do you break your picks during the show often? What do you do when that happens?

Van Halen: Hi Collin,

I’m glad you enjoyed the show and had a great time. The pick you have is what I really use, and yes for a lot of players it may seem thin (.6mm). I used to use even thinner ones back in the ‘80s. I also use very thick picks that were made for me out of brass and copper, so I guess what I’m getting at is, I use what feels right at the time. But these particular picks (which you have one of) have served me very well for about seven or eight years, mainly because they’re easy to hold on to and don’t break. They are made out of nylon, not plastic. They do wear out, but they don’t break. If I happen to drop one while I’m playing, I just grab one from my mic stand where I have about 10 or so taped to the stand, or I pick with my index finger until I have a chance to grab another one.

Again, Collin, I’m glad you enjoyed the show.

All the best, Eddie"

#41

But it really isn´t. That is simply a widely spread misconception, but is not more difficult to control thin picks, because they don´t give as much as people believes, and they recover their normal shape ultra fast.

You can make tremolo picking with the minimum amount of movement with a .36 nylon without problem.

It is just a different feel, and a different tone, and most players simply abandon thin picks too soon to realize that they are as easy to control as the other ones. And they do it because they don´t like the tone/fell of the pick, and that´s a perfectly valid reason, but then spread the believe that they are more difficult to control, which is not the case.

Stiffer picks tone are what most people prefer, and I think that is the key to the success of this Flow line of picks. The shape of the pick has been around for a long time (except for the “mini” Petrucci model, all others have the Dunlop 208 shape), but some of the gauges they have been offering (2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and now 4.2) are the ones that a lot of people are starting to use more and more because the increasing popularity of boutique and hand made pick brands, which usually moves on the very thick side.

I have the Andy James model and the Petrucci, and will surely buy the 4.2 when I can. I think they are very nice, they make a little too much chirp noise, but they feel very good. The new tortex versions announced at NAMM doesn´t interest me that much, because I just prefer the same versions in the Jazz III shape.

#42

Ah, I had carefully selected weasel words, “particularly for short strokes that are comparable to their bending distance.” By this, I mean that there is a distance small enough where the behavior of the pick is difficult; however, for most use cases people will have a larger motion and indeed this will not be a problem. I agree with you that the pick will snap back very rapidly and its oscillations probably damp out extremely quickly.

I didn’t know it was a 208! Indeed, I didn’t even know what a 208 was until you mentioned it; is a Flow just a Ultem 208, but thicker?

I just randomly picked the Flow 2.0mm as my standard pick, and now I’m stuck with it, I probably have 50 of them by now, if not more. Ultem is a strange material, and I don’t really like it, but it’s what I use now, so I had better get used to it.

#43

The Flow Jumbo 2.0 has the same shape, size and thickness as the Jazz Tone 208 (which I do own) but with a different material. I’m sure there’s a thread somewhere with quotes from both Andy James and Dunlop. The Flow Standard retains the same shape, but is overall smaller.

1 Like
#44

Well first, there are bass players who need larger picks.

But for guitarists, it is my sincere opinion that the advantage of using fat picks is that they have a dulled note attack, and that this makes swiping easier. IOW, it reduces the auditory side effects of swiping or mistakes in picking.

I used to use medium or heavy celluloid picks for the past 25 years, but over the past six months I got more serious about my picking and graduated to dunlop sharps. The 1mm picks and thinner have brighter attack, but the thick 1.5mm ones really glide over the string and make successful swiping a reality.

I might try the 2.0 or 3mm to see if that makes it even easier, but I do not want to trade any more attack than I already have with the 1.5.

I’m not advocating poor technique, but I am a realist and willing to use a pick that makes mistakes or swipes easier.

#45

Finally tried the flow 1.0 and 1.5. I like them in principle but as soon as my fingers get a bit sweaty they slip away from me (and I am quite a sweaty player :sweat_smile:). I have a similar issue with the 208 which I otherwise like

:sweat:

#46

Yeah, I noticed that the JP flow had a warmer/ Woolier tone.

I’m not sure whether it helps cover up mistakes, I found that if you are not playing cleanly, the thicker pick made it sound terrible.

#47

Everyones different. Try the Dunlop 1.5mm Sharp. This is the “Jeff Loomis” pick.

When the pick angle is farther from perpendicular to the string, the crossing profile is narrower than a standard shape thick pick.

IME, this reduces clank compared to the standard shape 1.5mm+ picks.

I’ve been using the 1.5 Dunlop sharp for the past six months and it allowed me to overcome an arm injury that necessitates playing from classical position, and thus a greater angle to the string. I don’t think I will ever use anything other than a sharp from this point. I may go thinner or thicker, but the sharp is superior for me.

I nearly lost the ability to play, I lost about 20-30* of supination in my left forearm and i had to rework my playing mechanics. The irony is that with the sharp and playing in classical position, my picking is better than it has ever been.

(Also a plug for playing in classical instead of having guitar on leg/lap. I think everyone should learn this way, its superior from a mechanics standpoint and much better if you ever play classical or fingerpicking. Having the guitar neck parallel with the floor may look “cool” but its a remnant of undemanding styles.)

#48

Maximum respect my friend…must have been difficult

I have to also, a long time ago I realised how much tension and lower back pain I get from playing on my right leg. I also find it easy to make it mimic my guitar position when standing…

1 Like
#49

I was going to say the same thing! Its pretty easy to have the guitar in “classical position” while standing.

I think we have Pete Townsend to blame for parallel to floor guitar position.

1 Like
#50

I’m glad that you got better, and you are right, the “guitar on picking side leg” position is an ergonomic catastrophe. Indeed, it can be argued that one should always use their guitar strap, sitting or standing, so the guitar doesn’t change position too much. I always use a wireless, so I always have a strap, now I’m used to it.

1 Like
#51

Or dreadnought sized guitars. Good luck playing with that in classical position, and I’ve tried! Only serves to remind me how much I dislike playing on steel strung acoustic guitars…