skeith Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Well, no gratuity for me; I still don't get it, completely... When you guys say you want guitar that sounds like guitar, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, as my brain is not accepting the proposition that a guitar doesn't sound like a guitar. Do you mean you want the guitar to sound like an acoustic guitar? Help me out here guys; this is not my smart alec persona, I'm really trying to understand the point... Well Moose, Here's my suggestion, listen to John McLaughlin's electric guitar from his Miles period and then listen to "After the Rain" under his own name or other cds he has made in the last decade, compare the tone of the guitar, which sounds more like a real guitar to you or which tone do you prefer? compare the tone on John Scofield's cd "Time on My Hands" or some other cd from that period to your Wes Montgomery cds, I think you will hear a big difference, as to what you like better, I guess it will just be personal preference. I am saying that since electric guitarists can add so many tone altering devices it can seriously change the sound of the instrument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeith Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I agree 100% with Allen, now that there is a gratuity involved. The Jazz guitar, in large part thanks to Johnny Smith, beacme the 'smooth Jazz' instrument of the 50's and beyond...God!, how many restaurants, even into the 70's would feature guitar and bass for one's dinning pleasure...some of that stayed with guitarists today...in Pop, the guitar went another way...even back in the 50's, when the Jazz guitar was the epitome of 'Cool', Rock guitar was heading some place else. I still get goose bumps when I remember going into the booth at the record store when I was 13, and putting on the 45 of 'Sweet Little Sixteen' and hearing that guitar sound! I've only heard a bit of Johnny Smith, but I am not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the tone or sound of of most Jazz guitar was worse in the 50's thanks to Johnny Smith or worse today as Allen is saying? Am I correct in assuming the Sweet Little Sixteen you reference is the guitar of Chuck Berry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I can give more on my opinion but apologize as I am about to go to sleep; will post more specifically tomorrow - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I've always wondered waht an electric guitar "should" sound like. Or what any instrument "should" sound like for that matter... But when you get into something with as many options for tonal modification as an electric guitar, it seems like whatever tone the individual player gets IS what "it sounds like", and that from there on out, it's just a matter of personally connecting (or not) with the choices that said player has made. The instruments of both Johnny Smith and Chuck Berry "sound like" an electric guitar to my ears, if you know what I mean... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I thought I did, but Allen's got me confused right now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I definitely see his point (and saw it from the first), but his lingo did leave room for misinterpretation by some, as soon became evident. But the nature of what a "real" electric guitar tone "is" one of those questions that has as many answers as people have ears... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Misinterpretations aside, I'm pretty much in Allen's camp with regards to what makes a good tone on guitar, although he takes a harder line than I do. Does that get me at least a partial gratuity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Would a gratuitous partial suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I'm awake again (more or less) - to me it is a matter of sound - the classic jazz guitar sound is neck pickup, humbucker, dark, high end rolled off. Much different from the classic rock and roll sound which can be either neck or bridge pickup in combination (twang) - or by themselves (shrill and trebly for the bridge, bright and plumby for the neck). Jazz guitarists tend to like it mellow and round - and have since the days of Charlie Christian. Rock and roll and rhythm and blues guitarists since the late 1940s have tended to be different, particularly rockers starting in the middle 1950s. Both jazz guys and rockers, in the old days, used exclusively tube amps, which have a nice sense of natural compression as volume is achieved; while jazz guys tended to avoid that kind of distorted overdrive, rock and rollers welcomed it, used it as a musical technique. Than came the 1960s and rock's unprecedented popularity, which made jazz guys perk up and listen - rock guys started using more effects, fuzz, wah, etc and etc. More than a few jazz guys (Coryell, Hahn, Sam Brown, McLaughlin) started pushing the instrument more, and started using effects. In many cases, even in the early days, the result was not great, was too slick, with a sense of musical slumming, as though some of the jazz guys were overqualified and could not achieve the same sense of basic blues-touch as a lot of the rock (and older blues) guys. As digital technology developed it became easier and easier to achieve "rock" effects - distortion and/or overdrive, delay, fuzz, etc. In all of this something very nice about the guitar's original sound was lost, IMHO; the use of digital effects results in a series of conversions - ie. the analog guitar signal is converted to a digital signal and than back again to an analog signal. The result is a loss of original tone, sometimes a digital sheen - it loses the sound of the string itself vibrating over the pickup and then being amplified through the pre-amp and power stages (assuming a tube amp is used) - add solid state amps and you get an even greater loss of guitar signal. Now all of this is not necessarily bad - as the saying goes, if it sounds good it is good. It's just not to my tastes and sounds more and more like the guitartist could be playing anything, a keyboard, a wind synth, anything. Personally I find that there is a warmth and natural compression to the direct signal of a guitar through a tube amp, a power and presence in both clean and distorted sound that has been largely lost (by the way, this applies to not just jazz but to most rock guitarists) - and even though I'm not even crazy about the classic jazz sound (too rolled off, too quiet) I still find it preferable to the multi-pedaled way of most contemporary guitarists - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Of course, sometimes compromises need to be made in working situations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted February 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Ah...tube amps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted February 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Of course, sometimes compromises need to be made in working situations... uh...what kind of amp are you using? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 The funny thing is, I find that a lot of the blues and early rock player's basic timbre, underneath the distrotion, etc., sounds closer to an accoustic guitar (well, a stell-bodied one, anyway - should we give consideration to that instrument as a "transitional" one in terms of how electric guitar tone was percieved/concieved?)) than does the typical jazz player's from roughly the same timeframe. I mean, I can hear Chuck Berry playing his stuff on accoustic, but no way I can hear Johnny Smith the same way. Mind you, I'm of the school that finds "Johnny Smith" & "somnabulism" synonymous (yeah, I know, incredible technique, etc., but that's not the point here). but it seems to me that the in-the-wake-of-Christian/Durham school of jazz guitarists had/has a basic timbre that is a lot more removed from an accoutic guitar than "they" might be comfortable admitting. There seems to be no (or just a little) "string" in the sound (I'm not a guitarist, so there's probably a better way to express that), just the electrical delivery of it. Whereas, those other cats have the whole thing in their sound - string, attack, decay, the whole nine yards. I gouess another way to put it is that the jazz guitarists had a more "electric" sound, whereas the early rock/R&B/Blues, etc. had more of an "amplified" sound. Again, the non-guitarist in me prevents a better technical description, but I hope the point comes across. Calling all "jazz purists" - check out Barney Kessell on that 1947 Just Jazz gig and tell me that his is a tone that is even remotely "pure". NO WAY!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Of course, sometimes compromises need to be made in working situations... uh...what kind of amp are you using? For most gigs, I'm using a Boss GT-6 floor pedal as my preamp, into a Carvin dual channel power amp (yes, it's a tube amp), into a 2x12 cab wired for stereo. So yes, analog to digital to tube. The Boss is very convenient, but I admit that it doesn't sound as good as I would like. Not horrible to my ears, just not awesome. I won't be using it in the studio most likely, but it works well for the gigs we do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcello Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I'm awake again (more or less) - Sounds like you are WIDE awake! That was the LOOOONG way to your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 (edited) JSangry is very right in those distinctions, though I wonder if it may be not because of equipment used but because of the WAY it was used (and I do like Johnny Smith, but understand his point) - another distinction might be types of guitars, good archtops versus cheap ones, good pickups vs lousy pickups - those older blues guys were working in muich different types of clubs than jazz guys, noisier, probably, maybe more dancing less listening than the place a Johnny Smith (or Jimmy raney) may have been playing - driving those amps more, cheaper, lower-powered amps - and I also really believe a big part of the older sound is speaker; the older speakers had much less coloration than current (and for the record I have 3 amps, a Hilgen, which is an old Ampeg-syle amp, a re-built Bassman/'59 bassman, and a head that's been built to Fender Pro/Deluxe specs - I have only been playing about 4 years, I don't work "out" much but have been recording - and I use only NOS tubes ) Edited February 28, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 The problem with all this is that if you obsess over it, you become like a guitarist that I play with who stops playing in the middle of every tune and/or solo and starts farting around with his amp because he's not happy with his tone. Shut up and PLAY YOUR GUITAR!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 well, come on, the guitarist's relationship to his guitar is probably not any more neurotic than yours with the B3 or the horn player with horn (reeds, mouthpieces, etc) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 well, come on, the guitarist's relationship to his guitar is probably not any more neurotic than yours with the B3 or the horn player with horn (reeds, mouthpieces, etc) - Well, the B3 does't have all sorts of little tone knobs and volume knobs and prescence and different channels and blah blah blah.... so if my tone sucks due to the room, I just deal with it and play. Or I move the Leslie closer! I will say that Joe and I spent a half hour swapping 12AU7 tubes in the preamp stage of the Leslie yesterday to hear which one sounded best. But that's before the gig, not during. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 (edited) it does get a little crazy - there are so many different guitars and amps and a very aggressive industry - Edited February 28, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 (edited) and just a suggestion - 12AU7s are readily available on Ebay cheap - I''d go with an RCA - Edited February 28, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 and just a suggestion - 12AU7s are readily available on Ebay cheap - I''d go with an RCA - I have two old RCAs... one with white lettering and one with red (several with red). I liked the Tung Sol I found better than those two. But thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest che Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I came across his latest album this afternoon, I did not buy it I bought Greg Osby instead. Is it any good? Che. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted February 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 Of course, sometimes compromises need to be made in working situations... uh...what kind of amp are you using? For most gigs, I'm using a Boss GT-6 floor pedal as my preamp, into a Carvin dual channel power amp (yes, it's a tube amp), into a 2x12 cab wired for stereo. So yes, analog to digital to tube. The Boss is very convenient, but I admit that it doesn't sound as good as I would like. Not horrible to my ears, just not awesome. I won't be using it in the studio most likely, but it works well for the gigs we do. You probably don't have a lot of floor space at your gigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted February 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 I came across his latest album this afternoon, I did not buy it I bought Greg Osby instead. Is it any good? Che. http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...&hl=pat+metheny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.