Re: [Harp-L] Re: fender bassman ltd again

["Bob Maglinte" <bbqbob917@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "scott" <checker758@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:48 AM
Subject: [Harp-L] Re: fender bassman ltd again


> --- In harp-l-archives@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ray Beltran <raybeltran@xxxx> 
> wrote:
> > What guys are attempting to reproduce of LW's sound (when they say they 
> > want
> > that LW sound) are examples they've heard from RECORDED material. In a
> > (mostly) controlled  studio environment. With studio effects. And a good
> > mix.
> >
> > Now I know effects are a personal matter. But when someone writes "reverb 
> > is
> > a must"...I really question that.
>
>
> Exactly.  Any reverb and/or delay effects you hear on LW records were 
> *studio only* effects.  They were used on the records only, and how they 
> were applied was determined by the producer and engineer, not by LW.  When 
> asked how the reverb effect was applied on the records, he didn't even 
> know - he just said that the engineer was "doing it with his hand" (i.e., 
> turning something up and down in the control room.)
>
> Trying to recreate that studio sound in a live situation would not only be 
> next to impossible, but also a bad idea for the reasons Ray points out 
> below - reverb and delay will only wash out the sound in a live situation, 
> making your playing sound indistinct and distant.  Or as Ray says, 
> "mushy", as opposed clear and defined.
>
> LW didn't use these sorts of effects in live situations because they were 
> unnecessary - the room already provided plenty of reverb and delay.  In 
> fact, when LW was asked about what type of room he liked to play in, he 
> said, "One with a low ceiling", i.e., one that DIDN'T create a lot of 
> reverb.  He then went on to complain specifically about large rooms that 
> created a lot of reverberated sounds - he said he didn't like hearing the 
> sound bouncing back at him after he'd played it, because by the time it 
> bounced back, he'd already moved on and played something else.
>
> I suppose all of this is just another way of saying you can't buy "the LW 
> sound".  If you could, don't you think there would have been a lot more 
> people who sounded like him back in the day, when everyone had easy access 
> to all of the same equipment he used?  It seems likely to me that there 
> were also harp players back then who thought the secret was in the 
> equipment, and they WERE able to see exactly what he used on a gig, so 
> they went out and got the same thing.  But I don't hear anyone who was 
> able to replicate his sound then, any more than I do now.
>
> Scott

Hi,
I have to agree with this. In most recording sessions, even back then, the 
ideal amp to record with is a LOW powered amp, anything from 8 watts and 
generally NO LOUDER than 25 watts because bleed thru in a studio is a huge 
problem, and in a studio, it's quite different than playing live, because 
the studio is a controlled environment, and from personal experience, it is 
NOT uncommon for stuff that works great live, sucks big time in the studio 
and vice versa. Many harp players tend to go too nutty over the tube subs as 
they listen to how the amp sounds when they're standing less than 10 feet in 
front, and as Ray says CORRECTLY, the same amp in the back of the room 
sounds entirely different and room acoustics is often the biggest wild card 
in the world. I've played on many a stage where while standing on the 
bandstand, everything sounds absolutely awful, but then when moving about 20 
feet away, it was an entirely different story.

Small amps as a general rule uses the simplest of circuitry and harp nearly 
ALWAYS benefits from it and the more powerful the amp, the gradually more 
complex the circuit tends to become and it becomes a different thing 
entirely. Even guitarist Albert King often recorded for Stax using nothing 
but an 8 watt Fender Champ. A lot of the older recordings often used boom 
mikes placed strategically in the room and often sounds warm and full 
because unlike having a mike right on each instrument as is the case today, 
they used more of the room sound and the mikes were more like people's ears, 
so it was basically recording sound more like the way people in the audience 
hears it.

Rooms with very high ceilings often can make things either really muddy 
sounding or make everything sound a helluva lot louder than it actually is 
in terms of wattage. Still, great gear won't ever cover up poor acoustic 
chops and tone no matter how hard you try and how much you spend on it. 
Someone who has the acoustic tone and chops happening will make ANYTHING 
that most people would throw in the trash sound heavenly and someone without 
the acoustic tone and chops together will make the most prized equipment in 
the world sound like it belongs in the garbage.

Sincerely,
Barbeque Bob Maglinte
Boston, MA
http://www.barbequebob.com
MP3's: http://music.mp3lizard.com/barbequebob/