Author Topic: Not a fan entirely ...  (Read 723 times)

ilan

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2328
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2017, 04:52:39 PM »
He claimed he didn't get enough low end out of them, but that is entirely his own fault for using Marshall amps and cabinets.  :mrgreen:
He had no clue about the cap issue. Actually I think I was the first one to tell him about that. When I asked him why did he modify the Ric, his answer was "because I didn't want to sound like f***ing Chris Squire".
A bad day of playing bass is still better than a good day of playing cello.

wellREDman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2017, 03:26:38 AM »
when I saw Rick vs Fender vid  this was what i was expecting


uwe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15210
  • RRT (Resident Rare Talent)
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2017, 10:32:15 AM »
He had no clue about the cap issue. Actually I think I was the first one to tell him about that. When I asked him why did he modify the Ric, his answer was "because I didn't want to sound like f***ing Chris Squire".

He didn't know about the cap issue, true, but a lot of people didn't do that in the 70ies. I only learned it here myself. Bass ooomph wasn't so much the issue, as he was using Martin cabs from a certain point onwards. What Roger didn't like was that the Ric didn't give him a clean sound, he wanted an undistorted, non-overdriven bass sound like he believed to hear on American recordings at the time. That Machine Head and Made in Japan overdriven sound that people find to die for today, that wasn't tidy enough for him.

Fender experiments had not satisfied him either. The P Bass on In Rock was too inaudible to him (he was right) as it lacked detectable mids, the Fender Mustang used on Fireball lacked ooomph in a live setting. You only heard Roger well on DP records once he used the Ric, but that sound was too overt for him too. When he returned to active playing with Rainbow in 1979 he used a TBird (which was a lot more inconspicious in the Rainbow sound than the Ric in DP had ever been, but that is what Roger wanted) until he broke its headstock off on stage. He's on record for saying that had he known how a TBird sounds while playing with Purple, it would have been his choice over the Ric.

That said, I will forever identify him with a Ric, look- and soundwise. Whenever he drags out the Ric today for Smoke On The Water in favor of the Vigier, it draws a tear to my eye. That Ric sounds nasty and dirty, but just right. A commanding sound.
It ain't no country until Dave sez it is!

ilan

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2328
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2017, 11:57:16 PM »
He's on record for saying that had he known how a TBird sounds while playing with Purple, it would have been his choice over the Ric.
I can believe that. It's really strange to think that in those days a player of his stature has never tried a T-Bird, when today almost any bass player has had the chance to play almost anything, let alone own tons of different basses.
A bad day of playing bass is still better than a good day of playing cello.

uwe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15210
  • RRT (Resident Rare Talent)
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2017, 05:29:30 PM »
There weren't a lot of 60ies TBirds built in the first place, fewer survived regular gigging and even fewer ever made it to English shores. And Overend Watts of Mott the Hoople had something like eight of them (and held on to them), so that must have been half the Brit TB Rev population alone!  :mrgreen:

Even later pronounced TBird players such as Martin Turner (the TBird came only post-Argus which still features his Ric, his first "proper bass") and Pete Way (when Schenker joined UFO in 1973, Pete Way was still busy playing a Fender P) only stumbled across their TBirds relatively late. In my felt recollection, you saw more of them in the mid-seventies than you did in the early seventies. The Bicentennials released in late 76/77 gave the sixties models a push in popularity too.

The Merseybeats with John Gustafson flaunted Fire- and Thunderbirds as part of their image in the 60ies but that didn't start a TBird (or Firebird) invasion in the UK ...

« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 05:49:21 PM by uwe »
It ain't no country until Dave sez it is!

amptech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2017, 10:16:23 PM »
Wow, the Gibson power-plus series of tube amps.. don't see those every day! Quite fresh looking in 1963, or what?

Jeff Scott

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2017, 10:55:38 AM »
There weren't a lot of 60ies TBirds built in the first place,

Wow, the Gibson power-plus series of tube amps.. don't see those every day! Quite fresh looking in 1963, or what?
I had a friend back in the early '70s who had a two pickup Thunderbird and the same Gibson amp as in that photo.

amptech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2017, 10:45:32 PM »
I had a friend back in the early '70s who had a two pickup Thunderbird and the same Gibson amp as in that photo.
The power-plus amps, all named after rockets from the NASA space program, was meant to replace the 'tuck away' crestline amps in 1963. They even used the same catalogue, and just cut out the amp on the cover - and put the trapezodial styled amp in..

The unit meant for bass I think was called the Titan V, with 4x6L6GC powered head putting out 90 Watts feeding a 2x15" JBL speakers. Typical 'not quite ordinary' gibson preamp, but at least the few Gibson tube bass amp designs I've built makes some sense in trying to sound nice, full and un-aggressive.

uwe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15210
  • RRT (Resident Rare Talent)
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2017, 07:09:31 AM »
"90 Watts feeding a 2x15" JBL"

That was mammoth for the time!  :o
It ain't no country until Dave sez it is!

Jeff Scott

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2017, 08:17:03 AM »
"90 Watts feeding a 2x15" JBL"

That was mammoth for the time!  :o
Yeah, it Trumped the Dual Showman by 5 watts!  :mrgreen:

4stringer77

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2017, 11:39:03 AM »
It's a shame so many people equate louder and more watts with better. Maybe it's because I'm getting older I find music more enjoyable when it doesn't result in hearing loss after being at a performance.
Contrary to what James Bond says, a good Gibson should be stirred, not shaken.

amptech

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2017, 10:29:50 PM »
It's a shame so many people equate louder and more watts with better. Maybe it's because I'm getting older I find music more enjoyable when it doesn't result in hearing loss after being at a performance.

When looking at Gibson's amazing amp output between 1935 and 1968, I always think 'If they only made one guitar and one bass amp that could rock/scream' they'd survive as an amp maker. Although making their top of the line amps too HI-FI might have been a huge mistake, I guess the last amp marketing efforts made musicians of the day uninterested; trying to convince rockers that 'the freaked out sound of yesterday' was going out of style really was the final nail in the coffin. Even Jazz musicians used freaked out sounds by that time.

Sorry, off topic 8)

slinkp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
    • slinkp home page
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #27 on: September 14, 2017, 08:41:17 AM »
They had some really really nice amps if you liked bluesy overdrive rather than full-on screaming though.  A guitarist friend played for years through a mid-60s 112 combo, not sure of the model, but that thing sounded great.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 02:20:04 PM by slinkp »

uwe

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15210
  • RRT (Resident Rare Talent)
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #28 on: September 14, 2017, 12:39:23 PM »
It's a shame so many people equate louder and more watts with better. Maybe it's because I'm getting older I find music more enjoyable when it doesn't result in hearing loss after being at a performance.

Lots of watts are important for not using them. A mighty bass rig at low volume will give you a much more pleasant and natural sound than some pumped up little thing at the end of its range. In fact you don't even need to play a large rig as loud as a small one and still be comfortably heard.
It ain't no country until Dave sez it is!

4stringer77

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Re: Not a fan entirely ...
« Reply #29 on: September 14, 2017, 07:16:28 PM »
I can appreciate that having more headroom is an added benefit. There are other factors to consider, such as the room size and how much PA support there is. While recording is a different circumstance than the stage, it seems like a B-15 is a more popular choice than an SVT for those purposes. Frank Zappa, while not a bassist, also pulled off some great performances with just a little old Pignose. Big rigs are nice but after playing often at high volume, more subtle approaches start to gain in appeal, no pun intended.
Contrary to what James Bond says, a good Gibson should be stirred, not shaken.