Author Topic: Strings used on Jack Bruce's EB-3 bass (Read 9633 times)

dc10bass · « **on:** September 04, 2009, 06:31:02 PM »

Group...

Anyone know the details for Jack Bruce's bass strings on his EB-3 bass?
I read that they were La Bella brand, light gauge...

Anyone know any other details?
...Model or style number? String gauges?
Flatwound or Roundwound? (So far I’ve been hearing Flats)

I have a 1962 EB-3 that I would like to use the closest set of strings like the one's Jack used.

Those who play EB basses, what is your opinion on strings for getting closest to that Cream sound?

Thank you for your input!

lowend1 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 04, 2009, 07:29:59 PM »

Quote from: dc10bass on September 04, 2009, 06:31:02 PM

Group...

Anyone know the details for Jack Bruce's bass strings on his EB-3 bass?
I read that they were La Bella brand, light gauge...

Anyone know any other details?
...Model or style number? String gauges?
Flatwound or Roundwound? (So far I’ve been hearing Flats)

I have a 1962 EB-3 that I would like to use the closest set of strings like the one's Jack used.

Those who play EB basses, what is your opinion on strings for getting closest to that Cream sound?

Thank you for your input!

What amp are you using? IMHO, that's a huge factor. Alot of Jack's sound was due to him overdriving them Marshalls!

birdie · « **Reply #2 on:** September 04, 2009, 08:00:52 PM »

i have a 67 eb3. it's had the same old set of la bella short-scale roundwounds on it for years. it CAN sound similar to jack. however i agree a tube amp has a hell of a lot to do w/ it. i play through old hiwatts. i also play just ahead of the bridge p-up and roll off the tone control to add some fur. varitone position is almost always #3 (both pups) w/ the neck pup backed of just ever so slightly.

let us know how it works out. i have thought for a long time that 'something' is not quite stock on mine. it sounds so clear and agressive.

Dave W · « **Reply #3 on:** September 04, 2009, 09:45:40 PM »

Gibson branded flats would have been standard. But right before the EB-3 he was using a Dano, and they came standard with light gauge rounds. I really have no idea, although it wouldn't surprise me if he used rounds.

I do know what he uses now, or at least as of two years ago.: SIT Power Steel Stainless in 50-105 gauge. That's what Stewart Hilton of SIT Strings told me at 2007 Summer NAMM. Jack is a SIT endorsing artist, and those are their brightest rounds. And he still sounds like Jack. Go figure.

dexter · « **Reply #4 on:** September 04, 2009, 09:57:05 PM »

while i can not dispute anything about what has been written about amps etc ,above , you have to ask what recorded tone are you referring to. If are trying to get the sound of those old Cream records from the 60's your best bet would be to find some strings that were like standard Gibson bass strings ( Flatwounds ), thats probably what he used back then .
Look here to see what strings he uses NOW ...SIT Medium Gauge Roundwound ( http://www.jackbruce.com/2008/Gear/gear.htm ) I doubt if he would use them on his EB3 ,.... i don't think he uses theses basses any more . Just that old red bass from the fifties, plus those Warwick basses.
on my two EB basses , i have currently Daddario half round, soft,short scale 45-100 ,these i find sound great not too bright , feel
much like flatwounds ,and tension is great too.
i have tried others but like these currently , the T Infelds felt very good too , but were much duller .

whether they sound like Jack Bruce or not , this is what suits my basses at the moment.
dexter

dexter · « **Reply #5 on:** September 04, 2009, 10:09:12 PM »

Great ! , another Gibson EB 3 admirer, ...

how's about seeing some nice pictures of you bass ? ... if you don't mind

dexter

Quote from: dc10bass on September 04, 2009, 06:31:02 PM

Group.

I have a 1962 EB-3 that I would like to use the closest set of strings like the one's Jack used.

Those who play EB basses, what is your opinion on strings for getting closest to that Cream sound?

Thank you for your input!

Dave W · « **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2009, 09:30:10 AM »

Be sure to check out the clip in this thread: http://bassoutpost.com/index.php?topic=2801.0

Jack sounds like Jack on that Dano. He sounded like Jack with the Bass VI, and with the Gibson EB-1 at the 2005 reunion.

Best way to get that sound is to be Jack.

Highlander · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2009, 02:43:02 PM »

Hmm... tricky...

uwe · « **Reply #8 on:** September 06, 2009, 08:30:29 AM »

His liver should still be available - any takers?

But it's true, Bruce sounds like himself shortscale, long scale, roundwound, flatwound, active, passive, fretted and fretless, Warwick or EB. More than his sound (which in its belching middishness can be replicated relatively easy), it's his sense of timing and phrasing. For a bassist, he's relatively often not on the beat, but plays over it. That is very idiosyncratic, kind of Carlos Santana on bass.

eb2 · « **Reply #9 on:** September 06, 2009, 09:42:13 AM »

Quote

His liver should still be available - any takers?

That makes my day!

gweimer · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2009, 06:34:10 AM »

I'm pretty sure Jack was using LaBella strings back in the day. I know that I started using them because of him.

uwe · « **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2009, 06:49:00 AM »

I've read about Labellas in interviews with him too. He liked the way they would bend though they were flatwounds. But it is anybody's guess whether today's Labellas have much to do with what the brand manufactured more than 40 years ago. Or whether they would have been Jack's favorite brand had he had today's wealth of variety in bass strings available back then. Didn't he in the seventies switch to those rotosounds that had just the core wire running over the saddle and offered that ultra-piano sound plus being extremely bendable? I seem to remember that.

Dave W · « **Reply #12 on:** September 07, 2009, 08:22:42 AM »

That doesn't sound right. LaBellas were never flexible for flats compared to others. I once heard someone say they were almost like stainless steel rods. They're not that stiff, but they sure weren't (and aren't) nice and easy to bend.

If he used LaBella flats, maybe he got the flexibility he wanted by using extra light gauges.

uwe · « **Reply #13 on:** September 07, 2009, 09:48:36 AM »

I forgot to mention that: It was an extra light set he came across and which he grew so fond of. I guess in the sixties, a 95 gauge would have been considered light to extra light? On a short scale bass, that allows some bendability. I have D'Addario rounds 95 gauge on my reissue EB-1 (still from the preowner) and they bend well and feel generally "too thin", but it doesn't take away from the archaic bass output one bit. So Jack could have used very thin strings and still gotten his sound which was never that bass heavy anyway. But he must have encountered rounds too, didn't all Danelectros come out with roundwounds?

Dave W · « **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2009, 09:58:29 AM »

Yes, flat 95s would be considered light for US basses in the 60s other than Danos. 50-105 flats were standard on Fenders and probably also on Gibsons. Some European basses had lighter strings, others like my old Vox came with tapewounds which were thick and stiff but pretty low tension on the neck.

LaBella 95s on a short scale would be fairly bendable.

Danos came with lighter gauge rounds.

The Last Bass Outpost