Mudbucker article (fiendishly derailed by Uwe into unmotivated The Who attack!)

gearHed289 · February 06, 2013, 12:28:59 PM

A little annoying when a writer is not very familiar with what they're writing about. It is what it is...

http://www.bestbassgear.com/ebass/gear/hardware/whats-a-mudbucker-pickup.html

Grog · February 06, 2013, 01:52:49 PM

You can tell that he's not a fan!

"This pickup to most player's ears sounds just plain awful and very "muddy", hence the nickname mudbucker".

Pilgrim · February 06, 2013, 02:09:18 PM

Yup, he starts with the assumption that mudbucker = bad sound.

Highlander · February 06, 2013, 02:29:18 PM

I wonder what he uses his batteries in...?

Dave W · February 06, 2013, 02:34:23 PM

Oh, brother.

If most players think they sound "just plain awful" then why are they "next to impossible" to find? Truth is, the author really doesn't know what most players think, and they're not that hard to find at a reasonable price. A few have changed hands here and they do come up often on eBay.

No, Gibson will not sell you one, because they haven't made one in 34 years.

Jack Bruce's tone on his EB-3 is nowhere near pure mudbucker tone. Terrible example. After the Sunshine video he says "and that's pretty much the exact tone you'll get out of a mudbucker. Throw enough power at one and you can "force-blare' an overdriven sound for that 60s psychedelic tone, and not much else." Um, nope. A mudbucker's output is so high you don't need to throw any power at to go into overdrive, and there's nothing psychedelic about its tone. Now I suppose you could call Jack's tone psychedelic, but it sounds pretty much the same as his tone on the original recording, which was done with his Danelectro.

Reader comments mention Epi, Gotoh, Artec and Curtis Novak as aftermarket. AFAIK Curtis Novak is the only one of those who winds to vintage specs. The Epi and Gotoh are nowhere close.

FWIW, I never heard the term mudbucker until seeing Steve Barr use it about 12-13 years ago. And at first he was referring to the original Tele Bass humbucker, which is quite different but still muddy.

westen44 · February 06, 2013, 04:13:38 PM

This reminds me of the Geico commercial from several years back in which they keep making "inaccurate" statements about cavemen. Then at the end of the commercial one of the cavemen admonishes them with the statement---"Next time maybe do a little research?"

uwe · February 07, 2013, 05:29:49 AM

The mudbucker is neither good or bad, but simply idiosyncratic. It's a color that can be used to great effect in some situations, but of course not in all. That Sunshine of your Love track played by a three piece would sound rather thin with a trad Ric or Precision sound. Nothing layers and fills like a mudbucker, you might not be able to hear notes, but you feel there is something filling the emptiness!

And Jack Bruce sounds like he does and if he was playing a banjo.

I'm not too damning on the article, it's a light, whimsical piece, doesn't profess to document the history and the usability of the mudbucker. That it is not a great sound to the ears of "most" bass players is just a simple truth, we are a minority/acquired taste lovers here, face it. And in reality we wouldn't want it any other way. I hate being in the majority, always have.

nofi · February 07, 2013, 05:56:37 AM

the preferred p bass tone of the late sixties and early seventies would certainly fill any holes. what happened to the days in which a name bassist would play a whole show with only one bass, which in many cases became their signature instrument. now even guys in cover bands take four or five basses to a gig. what's the point.

uwe · February 07, 2013, 06:19:27 AM

Quote from: nofi on February 07, 2013, 05:56:37 AM
the preferred p bass tone of the late sixties and early seventies would certainly fill any holes. what happened to the days in which a name bassist would play a whole show with only one bass, which in many cases became their signature instrument. now even guys in cover bands take four or five basses to a gig. what's the point.

Don't ciriticize me so harshly, I have to see to the needs of the members of all of my harem!!! Besides, the audience might not hear, but it sees the difference if you strap on another bass!

I'm not knocking a P bass sound, but its focus comes at a price. Cream had a fullness in live sound that The Who hadn't even though their instrumental line up was exactly the same. I'm currently listening a lot to the much lauded The Who Live at Hull, allegedly their live holy grail as it was recorded one night after Leeds under better technical circumstances (save for the bass dropping out on the first six songs which they meticulously restored with the Leeds bass track, well done, you can't really hear that it comes from somewhere else), I will get clobbered for saying this here, but frankly the mighty Who sounded thin, skeletal and forlorn in 1970 performimg their own earlier stuff (and especially the Tommy tracks which cry out for broader instrumentation), they were well-advised to beef up their line-up for live gigs in later years. The Grand Funk Railroad Live album sounds like a 10-piece in comparison even though Mel Schacher's individual notes are a lot less distinct than JAE's.

Now, dear Who fans, regroup for the counter-attack!

And if I may motivate you some more: In 1970, The Who, to my ears (and I listened to both CDs of Live at Hull concentratedly several times, they did have good harmony vocals live btw), sounded like a sixties rock band turned up louder, but had none of the urgency, immediacy and intensity in sound of then up and coming bands such as Deep Purple, Free, Led Zeppelin, Ten Years After, Uriah Heep or even Grand Funk Railroad had. Townshend is a gifted songwriter but his guitar playing is really too stiff and rigid to fill the position of a solitary guitarist well.

Himmel, this is going to be fun! I have finally attacked the holy cow of this forum.

nofi · February 07, 2013, 06:24:02 AM

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=holy+cow&id=D6F00524617027DDEDFE9F2F95E57D1DAE20D349&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=D6F00524617027DDEDFE9F2F95E57D1DAE20D349&selectedIndex=0

uwe · February 07, 2013, 06:27:58 AM

Danke für die Inspiration (of the cow pic), Nofi!

4stringer77 · February 07, 2013, 07:41:02 AM

Interesting argument Uwe. Yes, at the time those bands you mentioned may have been a tad more urgent, immediate and intense or one could simply say more bluesy. In retrospect though, I think the Who's attitude and style had a farther reaching influence into the 70's and early 80's with the Punk scene and evolving into Alternative or grunge styles than the other bands. I hear more "can't explain" than "30 days in the hole" from rock bands these days. Oh, and Felix Pappalardi is the mudbucker king!

Chris P. · February 07, 2013, 07:46:51 AM

I listen a lot to three live albums of The Who from the same period: Live at Hull, Live at Leeds and Live at the Isle of Wight and especially the Tommy songs. The last one (Wight) sounds the edgiest, most rough and very, very very good! I even made one CD of the Tommy part, which starts half way the first CD and ends halfway the second. Great!

Leeds is cool to, a bit thinner, but Hull sounds quite bad IMHO. The mix just isn't that good.... very trebly.

I guess The Who doesn't sound badder than Cream. Just different:)

The live-CD on the Deluxe Who's Next sounds great!

Dave W · February 07, 2013, 09:07:24 AM

Quote from: uwe on February 07, 2013, 05:29:49 AM
The mudbucker is neither good or bad, but simply idiosyncratic. It's a color that can be used to great effect in some situations, but of course not in all. That Sunshine of your Love track played by a three piece would sound rather thin with a trad Ric or Precision sound. Nothing layers and fills like a mudbucker, you might not be able to hear notes, but you feel there is something filling the emptiness!

And Jack Bruce sounds like he does and if he was playing a banjo.

I'm not too damning on the article, it's a light, whimsical piece, doesn't profess to document the history and the usability of the mudbucker. That it is not a great sound to the ears of "most" bass players is just a simple truth, we are a minority/acquired taste lovers here, face it. And in reality we wouldn't want it any other way. I hate being in the majority, always have.

Light and whimsical? Maybe. My objection is that he's dead wrong on just about every point he touches. Of course Jack Bruce always sounds like Jack Bruce, but his EB-3 tone is nothing like what a mudbucker sounds like. I don't profess to know how much if any of the mudbucker is in there but you can't get that kind of midrange out of a mudbucker.

Real mudbucker tone that's easy to pick out:

uwe · February 07, 2013, 09:33:50 AM

On my Hull version you hear JAE well and not trebly at all, trouble is that his pentatonic runs sometimes make you forget the chord structure if Townshend is soloing or not playing the most indicative chords. I'm not knockimg them as individual musicians, but a lot of their live renditions cry for a second guitar or a keyboard (or both). And Moonie and JAE, bless them both, were not the most structured rhythm section on earth. Moonie plays a lot with zest and gusto, it's fun to hear (and see), but if you listen closely it's often the same drum roll - from left to right - over and over, the bass drum work is neither tight nor adventurous. And JAE is on a quest of his own, really someone who would need a (disciplined!) drummer and a guitarist backing him.