Hendrix was a fender man
Brendan
misconception. Listen to the studio albums like 'are you experienced' and
you will hear a lot of clean fender amps blackface and silverface. Yes but
he used marshall amps in concert you may be thinking. Granted, he prefered
marshalls live for the sheer belligerant awe inspiring volume those monsters
spit out, but in the studio, where tone is critically important, Hendrix
definitely seemed to prefer fender.
B.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nick V. Flor
recorded "Voodoo Child (slight return)" using a Fender Twin Reverb.
- Nick
"Brendan" <nor...@kua.net> wrote in message
news:3b72c...@corp.newsgroups.com...
T. A. Breaux
news:3b72c...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Hendrix is most identified with marshall amps but i believe this is a
> misconception. Listen to the studio albums like 'are you experienced' and
> you will hear a lot of clean fender amps blackface and silverface.
Hendrix recorded "Are You Experienced?" in '66, in London. When he recorded
that LP, he was not yet famous, and he didn't have much money. In '66,
Fender amps in the UK were about as rare as AC30s were in the U.S. and
equally expensive. In fact, even Abbey Road Studios had only two Fender
Dual Showman combos, and that's only because the Beatles had them brought
over themselves. Across town, Hendrix came over with pretty much nothing
but a guitar. Only Burns (transistor amps) was willing to sponsor him
initially, and this travesty was soon rectified by Jim Marshall. As for
what exactly was in that studio at the time of the recording, only the
engineers know, but Hendrix had a deal with Marshall at that time. Since
Marshalls in '66 were far different in sound than they were only a couple of
years later, and Marshall got started because Fenders were unavailable in
the UK. One way or another, the odds are that the studio (like other UK
studios) was largely equipped with Vox and Marshall, and Hendrix was
sponsored by Marshall at the time. Just tossing in some observations to
consider.
It seems obvious that Hendrix was not so particular about his
sound....certainly not nearly so as anyone who debates this subject. In his
recording career, he is reputed to have used Vox, Marshall, Fender, Sunn,
perhaps Supro, and the list may go on from there. There is only one person
that could possibly say what Hendrix 'preferred' if he even had much of an
opinion, and he is deceased.
josh
-josh
Nick V. Flor wrote in message ...
Steve Denison
throughout the "Electric Ladyland" sessions, but can't always believe
what you read.
Jonathan Krogh
deals with artists, except for Slash I imagine, and with Hendrix in
particular, he states that Hendrix was upfront that he would be paying for
his own equipment.
I imagine it was Chas Chandler who coughed up the first few stacks for Jimi,
and I recall reading Townshend say that he gave him an amp pr two really
early on, like maybe before Hendrix approached Marshall.
T. A. Breaux <tabr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:QsAc7.6452$V43.5...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Steve2000indeja
Kramer has stated in several interviews (and I believe a book or 2) that on the
night Hendrix brought a group of superstar buddies into the studio after some
night clubbing (Jack Cassidy, Steve Winwood etc) for the recorded jam which
would include "Voodoo Chile, Slight Return" - he plugged into a 50's era (combo
style, not piggy back) Fender Bassman.
Admittedly Eddie has made a career in his later years of being involved with
Hendrix reissues/remasters etc (once the rights were returned to the Hendrix
family). He has also made a secondary career as a Hendrix historian.
Kramer was probably the closest man to Jimi as far as the magic they worked in
the studio, especially on the 2nd and 3rd albums (the first LP was a rushed
affair, a masterpiece created in a short time using 4 track recorders and
'available equipment'). Eddie's pretty good about not taking too much credit
for the sonic revolution he helped Jimi create
Eddie has always seemed to be a man of integrity, not a quick buck guy or a
B.S. artist. In the absence of Jimi being here to verify tell us himself (if he
would even remember:), if Eddie says Jimi played the studio version of ' Voodoo
Chile SR' through a Bassman, I believe him.
Steve
PMG
did very well in the confines of studios, so I'm sure he used what
worked best in each situation.
The person to ask I suppose would be Eddie Kramer, right? He would
have the inside info on how everything was recorded. Are there any
interview published where he gives the inside scoop on that?
In the live recordings that were released, at least later in his
career, I'm pretty sure those were all done playing through Marshalls
and whatever the hell stompboxes he was using, so whatever he relied
on for all the studio tricks, I think he did just fine without when he
appeared live with his Marshalls.
I guess what I'm trying to get at was that as much as his whole sound
might have been a product of the studio, the guy still just killed as
a live performer with his Marshalls.
Pete
--
Hey! You're not Frank Zappa!
--Pepper Mills to René Descartes
Jim Anable
Kramer, Hendrix used a "small Vox amplifier" in early sessions. He immediately
argued about volume levels, threatening to go back to NYC if he couldn't play as
loud as he wanted. He lost the argument, and turned down.
A photo taken from the side of the stage of the Hollywood Bowl, 9-14-68, clearly
shows four black face Fender amp heads on the drum stage on Jimi's side. There
is a MESS of cords hooked up to the inputs.
Another photo from 10/68 at TTG Studios shows Jimi playing into a Marshall. It
is noted that his recording sessions were SO LOUD that they interrupted sessions
in the upstairs studio. This is about the time of the release of Electric
Ladyland.
A photo at the "Hit Factory" clearly shows a Marshall in 8/69.
Believe it or not, I have e-mails in to Eddie Kramer and two other early
engineers. I'll update the NG if I get any responses.
NV5E
Carson Show. On the Carson show his amp died during the intro to I think
Purple Haze, They cut to a commercial, when the show returned Hendrix
started the song from the beginning, he was plugged into the second channel
of Noel Reddings head also a Fender, maybe a Showman, I can't remember I was
about 15.
W.
Brendan <nor...@kua.net> wrote in message
news:3b72c...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Jim Anable
> Jim Marshall himself has stated many times that hes never had sponsorship
> deals with artists, except for Slash I imagine, and with Hendrix in
> particular, he states that Hendrix was upfront that he would be paying for
> his own equipment.
It has been widely reported that Jimi's Marshalls were modified for higher
output.
Carlfia
"NV5E" <willshi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:tDEc7.68359$oh1.26...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> He also used Fenders live on some occasions, at Woodstock and on the
Johnny
> Carson Show. On the Carson show his amp died during the intro to I think
> Purple Haze, They cut to a commercial, when the show returned Hendrix
> started the song from the beginning, he was plugged into the second
channel
> of Noel Reddings head also a Fender, maybe a Showman, I can't remember I
was
> about 15.
Yikes!!! hold on!!
At Woodstock there are only Marshall stacks on stage. At Monterey (67) he
had a Marshall stack and a few Fender Showmans.
On the Tonight Show in '69 Hendrix played Loverman with Billy Cox on bass
and Tonight Show drummer Ed Shaunassy(sp?). Yes, the amp blew!!
On the Dick Cavett shows...on one he had a Marshall stack with the cabs side
by side, on the other Cavett show, he used an Ampeg bass amp!!
All through 67-68 there were usually other amps on stage, sometimes mixed
with Marshall, sometimes Fender and Sunn by themselves.
He also blended a Sound City stack in with his Marshall for a period in '68.
by late 68, early 69, he had the famous 3 Marshall stacks he used until his
death.
Axisalbum also featured Sound City for the cleaner parts.
The slow Voodoo Child was a Bassman...Rainy Day Dream Away pts 1 and 2 was a
small Fender.
T. A. Breaux
news:3B731C75...@qwest.net...
>
> It has been widely reported that Jimi's Marshalls were modified for higher
> output.
That would be an expected rumor, but I have trouble believing it. If he
wanted higher output, he could have just as easily used a Marshall Major
(200w), but he didn't.
Kent Pearson
On 9-Aug-2001, mws...@aol.comfy (mark ) wrote:
> Im not fond of Marshalls for studio
> work but it's a misconception that they don't play clean.
It most *certainly* is!
~kp
Kent Pearson
tones all over the place on the "Are You Experienced" LP. You'll notice,
"Axis: Bold As Love" has an *entirely* different sound throughout. Electric
Ladyland has a different sound again, and it's been written by authoritive
sources that he used both Marshalls and Twins for those sessions. That
much, we pretty much know. The first two albums are the mystery.
~kp
Kent Pearson
On 9-Aug-2001, Jim Anable <ana...@qwest.net> wrote:
> It has been widely reported that Jimi's Marshalls were modified for higher
> output.
I doubt it.
~kp
Carlfia
"Kent Pearson" <Electri...@aol.coma> wrote in message
news:S9Lc7.2638$mz2.1...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
> I could be wrong, but I've always felt very strongly that I was hearing
Vox
> tones all over the place on the "Are You Experienced" LP. You'll notice,
> "Axis: Bold As Love" has an *entirely* different sound throughout.
Electric
> Ladyland has a different sound again, and it's been written by authoritive
> sources that he used both Marshalls and Twins for those sessions. That
> much, we pretty much know. The first two albums are the mystery.
> ~kp
Marshall with KT-66
Axis has alot of Sound City on it .
Carlfia
"Kent Pearson" <Electri...@aol.coma> wrote in message
LI's Tony Frank, who worked at Marshall tweeked his amps at some point. in
'68.
Carlfia
"mark " <mws...@aol.comfy> wrote in message
news:20010810044216...@mb-fa.aol.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >It has been widely reported that Jimi's Marshalls were modified for
higher
> output.
>
>
>
From the '75 GP Hendrix issue's interview with his road manager.......
"but his amps were given still greater power through the wizardry of Long
Island electronics brain, Tony Frank,
who rewired and tuned up those 100 watt amps (which Barett believes weren't
putting out anything near that specification) so that they delivered 137
watts. Furthermore, Hendy Goldrich (Manny's) states that the Marshall
factory, after learning who Jimi was, began putting in somewhat heavier
tubes and resoldering Jimi's amps so everything wouldn't fall apart."
T. A. Breaux
news:6zOc7.1119$vp.9...@news02.optonline.net...
>
> who rewired and tuned up those 100 watt amps (which Barett believes
weren't
> putting out anything near that specification) so that they delivered 137
> watts.
A stock Marshall will do that if it is in good working order, so someone
likely assumed that a measured 137 watts meant the amp was somehow modded.
.
Furthermore, Hendy Goldrich (Manny's) states that the Marshall
> factory, after learning who Jimi was, began putting in somewhat heavier
> tubes and resoldering Jimi's amps so everything wouldn't fall apart."
Mullard EL34s are as sturdy as they get, and those amps were all sturdily
wired on tag boards, not the PCB construction that came later. There have
been several previously erroneously/exaggerated reported accounts of Jimi's
amps that have been debunked in recent times, so I would not take this too
literally. Much of them have been written by people who have never seen the
inside of an amp.
Carlfia
"T. A. Breaux" <tabr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vXQc7.11358$Ke7.5...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> "Carlfia" <car...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:6zOc7.1119$vp.9...@news02.optonline.net...
> >
> > who rewired and tuned up those 100 watt amps (which Barett believes
> weren't
> > putting out anything near that specification) so that they delivered 137
> > watts.
>
> A stock Marshall will do that if it is in good working order, so someone
> likely assumed that a measured 137 watts meant the amp was somehow modded.
> .
I have heard of this Tony Frank guy...he was at Unicord or whatever they
called themselves back then.
I read this story about him going over Hendrix's amps around '68. I also
read he worked on Jim Mcarty's (Cactus) Marshalls too.
Much of them have been written by people who have never seen the
> inside of an amp.
I agree. I read something where a look inside a documented Hendrix 100 watt
head, showed no bright cap on the input, which is probably why his amps
souned the way trhey did.
I got a Blockhead '67 Plexi clone, and after a long time, finally got a
taste of what those early Marshalls must have sounded like.
T. A. Breaux
>
> I have heard of this Tony Frank guy...he was at Unicord or whatever they
> called themselves back then.
> I read this story about him going over Hendrix's amps around '68. I also
> read he worked on Jim Mcarty's (Cactus) Marshalls too.
I'll have to check the Marshall book, but I don't see the Unicord name on
the schematics until around '69-'70, so this may or may not give an idea of
when the actual timeline would have been.
> I agree. I read something where a look inside a documented Hendrix 100
watt
> head, showed no bright cap on the input, which is probably why his amps
> souned the way trhey did.
Removing the bright cap from any 'Lead' Marshall will thicken up the sound,
but as the volume is turned up, the cap is bypassed, which renders two
otherwise identical amps as equal. As such, so long as Hendrix' amps were
turned up, the cap (if present) wouldn't have mattered. Until sometime in
'68, 'Lead' Marshalls used the shared V1 cathode, larger value coupling
caps, and different NFB circuit which gave them a noticeably thicker,
beefier sound. These were features carried over from the JTM45, and if your
'67 repro is truly correct, it should have them. Coupled with the G12H30
speakers that Hendrix favored that began popping up circa '67, this gives a
decidedly different sound than say a '69 SL with a cab loaded with 25w
Greenbacks.
andrewunix
:
:I got a Blockhead '67 Plexi clone, and after a long time, finally got a
:taste of what those early Marshalls must have sounded like.
Care to give a review?
--
agreenbu @ nyx . net andrew michael greenburg
http://www.nyx.net/~agreenbu/
remove NOSPAM from address to reply.
Carlfia
"mark " <mws...@aol.comfy> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> >From the '75 GP Hendrix issue's interview with his road manager.......
"but
> his amps were given still greater power through the wizardry of Long
Island
> electronics brain, Tony Frank, who rewired and tuned up those 100 watt
amps
> (which Barett believes weren't putting out anything near that
specification) so
> that they delivered 137 watts. Furthermore, Hendy Goldrich (Manny's)
states
> that the Marshall factory, after learning who Jimi was, began putting in
> somewhat heavier tubes and resoldering Jimi's amps so everything wouldn't
fall
> apart."
>
> Practice critical thinking.
>
Buddy...I forgot more Jimi info then you'll ever know. I'm a collector for
over 30 years. What did YOU contribute to this thread?
I rest my case.
Carlfia
"andrewunix" <agre...@NOSPAMnyx.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9n88fr....@nyx10.nyx.net...
> Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:14:06 GMT, car...@optonline.net suggested:
> :
> :I got a Blockhead '67 Plexi clone, and after a long time, finally got a
> :taste of what those early Marshalls must have sounded like.
>
> Care to give a review?
Best Marshall I ever owned.
There are details of how they are built with pics at
www.blockheadamps.com.
I can plug into the top (high treble) input without my ears getting dstroyed
from treble like the RI's.
They took the best '67 they could find, and basically cloned it. Trannys,
voltages, etc. are the same.
The sound is very harmonically rich even at low volumes.
Got Mullard in the preamp...JJ EL-34's in the power section.
It's got swirl, detail, harmonic complexity. You couldn't ask for anything
more from a "Marshall".
What it sounds like? Like every late '60's-early '70's record that was
recorded with them.
To me...it sounds like Hendrix's clean Marshall tones he had in Band of
Gypsys.....with a Strat. With humbuckers, one hears Cream-era Clapton. Any
pedal kills thru it.
From OD's, to distortions to fuzz...everything I've played thru it sounds
great.
I got a Komet as well, and the BH easily hangs with it and actually
surpasses it in a few ways.
Jim Anable
Thank you. I've got that issue, and that's where I read it. I just couldn't
remember the source.
fishhead
> <snip>
> In his
> recording career, he is reputed to have used Vox, Marshall, Fender, Sunn,
> perhaps Supro,
I have heard the Supro thing a bunch....I believe he owned Supros....is there
documentation of him using a Supro on a specific recording?
T. A. Breaux
news:3B746362...@mnsinc.com...
>
> I have heard the Supro thing a bunch....I believe he owned Supros....is
there
> documentation of him using a Supro on a specific recording?
I do not know.
Jim Anable
Kent Pearson
On 10-Aug-2001, Jim Anable <ana...@qwest.net> wrote:
> > I could be wrong, but I've always felt very strongly that I was hearing
> > Vox
> > tones all over the place on the "Are You Experienced" LP
> According to _Jimi Hendrix Sessions_, he did use a Vox in early
> recordings.
>
It makes perfect sense. Anyway, just listen to the chord work on 3rd Stone
From The Sun, and somebody tell me that's not a Vox!
~kp
Scott Colborn
Just for what it's worth, I had called Rich Koerner a while back, and a
buddy of his was over at Rich's. Rich yells out, "Grab that Strat and plug
in (to a Super Reverb) and give us a little Third Stone..." I continue
listening with the phone up to my ear as Rich's friend does that and nails
the tone. Guitar and amp EQ did it. Plus the fingers (grin...).
Walk in Beauty, Peace. Scott
Kent Pearson
I believe you - however, I think it's unlikely that Jimi used a Super Reverb
on *that* particular session. If it wasn't a Vox, it was almost certainly
another British amp (Marshall, Sound City, etc.) I don't think the Fenders
came into the recordings until later. It's also possible that the typical
practice (of that era) of heavily compressing the clean tones may have given
it that Vox-ish character. I have to confess, I'm only speculating. I'll
have to listen to it again.
~kp
~kp
Nick V. Flor
How can you tell by listening over the phone, whether an amp "nails the
tone" of any song.
- Nick
"Kent Pearson" <Electri...@aol.coma> wrote in message
news:_tad7.9134$mz2.4...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
T. A. Breaux
news:_tad7.9134$mz2.4...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
Reverb
> on *that* particular session. If it wasn't a Vox, it was almost certainly
> another British amp (Marshall, Sound City, etc.) I don't think the
Fenders
> came into the recordings until later.
And you are probably correct. People get confused because although it is
known that Hendrix played through Fenders in the U.S., they assume that he
used them in the UK in '66, and this very unlikely for no other reason that
Fender amps were virtually nonexistent. You'd also have a difficult time
getting anything but nickel flatwound strings in the UK until the mid '60s,
and many people don't realize that many of those early recordings (Beatles,
Yardbirds, The Who, etc.) were made with those as well. In '66, where amps
of 30w or more are concerned, Vox and Marshall were everywhere and in every
studio, and you can all but rest assured that Hendrix used whatever was
laying around. Hendrix didn't come to the UK with amps in freight ($), and
he probably didn't own much more than a guitar and clothes at the time.
And with all due respect, one just cannot come to any conclusions by
listening to an amp over the phone and saying that it 'nails the tone', only
because what too many claim as 'nailing the tone' is frequently anything but
the case.
Miles O'Neal
> Okay you can read and quote a magazine. Now look closely at the statement.
> Practice critical thinking.
Maybe you should do that with your own post.
Whatever point you were trying to make was
not at all clear.
-Miles
Stefan Markowitz
Kent Pearson schrieb in Nachricht
<_tad7.9134$mz2.4...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>...
>
>If it wasn't a Vox, it was almost certainly
>another British amp (Marshall, Sound City, etc.)
Maybe a Hiwatt? ;-)
Stefan
Scott Colborn
Nah, I wasn't suggesting that Hendrix used a Super for that recording -
I was trying (and failing) to make the point that with a good tube amp and
guitar and amp EQ, a player can get pretty damn close to the tone and sound
of the source recording. Rich's friend had that vibe going pretty well for
the 90 seconds I was listening - he was worried that Rich's wife would
object to the "volume" of the cranked Super (grin...) - she didn't. And
this guy just picked up the guitar, plugged in and played. I'm sure with
some effort he could probably get even closer to the source recording -
vibe, tone and all. I've mentioned before that nobody knows a Strat like
Rich Koerner, and Rich's friend had obviously been listening to Rich
(grin....). He sounded pretty good for just messing around.
My point has been and continues to be that a good player doesn't need
umpty ump amps to cop all the variances of amps out there, and he doesn't
need a muddling amp to "emulate" the tube amps, he just needs a good tube
amp, a good guitar, an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
each, and the ability to use his ear and the EQ. And some woodshedding and
practice and grace to hit the right notes (grin...). Close enough for rock
`n roll, that is.
Hey Kent, I want to hear more about those beach babes that you are being
forced to watch as you play the sand arena's. Man, that's too bad about
that - I imagine that it might even take a guy's mind off playing for a
little bit. But the good thing is that with repeated exposure to
good-looking women while playing, one learns to just play through the pain
(grin....). What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right ?
What a life...! Enjoy your Sunday and I hope you and Koerner can jam
sometime - I'm a ways away but will be there in spirit at least. Take care.
Scott Colborn
Yep, you're right. If a guy didn't know what a Super Reverb was capable
of and hadn't lived with one for awhile, you are totally correct that it
would be damn hard for a person to hear perfectly over a phone and judge
guitar tone. But I have the advantage of having owned a Super Reverb and
know it's capabilities (not as much as Rich K, but I know my way around that
combo) - so the phone tone (grin...) was just confirming what I pretty much
knew from my own experience. Plus Rich Koerner pretty much knows the Fender
Strat and he's been very up-front and straight with me and shared a bunch of
stuff about the guitar, pedal chain and amp info of Hendrix and some info
about Strat EQ and pickup selections to "get" some of the tone and sound of
Hendrix (if a guys wants to).
I will say that I'm probably not as compulsive about copying someone's
tone as an "exact" science, as some might be (good for them). If my use of
the phrase "nails the tone" was interpreted as "exact," it wasn't meant by
me to be so. Rich's friend sounded to me like he knew how to get that tone
and sound of "Third Stone...." and was impressive with a Fender Super
Reverb, Strat and just picking the guitar up and playing dead cold - what I
heard was pretty damn close. But I can get pretty damn close if I want to,
and my ears are pretty good after almost 38 years of playing now. Frankly,
I don't think getting that "Third Stone..." sound is all that difficult with
potentially using a lot of different tube amps and Strats. It's guitar and
amp EQ, volume and fingers. That's why your fav guitar player will have
his/her signature sound through a lot of different amps,and with a variety
of guitars. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your instrument, amp,
and stage can help a guy get a lot of stuff done.
Enjoy your music Nick and have some fun.
T. A. Breaux
news:3b75b4eb$0$240$73be...@personalnews.de.uu.net...
>
> Maybe a Hiwatt? ;-)
I don't think Hiwatt had evolved from Sound City as of '66.
Kent Pearson
On 11-Aug-2001, "Stefan Markowitz" <S.Mar...@dontspam.gmx.de> wrote:
> >If it wasn't a Vox, it was almost certainly
> >another British amp (Marshall, Sound City, etc.)
>
> Maybe a Hiwatt? ;-)
I'll tell you what . . . I was listening to "May This Be Love" last night
in the car on the way to a gig. You know the one, "Waterfall . . . nothing
can harm me at all . . ." There simply is *no way* in hell that that guitar
sound is a Fender or a Marshall. It's impossible. A Vox is the only amp of
that vintage that I've *ever* heard which has that characteristic sparkle
and 3-D sound. Anything else sounds like flat, like a cardboard box by
comparison. Until someone can prove otherwise, that's my guess, and I'm
stickin' to it! I could be wrong, but one thing I do know is, if I were to
try to recreate that sound authentically, a JMI Vox would be my first
choice.
~kp
Kent Pearson
On 11-Aug-2001, "Scott Colborn" <kcol...@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> Hey Kent, I want to hear more about those beach babes that you are
> being
> forced to watch as you play the sand arena's.
All I can say is, I've never seen a more concentrated collection of feminine
beauty gathered together in one place at any given time. In BEACH attire
now, mind you.
> Man, that's too bad about
> that - I imagine that it might even take a guy's mind off playing for a
> little bit.
You bet it does. Fortunately, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm sure it all translates into some musical dialogue that comes out at the
moment.
>But the good thing is that with repeated exposure to
> good-looking women while playing, one learns to just play through the pain
> (grin....). What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, right ?
There's exposer and there's exposure. Lookin' at beautiful women never
killed anybody, weak as the heart may seem at times. Unfortunately, these
ain't the good ol' days anymore. Used to be, pullin' chicks from a gig and
getting laid was routine. You can't trust anyone to be safe anymore. Glad
I had my fun before AIDS reared it's ugly head.
~kp
~kp
Carlfia
"Kent Pearson" <Electri...@aol.coma> wrote in message
KT-66 loaded Marshall. That stuff was recorded in England and Fenders were
hard to find there at that time.
My Blockhead 100 watt '67 Plexi clone cops that no problem.
Miles O'Neal
> I'll tell you what . . . I was listening to "May This Be Love" last night
> in the car on the way to a gig. You know the one, "Waterfall . . . nothing
> can harm me at all . . ." There simply is *no way* in hell that that guitar
> sound is a Fender or a Marshall. It's impossible. A Vox is the only amp of
> that vintage that I've *ever* heard which has that characteristic sparkle
> and 3-D sound. Anything else sounds like flat, like a cardboard box by
> comparison. Until someone can prove otherwise, that's my guess, and I'm
> stickin' to it! I could be wrong, but one thing I do know is, if I were to
> try to recreate that sound authentically, a JMI Vox would be my first
> choice.
I dunno, Kent. Eric Johnson does an amazing
copy of this using either his BFDR or a JMT
(I didn't notice which one he was using at the
time, but I'm guessing the BFDR).
Kent Pearson
On 12-Aug-2001, "Carlfia" <car...@optonline.net> wrote:
> KT-66 loaded Marshall. That stuff was recorded in England and Fenders were
> hard to find there at that time.
> My Blockhead 100 watt '67 Plexi clone cops that no problem.
hmmm..... interesting.
~kp