'That Sound'. When did it end?

[dave robinson]

Well in my humble opinion "That Sound" is still there whenever Hank wants it as the man himself has grown older over the years just like the rest of us
he has experimented with different equipment, but "Life Story" Apache is just like the original in 1960, I am talking about the guitar sound and not the
recording quality as back in the 60s most of the recording were done on Ferrograph Tape machines.
Also Hanks style of playing has "Matured" I think to try and lay the answer on a valve (EF86) is pretty presumtious.
I would think that at any given time Hank could plug in and play "That Sound" I may be wrong, but I would like to bet he can reproduce any sound he wants
Got to say I was not too impressed with his current sound on the 50th Anniversary show at Sheffield Arena.

It's not presumptuous it's fact, because the evidence is there when you listen to it on those early records, which when compared with the sound I get from the said amplifier is identical, no matter which echo box is used. When the new Vox amps were introduced the sound became 'sweeter', which is the sound of a bog standard Vox AC30 that we hear from similar models today.
One of the reasons you may not have been impressed with Hank's sound at Sheffield (or any of the concerts) ws that he used the later ECC83 type AC30 (albeit a JMI) and not the EF86. I actually thought he sounded good for the kit he was playing through.
I would also agree that the Meazzi through a normal ECC83 type Vox, could colour the sound in the right way tonewise, which would explain the fabulous 'Kingston' sound.

[MeBHank]

Hank continued to use a Meazzi well after WL, so do we discount the Meazzi?

Alan, you're very diplomatic. You just love playing Devil's Advocate, dontcha?

I'm going to backtrack slightly from my previous statement and say that I agree with Bojan. As Hank slowly replaced components of his sound (starting with the 15 or 30/4 amps, then the Meazzi, then the Strat) it changed from the familiar strains we know and love. Bojan is right: get rid of any one component and the sound is not what it once was. As a Meazzi user myself, I do agree with Phil's statement on his YouTube Wonderful Land video, though (it's a matter we discussed recently): The order of importance in tone shaping is: Hank's playing > Meazzi > AC15 or 30/4 > Strat.

J

[Didier]

but "Life Story" Apache is just like the original in 1960,

The "Apache" version from the "Life Story" album was recorded for the "At their Very Best" CD in 1989. At this time Hank was using a Roland 301 echo box. It doesn't sound the same as the 1960 original version .

Didier

[JimN]

I think that explanations regarding the loss of The Shadows' original sound are on the wrong track if they are based only on issues surrounding the equipment (especially the amplifiers).

For what it's worth, it strikes me that the softening of the group's sound (from roughly late 1961 / early 1962 was the result of a more-or-less deliberate policy and was not arrived at by accident. The fact is that by that time, the members had developed as musicians and were simply playing better than they had in 1958/59, as well as possessing much improved skill in musical theory. As an example of that latter phenomenon, just listen to Tony's uncanny ability as an arranger (evidenced by his 1962 Decca arrangements for Louise Cordet, for Jet and for the Jet/Tony duo). Brian Bennett too was studying by correspondence course, and Bruce was improving his knowledge of chords by leaps and bounds - witness the comparison between his playing on Wonderful Land (summer 1961) and Sweet Dreams (summer 1962). Bruce has said that the chords on WL were the most complicated he'd encountered at the time, but those for Sweet Dreams are far more complex and exacting, while Hank's lead parts on that track and on things like the "Los Shadows" EP of the following year were similarly more demanding.

The changed sound, then, was partly due to changes in the equipment (there can be little doubt of that, but it would be easy to overstate it), partly due to changes in personnel (particularly the loss of Jet's involvement, I have long felt) and partly due to a change in musical direction, with a drift towards the easy-listening side of things which would eventually have them opening shows with Chattanooga Choo-Choo, Brazil or In The Mood.

Even if they'd kept all the amps they were using in spring 1960, they'd have been sounding different by mid-1962.

To put it more simply, they were growing up and maturing.

My quid's worth.

JN

[ernie1958]

So, if the Meazzi was such a major part of THAT SOUND (the one I described in my earlier post), why is it that we can clearly hear it on 'Move It' when there wasn't a Meazzi in sight - but the amp was there. In my opinion we are crediting the Meazzi for more than it contributed. Also, many of the early Cliff & The Drifters/Shadows recordings clearly have THAT SOUND, before the Meazzi was introduced.

In that case, Dave, it's down to our individual perceptions. The aspect of the sound you evidently like is that caused by the the EF86 valve. I personally wouldn't identify Ernie's guitar on Move It as having "That Sound". It's an exciting sound, it's sharp and swamped in reverb, but it lacks the majesty of Hank's bouncy but smooth, melodic playing. The 1961(ish) period was simply incredible soundwise, IMO.

For me, the Meazzi needs to be present for the guitar to have the awesome charisma that we love, and that's what I define as "That Sound".

J

Hi Justin,

I guess to add it all up what your view is on "that sound" ,the following vid gives us a good idea of what you mean ,hopefully..




Cheers,
Ernie

[dave robinson]

So are you dismissing Hank recordings as NOT that sound on the rcordings before the Meazzi arrived?

[MeBHank]

Phil and I have talked for hours, probably weeks (if you add up all the hours!) on getting as close as possible to the sound. We do agree on many things, we've shared countless facts and theories. Plus I've had much experience in using two of the best echo machines I've ever had the fortune to hear (and yes, I own one of them). So yes, I do agree with Phil.

J

[MeBHank]

So are you dismissing Hank recordings as NOT that sound on the rcordings before the Meazzi arrived?

Yes.

[dave robinson]

OK . . . . . . . No further questions, your witness.

[MeBHank]

OK . . . . . . . No further questions, your witness.