The ShadowMusic Web Community

cockroach wrote:I presume also that you've got about 13-56 strings on the J-200? I think the very heavy gauges are needed to get the top moving and really get all that air moving and pumping out from the very large body...

These days, most acoustic players seem to have settled on the gauge 12-52 (or 12-54) for flat-top guitars, but back in 1960, it would have been hard to find strings as light as that in London. Most sets would have been more like 13-56. Today, I prefer 13-56 on the J50 (24.75" scale), but use 12-54 on the J200 because of the increased tension on the longer scale.

Incidentally, I've just bought a Martin D12X1AE 12 string jumbo (my only classic-shape dreadnought guitar):

http://www.guitarvillage.co.uk/productdetail.aspx?pid=10325

Because of the longer scale-length (25.4"), coupled with the potential strain of twelve strings, I'm using a set of 11-52 Rotosound Jumbo Kings with the second set custom-gauged accordingly: 11 / 15 / 008 / 12 / 16 / 28w.

Very cheap here at £609, but the price is brought about by the use of novel materials, including a multi-ply neck and laminate sides and back. The solid spruce top, though, makes this instrument sound magnificent. The fitted Fishman system has both tone and volume controls and is not at all physically obtrusive despite its very transparent sound over a PA.

I've already used the Martin at a couple of local jams for Walk Right In (what else?), but look out, local Shadows clubs... My Grandfather's Clock is on its way!

JN

Abbey Road must have used condenser microphones and may have miked the J200 using the methods common then (the BBC method?), perhaps using two microphones. I'm away now and not sure if this is in Roberto's book or the book on recording the Beatles. They also used analog recording and there always is a fullness associated with that. All this is just comment, as I'm no expert. I did try on several occasions to get Bruce's sound when we played on stage and at one point considered miking the J200, which of course proved almost impossible, what with feedback and restricted movement.

Bruce's J200 was the mahogany one, I think, which would be less bright than the current spruce/maple J200s.

I haven't been happy with the amplified sound of the J200, but then I am using the under-bridge pickup Gibson supplied it with. The Fender Acoustasonic sounds brittle to my ears, the PA system with a direct box sounding more natural. We have a small AER too, which is quite close to the "unplugged" sound. Bruce's sound may be more difficult to achieve than Hank's, and many seem to have given up trying to achieve it. Witness the few occasions when an acoustic is actually used these days. Even Bruce uses a Stratocaster!

abstamaria wrote:Bruce's sound may be more difficult to achieve than Hank's, and many seem to have given up trying to achieve it. Witness the few occasions when an acoustic is actually used these days. Even Bruce uses a Stratocaster!

Bruce used an acoustic (mainly a Martin D28 dreadnought replica built by Mick Johnson) for quite a lot of songs on their "farewell" tours a few years ago. Who could forget the third-fret-capoed version of 36-24-36?

abstamaria wrote:Bruce's J200 was the mahogany one, I think, which would be less bright than the current spruce/maple J200s.

Bruce's J200 was Cliff's, of course. The design has changed a little over the years - there was a mid-sixties period when several of Gibson's Jnn(n) jumbos were fitted with an adjustable bridge, for instance, as well as changes in the style of the moustache bridge. But the changes were small and a period-correct version is now available, featuring Kluson-style tuners, etc. But I'm not aware of any major changes in materials. As far as I know, the neck was always maple/rosewood, never mahogany. And the sides of the guitar were always maple, with a spruce top. Do you have information about the use of mahogany (presumably for the neck), Andy?

JN

Jim, so sorry. I meant rosewood, which the original used for the back and sides. I read now that Gibson switched to maple in 1947, so Cliff's J200, if new then,would already have had maple back and sides, just like the current model. It's the finish (sunburst?) on Cliff's guitar that was throwing me off. Lovely guitar, the J200.

Best,

Andy

To my ears, sounds like Bruce used flatwound strings on his acoustic guitar, probably miked using Neumann U47 fed into an Altec Compressor.

That's my guess

Regards,
Robby

Do you hear flatwounds on all of the early pieces Bruce used an acoustic on, Robby? Andy

Hi Andy,

Yes all of the early numbers where Bruce used his acoustics. Some are brighter than the others but most if not all have that mellow and full strumming sound, almost like nylon strings. Listen to the rhythm part of "Lonesome Fella", "Blue Star", "Peace Pipe" for example. Also, notes on the intros of Blue Star and Peace Pipe don't sustain that long. I also find that on "Some are Lonely", well as I said almost everything.

That's my personal opinion anyway.

Regards,

Robby

P.S: or it could be just old strings but I doubt it

Robby,

That is very intriguing, and I will listen more carefully. I did some Googling, couldn't find much information, but was surprised that a number of players do use flatwounds on J200s. That was a surprise to me. I read also that the consensus is that the Beatles in the early days used Pyramid flatwounds on their acoustics. That seems relevant as they were roughly in the era of the Shadows, and it may have been the fashion then to use flatwounds. So as not to hijack this thread, I will open a new thread on the point. Many thanks.

Andy

I've always felt Bruce's original rhythm playing was a major component in giving Apache that unique Shads sound and recordings done with a strat on rhythm just don't sound right to me, even when they do it. I heard a recording a while back where they'd removed Bruce's playing from Apache and it did sound weird - it also highlighted some interesting minor playing 'errors' by Hank and Jet but that's another subject entirely . . .

I've experimented with acoustic guitars fitted with pickups but for me the pickups never quite manage to reproduce the unplugged natural tones like the (presumably) miked original did. I can get a reasonable rendition of Bruce's sound when strumming unplugged but trying to create a recorded duplication of that exact sound is rather tricky. A friend has a very nice Fender acoustic that's not in the same price bracket as those discussed but certainly creates an acceptable jumbo guitar's strummed sound - switch on its pickup and it just doesn't come close, even with all its built-in EQ controls.

I've often heard folk querying alleged subtle chorus effects on early rhythm recordings and wonder if folk occasionally misinterpret the effect they're hearing on the minus Hank BTs we occasionally use. The process of removing the lead guitar tends to modulate the odd frequencies randomly from the remainder, so the rhythm guitar takes on a slightly chorused or swirling effect - this same effect is often heard when the drummer strikes a cymbal - it doesn't sizzle evenly but swirls - a bit like a slow rotary speaker effect.

Not sure if any of this is helpful or worth the read but regarding the original thread title, I'd certainly agree with Dave on his statement.

Regards,
Martyn

I think a lot has to be down to mic pre amps and mic placement plus limiting and/or compression to make the sound bigger and fuller. I think it is fair to say that the effects in use in those days were very few and perhaps things like chorus had yet to be found even though Bruce is known to use it live. So maybe it's all in the use of the mics and the pre amp etc. I did some lead guitar recording recently and noted how limiting and compression in subtle amount does fatten the sound so I am inclined to think the answer lies there somewhere. As to mic placement this was very important to increase either treble / mid/ bass responses and plenty of advice on internet on how to go about this. Then there is the EQ on the desk. Once again it's all in the ears !