Song examples for amphs

[Eric]

We've had threads on here before that give examples of how different guitar effects sound in songs, and I'd like to do the same for amphs. Like specific songs that really demonstrate that quintessential tone of a given amp type (blackface, tweed, AC30, plexi, dual recto, Orange, etc.). Not even necessarily the best songs, just ones that you can point to and say "That's it -- that's what a ____ sounds like."

This is partially for me, but also partially so that I can tell other people about these amps more effectively. There are only so many times you can use the same adjectives before they become meaningless, and songs and tones a frequently a much more effective way to show someone the differences in tones from an amph.

I know there are TONS of examples, so give me your recommendations!

[Ch0jin]

Even though the guitar wasn't a Gibson and the amp wasn't stock Marshall, I'd still feel pretty comfortable describing "Appetite for Destruction" as a great example of Gibson Les Paul and Marshall rock sound.

[bcdon]

Since I'm a Mesa Boogie fan how about: Metallica and Lamb of God. :dude

[Eric]

Youtube links for any particular song?

[Bookkeeper's Son]

I wonder whether your question can actually be answered in any "accurate" way. Aside from live shows, how often is there an accurate record of what amp was used for a given recording, not to mention what guitar, effects, post-production tweaks, etc.. Too many variables, I would think. I'm aware that many people are so familiar with various equipment that they have a good ear for different amps, but I'm also aware of sonic and design similarities among different brands of amps, especially those that utilize the same type of tubes. So much to consider........

Just my thoughts.

[Eric]

Well, how about this?

VMxyK9azXR4

Isn't this a pretty typical AC30 tone on the little repeating riff?

[Bookkeeper's Son]

Actually, it's more indicative of a Rickenbacker 12-string.

[deeaa]

Since I'm a Mesa Boogie fan how about: Metallica and Lamb of God. :dude

Nirvana's Nevermind was cut entirely on a vintage Les Paul and a Mesa/Boogie, both property of the producer of the album. Despite Cobain used Fenders and PA amps with distortion pedals by his own words, it was largely just for 'punk' image purpose, it was always Mesa at least on albums.

[deeaa]

There's but a few sounds I'm quite sure how are they gotten. Most any older Iron Maiden or old Judas Priest tune is stock Marshall JCM800 all the way, despite since the Somewhere in time they used JMP-1 and ADA rack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsmcDLDw9iw&ob=av3n. Currently I believe they use Marshall DSL amps pretty much live. Just get a DiMarzio Distortion on a strat and turn up an 800 series or DSL and that's it.

Old 800's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMg2cd5iiKg

Just the same on album, just some flanger and verb added. Newer DSL and/or JMP sounds are a bit more controlled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfrENoTJdo4


Queen's May has always used VOX w/top boost; his sound is a good example of a sound that is mostly built in studio, his actual sound has very little drive and most of the drive comes only after compression from the mixing board.


But, I think by and large most of the band's studio sounds are the result of the mixing and FX and EQ...I'd venture few engineers have just simply recorded an amp as it sounds in reality. Grunge bands likely are pretty close to that, though, as well as rootsy bluesy stuff, maybe.

Combine that with the fact that with certain 'iconic' amps it's nigh impossible to get the same iconic tone it's famous for with anything other than just the right guitar for it. Just as with the Beatles - nevermind using an AC30 with a modern Jackson and expect it to sound the same, those era guitars were something else entirely both electronically and in all other respects as well.

[sunvalleylaw]

SRV, "Lenny" is a pretty classic example of a Fender Twin sound (with a fender guitar):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YIHvK5WN7I

Though he also used Vibroverbs I believe. Good, classic, cleanish fender sound though.

[guitartango]

Just add a clean Hi-watt + fender strat + pedals to get that Gilmour tone.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSFz_YycYA

[NWBasser]

At first this seemed like a perfect and logical question. Then I started thinking about it and couldn't really come up with any really definitive answers.

I mean, the amp should have a significant effect on the guitar tone that should be readily identifiable, but after all the studio manipulations that typically happen the answers become more than a bit muddy.

I can only offer broad generalities such as classic rock = Marshall, heavy metal = Mesa, country = Fender twin and so on.

[deeaa]

Exactly NWBasser. I think the amp is absolutely the key for guitar sounds, but indeed, it rarely passes the mixing phase intact.

I first realized how great the difference really is, when I saw a Queen documentary way back in the 90's...it had this scene where May was playing full chord riffage in a studio for some song I forget, on his Vox amp...and the camera was right there. It sounded VERY clean, pretty much like my Ceriatone did on clean channel, just a little driven and nicely crunchy, but NO distortion at all, just very acoustically rich, all-strings sounding type of crunchy cleanish Vox sound.

And then the cameraman backed out, and WITHOUT breaking the shot, panned to the corridor and into the mixing room where the SAME sound was audible thru the studio speakers, having been EQ'd and compressed likely with tube compressors etc...and it was NOTHING like the almost-clean sound he actually played, instead it was very driven, very thick, classic Queen rhythm, actually quite heavy metal type sound.

Even today, when I make a good sound in Amplitube (or even my JVM or any amph) I basically dial in a pretty clean sound with not much gain at all, and then I get the gain from adding a 'tube compressor' or two in Amplitube or a comp in the loop of the amp...and instead of adding gain to get the punch, I like to start with a really punchy active pickup too, which gives no distortion but a very clear, punchy sound to start with.

That's what I always tell to not-so studio experienced guitarists I record; I tell them to turn down the gain as far as they can without losing their comfort zone for playing the parts (you know how drive is often instrumental in being able to play well) and then I turn the gain down a bit more still...and without exception, they always like what they hear after it's on 'tape', however much they complain in the recording phase. So yeah, that's my tip #1 for people who go to record guitars for the first times...try and record it with half the gain you thought you would, and see if won't sound better when all is mixed in.

[Retro Hound]

Does that explain why I like "live" so much more? For example, in Rattle and Hum the movie, they are in Sun studios recording Angel of Harlem and I always thought it sounded so much better than the album, but I couldn't figure out why. My guess was that something happened in the mixing that "messed it up." Of course they thought they were making it better but they weren't.

[deeaa]

yes

[Eric]

yes
But I thought your point was that it's hard to get the amp sounds recorded without a lot of trickeration, so that kind of goes against that thinking, doesn't it?

[deeaa]

It does; I always strive to make my sound such that it can be listened to straight in front of the 4x12" and not hurt the ears. And I always also consider the miking side of things, when I find it hard to record, I try to address the problem right at the amp. But that's me, doing my own sounds. I come from a recording background after all.

Most players don't do that, in my view. They just go for a great sound with the band, or whatever the use happens to be. And then again, most producers and mixers are keen to put their hand on the band's sound and tweak it to their liking - and usually bettering the result too.

Sometimes it's not just a case of tweaking the sound after the fact; for instance for that unique sound on Dire Straits' Money For Nothing came from the producer tipping a 4x12" Marshall cab over, suspended a feet over the floor and miked between the floor and the cab, right where the sound echoing back from the hard floor collided back with the cab sound, and thus the peculiar sound.

Sometimes the producer makes the band completely different - best example I think is The Cult who cut their 3rd album first with their-then hippie flare and 16th beat drums and a hollowbody Guild guitar on rather clean Fenders - but even before they got to the mixing stage, the producer (Rick Rubin) told the drummer to just play straight rock beat, pushed a Les Paul and a Marshall towards Duffy and told them to rock it...and the album became 'Electric' forever changing the band style and image.

Same with Nirvana - they came to the studio wielding a Jaguar and a Boss distortion going D/I and the producer (Butch Vig) gave 'em a Mesa and his vintage LP to play...

But in most cases they like to meddle and tweak the sounds to their liking with studio trickery.
Loads of bands went into the studio with 'their' sounds and came out having to get new gear and gadgets to be able to replicate what was done in the studio. I would venture it's way more common for studios to create or define a player's sound than vice versa.

And this goes all the way to The Beatles and how they heard how the mixer accidentally overdrove a mixer channel, making it distort - and they wanted that sound, and later had to figure out how to get it when playing live too.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

Cooking, which I do a lot, has loads of variables, as do electric guitars and amps. I've noticed an interesting phenomenon regarding recipes - give the same recipe to 10 different cooks, and you'll get 10 noticeably different results. I think it's much the same, whether it be a little more treble or a little more salt.

When I started playing in the 60s, there was WAY less pro-grade equipment to choose from - Fender and Ampeg amps, Fender, Gretsch and Gibson guitars, a couple of effects, fuzz and wah. Recording was a pretty straightfoward affair in most cases. Basically, that was it. Eric, I think your question might have been answerable then, but not now.

[deeaa]

You're absolutely right Bookkeeper's Son, but there's a catch to doing the same in modern times - despite they didn't have all kinds of stuff to try back then, and it surely WAS much more straightforward, then again the gear was infinitely more f-upable...tube mixers, much less sensitive/softer mics, different impedances etc....if you try to replicate a sound played with some old amph and a Tele for instance in the 60's in some mid-level studio, it just doesn't happen in a normal modern digital context, and instead IF you want that same sound, you have to incorporate FX to mimic them tube mixers, tape saturation, limited dynamics and impedances...even if you take exactly the same gear and mic too, and still stick it into a modern mixer, the sound just won't be the same without tweaks.

I actually made a couple of shunted XLR lines to soften the modern Shure 57 sound closer to what they used to be 30 years ago...works well for guitar.

[Tig]

This was just published, and may fit your question perfectly...
10 Classic Guitar Amps & The Songs That Made Them Famous

http://www.myrareguitars.com/10-classic-guitar-amps

[Eric]

This was just published, and may fit your question perfectly...
10 Classic Guitar Amps & The Songs That Made Them Famous

http://www.myrareguitars.com/10-classic-guitar-amps
That's pretty cool. Thanks for the link.

[NWBasser]

Come to think of it, I do have a good example of amp tone!

Play nearly any old Motown tune and you're hearing James Jamerson through an Ampeg B-15 Portaflex.

(He used a Kustom with a 2x15 cab live though)