The great thing about tube amps that are turned up to ten is that the power tubes are maginfiying whatever sound they're being fed -whether it's a full cord or just hitting one string, to the max wattage they're putting out versus how many speakers it has the distribute that power to equally. Take the '69 tour, where Keith really found his sound. Those Ampeg f*****rs were huge, probably 100 watts a piece. And Keith had two, running full blast. But Keith's genius was understanding how those amps work. Keith was/is an expert at getting a good kickass sound out of the guitar and amp to start the song with, BUT neither the volume knob on the guitar is wide-open and neither is the tone control, he always has more volume or treble for later on in the song if he needs it. He constantly messes with his guitar volume and tone knobs always. And he often plays very lightly on the strings with the amp ungodly loud, which causes the sound to clean up and get jangly. Also, if you listen to something like "Bye Bye Johnny", he really makes the amp work for him and he understands how to do it, he plays the rhythym part just on the bottom two strings, and not as hard as you might think, and then when it comes to bit where he switches to a quick Chuck Berry string-bending up to two strings fill, it LEAPS out, like somebody boosted it in mixing or like Keith stepped on a pedal for a second, but what's happening is that Keith is keeping his rhtyhm playing to only two bottom strings, not bashing them too hard, and then when he moves to the fill licks on the thin strings, he hits ONLY THOSE strings and he hits them much harder. The tubes take that signal, and since it's the only single they've got, they give it their full power to maginfy and the lead just jumps out at you.

No, no pedals for Keith since that Gibson stomp box for "Satisfaction" and he never stuck with that long.

And no volume pedal in Europe '76! when he supposedly nodded out during "Fool to Cry" and stepped all the way forward on his volume pedal and cause a feedback squall that woke him up. Nick Kent-written bullshit. Keith's never used a volum e pedal. The only effect he's ever used is phaser live and slapback in the studio, maybe some live, but that all comes from behind the amp and the tech switches them on and off as needed. No pedals for Keith. He's proof you do do without them and cut through everything if you've got the right tube amp and know how to use it.

Merry Christmas!

Tommy

interesting insights, thanks! yeah Keith knows where to put it, all right. :E

he has also used a wah-wah pedal, though, and when he relates the Fool to Cry nap story,
that's what he says woke him up. but go on (and on) about the amps, and have some popcorn.

ps: wouldn't one include the Leslie cabinet in the "effects" category?
and: to me the use of a behind-the-amps technician rather than a pedal doesn't mean it "doesn't count",
but have some popcorn and go on go on anyway. :E



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-24 14:42 by with sssoul.

Pretty much the story.
Though lots of good guitarists use just the same technique.
Essentially it's a case of winding up a good touch responsive tube amp ... and controlling the volume,break up and dynamics from the guitar. Quite agree ;^).

He also used solid state amps in 1967-69 with built in effects.

yeah sssoul he also used a wah wah..the typical keith late seventies "liquid" sound like fool to cry in europe 76 is made by a mxr phase 100 + wah wah pedal.

His Majesty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He also used solid state amps in 1967-69 with
> built in effects.


Yeah, ah the naive days when transistors were new. Yeah, the last Beatles world trip, the '66 one, they used Vox's new solid-state amps too. At the time everybody was thinking "this is where it's headed! Transistors, yeah!" They were lighter, much less maintenance. Trouble is they didn't process sound in an organic way that vaccuum tubes do. It took a couple years but everybody got hip to the fact that solid state amps just didn't do all the things tube amps do like I described above: they don't boost the high notes if you hit only that string, they don't clean up if you strum lighter, they didn't naturally and warmly compress your sound and make that wonderful illusion only tube amps can do, namely how a tube amp turned way up can make you sound more in tune than you actually might be, solid states don't do that - it's like the difference between analog and digital. So it wasn't long before everybody moved back to tubes, and Marshall and Hiwatt took off because CBS bought Fender, changed how they were made and the result was Fender didn't make a decent amp again until the '90s.

I had a great gig tonight with a Tele through a 15-watt Fender Pro Junior. Turn it up and roars but still doesn't kill people, the soundman can still work with it and it comes out of the pA sounding huge. Amazing illusion that! It's not the size of the amp, it's how hard to tubes are pumping. The Pro Junior is the closest you can come now to the original '53 deluxe that Neil Young has long used as the starting point for his rock guitar sound, granted how he runs out of the guts of that old deluxe into massive power amps and into it's own whole PA system facing the band from the sides. Talk about loud and powerful! And all coming from an amp about a foot tall, foor across and eight inches deep.

By the way, I'm not Keith. I cheat. I have a nice old Ibanez tube screamer that's not too armageddon-sounding, just makes everything sound a little more turned-up without sounding metal. Stevie Ray used one for just that purpose too. I like to start the song without it, and not use it until it's a last resort, if the band just gets jammin' louder and louder and you've opened all your knobs wide open, then you just step into the tube screamer and you're back in to mix with everybody. I used to like Rats but I think the screamer's a little less harsh sounding, whereas the tube screamer, like the name would imply, sounds more tube-ish sound, although I don't think there's an actual tube in my pedal. Never found it if there is.

I'm ashamed, but I use a Boss digital delay pedal. It's only because you can get it to make any delay you want (even though I just keep it set for Sun Records slapback and pretty much leave it there.) What I wouldn't give for an old analog, especially a tape-echo, like the ancient Echoplez units that Jimmy Page and Brian May use. THERE's the real rockabilly sound! But those things cost and arm and a leg, need separate AC power and break down all the time. The Boss is a pedal and fits in my case and it sounds alright, for a digital pedal. You use what you got.

I have an MXR Phase 90, and it gets not only the Shattered sound (which is quite fun) but also "Are You Sure Hank Done It This a'way?"sound. They're fun, but you can't use them song after song or it gets a bit much, in my opinion. Pedals are fun but I'm afraid musicians look to them too much as the SOURCE of their sound when they're really just spices. The main dish is the right guitar through the right amp.

When did Keith ever use a wah-wah pedal? What song on what tour?

I've got one but it's dirty and noisy right now, and besides, it's hard to play well and only use in it's proper place. Wah-wah gets a bad rap, like it's easy as pie to just stomp on and off of it and get a cool whicky-whicky-whicky thing going. What's hard is to make it help the guitar cry like Mick Taylor and Eric Clapton could do. Wah-wah's like reggae or slap bass: if you can't do it very well, best not to do it at all.

It's 6:38 AM and my wife's just caught me being awake at my laptop having not slept all night, just surfing and typing since my gig, so she probably thinks I'm gacked up. I'll be getting that look all day today. Oh well, as I tell her, you married a musician, honey! What did you THINK it was going to be like?

More gear nerd talk later!

Keith rules!

Tommy

I think they used the solid state amps for there strengths on their own terms, not trying to emulate valve amps in the slightest.

As a counter argument, valve amps cant sound like Vox Supremes!!! Beggars Bangeuqt as we know it would have sounded very different without them.

The Beatles used em on lots of tracks also, they didn't use the JMI amps for touring though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-24 14:52 by His Majesty.

>> When did Keith ever use a wah-wah pedal? What song on what tour? <<

well, Fool to Cry in 76, for starters; and Fingerprint File in 75 as well, no?
and in the studio:

"On a slower side, I like to use a little bit of phase or put it through a Leslie (speaker)
to make the rhythm guitar more interesting. Coming Down Again was a mixture of a Leslie and wah-wah."
- Keith Richards, 1977 (from [www.timeisonourside.com])

there are a few more quotes over there somewhere where he talks about using a wah-wah,
but naturally i can't find 'em at the moment.

anyone feel like giving more details about this "hi-fly guitar synthesizer" he's talkin about on Time Waits?

"(We used a guitar synthesizer called a) hi-fly. It's a white flat box that looks like a bathroom scale
when you put it on the floor, and you can get a lot of different sounds out of it."
- Keith Richards, 1974 (from [www.timeisonourside.com])



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-24 15:45 by with sssoul.

Any modern guitarrist who performs on a major level, the way the Stones do uses much more effects than is obvious. The Stones have a lot of delay, reverb going. Then there is subtle chorusing, overdriving of the tubes. Many many solos that Keith, Ronnie hit are overdriven. Those great sounds that Ron gets on his YCAGWYW are heavily processed. All KINDS of FX going.
That is not even counting the upfront f/x like Phaser, Wah Wah and distortion. Of course Keith is no pedal jumper but there is plenty of outboard gear driving that sound on the board I bet.
I don't thionk there is anyhting "wrong" with using effetcs. This is 2006; guitar playing has chnaged. The Edge was instruymental in incor[porating the pedal board into a homogenized sound. as long as they (the FX) don't rule you, as long as you are ther master, IMO use as many as you want. I have superb respect for guys that know how to use them. Our lead guyitarrist plays through zillions of them, all old vintage boxes that are falling apart and he is a great musican.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

Ever listen to any of the live shows from '81? If there is not some heavy chorus, delay pedals going on, I would love to know just what it is--it certainly was not coming from the amp.

yes, on Beast of Burden, for example

Exactly Glassslide. 81 was an odd tour: there was Charlie's drumming style taking to such an extreme that it is the ONLY time I have ever not dug his playing. That religious lifting of his right stick on the snare hit was too much. Then Bill played the Steinberger a lot. While his playing was even wilder than in 78 his sound lost bottom. It was the last time Keith and Ron sang BUs; last time for the hardcore guitar sound. They did use a lot of FX on that tour.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

I stand corrected on the wah wah. And as for the effects live, sure, there's tons of processing going onto every single intstrument on that stage, but it's coming outboard, mostly from the front-of-house board.

I can see what you're saying about the phaser and chorus on Keith and Ronnie's amps, I'll buy that. They're going through effects loops that allow the guitar signal to go straight into the amp unimpeded and that untouched signal then gets run through the effects and back into the amp to the speakers, so you don't lose any gain or signal running through pedals, and I'm sure they have racks of stuff with all sorts of compression, EQ and whatnot. I stand corrected on all that.

BUT!!!

In 1972, baby, that was just Keith, a cord,a whole lot of tube watts and 16 speakers of Ampeg love.

And I'll grant the solid-state amps on Beggars. Never knew that actually. That could explain the sound of the "Sympathy" solo a bit maybe (I'm just hypothesizing.) And the Beatles using solid-state too. But here's another... BUT!!! The mixing console at Abbey Road up until the album of the same name was a tube console. The distortion on "Revolution comes not from the amp but from the board, going into one channel, turning every knob up to 12 and running that into a second channel and over-driving the tubes so hot that Geoff Emerick would have gotten fired if an EMI boss caught him doing it, but he did it because he had John Lennon standing over him yelling at him to do it.

I don't know what the board was at Olympic they did Beggars on. I know all the other studios in London were eight-track way before Abbey Road was, and it infuriated the Beatles, but I don't know if the board at Olympic was solid-state or not. Anybody know? Mascis?

ONE LAST WORD IN DEFENSE OF TUBES THOUGH!!!!

As you can see I'm often wrong and happy to admit it, but THIS I guarantee you. No matter what amps the Beatles or the Stones used or what mikes they sang thru, EVERY sound went through a tube compressor before it hit the tape! Most everything you hear on records goes through a tube compressor, especially in this digital age when recording engineers spend half their time trying to make all the sounds sound like they're analog and warm and "tube-y" when your modern required recording method is about as inorganic as it can get, translating someone singing from his or her soul into ones and zeros. That tube compressor's a beautiful thing. It's like lotion for sound.

Merry Christmas!

Tommy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-25 01:56 by From4tilLate.

You dont need to defend valves heh, but you didn't seem to take on the fact that...

Valve, solid state, digital, effects, no effects, it doesn't matter, the end result is all that counts!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-25 02:13 by His Majesty.

I'm playing out of a Line 6 Spider 112 which is a solid state amp and I love the sound.

That is exciting about the distortion on the guitars from the 60's being done with overdriving the BOARD. I had no idea.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

His Majesty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You dont need to defend valves heh, but you didn't
> seem to take on the fact that...
>
> Valve, solid state, digital, effects, no effects,
> it doesn't matter, the end result is all that
> counts!

I totally agree. What ultimately matters is the musician playing. Keith Richards could run a guitar thru an electric fan and it would sound good. I love talking gear, but in the end, that's all it is, gear.

From4tilLate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I stand corrected on the wah wah. And as for the
> effects live, sure, there's tons of processing
> going onto every single intstrument on that stage,
> but it's coming outboard, mostly from the
> front-of-house board.
>
> I can see what you're saying about the phaser and
> chorus on Keith and Ronnie's amps, I'll buy that.
> They're going through effects loops that allow the
> guitar signal to go straight into the amp
> unimpeded and that untouched signal then gets run
> through the effects and back into the amp to the
> speakers, so you don't lose any gain or signal
> running through pedals, and I'm sure they have
> racks of stuff with all sorts of compression, EQ
> and whatnot. I stand corrected on all that.
>
> BUT!!!
>
> In 1972, baby, that was just Keith, a cord,a whole
> lot of tube watts and 16 speakers of Ampeg love.
>

No, not exactly. First, Keith only used one Ampeg SVT head through one 8*10" cabinet. The Ampeg SVT is 350 watts, not 100. Starting from 1972, the line out from the ampeg was routed to an outboard EQ section, and also compression was added. Starting from 1975, other outboard effects like chorus and delay was added. After the line level was EQ-ed out, it was sent to the cabinet, and picked up by Unidyne microphnes. the PA then also added a bit of compresion and reverb.

The thing is: if you play big arena's you MUST process the sound in order to get a good result. Just turning an amp to ten doesn't work.

And at least until the late 70's Keith hardly knew how amps worked, he let Ian Stewart handle that part. Keith genius is that he knows exactly how he wants to sound, and he spent hours achieving what he thought sounded good.

Mathijs

His sound has growned with him and now is the best in my opinion.I`m courious if he uses OD/Distortion pedal for such songs as JJF cause his sound is extremally fat , sustained , aggresive being warm in the same time.Of course Fender Twin from 50`s it is the highest class of amplifiers and probably is equipped with most expensive tubes and speakers but it is clean sounding amp.Btw , similar amp on Ebay costs 30000 $

benon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His sound has growned with him and now is the best
> in my opinion.I`m courious if he uses
> OD/Distortion pedal for such songs as JJF cause
> his sound is extremally fat , sustained ,
> aggresive being warm in the same time.Of course

Nope, it's just a Twin turned to 10.

Mathijs

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> benon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > His sound has growned with him and now is the
> best
> > in my opinion.I`m courious if he uses
> > OD/Distortion pedal for such songs as JJF cause
> > his sound is extremally fat , sustained ,
> > aggresive being warm in the same time.Of course
>
> Nope, it's just a Twin turned to 10.
>
> Mathijs
Hey Mathijs , your words are unshakeable , how do you know it ? Do you have `57 Twin like Keith`s one ? If it is true this is the Holy Grail of tube amps

benon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mathijs Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > benon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > His sound has growned with him and now is the
> > best
> > > in my opinion.I`m courious if he uses
> > > OD/Distortion pedal for such songs as JJF
> cause
> > > his sound is extremally fat , sustained ,
> > > aggresive being warm in the same time.Of
> course
> >
> > Nope, it's just a Twin turned to 10.
> >
> > Mathijs
> Hey Mathijs , your words are unshakeable , how
> do you know it ? Do you have `57 Twin like
> Keith`s one ? If it is true this is the Holy
> Grail of tube amps

No, I do not have a '57 Twin, and yes, it is the holy grail of tube amps!

Mathijs

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From4tilLate Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I stand corrected on the wah wah. And as for
> the
> > effects live, sure, there's tons of processing
> > going onto every single intstrument on that
> stage,
> > but it's coming outboard, mostly from the
> > front-of-house board.
> >
> > I can see what you're saying about the phaser
> and
> > chorus on Keith and Ronnie's amps, I'll buy
> that.
> > They're going through effects loops that allow
> the
> > guitar signal to go straight into the amp
> > unimpeded and that untouched signal then gets
> run
> > through the effects and back into the amp to
> the
> > speakers, so you don't lose any gain or signal
> > running through pedals, and I'm sure they have
> > racks of stuff with all sorts of compression,
> EQ
> > and whatnot. I stand corrected on all that.
> >
> > BUT!!!
> >
> > In 1972, baby, that was just Keith, a cord,a
> whole
> > lot of tube watts and 16 speakers of Ampeg
> love.
> >
>
> No, not exactly. First, Keith only used one Ampeg
> SVT head through one 8*10" cabinet. The Ampeg SVT
> is 350 watts, not 100. Starting from 1972, the
> line out from the ampeg was routed to an outboard
> EQ section, and also compression was added.
> Starting from 1975, other outboard effects like
> chorus and delay was added. After the line level
> was EQ-ed out, it was sent to the cabinet, and
> picked up by Unidyne microphnes. the PA then also
> added a bit of compresion and reverb.
>
> The thing is: if you play big arena's you MUST
> process the sound in order to get a good result.
> Just turning an amp to ten doesn't work.
>
> And at least until the late 70's Keith hardly knew
> how amps worked, he let Ian Stewart handle that
> part. Keith genius is that he knows exactly how he
> wants to sound, and he spent hours achieving what
> he thought sounded good.
>
> Mathijs

Damn! 350 watts! That's a lot of wattage. So they went out of the head into the EQ and compression before going back into the speakers, did that soak up any wattage or was 350 watts making those 8 10" speakers do their thang?

Mathijs, You rule. I don't mind being wrong over and over because it leads me closer and closer to the truth.

Tommy

From4tilLate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
BUT!!! The mixing
> console at Abbey Road up until the album of the
> same name was a tube console. The distortion on
> "Revolution comes not from the amp but from the
> board, going into one channel, turning every knob
> up to 12 and running that into a second channel
> and over-driving the tubes so hot that Geoff
> Emerick would have gotten fired if an EMI boss
> caught him doing it, but he did it because he had
> John Lennon standing over him yelling at him to do
> it.

This is only partly true. They didn't overdrive the mixing board (you don't need a mixing bard recording something, you need it when mixing the various channel), but they did overdrive the microphone pre-amp and the comressor after the mic pre-amp. Condensor and ribbon mikes need a (mostly valve driven) pre-amp, and the signal would normally then go into a compressor. In Abbey road the EMI TG12413 compressor/limiter was used (actually a solid state), while the Olympic Sound and the Stones mobile used the very large Helios mic/amp pre-amp was used (this is the sound of Tumbling Dice for example). Other famous compressors/limiters/pre-amps are the Fairchild 670 (used in mostly American studio's), the Neve 1073, the Teletronix LA-2A (Led Zep II, III, IV anyone?) or its FET opamp version the 1176 (Some Girls e.g). Basically, by setting the gain too high, you would overdrive the tubes/valves, or transistor if it is an FET, an this yield a very charecteristic sound. The Beatles were one of the first to experiment with this. You actually CAN overdrive the mixing board, but this yield a clipped distortion, very unpleasent to the ears.

Nowadays you can have all these compressors modelled as plug-ins in Cubase or Protools.

Mathijs

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From4tilLate Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> BUT!!! The mixing
> > console at Abbey Road up until the album of the
> > same name was a tube console. The distortion on
> > "Revolution comes not from the amp but from the
> > board, going into one channel, turning every
> knob
> > up to 12 and running that into a second channel
> > and over-driving the tubes so hot that Geoff
> > Emerick would have gotten fired if an EMI boss
> > caught him doing it, but he did it because he
> had
> > John Lennon standing over him yelling at him to
> do
> > it.
>
> This is only partly true. They didn't overdrive
> the mixing board (you don't need a mixing bard
> recording something, you need it when mixing the
> various channel), but they did overdrive the
> microphone pre-amp and the comressor after the mic
> pre-amp. Condensor and ribbon mikes need a (mostly
> valve driven) pre-amp, and the signal would
> normally then go into a compressor. In Abbey road
> the EMI TG12413 compressor/limiter was used
> (actually a solid state), while the Olympic Sound
> and the Stones mobile used the very large Helios
> mic/amp pre-amp was used (this is the sound of
> Tumbling Dice for example). Other famous
> compressors/limiters/pre-amps are the Fairchild
> 670 (used in mostly American studio's), the Neve
> 1073, the Teletronix LA-2A (Led Zep II, III, IV
> anyone?) or its FET opamp version the 1176 (Some
> Girls e.g). Basically, by setting the gain too
> high, you would overdrive the tubes/valves, or
> transistor if it is an FET, an this yield a very
> charecteristic sound. The Beatles were one of the
> first to experiment with this. You actually CAN
> overdrive the mixing board, but this yield a
> clipped distortion, very unpleasent to the ears.
>
>
> Nowadays you can have all these compressors
> modelled as plug-ins in Cubase or Protools.
>
> Mathijs

Mathijs, I already had you sussed as a guitarist. Now I know you either have to have a home studio or you also work as an engineer. Hence some questions.

What do you think of Digital Performer as opposed to Pro Tools?

Any modeling plug-ins to you sound as good as real tube compression?

I used Amp Farm on a record and it pretty much fooled me so far as nailing the sound and sounding real and downright tube-y. Anything out there better that's compatible with Mac G4? What do you think of the pods?

And finally... be honest: Ginger or Mary Ann?

Tommy