-
Ahh . . . but you're wrong kam. Firstly, JS was no Einstein. Einstein's theory on relativity was far more than just opinion. By contrast, JS stated his opinion on what the jazz guitar world wanted (needed) for an amp, as though it was as valid as Einstein's theory. It wasn't. It was his own opinion based upon his own individual tastes. To state that amp manufactures were making mistakes in their engineering designs was a bit of a stretch, if it referenced what the majority of the jazz guitar playing world wanted. His comments were based upon what he wanted. He failed to realize that amp manufacturers were designing and manufacturing amps for many jazz guitar players. Not just Johnny Smith.
Originally Posted by kamlapati
What he did to force his guitar design concepts on Guild, Gibson, Heritage . . then Guild again, well that was fine. Because, if someone wanted a Johnny Smith like guitar . . well, he was the one to dictate what it should be. But, that's not how he approached the subject of amps. He didn't say . . "if someopne want's the kind of an amp that I would choose to play . . then we need to get the manufacturers to tweak the bottom out of one specific Johnny Smith model" . . . as he did with the amp that MartyGrass just purchased. Instead, what he said was . . that all amp manufactures are making a mistake in how they design and engineer their amps for jazz guitar players. Apologies to all of you Johnny Smith lovers (my self included) . . but, that's just an arrogant comment. Kinda like an amp manufacturer approaching Johnny Smith and telling him . . "hey Johnny, you're making a mistake on how you're voicing you're chords on Moonlight in Vermont.
-
03-28-2015 10:05 PM
-
I wouldn't have told Johnny Smith he was making a mistake...he kept a revolver in the neck pocket of his guitar case.
-
Yeah, well . . . anybody who would have been stupid enough to tell Johnny Smith he was making mistakes on his chord selections and voicings on Moonlight in Vermont would have deserved to get shot. lolol Originally Posted by Greentone
-
I was thinking about this last night. I'll probably get shot for this, but I really don't like Johnnys sound. I guess my taste is more Of a modern amplifier sound like George Benson or Wes Montgomery. Johnnys playing on the other hand, was otherworldly. So in retrospect Patrick, I see your point.
-
I have not been overly impressed with Johnny Smith's live tones, to be honest about it. OTOH, his Roost and Verve albums exhibit some awfully good guitar sounds, IMO.
-
Originally Posted by wintermoon
I agree! Horrible sound . . but, all the way around. So, I'd have to imagine it was the recording. The guitar tone is the worst imaginable for jazz . . . IMO. But, even the piano had zero mids and bottom. Sounded like a toy upright. The bass player is non existent in the mix. Had to be the recording. But, nearly 40 years ago . . who knows what kind of an impromptu recording set up might have been used? I'm sure it wasn't state of the art even for 1977.
-
Sadly, I've never heard Johnny play live. But millions of Americans have via the radio. He must have done something right.
His last album, which never was intended to be an album, has raw recordings of Johnny, probably unamplified. These tunes are drop dead beautiful IMO. Take a listen to some samples. (Disregard the other guitarist!)
http://www.amazon.com/Legends-Perfor...s=johnny+smith
I imagine that there were a few bad gigging nights for Johnny, even late in his career. Since he was such a perfectionist in technique, harmony, and phrasing, I doubt there were many bad shows.
It is fair to say that you don't like Johnny's style. But it's ridiculous to believe he wasn't in control of his sound.
There were initial visceral negative responses to Charlie Christian, Jimi Hendrix, and Stanley Jordan. No one of merit would question their competence though.
I have now spent 24 hours with Johnny's amp, the variant which he personally used without tremolo and reverb. It sounds good but is stark. I added a 12" Celestion via the external speaker just for kicks.
Can you imagine gigging live doing chord solo with absolutely no effects? No reverb, no delay, no equalizing knobs aside from adding bass and adding treble? It is naked playing. Tone changes and effects mostly come from your acoustic techniques. Because of his immense talent and many thousands of playing hours he's one of the few humans in history who could pull that off well.
I get it that it is easy on a forum to critique a dead guy. But I can only wish that someday I could play as well as he did on his bad nights.
-
Mark; I think you might be being a bit over sensitive and possibly misinterpretting what some of us are posting here. No one is being critical of JS' playing (at least, none that I've seen) or saying that he wasn't in total control of his sound/tone. Being the micro managing perfectionist we've all read that he was, I think it would be absurd for anyone to suggest that Johnny settled for anything less that what he wanted from his tone while performing live. I think what many here, myself included, is that the tone he prefers is probably more unique to him, than it is universally embraced by other jazz guitarists.
Like yourself, I've heard many of JS' recording where the tone was very good. Most especially, the CD you made for me to enjoy on my loooooong ride home from K'zoo (thank you again for that). It's clear that JS prefered a thinner and more acoustic tone, even when amplified. This is evident by his insistance upon a shallower body depth at 3" . . as well as his preference for a floater rather than an inset pup. Just listen to what might be the most recorded arch top in jazz guitar . . the ES175D. It's mids and bottom are clearly pronounced and it delivers that "thunk" that the fanatical jazz tone guys . . (think Jack Zucker . . lolol) . . chase after with the same passion that Indiana Jones chased after the Chalice. Even though its body depth is also 3" . . it's an entirely different animal that any variant of a Johnny Smith signature arch top.
For me, personally . . my standard as a favorite arch top jazz guitar tone will alway be the video that I've posted here way too many times . . . (so I'll spare everyone and not post it again here) . . of Mitsukuni Tanabe performing "My One And Only Love on his Super 400C with the Dearmond RC 1100. Now, if that's one's favorite tone, it's near impossible to embrace something that's a polar opposite.
Some here were pretty harsh on that clip you posted. But, we were quick to point out that what we were hearing in that video definitely wasn't what it sounded like live.
Regarding the external cabinet you added with the Celsetion . . I don't see how that would change things, for the better (less stark). The JBL D130 is a great speaker . . . and at 15" it should give more of the mids and bottm that many find lacking in JS' tone, than the 12" Celestion would give.
Also keep in mind, there were other variables resulting in JS' tone; pick choice, pick orientation, pick attack, string choice, action setting. I'm pretty sure JS got exactly the tone he wanted.
-
Hmmm . . ?? I thought that by calling his comments stupid and self serving, I was berating the comment he made about amp manufactures having made design mistakes. Not the man himself. If you're referencing the comment I made about his style of unrestrained presumptuousness . . that was merely an observation . . . not a berating. ;-) Originally Posted by ruger9
-
Unrestrained presumptiousness? Or expertise gained from thousands of gigs, recording sessions, etc.? What JS said may not jive with your preferences but that doesn't mean he's wrong.
-
"I beg ta differ sir" . . . but, he is indeed wrong. It's not at all about my preferences. What he's wrong about is what he said about "most amp designers". Here's a quote from Scot Buffington's post (Scot's a pretty damned good amp builder himself) Originally Posted by Cunamara
"Twenty years ago, I had a conversation with Johnny Smith about amplification. It was his opinion that most amp designers make the mistake of having too much Bass response to be suitable for jazz guitar amplification."
Now, you can choose to believe that JS was an electronic engineer with a specific discipline in musical instrument amplification and a focus on guitar amps in particular ... if you want to. But, he wasn't. He was a jazz guitar player who knew exactly what he wanted his own tone to sound like . . . and he felt that most amp designers should design amps the way he thought they shoud be designed, to provide the sound he thought that jazz guitar should represent. Sorry man, but it was presumptuous, at the least, for JS to state that the experts at companies like Fender and Ampeg were making a mistake.
JS was involved in the design of the Emrad, which is the topic of this thread. How many important jazz guitarists do you know of that gigged and/or recorded with an Emrad . . . vs a Fender or an Ampeg? So then, who was it that was making a mistake . . JS, or the amp designers he claimed were making the mistake? I'm sure there are some who love the Emrad. But, that doesn't make all of the others wrong or poorly designed.
Question for ya; What would be your reaction to a player like Wes Montgomery making a statement like . . "Johnny Smith's guitar tone is not at all suitable for jazz guitar. He should be playing an amp like mine"
-
Wait a minute. You're saying Johnny Smith is wrong based on what someone else said that he said? Bzzzt, thank you for playing. Originally Posted by Patrick2
However, there is at least one published interview where JS does discuss this and says that the feedback problem with archtop guitars is mainly due to the excessive bass response of most guitar amps. And he's right- my '72 Fender Pro Reverb is really hard to use with an archtop because of the excess bass and sounds nasal and twangy because of the excessive mid cut; it feeds back with the bass all the way down (which doesn't really do all that much). My tweed Deluxe had to be modded to cut the bass so that it could be used with my archtops. The archtop guitar gets the blame for being prone to feedback but it's really the amp that is the source of the problem. Those amps sound great with my Tele and my frankenstrat (which has humbuckers).
From Vintage Guitar Magazine: "In 1955, the first Ampeg Johnny Smith model went into production. Two years later, the grandly titled Ampeg Fountain of Sound became available. The Fountain of Sound was, in effect, the Johnny Smith model fitted with four legs and turned on its back so the speaker faced upward. Virtually every studio guitarist in New York used it. When Smith’s Gibson endorsement began in ’61, the company was eager to have him using one of its amps. Johnny was reluctant because Gibson didn’t produce a unit with a flat frequency response. So, in ’64 the manufacturer agreed to produce what would become the GA-75L Recording model, which can be heard on Smith’s three albums for Verve in ’67 and ’68. In the late ’60s, Smith sought to re-create the tube-driven Gibson amplifier in solidstate form with the EMRAD Johnny Smith model, which he used on his tour with Bing Crosby in 1976-’77." "Smith was just as candid about amplifiers and what he required. He worked with Everett Hull to design Ampeg’s Fountain of Sound amp, which was subsequently used by virtually every studio (and studio guitarist) in New York, including Art Ryerson, Bucky Pizzarelli, Don Arnone, Tony Mottola, George Barnes, and Joe Cinderella. Its speakers were aimed upward, inspired by Dizzy Gillespie’s horn, with its bent bell. “It kept the sound out of people’s ears, because in those days, people complained when things were too loud,” recalled Smith. “Today’s amps look like coke machines. So I had the speakers pointing straight up.”Smith’s model was the JS-35, available as a 20- or 30-watt amp with a 15″ JBL speaker that sat on short legs. Smith was ahead of his time, as many guitarists today use PA or piano/accordion amps because they provide a broader palette without the heavy midrange sound of guitar amps. And many players employ amp stands that aim speakers upward. “I wrote something for a guitar magazine and they wouldn’t publish it… I said the amplifier I had made, with the Bass control full on, had less bass than a Fender amp with the Bass control full off. That’s the difference.”
Smith doesn't say that "most amp designers are wrong," he says that most amps aren't suitable for use with archtop guitars- they are designed to amplify solid body guitars. He was probably looking straight at a Fender amp when he's making those comments, I'd guess; while a lot of people like 'em, I have to agree with Johnny and say I often don't care for them with archtops. There are exceptions of course (Peter Bernstein springs to mind right away- I love his tone and he uses a vintage Fender amp, a Deluxe Reverb IIRC).
It's common knowledge that Fender amps often have to have the bass and treble rolled down to nearly 0 to sound good with archtops and to reduce the feedback problem. That's a "making do" situation, not one where the amp is well-matched to the guitar. This is why I mainly use a Clarus 2r- it's basically a PA head with very flat response; I should try it with an FRFR cab with a tweeter. I admire the Emrad amp that started this thread and am delighted that the OP ended up with it.
Well, I'll commit jazz guitar heresy and say that I've never been all that big a fan of Wes's tone. It's serviceable and worked for him, but there are a lot of jazz guitarists whose tone I like a lot better. Originally Posted by Patrick2
BTW, Wes used a Standel Super Custom XV for most of his classic recordings. Ed Bickert used a Standel for years, then he used an Orange Cube 60 for a long time for portability rather than liking the sound and ended up with IIRC an Evans at the end of his career. Jim Hall famously used a Gibson GA-50 rather than a Fender amp and later Polytones and a Walter Woods. All these are voiced differently than Fender's bassy-trebly amps from the blackface era on. Many great jazz recordings were done with a Fender tweed Deluxe- Rudy Van Gelder's house amp- which was also voiced differently (but with a lot of bass, JS would have probably hated it; I've struggled with mine). A sentiment I have seen in many interviews with older generation jazz guitarists is "anything but a Fender" when asked what amps they like to use.
Younger guys seem to be looking for a different sound- more bite, more grind, a little rock and roll tonality to their sound. Makes sense, most those guys listened to Van Halen and guys like that in their formative years. Johnny, Barney, Herb, Tal, Jim (Hall & Raney), etc., grew up with completely different sounds. So for modern players the Fenders seem more popular- and semi-hollow guitars to avoid the feedback!
-
Apologies man, but I just can't get through your entire rambling post. (Paragraphs, man . . paragraphs) But, I've read enough of it to know that we're clearly on different pages here. Originally Posted by Cunamara
Yes . . I'm basing my comments on what Scot Buffington claims that Johnny Smith said to him. Yes, I believe that what Scot said was factual. Also, you are mis-quoting what Scot said in his post .. (see highlighted red type in your post above) . .. According to Scot's recollection of his conversation with JS, he stated that JS said "most amp designers make the mistake of having too much bass response to be suitable for jazz guitar amplification". So, you're wrong! He did say that most amp designers were wrong. Unless of course you don't feel that stating someone made a mistake means that they were wrong. That's the comment that I find to be presumptious . . borderline arrogant. He did say that it was his opinion. But, his opinion really shouldn't speak for what the vast majority of the jazz guitar playing world of his era wanted, or needed.
Also, based upon the differences of the tone in the vast majority of jazz guitar recordings by other artists using different amps, . . . . it's apparent that the vast majority of jazz guitarists weren't exactly chasing JS' tone.
I'm really not sure what you're challenging me on here.?.? I stated my opinion that JS' comment, as referenced by Scot Buffington . . (who is a very credible professional) . . was out of line. You may disagree with my opinon on that if you care to. That's fine. I'll not challenge you on that. But, please don't try to paint me as a monster because I dared to take an assertive opposing stand against a comment from an iconic guitarist.
-
The EMRAD seems balanced to me with the bass and treble at 3. This sound is similar but less boomy to my Super Reverb and my Deluxe Reverb with the bass at 1 and the treble at 4.5. I do miss the reverb when using the EMRAD occasionally, but fortunately I have a pedal.
I don't think the EMRAD does anything that my Henriksen and my Evans can't do, except have Johnny's logo on the front. And the latter two amps can be more finely tweaked.
As I reflect on all of this, I regret spending so much time dialing in a guitar on these more complex amps only to dial them in again and again later. It is always in the back of my mind while practicing that maybe I should dial something up or down- the buff, the body, the depth.
It comes down to determining one's primary goals and rigidly pursuing them. This tonequest stuff is a sideshow to me, at least to a large degree. I started out with an old Gibson Firebird and a Kalamazoo Model 2 amp. Decades and many, many dollars later, I now know that I would have done better working on my fretboard skills rather than pursuing strings, amps and the nuances of other guitars.
I recognize that equipment gets you onto the field to play. But once the game begins, it's skill that matters.
My teacher helped me immensely once long ago when it came to choosing a pick. I was vacillating. He looked at me seriously and told me firmly to use a Fender Medium. I asked him why. He said that the Thin was too thin and the Heavy was too heavy. I knew that was the end of discussion, and that intervention saved me a lot of angst, time and distraction.
Somehow along the way I repeated lost my focus. I even wrote long posts on forums thinking somehow that has something to do with improving my playing.
For those who relentlessly pursue the holy grail tones, more power to you, just so we are clear as to what you are focusing on. I enjoy that topic like I enjoy salt on my dinner. But I don't want that salt to become my dinner.
-
Mark: Cool post. I can definietly relate. I've often felt concerned that my willingness to *just accept* jazz guitar tone that is . . . only . . . *just acceptable*, was a short coming in my jazz acumen. But, I've since learned to . . . *just accept* my position on that. I definitely do love great guitar tone when it's there . . (great according to my own personal tastes, of course). But, if the greatness in tone isn't present in great jazz guitar music, I'm OK with that. Mostly because I'm not one who believes that great tone is a mandotory component of great jazz guitar music. When it's there . . it's the icing on the cake, so to speak. But, I can be OK with cake absent of such icing.
What I do have a problem with, is when the tone is just so God awful, (to my own personal tastes), that it distracts from the music. I think that each of us can probably point to at least one or two recordings of some of the best jazz guitar players in history, or current times, whose tone was not to our personal liking. I know that I certainly can.
So, I do agree . . . the incessant quest for *that* jazz guitar tone is best left to those with little else left to improve in their playing, then the tone of the music they play. I'm definitely not among those of that calibre.
-
That was REALLY cool the way this post culminated.
Mark, If I were you, I would never sell that amp. But if I were me (and I kinda am) and you did decide to sell it, I would buy it in a Heart Beat! Maybe even faster...
-
Originally Posted by Joe DeNisco
if you really want one there's a minty one on Reverb right now, I think it's maybe a more deluxe model or perhaps a later model as it has more controls on the front panel
https://reverb.com/item/336680-emrad...s-black-silver
-
Thanks Wintermoon.
I'm not really in the market for one. And I am still healing from some recent purchases. I was floating that out to MartyGrass..
Joe D
-
That amp has reverb and tremelo. There's nothing wrong with that. Johnny's personal amp didn't have those options. I don't know how good the reverb is.
The new power cord may be grounded. If so, that's a good thing.
I'm not sure the speaker is original. It may be, but the JS model started with the D130. The K130 is about the same except some cosmetic changes and a little more wattage capability, something irrelevant to this amp. A fresher speaker is a plus.
-
When are we going to hear some clips or see a YouTube vid of you playing it? Originally Posted by Marty Grass
-
After a thirty year hiatus in playing, I've not quite got up to the skill level I once was at. It will be a while.
-
Your heart and your willingness to help MORE than make up for it.
JD
-
Most of us here just want to see the joy! And that's an historic amp dude, one of a kind. Where else will I get to hear it? Originally Posted by Marty Grass
Reply With Quote
Guitar Amps built into case?
Yesterday, 05:03 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos