-
I never thought JP's tone on Virtuoso was all that bad, but maybe that's because I don't have any basis for comparison; all my jazz guitar CDs feature amplified guitar, except for Freddie Green with the Basie band. So I confess I'm not sure what a well-recorded acoustic archtop sounds like. Still, I don't buy the story that Joe recorded those tracks amplified but somehow the studio guys screwed up. So they record like ten tracks and then some knucklehead goes "Oh shit I had the amp channel muted the whole time!" More to the point, when I listen to those tracks, I hear Joe playing pretty aggressively, sounds like sometimes even overloading the board, the way you would play an un-amplified acoustic. By contrast, his playing on the sole amplified track "Here's That Rainy Day" has to my ears a softer touch, with less attack and dynamics. I dunno, what do you guys think?
BTW I saw Joe three times in the late '80s, once with George Shearing, twice in a solo + local rhythm section setting. He was inspiring.
-
10-27-2014 06:25 PM
-
You have to remember what a SOB Norman Granz was about recording...one take, get the album done in one session. He wasn't going to pop for studio time for a do over if one track on the tape--amped track--was bad. The V1 and V4 records on Pablo were from the same session. It was Joe's 175 un-ampped.
Last edited by Greentone; 10-28-2014 at 07:39 AM.
-
Couldn't they just re-amp the guitar track? Run the recorded miced guitar through a nice warm amp and record that.
-
Originally Posted by Encinitastubes
-
Originally Posted by newsense
-
Joe Pass -fantastic player. He recorded so many Cds.
Some of them sounds completly different that is good.
-
Originally Posted by Encinitastubes
-
Originally Posted by Ren
Consider the possibility that you're onto something, and playing with a very aggressive attack is what Pass is always doing, even amplified. I think the super soft Jim Hall approach to playing electric archtop is a relatively recent development. Martino and Benson both hit the guitar really hard, too.
-
Here's a quote from the Producer's Notes from Virtuoso No. 4 (right next to a picture of Joe playing what looks like a D'Aquisto):
"At the same sessions from which came Virtuoso No. 1, he also recorded several numbers which were never subsequently released. This new double album contains the cream of that unreleased material; unlike the other Virtuoso albums, its outstanding feature is that Pass plays acoustic guitar only-another rarity in jazz."
Well, I suppose that this could be Norman Granz cleverly spinning the loss of the amplified tracks. And the picture of Joe with the D'Aquisto need not have come from the '73 sessions. Still, there's something mysterious to me about this story. Would it have been standard practice in 1973 to record a guitar like an ES-175 by simultaneously miking it and also running it through an amp?Last edited by Ren; 10-28-2014 at 03:48 PM. Reason: Spelling
-
The playing on Virtuoso is so jaw-droopingly good I never gave the tone a second thought. When I mentally compare it to the sound of the 70s McLaughlin-Di Meola-De Lucia trio with those quaking, awful-sounding Ovations, Joe's tone on Virtuoso seems quite acceptable.
-
Originally Posted by Ren
I didn't work on any Jazz sessions back then and the ones I hung out at didn't have a guitar player. If me would not of put a DI on Joe Pass unless there was something wrong with the amp. Then must of had the amp boxed in with gobo's because you'd think some of the amp sound would of at least bled into the acoustic mic???
-
Originally Posted by Ren
I don't know why anyone would bother to mic an ES-175 in the first place. Good that they did or those albums wouldn't exist at all.
-
Back in the day, producers and engineers had no idea that an ES-175 was a laminated guitar and a L-5 was a solid-wood, carved guitar. To people accustomed to working principally with horn and piano players in jazz, it was just some guitars--electric and otherwise. Moreover, engineers absolutely hated electric, amped guitars. Honestly, my guess is that the studio where Norman Granz had Pass recording the session in '73 probably had a mic in one channel and Pass through a DI box straight into the board in the other channel.
Have you ever recorded a 175 into the board? They actually sound great that way. No amp needed. Just add effects in the studio. Hmm? 1973...probably some plate reverb.
For whatever reason--my guess is a doinky preamp tube in the DI channel, causing an unacceptable hum or dropout for most of the songs--the channel most of us would have preferred was lost. Both channels mixed together would have been a treat for a record done at that time. Pointing a mic right at, say, the 12th fret of Pass' guitar and getting some of the ambient guitar sound, along with the sound of Pass' PAF neck pickup, would have been just super.
Still, given Granz's philosophy of jazz records, the main thing would have been "get 'er done." [for a good read, see _Norman Granz: the Man Who Used Jazz for Justice_ by Ted Hershorn]Last edited by Greentone; 10-29-2014 at 10:11 AM.
-
I see, so maybe there was no amp involved, just a direct feed to the board, and that track was somehow compromised. That really makes sense to me, because it sounds to me that Joe was playing acoustically, moving as much air as possible, as opposed to hearing himself playing through an amp. According to info on this forum, Joe got his D'Aquisto around 1970; any idea why he would opt for the 175 for those sessions, especially if his intention was to play acoustically?
Thanks everyone for all these insightful comments!
-
I dunno, sounds apocryphal to me. I admit I don't know everything about Granz, but he recorded prolifically with all kinds of musicians, including many guitarists--many Kenny Burrell recordings for Verve from the 60's for instance. The idea that A) some studio mistake was responsible for a unique sound and B) no one would notice this while the recording was taking place seems incredible. No one in the control room? No one listening to master tapes during the recording process? Not to mention, how hard would it be to ask Joe to do it again, this time with the amplified input "on"? I mean, he was a true virtuoso, there weren't going to be any bad takes with Joe.
My guess is Joe insisted on using an unamplified guitar with minimal processing, and he and the producer wanted that sound as a counterpoint to the highly amplified stuff that was coming out in the 70's--Mahavishnu Orchestra, Al Dimeola, etc. Re' guitars, why the 175 when he could have access to a slew of quality acoustic archtops, including D'Aquisto? I think I have read somewhere he even used a flattop, a 12-string and a nylon string on these recordings.
I would love to know the inside story of how it was recorded--this is sort of the Kind of Blue of solo jazz guitar. There's quite a biography of Joe waiting to be written.
-
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
I agree with what your saying and a bit hard to understand why they just didn't get another engineer and book another date. Also things happen in the studio and seen gear malfunctions that didn't get noticed till much later. For example Steely Dan's I think it was the Gaucho album. They were always using cutting edge gear and DBX was the hot noise reduction at the time. The mixed the entire album on same two channels of DBX and mixed Steely Dan in the analog days was a nightmare process. They go to master the album and it sounds like crap. Ends up the two channels of DBX were screwed up and the DBX wouldn't decode it right. Ends up the two they mixed on the encoding was bad. They got a hold of DBX who brought in hundreds of channel of DBX to see if any would decode first ones and no luck. The had the budget so they remixed the entire album.
-
Maybe they set up, had Joe play for a couple hours, then noticed that, uh oh, the board messed up the DI or amp recording. Then they listened back and thought, hey that doesn't sound so bad at all. In fact, it's kind of cool!
And kept it?
Or maybe they were setting up and the equipment malfunctioned, and they started talking about changing dates and Joe said, "Ef it, let's just do this," and started spinning gold like Rumpelstilskin.
-
I always thought the Virtuoso #1 album sounded great. I much preferred it to his "Blues for Fred" album where he played through an amp.
But I haven't really listened to it carefully for about three years - I just listened to a couple tracks using a lossless file, good headphones, headphone amp and DAC, and I still think it sounds pretty darn good. Perhaps a bit thin on the top strings (but I almost always think that anyway...probably why I always go up a gauge for my B and E), and perhaps slightly unbalanced with the bass strings being a bit overpowering at times, but overall I think the tone is great.
Kind of shocked to hear some people find the tone unappealing, actually, but to each their own.
-
Originally Posted by coolvinny
-
I just listened to it today and still can't quite figure it out. I'm not convinced it's a 175 played acoustically, but who knows? I agree with those who like the recording and like the tone. It's a refreshing counterpoint to all the tonal mush that some artists put out.
I have heard that Steely Dan story as well. I won't discount the small possibility of a major recording mistake, especially in the old RTR days. I think we all would like to think of Joe and Norman Granz listening to the tapes and saying, screw it, the playing's great, let's put it out.
-
It sounds like a 175 with heavy flatwound strings (13s or 14s) and a medium pick to me. There's very little resonance, everything is kind of plunky.
He just plays his ass off, so I honestly don't care that much about the tone.
-
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
-
So this is what I know. Jim Hall has 4 guitars during his lifetime. ES 175, Les Paul, D'Aquisto and a Sadowsky. Mike Stern said Jim played a guitar till it feel apart. On the flip side was Joe Pass. Joe had endorsement deals with Aria and Ibanez. So Joe could have been playing anything. An ES 175 maybe but more than likely it was his Aria or Ibanez JP 20. Joe played what he needed to play based on who was there. But the rumor was he actually liked the Aria. On a side note Aria made a Herb Ellis as well. Not a lawsuits guitar but actual endorsed guitars.
-
there was no ibanez or aria when Virtuoso 1 was recorded. i thought the acoustic tracks were on an epiphone deluxe.
-
The more I listen to and appreciate the album, the less I 'm bothered by the weird tone. It just sounds great.
The best recorded Joe Pass tone I've heard is on the album Intercontinental for the German MPS label. I love that album so much I shelled out for an expensive import rematered CD to replace the scratchy old LP copy I had. Fantastic album.
Charlie Garnett - Franken Tele
Yesterday, 08:52 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos