Thought it might have been him - I know there was only a very small number of guys building audio equipment those days.
love reading up on the stories . . .
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Classic Motown Sound
- Thread starter Ron G
- Start date
Thought it might have been him - I know there was only a very small number of guys building audio equipment those days.
love reading up on the stories . . .
If you REALLY want that old Motown sound you are gonna need a P bass with old flats, tube amp and a 15 with a blown speaker.
I bought a amp online that came packed with this pretty dense charcoal grey hard-packed-bubble-type plastic square shaped foam or such at each corner.
Its the perfect length already so I just cut it into strips and slide it below the strings near the bridge of my "08 Am St P5 w/Chromes. It kinda loses its shape with use as you can hear the tiny bubbles breaking up as I install and remove it. But I have so much of it, I just toss it after awhile and cut out a new strip that I leave in my gigbags.
I don't own a Ampeg amp/cab/etc. Works great for that nice thumpiness while finger pluckin or with a pick; it can get super thick. I used this method recently on our re-recording of Summer Time. I find myself playing with just my single index finger alot recently. Sometimes, I feel more control with better speed this way. Gotta love "The Jamerson"; he's just so great.
Its the perfect length already so I just cut it into strips and slide it below the strings near the bridge of my "08 Am St P5 w/Chromes. It kinda loses its shape with use as you can hear the tiny bubbles breaking up as I install and remove it. But I have so much of it, I just toss it after awhile and cut out a new strip that I leave in my gigbags.
I don't own a Ampeg amp/cab/etc. Works great for that nice thumpiness while finger pluckin or with a pick; it can get super thick. I used this method recently on our re-recording of Summer Time. I find myself playing with just my single index finger alot recently. Sometimes, I feel more control with better speed this way. Gotta love "The Jamerson"; he's just so great.
Tubes were a massive part of the recorded tone Jamerson got at Motown (he pushed his bass signal well into the red on the mixer and got some slamming overdrive), as well as the compression and tape saturation. That tone was no accident, like everything else at Motown it was highly finessed and was a result of using new technologies and getting the best from existing ones. There is a percussive effect to the attack caused by either the tape saturation (thanks, Jimmy!) or the OD that is part of the tone, much like doubled tic tac guitar completed the bass tone at other studios. The thing is, the EB was so new that the ways to record it effectively were being made up as they went along. Jamerson/Motown's solution was perfect for his evolving style of playing and the two cannot be separated, IMO.
If it became generic or ubiquitous it was for a reason- many producers wanted to cop it because it worked and it sold records. There were plenty of other common bass tones in the mid-late '60s, like Osborn's picked J and the sound of Ps played through Fender Concert amps, etc. Doesn't make them any less special or innovative.
I agree it was his note selection and incredible touch and swing that singled him out amongst his peers, but I also think his tone was integral to his style's effectiveness. His busy fills worked because in the mix they could sound like conga drums, so short was the sustain and so punchy and round his tone, as one tiny example.
Someone on this forum once described his playing as a bass pulse, one of the truest and most interesting comments I've heard about Jamerson. I was just listening to Bob Babbit's wonderful playing on some clips of that bald English guy singing Motown songs on his latest vanity album, and though they nailed the original tones of most of the instruments (they were obviously looking to imitate the original sound of the records, full-stop), they chickened out on the bass, and there is just too much sustain to make the rest of the mix work properly. They missed the whole point of Jamerson's and Babbit's recorded Motown tone, IMO, and should have tweaked the other instruments to fit, or got the bass right in the first place.
If it became generic or ubiquitous it was for a reason- many producers wanted to cop it because it worked and it sold records. There were plenty of other common bass tones in the mid-late '60s, like Osborn's picked J and the sound of Ps played through Fender Concert amps, etc. Doesn't make them any less special or innovative.
I agree it was his note selection and incredible touch and swing that singled him out amongst his peers, but I also think his tone was integral to his style's effectiveness. His busy fills worked because in the mix they could sound like conga drums, so short was the sustain and so punchy and round his tone, as one tiny example.
Someone on this forum once described his playing as a bass pulse, one of the truest and most interesting comments I've heard about Jamerson. I was just listening to Bob Babbit's wonderful playing on some clips of that bald English guy singing Motown songs on his latest vanity album, and though they nailed the original tones of most of the instruments (they were obviously looking to imitate the original sound of the records, full-stop), they chickened out on the bass, and there is just too much sustain to make the rest of the mix work properly. They missed the whole point of Jamerson's and Babbit's recorded Motown tone, IMO, and should have tweaked the other instruments to fit, or got the bass right in the first place.
Yes, everybody forgets the effect of the foam mute under the bridge cover giving more decay; the direct antithesis of everybody going for more compression & sustain. On the numbers I use EB in my jazz/dance band, I've even gone back to flats on my P-style custom fanned fret bass, the new Fender flats in 45-60-80-105, and a couple of pieces of foam under the cover to give some natural decay for that style of tone.
Also consider the setup of the bass, and where he plucked the strings. He used the standard Labella set of the day (there was only one gauge available, which would be considered "heavy" by any standards), and the action was set quite high. I suspect the neck had a bit of a bow in it, lol. He also had both covers on his bass. He rested his third and fourth fingers on the pickup cover, and plucked with his first finger. His second finger saw little if any use. Consider what this means. He plucked the string BETWEEN the fingerboard and the p-bass pickup. How many of you do that? Few if any I bet. That, plus the heavy (and dead) strings, and the rubber mute (OVER, not under) the strings, would be a good starting point of you want a bass set up like his.
The "Jamerson" set that Labella sells is a set that I used for many years, back in the 70's/80's. I know it well. They are VERY bright when new, and will sound NOTHING like his set. One time I broke the G string while doing some maintenance on the bass, and was supremely dismayed at the mis-match of the new G string. I lent my bass to a friend for week, who ate lots of peanut butter and rarely showered. That helped a lot
Amp settings will not get you there. Neither will round wounds, as they have little if any "thud" at the start of the note, which is important if you want to go for the 60's thing. The rubber is important in order to facilitate the rapid decay. Jamersons bass has a decay almost as fast as a conga drum. That is not the strings, nor the age of the strings, it's the rubber. All these factors are important, but without the rubber mute, the bass will still ring too much.
The Labella set was the heaviest available in it's day (and probably still is). The only other string widely available then was Fender, which had an E string that barely spoke. And the A was not much better. You kinda HAD to move to Labella if you weren't satisfied with what came on the bass. But they were monstrously heavy, and not for the weak at heart. Putting those on your bass now would be very hard for most players, and very hard on most basses. In my opinion, the Pyramid Gold flats sound more like Jamerson did than a new set of Labellas will. They are a "rope core" type of string, with internal damping built into the strings itself. I have them on my '63 P bass (that I bought back in '74), and there is no doubt in my mind that they nail that sound better than a new set of Labellas will, UNLESS I played them full time, ate lots of fried chicken (and never washed my hands), and was willing to wait a few years.
BTW, I'm 55, and played that Labella set for at least a decade and a half on a '63 P bass, so that's my reference point
The "Jamerson" set that Labella sells is a set that I used for many years, back in the 70's/80's. I know it well. They are VERY bright when new, and will sound NOTHING like his set. One time I broke the G string while doing some maintenance on the bass, and was supremely dismayed at the mis-match of the new G string. I lent my bass to a friend for week, who ate lots of peanut butter and rarely showered. That helped a lot
Amp settings will not get you there. Neither will round wounds, as they have little if any "thud" at the start of the note, which is important if you want to go for the 60's thing. The rubber is important in order to facilitate the rapid decay. Jamersons bass has a decay almost as fast as a conga drum. That is not the strings, nor the age of the strings, it's the rubber. All these factors are important, but without the rubber mute, the bass will still ring too much.
The Labella set was the heaviest available in it's day (and probably still is). The only other string widely available then was Fender, which had an E string that barely spoke. And the A was not much better. You kinda HAD to move to Labella if you weren't satisfied with what came on the bass. But they were monstrously heavy, and not for the weak at heart. Putting those on your bass now would be very hard for most players, and very hard on most basses. In my opinion, the Pyramid Gold flats sound more like Jamerson did than a new set of Labellas will. They are a "rope core" type of string, with internal damping built into the strings itself. I have them on my '63 P bass (that I bought back in '74), and there is no doubt in my mind that they nail that sound better than a new set of Labellas will, UNLESS I played them full time, ate lots of fried chicken (and never washed my hands), and was willing to wait a few years.
BTW, I'm 55, and played that Labella set for at least a decade and a half on a '63 P bass, so that's my reference point
that's some very on the money info there mark. afa labella's go i've been using 760fl's (the next set down from jamersons) for almost 15 years now. after using the jamerson set for many years and i can tell anyone that they're the best "compromise" set out there for That tone. they still have that great labella fundamental tone we all love but your neck won't be cursing your name because of all the insane tension a jamerson set has. my bass is a very early '62 ri P, bone stock. i'm gonna experiment with a foam mute on Top of my bridge cover too, as i've only ever done foam underneath and have never been happy with it. and oh yeah i Love having the pickup cover on too! i go back and forth: for gigs that need a punchier sound i just take it off and play right over the pickup like most guys do. but having the cover on gives you 2 very distinct sounds when you play either in front of or behind it. i anchor fingers 3&4 for in front playing and anchor my thumb on it for when i play behind it. it's very very cool
I get the best Jamerson sound playing through my Phil Jones Suitcase rig with the EQ set flat and the limiter on.
My youtube vids are all DI'd. My p-bass is a Japanese (CIJ) 62 reissue. I replaced the pickup with an EMG-P active. The strings are LaBella Deep Talkin' Bass flatwounds the "1954" set. I have 2 strips of pencil eraser tucked under the bridge cover, positioned close to the saddles - you can see a pic on the discography page at jamersonshook.com. My action is about 5mm from top of fret to underside of string at 12th fret, and the neck has a fair bit of bend in it so the action stays high lower down (it is still 3mm or so at the 3rd fret). Pickups are screwed down as far as possible.
The pickup cover affects the magnetic field of the pickup, so in theory it also matters, but I've not quite got to that level of craziness yet to properly test that!
I record through a Phil Jones Bass Buddy preamp (usually set with flat EQ, with the limiter on) and then straight into the little line in socket at the back of my PC. Sometimes I boost the 630hz eq slider on the Phil Jones preamp by about 6db to cut through a bit more. I don't think I'd need this with a stock passive pickup though (which are great BTW, don't think EMG actives are necessary - I just like their extra bottom octave).
Don't forget there's still at least half of the Jamerson "sound" that comes from your hands - the hook technique, strength of the attack, how you use your RH thumb, and LH muting all add up to more than the instrument and preamp when it comes to how it sounds.
My youtube vids are all DI'd. My p-bass is a Japanese (CIJ) 62 reissue. I replaced the pickup with an EMG-P active. The strings are LaBella Deep Talkin' Bass flatwounds the "1954" set. I have 2 strips of pencil eraser tucked under the bridge cover, positioned close to the saddles - you can see a pic on the discography page at jamersonshook.com. My action is about 5mm from top of fret to underside of string at 12th fret, and the neck has a fair bit of bend in it so the action stays high lower down (it is still 3mm or so at the 3rd fret). Pickups are screwed down as far as possible.
The pickup cover affects the magnetic field of the pickup, so in theory it also matters, but I've not quite got to that level of craziness yet to properly test that!
I record through a Phil Jones Bass Buddy preamp (usually set with flat EQ, with the limiter on) and then straight into the little line in socket at the back of my PC. Sometimes I boost the 630hz eq slider on the Phil Jones preamp by about 6db to cut through a bit more. I don't think I'd need this with a stock passive pickup though (which are great BTW, don't think EMG actives are necessary - I just like their extra bottom octave).
Don't forget there's still at least half of the Jamerson "sound" that comes from your hands - the hook technique, strength of the attack, how you use your RH thumb, and LH muting all add up to more than the instrument and preamp when it comes to how it sounds.
Jamerson's background was Double Bass. IMHO he was going for a sound that like that on the Fender Precision. He used his first, second, and fourth fingers to cover only three frets. Personally, I also think that he pushed the input just enough to simulate the way an upright sustains, just my opinion though. Regardless of what he did he was a genius and everyone is just having a good time trying to emulate and honor his memory, with the exception of Bob Babbitt and possibly Michael Henderson who worked for Motown in Detroit.
Ric
- Mar 24, 2005
- 1,625
- 44
- 81
- Disclosures
- Seymour Duncan/Basslines SMB-5A Endorsing Artist
I'm with BB and MH, too . . . I DO respect what he did and honor his memory . . . but I'm not into copying ANYONE'S style . . .
. . .
I believe this is a Fender Music Master Bass amp that Jamerson is playing through on this live Marvin cut. It sounds like Jamerson...as one would expect.... which suggests the sound is not dependent on the amp, but the player and his axe. FWIW
Yeah, he's right, farty on the lows and the notes decay fast, not stop with the finger, the foam decay thing.
Probably one of the most hilariously long description's of foam I have ever read
I'm inspired by Jamerson every day
billfitzmaurice
Commercial User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 16,860
- 278
- 76
- Disclosures
- Owner, Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design
His tone wasn't all that unique back in the day, being pretty much defined by the limitations of the gear. What separated his style from most was the staccato, and the fact that he did most of his playing in the higher registers. Two reasons for that: you couldn't play low and clean with the amps of that day, and if you did you'd never hear it on the most common form of playback in the 60s and 70s, car radios. My style then was very similar, for the same reasons. I still play pretty much the same way, though I dropped flatwounds like a bad habit after trying my first set of rotosounds around '71, and once I got speakers that would go full bore to low E without breaking a sweat I stopped venturing above the seventh fret.
This is the video that I referenced in an earlier post. Actually, that's a Fender Dual Showman Reverb head and either 2-15 cab or possibly a 4-12 Fender cab. At the time, the Dual Showman had more power than the Bassman amps and ended up being used by some bass players.
Agreed on player and axe playing a major role in sound.
