How to get a tone like Jack Bruce (Cream)

[lunarpollen]

Comparing a voice, whose tones come totally from a biological construct, with the sound of a bass and rig, whose tones come largely from manufactured objects, is a broken analogy. There is much more gross variation in tones between human voices than there is gross variation in tones between lines of instruments and amplifiers. But even in voices, sometimes you can find two people who have almost the exact same vocal timbre and range, although their accents and singing abilities might be totally different.

I used to have a Guild Brian May guitar. It wasn't an exact copy of Brian's homebuilt guitar, but it had the same scale length, the same type of pickups and electronics, and was made out of mostly the same materials. If I played it through a treble booster and through either a little 9-volt powered amp or a 30-watt EL84-driven class A tube amp, it could amazingly duplicate a lot of the early Queen guitar tones. Of course I couldn't play like Brian (I am still rather crappy at guitar, but was much worse back then). But I could still get 95% of the same tone. Sure, I could only approximate maybe 5% of the technique and ability, so I wasn't suddenly going to become a Brian clone and play just like him. But I could still get that tone; I sounded like ME playing (rather pathetically) with an almost-exact early Queen tone. Now, 10 years later, I can play much better (but still not expertly), but I don't have that guitar anymore, I don't have a treble booster, and no matter what I do I can't get that tone.

It seems the original intended question was not "how can I sound like X?", but "how can I approximate the tone that X got back in specific time period Y?" He may not even be looking to play just like him, but play like himself just with the same overall tone characteristics of the instrument, amplification, and recording/production used by Jack Bruce back then. And sure, maybe incorporating some basic rudiments of the technique he used (whether he plucked the strings near the neck or near the bridge, if he dug in hard or played delicately, how his tone controls were set, etc.). It may not even be necessary to duplicate the exact gear used, maybe some things are more important than others (scale length, general pickup type, EQ, etc.) Of course he's not gonna sound like Jack Bruce even with the exact same gear, unless he plays exactly like him. But he can still approximate the overall basic tone color.

 

[dougjwray]

You know, I think it's a pretty silly argument. Obviously your tone is going to be quite influenced by your gear. Everything from your instrument, your effects, to your amp color your sound. Hell, if it didn't, why choose what you choose?

It's just as obvious (to me) that your technique colors your tone. If you doubt it, play fingerstyle then switch to a pick or vice versa. Hell, pluck closer to the bridge then pluck by the neck. If you can't hear the difference, give up music now.

I don't think it's 50/50 on gear and style... I think it's 100/100. They both make up your tonal palate. If you change your gear, you will still sound like you playing... different equipment. Someone else playing your rig won't sound like you.

I also think the whole point of the original poster was lost in the debate anyway. He was asking how to cop Jack Bruce's tone. Telling him to play like Jack Bruce does a disservice. If he's got a gig this weekend, yeah I'm sure he can switch his playing style by then. I think we all know he was just asking what to add to his gear to come close to the tone.

Sorry for the longwindedness.

Thank you... you summed it up perfectly.

 

[The Golden Boy]

Actually I was talking about your building up straw men and constant nit-picking.

What straw man have I built?

The closest I can think of a straw man is the driver/car analogy. Even then, the analogy stands as the operator, regardless of skill and experience, cannot get the equipment to exceed it's physical limitations.

As far as "nit-picking," I respond to a post and air the reasons for my disagreement, and that's "nit-picking?"

Again, the entire premise of the thread has been "how to get a tone like Jack Bruce in Cream." Not "how to play like Jack Bruce," or "can you tell if it's Jack Bruce playing." "How to get a tone like Jack Bruce in Cream." And the simple answer that's been said over and over again is that you need to approximate the sound of an EB-3 into an overdriven tube amp into a sealed 4x12 enclosure with lower wattage speakers and a middy EQ. The rebuttal to that has been 'you can't sound like Jack Bruce because you're not Jack Bruce' and 'Jack Bruce still sounds like Jack Bruce despite using different gear and if he does sound different it's because he's 20, 30 or 40 years older.'

If you'd care to cite examples of where I've constructed a straw man argument, been unduly nit-picky or anwhere off base- feel free to quote my posts- I'll either explain my post or apologize.

 

[The Golden Boy]

Go to bed.

A backhanded dismisssal. How cute.

I asked you three questions in that last reply to you. You answered none.

 

[dougjwray]

To me, the funniest part of the whole thing is that Jack didn't even like his Cream tone-- an era-defining tone for folks like me. There was that interview sometime in the '80s where he said that musical equipment had finally developed to the point where it wouldn't break up, and he could get the sound he really wanted. As early as his 1980 album "I've Always Wanted to Do This" (with B. Cobham, D. Sancious and C. Clemson), he already had a squeaky clean, hi-fi recorded sound, and when I saw him on that tour, his live sound was indeed that clean. (As some else mentioned, in the light of this it's puzzling that he had his bass modified with that distortion circuit, possibly at the prompting of Frank Zappa.)
When I saw him with Cream in 2005 at Madison Square Garden, he was at least using an EB-1 for the first half of the show; but he played it through his sterile (to me) Hartke rig. Don't even get me started on Clapton (his Gibson 335 off to the side, never touched).

 

[pedro]

That isn't answering the question in terms of the tonal quality or what the microphone is reproducing.


What I will answer you with is that if you put a U47, a C12 and an SM57 in front of James Brown and ran a signal from the same source, you would have 3 distinctly different signals.

Actually you're the one not answering the question. If a Marshall Amp and Eb3 gives you a tone like Jack Bruce than which microphone will make my voice sound like James Brown?

 

[pedro]

You didn't answer the questions.

What you gave examples of were players that you felt sounded like themselves on gear they weren't normally associated with- however you also claimed that "Sorry but to me all of those things are in separable" in relation to being able to separate the tone from the player. In that, you're in effect claiming there is no specific tonal characteristic to any instrument- in effect, claiming that a Jazz bass sounds the same as a P bass, which sounds the same as and EB-2 which sounds the same as a Longhorn, which sounds the same as an L-2000 which sounds the same as a Thunderbird which sounds the same as a Rickenbacker, which sounds the same as an SR-800 which sounds the same as any other bass- as long as the same player is playing it. And that is patently untrue.

The point is that there is gear that has a characteristic to it that defines what the instrument will sound like, regardless of who is playing it.

I've already said a half a dozen times that gear does make a difference. What I've said is that the pros I named above were able to dial in their sound (or at least come close) on different gear. Which to me supports that technique also plays a large part of the sound.

 

[dougjwray]

This discussion reminds me a bit of Frank Zappa's observation about the relative importances of timbre and musical content. It was in a Guitar Player interview ca. 1977, I believe.
From what I remember, he said that if you had a bunch of non-musicians listen to a string quartet play "Purple Haze", they'd think it was classical music, and if you had Hendrix play some Mozart, they'd think it was "Purple Haze."
Just a thought...
Okay, I'll get out of the way now. Please resume, fellas...

 

[The Golden Boy]

Actually you're the one not answering the question. If a Marshall Amp and Eb3 gives you a tone like Jack Bruce than which microphone will make my voice sound like James Brown?

And I'm the one being accused of building a straw man argument...

Any microphone that has similar properties to the microphones used by James Brown will reproduce a signal with similar properties.

If you are actually serious about this and not throwing out ridiculous horsecrap, I assume you look at James Brown's voice as a unique voice. Instead of Bruce's playing being the unique voice, look at the sound of the instrument/amplifier combination as being the unique voice. Bruce, by anything he does in playing cannot influence the properties the wood of the bass is made of, cannot influence the properties of the pickups, nor the location of the pickups on the instrument- he can only influence where he plucks the strings, how hard he plucks the strings and his touch on the strings on the fretboard. By those actions, they affect how the amplifier will respond. But it's always going to be a predictable outcome- the results will be in a given range.

Let's use a color analogy. Blue and Red make Purple. Regardless of how much blue and red you use, you will ALWAYS come out with a shade of purple. It's a predictable outcome. If you think of adding white to the blue and red, it will change the shade of purple, but it will always be a shade of purple. You cannot have blue and red and white and come out with green. (unless you add yellow and very little red- but that's not the point)

If Blue is the bass
Red is the amp
and White is the player.

 

[superfunk47]

And I'm the one being accused of building a straw man argument...

Any microphone that has similar properties to the microphones used by James Brown will reproduce a signal with similar properties.

Instead of Bruce's playing being the unique voice, look at the sound of the instrument/amplifier combination as being the unique voice.

So you're switching around the elements of your analogy to better fit your argument and wonder why you aren't getting through to people

That said, what the OP was asking for was a gear recommendation, which he recieved and was happy with.

Does the player make a difference? Absolutely.

Does the gear make a difference? Absolutely.

This thread was over a long time ago, people. Pick up the shattered pieces of your lives and move on.

 

[pedro]

And I'm the one being accused of building a straw man argument...

Any microphone that has similar properties to the microphones used by James Brown will reproduce a signal with similar properties.

If you are actually serious about this and not throwing out ridiculous horsecrap, I assume you look at James Brown's voice as a unique voice. Instead of Bruce's playing being the unique voice, look at the sound of the instrument/amplifier combination as being the unique voice. Bruce, by anything he does in playing cannot influence the properties the wood of the bass is made of, cannot influence the properties of the pickups, nor the location of the pickups on the instrument- he can only influence where he plucks the strings, how hard he plucks the strings and his touch on the strings on the fretboard. By those actions, they affect how the amplifier will respond. But it's always going to be a predictable outcome- the results will be in a given range.

Let's use a color analogy. Blue and Red make Purple. Regardless of how much blue and red you use, you will ALWAYS come out with a shade of purple. It's a predictable outcome. If you think of adding white to the blue and red, it will change the shade of purple, but it will always be a shade of purple. You cannot have blue and red and white and come out with green. (unless you add yellow and very little red- but that's not the point)

If Blue is the bass
Red is the amp
and White is the player.

First of all I never accused you of anything. We're just having a silly conversation and disagree about how much tone comes from the technique of the musician vs. the gear. That said, I really don't know how else to state my case. James Brown's voice will sound like James Brown's voice no matter what microphone he sang thru. The qualities of his voice maybe amplified clearer or louder depending on the microphone but the essence of his voice will remain the same. Duck Dunn, Jaco, Bob Babbitt, etc. all were able to dial in their sound (or a reasonable facsimile of it) on gear that was not their usual cup of tea. Not everybody that plays an Eb3 thru a Marshall stack will sound exactly like Jack Bruce did in 1968. Are they attacking the strings in the same way and in the same location? Are they playing the D on the 'A' string or open, are they raking the strings, are they playing w/ a pick, etc. all of these things (IMO) will have significant impact on the 'tone'.

Again just my $.02.

 

[dougjwray]

Golden Boy,
How about this one:
Thelonious Monk recorded on scores of different pianos on at least two continents, and his tone was ALWAYS unmistakeable. How?
Likewise, Bill Evans. In fact, I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet that Monk and Evans recorded on the very same instrument at some point (perhaps at the Village Vanguard? or at Columbia's studio in N.Y.C.?) and if you heard those recordings, you'd have NO confusion over who was who. Again, how?

 

[The Golden Boy]

So you're switching around the elements of your analogy to better fit your argument and wonder why you aren't getting through to people

That said, what the OP was asking for was a gear recommendation, which he recieved and was happy with.

Does the player make a difference? Absolutely.

Does the gear make a difference? Absolutely.

This thread was over a long time ago, people. Pick up the shattered pieces of your lives and move on.

I didn't bring up the microphone analogy.

I'm really glad the OP got the advice he needed and appears to be happy with where he's going with it.

Yes, the player makes a difference.

However, in this instance, the gear makes a much, much, MUCH larger difference.

 

[pedro]

However, in this instance, the gear makes a much, much, MUCH larger difference.

And basically that's all we were really disagree about is 'how much'.

 

[pedro]

I didn't bring up the microphone analogy.

Correct I brought up the microphone.

 

[Sneckumhaw]

What straw man have I built?

The closest I can think of a straw man is the driver/car analogy. Even then, the analogy stands as the operator, regardless of skill and experience, cannot get the equipment to exceed it's physical limitations.

As far as "nit-picking," I respond to a post and air the reasons for my disagreement, and that's "nit-picking?"

Again, the entire premise of the thread has been "how to get a tone like Jack Bruce in Cream." Not "how to play like Jack Bruce," or "can you tell if it's Jack Bruce playing." "How to get a tone like Jack Bruce in Cream." And the simple answer that's been said over and over again is that you need to approximate the sound of an EB-3 into an overdriven tube amp into a sealed 4x12 enclosure with lower wattage speakers and a middy EQ. The rebuttal to that has been 'you can't sound like Jack Bruce because you're not Jack Bruce' and 'Jack Bruce still sounds like Jack Bruce despite using different gear and if he does sound different it's because he's 20, 30 or 40 years older.'

If you'd care to cite examples of where I've constructed a straw man argument, been unduly nit-picky or anwhere off base- feel free to quote my posts- I'll either explain my post or apologize.

What I mean about nit-picking is that you are being unbelievably obstinate when, as Pedro and I have both said, all we disagree about is the degree to which different elements influence tone.

Big deal, right? And what I mean by straw men is that you're argumentatively portraying Jimmy and Pedro as having the indefensible position of claiming that gear has no significant impact on the sound. They never said that, but you have tried to make it look that way.

Perhaps the more appropriate complaint would have been about your pedantry. But honestly, I don't want to start a fight. I respect your opinion, I just find you too forceful and pedantic in presenting it.

 

[The Golden Boy]

First of all I never accused you of anything. We're just having a silly conversation and disagree about how much tone comes from the technique of the musician vs. the gear. That said, I really don't know how else to state my case. James Brown's voice will sound like James Brown's voice no matter what microphone he sang thru. The qualities of his voice maybe amplified clearer or louder depending on the microphone but the essence of his voice will remain the same. Duck Dunn, Jaco, Bob Babbitt, etc. all were able to dial in their sound (or a reasonable facsimile of it) on gear that was not their usual cup of tea. Not everybody that plays an Eb3 thru a Marshall stack will sound exactly like Jack Bruce did in 1968. Are they attacking the strings in the same way and in the same location? Are they playing the D on the 'A' string or open, are they raking the strings, are they playing w/ a pick, etc. all of these things (IMO) will have significant impact on the 'tone'.

Again just my $.02.

I know you didn't accuse me of creating the straw man arguments- but I was accused of it in post 160.

Regardless of where or how the instrument is played- an instrument such as an EB-3 has it's own tonal characteristic. Combined with the overdriven Marshall combined with sealed 4x12 cabs with 25w speakers- the tone will ALWAYS be in the same ball park. Unlike something like a "Fender Bass" into a Bassman- that sound is ubiquitous- and there are loads of variations in that theme. I'm not so sure that I could pull identification of a particular element of a fairly ordinary bass sound. However, the EB into the Marshall is a fairly unique and identifiable sound. If I didn't know any better, I would not be able to tell you that Jamerson's bass sound was a P into a B15 with a DI. I know it, and it makes sense. If you were to tell me he was playing a Burns Bison into a Vox Super Beatle turned down low and I didn't know any better, it would make sense. In the way I hear it, I don't think there's a whole lot of tonal difference between a Bison and a P- and I can't distinctly tell a Bassman from a B-15 from a Super Beatle. In the case of Bruce and the EB-3/Marshall sound- THAT is a particularly identifiable and unique sound. With Bruce's sound, you not only have that massive low middy sound out of the bass, but you have the drive of the 100w head and the farty bark of the 12s in a sealed cab.

Speaking of Beatles... going along with technique and recording... I think of something as a Rickenbacker 4001 as having a pretty bright, and fairly identifiable sound. Listen to the takes of "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" and at the beginning you hear McCartney noodling around. From everything I've read- the Rick was the only Bass used on the Sgt. Pepper tracks- but the sound to me sounds like the Hofner. I know what bass is supposedly being used, but the tone doesn't match up with the sound I hear. Again, following that tangent a touch further- I always identified the Rick sound with stuff like Yes' "Roundabout" and the Beatles' "Glass Onion" and "While My Guitar..." and "Helter Skelter." I grew up believing that- and it made sense because those sounds are so similar. It wasn't until the past few years that I found out that it was actually a Jazz bass- and that makes sense. In the case of the Jack Bruce WOF and later bass tones- there is nothing that sounds really similar to THAT sound

Would you say that Jack Bruce played with his typical style, phrasing, technique and overall "JackBruceness" at the reunion shows? If so, why was his tone so immensely different? You yourself agreed that his bass sound was not the same. What changed? If his technique, phrasing, style, note choice and fingers and mind were all the same, why was his tone so different? What changed?

So, either Jack Bruce did NOT play like himself at the reunion shows or something altered his tone significantly.

There is no concession I can make. In this instance, the majority of the identifiable characteristic of Jack Bruce's Cream era sound is due to his equipment. With my experience with that type of equipment and the tonal similarities in players using similar equipment and the lack of players with the same sound using different equipment- there is no doubt in my mind.

 

[The Golden Boy]

What I mean about nit-picking is that you are being unbelievably obstinate when, as Pedro and I have both said, all we disagree about is the degree to which different elements influence tone.

Big deal, right? And what I mean by straw men is that you're argumentatively portraying Jimmy and Pedro as having the indefensible position of claiming that gear has no significant impact on the sound. They never said that, but you have tried to make it look that way.

Perhaps the more appropriate complaint would have been about your pedantry. But honestly, I don't want to start a fight. I respect your opinion, I just find you too forceful and pedantic in presenting it.

There's really no middle ground in this instance. You can have monkeys flinging poo balls at the strings and the tone that's going to come out is going to be in the neighborhood of that Bruce/Papalardi/Fraser/Daisley tone because so much of that tone is dictated by the equipment.

If this were a general question about tone in general- I'd whole-heartedly agree. In the instance of Jack Bruce's Cream era tone- I completely and wholeheartedly disagree.

 

[The Golden Boy]

Golden Boy,
How about this one:
Thelonious Monk recorded on scores of different pianos on at least two continents, and his tone was ALWAYS unmistakeable. How?
Likewise, Bill Evans. In fact, I'm not sure, but I'm willing to bet that Monk and Evans recorded on the very same instrument at some point (perhaps at the Village Vanguard? or at Columbia's studio in N.Y.C.?) and if you heard those recordings, you'd have NO confusion over who was who. Again, how?

I don't know much about pianos, I'm not familiar with Monk or Evans. If I were familiar with pianos, I know that there are some pianos that sound different than other pianos. In other words, there are physical characteristics to certain pianos that differentiate them sonically from other pianos. A full grand will sound different than an upright, and a tack piano will sound different from a similar upright.

Again, if I were familiar with how pianos sounded and I was familiar with Monk and Evans, would I be able to tell what type of piano they were playing on? I don't know much about pianos, but I would guess that someone playing a full grand piano is going to sound like them playing on a full grand piano and that same someone is going to sound like them, but different on a "jangle box" piano.

 

[pedro]

Regardless of where or how the instrument is played- an instrument such as an EB-3 has it's own tonal characteristic. Combined with the overdriven Marshall combined with sealed 4x12 cabs with 25w speakers- the tone will ALWAYS be in the same ball park.

I don't have any argument with 'same ball park'. But as I've pointed out numerous times in this debate, Babbitt, Pastorius, Duck, etc. were all able to get into the ball park by other means, namely eq and technique.

Would you say that Jack Bruce played with his typical style, phrasing, technique and overall "JackBruceness" at the reunion shows? If so, why was his tone so immensely different?

He played like Jack Bruce circa 2005.

You yourself agreed that his bass sound was not the same. What changed? If his technique, phrasing, style, note choice and fingers and mind were all the same, why was his tone so different? What changed?

No he has evolved over the past 40 years and so has his style. He sounds different because he chose to.

So, either Jack Bruce did NOT play like himself at the reunion shows or something altered his tone significantly.

See above - he played like Jack Bruce in 2005. The evidence is clear that the members of Cream had no intentions of 're-creating' 1968 Cream.

There is no concession I can make.

Then we are at a stand still.