I can't help but notice that the soloed tracks of Jamerson's bass sound way, way different from the bass tone on the released songs. So in the search for the grail of tone are we talking about the tone before or after mixing and mastering process?
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.
The Real James Jamerson Amp
- Thread starter -=DanAtkinson=-
- Start date
Boy, is that a good question in light of what Bob Ohlsson says on Gearslutz about those soloed tracks Rick Suchow posted! However, you know how they say that soloed bass tracks never quite sound like they do by themselves once you hear them in a mix.
For what it is worth, in my home studio, after years of trying to record my bass tone to sound just like the mastered Motown bass tone, I now try to emulate the low midrange heavy tone of the soloed Jamerson tracks. I seem to get better results in the mixdown as it is easier to add a little bass eq and still get great punch as opposed to try and eq punch into a bass heavier track. Perhaps this is what the engineers were doing.
Yet here we are after all these years trying to capture just a little bit of that magic.
Personally, I think it's pointless. It's 2015, not 1965. And even if we could capture the raw sounds, we still can't capture the playing and songwriting. It was truly a product of its day.
Folks will happily sell you stuff to make you sound like ANYONE - but could be, is it just "possible" that what we hear when we hear that JJ magic is in the man, not the gear?
I don't think that is disputable, but most of what influences our sonic goals doesn't fall out of the sky either. I find it intriguing and while it isn't my personal desire or need to replicate the sounds of the time /place (Motown), I think much can be learned from its technical history. I wish there were more threads like this on TB.
Every time someone cool comes on, idiots run them off.
I hardly think that suggesting that equipment is NOT the answer makes me an "idiot".
Jamerson has said that he never changed his strings. He liked the dead sound of old flats. Part of his technique came down to strong hands from playing double bass and high action on his P-bass. People that have said that they tried to play his bass couldn't. Motown staff players that used to go on tours complained to Berry Gordy that his parts were too hard to play. He stood out from his peers.
The signal chain started with his playing, his bass, and everything between there and what gets printed onto tape, then mastering and disk cutting to produce the master disk. There was a lot of skill at all levels from everyone involved and equipment that went into creating their sound. I think that they go hand-in-hand.
The signal chain started with his playing, his bass, and everything between there and what gets printed onto tape, then mastering and disk cutting to produce the master disk. There was a lot of skill at all levels from everyone involved and equipment that went into creating their sound. I think that they go hand-in-hand.
yeah great thought. i will try and do the same with my rig eventually (once i get some more scratch).
for me the methodology and techniques were so interesting. to hear bob babbitt not need compression really spurs me on to have a more even tone and feel when playing. on the flipside, to hear even the mighty james jamerson had EQ added to their sound makes me think "i don't need to arrive with the 'perfect tone'".
The guys selling this are claiming this passive DI has a transformer that's an accurate reproduction of the transformer used in the Motown DI/preamp system.
Note that the only folks claiming the magic Motown sound was heavily influenced by the transformer in their preamp system are the same ones trying to sell you a transformer in a little metal box for $500.
And let's not forget the big hole they cut out of the ceiling to give it that signature Motown reverb-like effect. Talk about high tech !
Since I have lived in the area of Detroit most of my adult life, I have visited the studio many times. If any of you ever get the chance to take a tour, you will be fascinated at how that sound was accomplished, with what they had to work with, at least, early on ( which is my favorite part of the Motown era ). It's really amazing.
Hallowed ground. Those X's on the floor where they stood are humbling. I'd want to surreptitiously note all the dimensions every time I visited.
Yup. There is also something to say about a group of musicians who frequently gigged together, knew each other well. A lot of those early backing tracks were done in the wee wee hours of the morning, after the Funk Brothers ( in one form or another ), had just played a club for several hours. Kind of like Booker T and The MG's, in a way.
I've heard stories that the early Beatle recordings that were recorded at EMI studios in London,later renamed Abby Road Studios, were very much looked down upon by American recording engineers because of this, no bottom end to the sound, not full sounding. Much fuller sound on the re-mastered CD versions IMHO Jim
