• 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

#41
For those interested in how different pre-amps effect tone, check out some of John K's posts with different units and how they impart their own character to the same bassline played by the same guy.
Interesting in that the purpose of a pre-amp is to purely raise the output from the bass to a higher level for the deck (mic level vs line level) and how many pre's are used to change tone just like changing guitar amps.
 
#42
billfitzmaurice said:
George Martin was sent to the US in the 60s to snoop around studios and find out what US producers were using that gave them a sound that the British couldn't duplicate. It was the Fairchild compressor. Today they fetch upwards of $30k. When the first SS compressors came along many studios tossed their Fairchilds into the trash. :bawl:
Click to expand...

New ones are half that price :D

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
#44
Some beuatiful quotes from that forum / thread...

1. most early commercial direct boxes were incredibly bad and couldn't handle the level. The home brew ones from five years earlier that most major studios used didn't have that problem.

2. A lot of engineers run on auto-pilot and start turning knobs before they listen. In their defense, I have to admit that I about had a heart attack the first time I tried to record a bass player OTHER than James or Bob. If you just did what you really need to do for many bass players the results wouldn't be very good on a great player.

there were no amplifiers. It was all direct.
Bob Ohllson, former Motown super engineer, pointed out on another thread that virtually nothing was done to alter the bass sounds of either Jamerson or Babbitt. It all came from their fingers pal.
 
#46
Remember...It was not until the 80's that you could just go and buy a studio console.

Every single console before then was custom built. Most companies actually did one of two things: They came to you...took measurements of the studio, and discussed over a few days, what your needs were and what type of console is best. Or, You ordered the board, how may channels, how many sub groups, did it need Quadraphonic output, how many stereo groups did it need...The first board I cut my teeth on was a 24 x 16 x8 x 8 x4 x2. An old Quad eight..With Mechanical switching... I miss that thing.

And if channels where needed after the fact, you would buy Altec or similar preamps and convert those. Those old green altecs that were in Jewel(s) and Venture back in the day.

The thing that we should know, is not every session was the same, so James may have used a B15 on sessions for lets say monday...but lets say Tuesday he went into the board..As far as a fool-proof laid out schematic of what was going on...don't try to do that...All you'll get is a bunch of snobs telling you you're wrong in your theory. If the engineer from those sessions though, says James NEVER went mic'd...I'm going to believe him over somebody who was never there. IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jazzygreg
#48
Jerry Ziarko said:
I've been around here for quite sometime, and I've never seen this. While I knew he went direct, I never know how it was done. While it did contribute to his "sound". I still believe 99% of it was in his hands.
Click to expand...

Totally. He could have been recorded any number of different ways, and we'd be sitting here analyzing how he got such great tone.
 
#51
Much of it was in the arrangements and mixing, too. It's a lot easier to get great bass tone on a record when you don't have eight channels of heavily compressed guitar nonsense doubling your notes topped with 20 channels of squashed and reverbed drums.

I love Jamerson's work but his studio sound has never seemed magical to me. It's just a well played P-bass going through a lot of iron and out to tape. Not to be sacrilegious, but getting 99% of the way there is probably pretty easy for most of us and hardly requires a custom built preamp/R2D2 thingamabob. :)
 
#53
kesslari said:
Slightly off topic - someone posted a link to a very good analysis of a tune that seems to have both James Jamerson and Carol Kaye playing on (different parts) of it. I can't find it, and would love to go back and bookmark it.
Anyone remember that?
Click to expand...

I'm not above answering my own question, since I had a little time to search.
This is it - pretty interesting:
Diana Ross ANMHE track no vocals - YouTube
 
#55
here's a question - so it's a cramped studio, right? Where are the drums? If they're all in the same room, there would still be at least a bit of bleed into the drum mics from the monitors and the bass amp.

Very interesting info - thank you for sharing.
 
#57
slobake said:
In the spirit of Yogi Berra you could say that bass tone is 90% technique and the other half is equipment.
Click to expand...

+1 The hands and the intial way the note is played have a great effect on tone. After all the preamp, etc., can only work with what the player feeds it. However gear (and how it is dialed in) is very important as well (i.e. even Jameson wouldn't be able to get his tone through Geddy's bass and rig the way that Geddy has it set... he'd still have his own stylistic flourishes and would sound like himself, but it wouldn't be the "Jamerson Motown tone").

That being said, this is some cool info, and stuff I haven't seen before. Thanks for sharing.
 
#59
Thanks, Dan, I've never heard the mixing board described in such detail, great find! I have mentioned a few times in the past that although they were using a very early DI system (the first?) there was a definite tube path in the signal that could be overdriven. It has been mentioned often that Jamerson would push his levels into the red on his own channel to get that OD that is clearly audible in all the Motown sessions he was on. Sometimes the signal was cleaner than others, you can hear the difference on isolated tracks quite clearly, sometimes it is downright nasty!

I agree his recorded tone is mostly a pure and straight muted P with flats one, and it is obvious his incredible touch and his high action gave each note such weight and authority, but the compression, overdrive and possibly tape saturation helped made that tone work so well in those beautiful Motown arrangements.

It's also obvious that the whole set-up could only work with musicians of the caliber of the Funk Brothers and the like, who were basically mixing themselves to a degree, and who brought the tones that worked to the table ready-made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jazzygreg

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back