How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby SarnoMusicSolutions » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:09 am

That June tone sounds weird, but kind of like a speaker or at least getting rid of that glassy high garbage so it sounds like a guitar. Almost acceptable. It has a warmer top end and a more guitar-type midrange emphasis.

The August tone is more like that horrible, glassy, crispy, total dogshit, worst-guitar-tone-ever sound that Jerry had in that period. I won't sugar coat it, that's NOT what electric guitar should sound like, and definitely not what Jerry's legendary tone was all about.

Very interesting transition and de-evolution in '93 as Jerry went from having over 20 years of the most glorious guitar tone the world ever knew, to suddenly having the worst guitar tone the world ever knew. I was sad after '92. Never was the same again. No more Healy and no more Jerry tone. One of my life's greatest tragedies when the great sound of the Grateful Dead died.

Brad
... and it's just like any other day that's ever been...
SarnoMusicSolutions
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO - USA

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby jeffm725 » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:12 am

tigerstrat wrote:
Then there's the guys that actually admire the post 8/93 tone reading this thread with incredulity.... :lol:


Yeah, the guys who get the piezo put in the guitar, because that is what accounted for the "acoustic sound" Jerry had. :smile:


I gotta tell you though that back in the day, before the flood of gear info and the internet bringing everything together, I was among the camp that would have believed there was a piezo in there. Was never sure, but I could have been convinced by the right person.

Interesting to note that despite Gary Brawers assertions that none of Jer's guitars has the piezo, John K actually thinks there possibly was one in there and that we are all being pranked 8) !
.......................................................have you heard the one about the yellow dog?
jeffm725
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: Chester, CT.

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby jeffm725 » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:19 am

SarnoMusicSolutions wrote:That June tone sounds weird, but kind of like a speaker or at least getting rid of that glassy high garbage so it sounds like a guitar. Almost acceptable. It has a warmer top end and a more guitar-type midrange emphasis.

The August tone is more like that horrible, glassy, crispy, total dogshit, worst-guitar-tone-ever sound that Jerry had in that period. I won't sugar coat it, that's NOT what electric guitar should sound like, and definitely not what Jerry's legendary tone was all about.

Very interesting transition and de-evolution in '93 as Jerry went from having over 20 years of the most glorious guitar tone the world ever knew, to suddenly having the worst guitar tone the world ever knew. I was sad after '92. Never was the same again. No more Healy and no more Jerry tone. One of my life's greatest tragedies when the great sound of the Grateful Dead died.

Brad


brad, Please tell us how you really feel about his post 92 tone! :lol: , I agree with you though, and it was sad, and I think there was more too it than just in-ears. I just dont think he cared to get it right at that point, and he historically cared more about his signal path that just about any guitarist out there. He really undestood how the stuff worked.
.......................................................have you heard the one about the yellow dog?
jeffm725
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: Chester, CT.

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby SarnoMusicSolutions » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:38 am

"They" say that Jerry really just stopped caring in those last years. He cared about JGB, but not the Dead. He was fried, and having a great tone with the Dead was no longer that big a deal to him.

And one thing that has been discussed from time to time, is the fact that without a speaker blasting the sound back into the guitar, the tone is different. A really loud amp rig generates a certain degree of acoustical feedback into the guitar, and that affects tone and sustain. The other big argument about in-ears is that it really separates the player from the audience and the other players. That isolation, it has been argued, kills the feedback loop from the audience and among the players on stage. That was part of the magic, the reciprocal reactivity of both players and audience. The in-ear isolation can really put a wall up between the two. A lost sense of the real energy level on stage and in the house.

Brad
... and it's just like any other day that's ever been...
SarnoMusicSolutions
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1035
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO - USA

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby tcsned » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:41 am

SarnoMusicSolutions wrote:That June tone sounds weird, but kind of like a speaker or at least getting rid of that glassy high garbage so it sounds like a guitar. Almost acceptable. It has a warmer top end and a more guitar-type midrange emphasis.

The August tone is more like that horrible, glassy, crispy, total dogshit, worst-guitar-tone-ever sound that Jerry had in that period. I won't sugar coat it, that's NOT what electric guitar should sound like, and definitely not what Jerry's legendary tone was all about.

Very interesting transition and de-evolution in '93 as Jerry went from having over 20 years of the most glorious guitar tone the world ever knew, to suddenly having the worst guitar tone the world ever knew. I was sad after '92. Never was the same again. No more Healy and no more Jerry tone. One of my life's greatest tragedies when the great sound of the Grateful Dead died.

Brad

and sadly coincided with the demise of Jerry's playing and my desire to go to shows anymore :cry:

The Dead were always at the forefront of live music technology. I'm sure this seemed like the logical next step. Unfortunately, the available technology didn't cut it. A great idea in theory but, in practice, as you put it, was "dogshit."
User avatar
tcsned
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:50 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby jeffm725 » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:45 am

SarnoMusicSolutions wrote:
And one thing that has been discussed from time to time, is the fact that without a speaker blasting the sound back into the guitar, the tone is different. A really loud amp rig generates a certain degree of acoustical feedback into the guitar, and that affects tone and sustain.


you got that right, for an example see: Anastasio, Trey. When I watch him closely it seems he is ultra-aware of a set sweet spot in his stage area where all the sound coming from his rig just interacts and folds back with the top of the 'doc. It is like a little 2 foot area that he walks to when locking in for a jam. It is about more than just getting his typical long feedback/sustained notes, it is an overall part of his sound.
.......................................................have you heard the one about the yellow dog?
jeffm725
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: Chester, CT.

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby tcsned » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:53 am

jeffm725 wrote:
SarnoMusicSolutions wrote:
And one thing that has been discussed from time to time, is the fact that without a speaker blasting the sound back into the guitar, the tone is different. A really loud amp rig generates a certain degree of acoustical feedback into the guitar, and that affects tone and sustain.


you got that right, for an example see: Anastasio, Trey. When I watch him closely it seems he is ultra-aware of a set sweet spot in his stage area where all the sound coming from his rig just interacts and folds back with the top of the 'doc. It is like a little 2 foot area that he walks to when locking in for a jam. It is about more than just getting his typical long feedback/sustained notes, it is an overall part of his sound.

Carlos Santana has spoken about this factor a lot. We had done the ampless thing for a while but I switched back because, while it was easier to mix and such, it just didn't feel or sound right to me. We did not do the in-ear-monitor thing though. I do have a direct rig that I use as an emergency backup but I don't intend on going back that route for a main rig.
User avatar
tcsned
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:50 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby RiverRat » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:56 am

.
Last edited by RiverRat on Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RiverRat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:38 am

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby tigerstrat » Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:01 pm

RiverRat wrote:As much as we scoff at that... It was the direction that Jerry was probably heading had he lived.


He was heading towards playing an (actual) acoustic guitar most of the time.
"There, in huge black letters, was 'The Grateful Dead'. It just... cancelled my mind out."-Garcia
User avatar
tigerstrat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4628
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:20 pm
Location: Portland,OR

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby RiverRat » Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:19 pm

.
Last edited by RiverRat on Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RiverRat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:38 am

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby DeadlyHeptet » Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:25 pm

There is also what is called "psycho-acoustics" wherein at amplitude, one tone playing off another creates a third tone that isn't really being played, but we perceive that something is there. I believe that a lack of cabinets and so forth on stage would preclude that from happening. Another one of those kind of magical elements that may have been lost.
DeadlyHeptet
Blues for Allah
Blues for Allah
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:51 am

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby RiverRat » Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:55 pm

.
Last edited by RiverRat on Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RiverRat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:38 am

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby hogan » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:10 pm

jeffm725 wrote:
Yeah, the guys who get the piezo put in the guitar, because that is what accounted for the "acoustic sound" Jerry had. :smile:


I gotta tell you though that back in the day, before the flood of gear info and the internet bringing everything together, I was among the camp that would have believed there was a piezo in there. Was never sure, but I could have been convinced by the right person.

Interesting to note that despite Gary Brawers assertions that none of Jer's guitars has the piezo, John K actually thinks there possibly was one in there and that we are all being pranked 8) !


I've said this before, I was told in no uncertain terms that Cripes bought a MikeChristian piezo bridge for a guitar that Cripes built for Jerry. I also have maintained from the minute I heard that, it could be a bullshit sales line. "tell what they want to hear, maybe they'll buy one of my gizmos" or a misinfomed statement. Also, it maybe all true but for a guitar that Garcia never took ownership of, or never played on stage.
I will say after the fall '93 tour the over the top crispyness began to be more subdued. If only slightly on subsequent tours.
Honest to the point of recklessness.
PM me for a cab
http://www.facebook.com/workingmansdead
Happy customers (~);-} :
paulinnc, spaceyrface43, AKdead, chuckles, ebelgee, Quebee, Kennay, bomall01, NashvilleMike, Strumminsix,jx2638,Chutley, Adam Deckard, jkstraw, TennesseeJedi, deadhead1988, spacefunkologist, rmackenzie
hogan
Senior Member
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 6:01 pm

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby tcsned » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:13 pm

I always understood psychoacoustics to be the human perception of a sound or sounds.
i.e. we do not hear all frequencies at the same sensitivity.

I could be wrong though, it's been a few years since I studied this in school :D
User avatar
tcsned
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:50 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Re: How come Garcia's tone didn't suck in '92...

Postby RiverRat » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:31 pm

.
Last edited by RiverRat on Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RiverRat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 10:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to Jerry Tone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests