rukind.com

Grateful Dead Music Forum

A place to talk about the music of the Grateful Dead 

 #108087  by tcsned
 Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:35 am
I was just re-downloading a bunch of shows I went to back in the good old days and was listening to the Warlocks shows (Hampton 89) where Jerry pulled out Wolf for a couple of nights. I was surprised at how little difference there was between the tone between Wolf in 89 and Tiger in 89. Jerry's playing had evolved a lot between 79 and 89 as did some effects etc but other than a slight bit more brightness or edge in the Wolf I couldn't really tell them apart. Maybe just my crappy old ears but I was expecting more difference than I heard. Kind of feeds my belief that the guitar is obviously important but the end result is more the intangibles of touch and playing style. Granted these two guitars had very similar electronics, set up, and the same builder so it's not like going to a Les Paul from a Strat but still totally different wood, neck joint, etc.

Thoughts? ...
 #108088  by tnbrdsng
 Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:52 am
Wolf is definitely brighter, probably mostly due to all the maple.

Jerry used Wolf for the entire October '89 tour because he was having Rosebud built with an internal MIDI pickup. He needed something with MIDI for entire shows, not just for "Space" (i.e. "Built To Last", "Mexicali Blues") like everyone else in the band at the time. Due to the carved top/battery cover on Tiger he couldn't easily attach a GK-3 type controller to the top of it, thus reverting back to Wolf with it's flat maple top.

Wolf does not only ring with a gorgeous chime and "cut through" better than Tiger/Rosebud, to my professional ear it also got a way better distorted tone. It was much clearer. Just listen to the noodling at the beginning of "I Need A Miracle" from the Hampton show on the 8th and tell me you don't get what I like to call a "tone boner".
 #108094  by Rusty the Scoob
 Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:04 pm
They aren't really that different, right? Same scale length, neck-through construction, very similar electronics, etc. Probably similar neck profiles, Jerry knew what he liked. Maple and Purpleheart are nearly indistinguishable tonally.
 #108095  by Tennessee Jedi
 Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:23 pm
Rusty the Scoob wrote:They aren't really that different, right? Same scale length, neck-through construction, very similar electronics, etc. Probably similar neck profiles, Jerry knew what he liked. Maple and Purpleheart are nearly indistinguishable tonally.
Wolf is Neck-Thru .... Tiger is a Set Neck I think ....
:D
 #108096  by TI4-1009
 Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:24 pm
I thought Tiger was a set neck? Was started as a neck through (like Wolf), but they changed design mid-stream. Hence the brass inlay on top and back.
 #108106  by Grant
 Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:46 pm
i hear a pretty significant difference between the two in 89

i do like the tone of wolf in those warlocks shows, however it is brighter and also a bit more harsh than tiger when the blaster is in use.

purpleheart/ maple v maple /coco is quite different tonally

and yes tiger was set neck
 #108108  by waldo041
 Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:03 am
and wolf with the bill lawrence blade neck pickup! could it be the same as the 81 shot of wolf with it?hmmm :?:
forum/viewtopic.php?f=419&t=11395

peace,
waldo