Most people here and elsewhere in the harmonica world are out there chasing a big, crunchy, amplified sound, à la Chicago (in particular if you´re into blues and rock).
However, that is a both costly and time-consuming pursuit, and I wonder, how many of you have settled for something a bit less? Meaning a workable all-round sound for several musical styles: the Chicago distortion becomes a bit tiresome after a while -- and downright obnoxious if you´re playing, say, a jazzier number. A case in point could be Lee Oskar´s sound from his War years. A little bit of crunch, but mostly rather .. neutral. (Lee´s still around, of course, but nowasays he´s heavily into electronic effects.)
Any examples of this from forum members? (I´m aware that this is a blues harp forum w/ the obvious consequences in sound preference, but still.)
I switch between different microphones. One dynamic straight into the PA for accoustic tone and backup, and two microphones into my tubeamp... a bullet of choice and dynamic 545. The 545 is great for its range in tone, tightly cupped for compressed tone and a nice acoustic tone when opened up, even through a tubeamp. That's my approach.
For bluegrasss, some country, praise & gospel I like the EV 664 into a Peavey Classic 50 or sometimes the Peavey 112 Studio Pro. But I agree with S-Harp, the mic choice will change your sound along with cupping. PT has a great sound and distinct style. You might ask him what he prefers.
@Martin - Sorry but this "Meaning a workable all-round sound for several musical styles: the Chicago distortion becomes a bit tiresome after a while -- and downright obnoxious if you´re playing, say, a jazzier number." is a woeful generalisation.
I hear the phrase "Chicago harp sound" bandied about a lot, I listen to players from all over, including Chicago and there is no such thing as a single "Chicago tone"...I would go so far as to say that "crunch" is typically un-Chicago.
Here are some Chicago harp tone samples...
OK, these clips don't cover the whole gamut of "Chicago harp" but should be enough for you to get my drift. There's even a rumour that some "Chicago" players played acoustic! :-o
You are overlooking the point that many great players sound how they sound, the gear enables them to get their sound accross, they mostly make "it" distort rather than the other way around.
You are outlining a problem scenario that typically doesn't exist.
A crunchy, middy harp sound has been much more of a West Coast trademark. Largely, however, I find the notion that you need a certain bit of gear to play a certain genre of music a bit bizarre.
Mark, I totally agree with you re: Chicago Sound. I do find that different mics with different amps affect tone in a very noticeable way. I also agree with what has been said often on this forum:that tone is developed more by the player than the gear.
Last Edited by on Jul 25, 2012 8:52 AM
I finally learned enough about recording to start making my own demos. I will share a song of what I am about to say really soon...
I would be fine playing just about any dynamic mic straight to PA on all occasions. No effects, pedals, whatever...in fact, I sat in with two bands a couple of weeks ago and did exactly that.
For a project I am working on now, I use a pedal board, but pretty much just for eq and delay...solo stuff I use a clean sound with effects...so basically, I play clean.
IMO, a clean sound gives me more dynamic control, and therefore a more diverse soundscape to work with.
I try and use technique to create a basic clean, overdriven, warm, or clear sound.
Carlos Del Junco is a great example...so are Chris Michalek and James Cotton. ---------- Mike VHT Special 6 Mods Quicksilver Custom Harmonicas - When it needs to come from the soul...
Last Edited by on Jul 25, 2012 9:37 AM
I like your post. I think a lot of "that" sound has come post-Chicago blues era. Meaning, I hear a lot more warm sounding tones than overly crunchy from professional players. I hear a lot more crunch and overdriven stuff from not-top-tier players.
In otherwords, I think there is a trend of the better the player, the less crunchy the gear used. This extends to traditional blues guys like Kim Wilson or even Charlie Musselwhite.
The only real exceptions I can think of are HarpKing users, but there is enough evidence of them playing not overly crunchy to say they don't have to to sound good.
For me, I am now realizing more and more that "the sound" is nothing more than what jives with your soul and the audience listening. No good sounding like little Walter, etc if your playing sounds like pooh!
No need to be condescending about players who prefer a little grit in their tone. Gary Smith comes immediately to mind, and lots of blues players consider him "top tier."
Brandon Santini may not be top tier, but he rules Beale Street. I met him in this bar in Memphis earlier this year:
@5F6H: You have a point, I grant that. I could have used the words "heavy distortion" or some such; of course "Chicago" can refer to several types of sound, although I tend to think of some of LW´s or BWH´s more strongly amplified examples as typical.
But you were not adressing my point: What I´m after is some sort of minimal sine qua non that people have come up with in order to be as versatile as they can sound wise. As Harpninja describes above. (And I know players who won´t even play if they can´t have desired amplification.) For me as well "warmth" is the key factor. (Then, interestingly Harpninja mentions Carlos Del J, who´s sound to my ears very much lacks warmth ...) Question was how to achieve that minimum requirement. Personally I hoped my Digitech pedal would be the solution, but I´m not so sure anymore.
@RickDavis: I have nothing at all against "grit". It´s more a question of context: if you played, say "Summertime" w/ the sound Gary S has above I don´t think it would work, whereas, e.g., Lee Oskar´s sound from the War period would handle both "You´re so fine" and "Summertime".
An "all around sound" starts acoustically...You can have crunch or round or smooth or nasty or sweet acoustically...adding certain mics and amplification just makes it louder and can change tonal characteristics. So it is the players good judgement that counts when adding harp to a particular tune.
I agree with Martin's original statement. There are a lot of very good BLUES harp players that use more distortion than I enjoy. That doesn't mean I think we should argue about it like little kids, but for those of you that frequent this website for just that reason! Carry on! I think Martin was looking for advice? I would say try a Shure 585, 545 (I think that was Paul Butterfield's favorite mic), an older (30 years or more) sm57 or a Japanese vocal mic from the 70's that has hi/lo Z. Now if you use one of those type mics into a newer tube amp with a solid state recyifier (with most of them are). With a couple pedals you can create a wide array of tone colors. I had an old Audio Technique hi/lo Z mic from the 70's and worked very well through an amp or the PA. I liked it better through a silver faced champ I had then. I just used the volume knob to create the sound I wanted and we miced it. At 4 it was pretty clean and at 6 it sounded nice for bluesy songs. There inexpensive ways to sound good!
I've been wondering about this topic myself, so thanks for bringing it up, Martin.
Usually, I play acoustically and clean through a good pa or Bose sound system(provided by my band mates).
Left to my own devices, all I have is a cheap little solid state amp from Radio Shack!
For the small venues we play, all these forms of amplification work fine. I have to say both the Bose and the pa are very good delivery systems. Not so much the cheap amp, but it seems to be good enough...
The blues group I played with desired mostly the 'Chicago' cupped mic, etc. sound, and so I enjoyed working to produce that character...I had to borrow a tube amp, and used a Green Bullet mic.
I guess I basically try to create whatever tone character seems to complement the style of music I'm playing.
I like acoustic playing however, because of the way you can shape the sound with your hands...but a cupped mic delivers so much bass response and power...
I have a RP255 with the Richard Hunter patches. I have a hard time finding tones that don't feedback at home to the point of not trying it live yet.
The DI patches are very clean, but put out a lot of energy around 3K and higher. Bottom line is *I*, and not Richard, need to learn how to quickly tweak the EQ when need be.
The sound pretty good through studio monitors, and at low volumes from home, but I found some of the distorted ones to be too distorted. Therefore, I am tinkering with the DI patches - which are VERY clean, but use effects.
If it has an easy way to tweak just the eq, I think I could use it for most gigs. Being that it is a 1/4" out, I'd probably take a DI, so I might as well use my Para DI and use the eq on that...
@Harpninja: "Warmth", surely a tough thing to define. But yes, "dark" is a factor, as opposed to "bright", "shrill"; also some "breathiness" (forgive my English, it could probably better better put) comes into it from my perspective; i.e. you hear the harmonica, the breath of the player -- but not the usual harsh overtones from acoustic playing. Acoustic sound, but dampened -- and expression/some distorsion as a possibility from microphone and tonal technique. Quite a few chromatic players achieve this. I think there are examples from Todd Parrott playing diatonic posted here a month or so ago (he´s performing at some sort of harmonica gathering) that were exemplary from the warmth aspect. I´ll see if I can provide some links as examples. You surely can come a long way with the EQ, but I find it depends a whole lot on the quality of the PA. Yes, I have discovered those same problems as you with the Hunter patches and my RP. But like you I think that I must learn things to better cope with it, very reluctantly, since I´m a hopeless technophobe. (The one jazzy sound that I like, for instance, has way to much reverb.)
@Chromaticblues: Yes, advice to some extent: I´m really trying to come down to the bare necessities of a good sound; but also I´m interested in what people generally do for sound -- apart from spending $100 000 on equipment -- to meet the minimal requirements but sounding good. I´m really very attracted by the notion one mic, one pedal and then you´re set. My vintage Beyer mic is a quite satisfactory thing and I don´t think I´ll exchange it for something else just yet. But if price is right I won´t hesitate to extend my small collection along the lines you suggest. And yes, very glad that you say it: "There are inexpensive ways to sounding good".
This goes a long way as a great all-round sound in my book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2EHKqZ_4k (Sorry that I can´t embed ...) Edit: It´s Jean Jaques Milteau playing "Ode to Billie Joe". On a direct question about his set-up he answered thusly: "There is no secret. I use a Beyer TGX 80 for the clean sound and a Shure Beta 58 in a tube preamp (JJ did not specify) for the crunch. One has to have a good sound engineer and a mixer with a lot of gain." Asked and translated by a friend of his, Robert Koch.
Last Edited by on Jul 26, 2012 3:25 PM
Martin's question is clear enough to me. No need to hijack the thread over a definition of what the "chicago sound" is or isn't. Yes there are multiple blues sounds, even in Chicago. But no, equipment DOES affect how you sound. The same guy through a bullet mic into a tube amp sounds WAY different than he does through an SM58 hooked up to the PA. And yes, a LOT of it has to do with how hard you cup.
MY recommendation to answer the actual question:
What you need is a very versatile microphone. It needs to do the following:
1) Dirty up like a good bullet when cupped without sounding harsh
2) Have a nice warm clean acoustic tone
3) Easily connected to either PA or amplifier
4) Have a volume control. (When you want a cleaner tone, especially through an amp, you must loosen your cup a good deal. However at this point the volume will be considerably lower. Therefore you need a volume control on the mic so you can turn it up for more acoustic work and turn it down for cupping work. )
The Ultimate 57 meets all of the above criteria. ---------- /Greg
I am of the opinion that the sound or style of a player is much like a signature or handwriting. Everybody has a singular style that belongs to them. As in handwriting, there may be similarities between people, but there are differences none the less. I suppose there can be "forgeries" in both writing and playing. I prefer to perfect my own style and appreciate the styles and signatures of others.
@MJ - in the end you can't HELP but sound like you no matter what gear you choose.
Exception/rant: - those "cover band" people who work very hard at sounding exactly like somebody else, usually not only duplicating their each and every lick and memorizing their solos, but duplicating their gear as well. I don't care how much you can sound like Little Walter, you AREN'T Little Walter so why don't you just learn from him, and others, and contribute YOURSELF to the equation. ---------- /Greg
@Joe L. You rascal you. I quickly change my song example to something that cannot be bluesified all the way down to the South Side ... How about "It never entered my mind"?
@Greg Heumann: THanks for a straight answer. One of the most tiresome myths circulating among harmonica players is "Gear doesn´t matter, all in the player" (frequently coming from the same guy who yesterday purchased 14 pedals and a harmonica designed boutique amp plus a few vintage mics) and I´m glad to hear the opposite stated clearly. (Yes, we should all know that you gotta have good tone, so please, those who feel the need to point that out right now, just say it to yourselves a couple of times.)
Of course the mirophone is a -- or THE -- key element and it would have been nice to give an Ultimate 57 a comparison test with my old Beyer M80. But alas, no dealers in Sweden ... so maybe it´s lucky that I´m poorer than a church rat.
@5F6H: I'm struck by the fact that all of the clips that you posted date from at least 30 years ago. What is the contemporary Chicago sound? Is it Sugar Blue? Rob Stone? Dave Waldman? (Here's his video entitled "Chicago blues harp shuffle"):
Pretty clean sound, actually. Not hugely overdriven. Nor is Billy Branch's sound hugely overdrive.
@atty1chogo: Love that clip! That's a much more distorted sound than Billy usually gets. He usually plays through a solid state amp. Much more sag through that Fender amp. And you can tell that he knows he's got a great sound going on. Thanks for that. There's a reason why Mr. AG picked Billy to headline the inaugural HCH in 2010: because he's a badass. That's a heck of a groove. That puts the blues in me, brother.
@ kudzurunner - I had gotten Billy an EV RE-10 to muddy up his sound a bit - he was using it at HCH 2012 - and was using it when he went to Europe on the latest tour. I thought he was getting more bottom with the "new" mic. My opinion was that he had squeezed every last ounce of distortion from the setup he has played in for many years, and that when he got the RE-10, he was using a mic with the same ergonomics as his old mic, but with more bottom end. The result was noticeable right away. But on this past Monday night I saw that he had gone back to the EV 635A again.
I agree with you - this is one raucous, wailing and superb tone - this is a better sound than he usually gets. I'll run this video past him.
Last Edited by on Jul 26, 2012 6:55 PM
@ Kudzurunner - It wasn't my intention to exclude anyone in particular, just to highlight that "Chicago tone" isn't all about "downright obnoxious" crunch & distortion. These were just (good quality) clips I could locate & post quickly (I was on my way out at the time).
I could just as easily included clips by players you mention...Steve Bell, Omar Coleman, Martin Lang, Matthew Skoller or many others...
30yrs old? How time flies...more like 42yrs at the youngest clip! ;-) ---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
http://www.facebook.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Jul 27, 2012 1:51 AM
@5F6H: To be clear -- "downright obnoxious" was related to certain contexts where crunch and distortion simply won´t fit, as opposed to a more "all-round" workable sound. And that was my quest. Personally I´ve nothing against a distorted harmonica (apart from the fact that it, even in blues, can wear a bit thin on you if that´s the only sound you got). On the contrary, it was what once drove me to pick up this troublesome instrument.
Sorry Martin, I don't mean to give the impression that I'm banging the nail home at every turn, I just stressed that phrase to give my response to Kudzurunner context.
I don't disgree with your sentiment on overly distorted harp sounds. In some instances distortion can produce harmonic complexity that otherwise wouldn't be there (if there is enough compression in the sound it can be rich, warm & inviting), but overly fuzzy, waspish distortion can indeed become tiresome quickly.
I still however don't get the idea that some sounds & genres are mutually exclusive...I would ask you to consider the fact that 2 numbers that you have referenced as not really supporting a distorted/Chicago/blues tone ("Me & Bobby McGee", "Summertime") were recorded by George Smith, a player with a fine Chicago pedigree and who wasn't afraid to use a distorted tone. He was also known to play through the PA, there are even recordings of some tracks played both ways (because of what was on hand at the time presumably)...each has their merits.
To my mind, it's not about specific pieces of equipment that might be required to play a certain genre/piece of music, but more about the sensibilities of the player to get the music accross as they intend...you might do this with an amp, a mic straight into a PA, or via a modeller...the result justifies the means?
You hear similar sentiments expressed on guitar forums "You want a Roland Jazz chorus amp if you want to play Jazz guitar"...a fine tool for the job, but no one told Charlie Christian or Wes Montgomery.
---------- www.myspace.com/markburness
http://www.facebook.com/markburness
Last Edited by on Jul 27, 2012 3:10 AM
Most relevant, all this. 1. Ronnie Earl is a bad ass. The Billy Branch cut is the best I've ever heard him. I can't see getting that sound through the PA. So what’s the alternative? Recently I have played my Ult57 through the PA (smaller gigs) and I like it. But what I want is usually beyond like. Feeling it through the floor. I love my stage rig and I can get a "pure" sound through my amp with the 57. I feel like the full range is available. But I get the quest for simplicity. I’ve been wondering if a simple 57-Harp Attack-Harp Delay would satisfy me enough through the PA. I wouldn't get the floor but stepping on the Attack might provide the occasional assassins edge to settle down the guitar player.
@F5H6: Most certainly I´m expressing myself poorly (and I appreciate your civilized tone), but would not go so far as to say "mutually exclusive" when it comes to sound and genres. Certainly sometimes a surprising sound texture can bring out fresh nuances of a tune -- or even an entire genre -- and JoeL has a point with "Summertime", as I say above. (As for "Me and Bobby Mcghee" that must be a misunderstanding? -- I tried "It never entered my mind" as a case where a certain softness would be "universally" appropriate.)
Equipment, of course it comes in to the equation, even though my first post wasn´t about that specifically, but about the workable "all-round sound".
One thing with harmonica, esp. blues harp and distorted such: It almost always becomes a letdown to hear it live. Sad but true. This is not the case w/ other instruments, but the fat, distorted harmonica sound is so much a studio product that you very rarely hear it convincingly on stage, ´cause it´s so hard to reproduce under live conditions. Therefore the need for something that sounds good all-round, as well as maintaning some specific characteristics of the instrument. (But now I fear I´m repeating myself ...)
@ Martin "This is not the case w/ other instruments, but the fat, distorted harmonica sound is so much a studio product that you very rarely hear it convincingly on stage, ´cause it´s so hard to reproduce under live conditions."
I guess I forget how lucky I am having good players in the vicinity, when I hear Little George Sueref, West Weston, Erroll Linton, Paul Lamb, Pete G, Gentleman Tim, Lee Sankey, Laurence Garman, Rollo Markee they certainly make it a convincing & accessible live phenomenon...(as have visiting players like RJ Mischo, Paul Oscher, Kim Wilson, Paul Orta, Rod Piazza...) if anything, capturing "the magic" in the studio can sometimes be the harder of the two.
I don't think that I am alone in my experience, viewed globally...but I guess it can depend on your locale & who you have access to.
I have to say that the Mark Hummel summertime video kind of proves the point in the OP. The playing is top notch and the sound is killing but NOT FOR THAT SONG.
That is yet just an opinion of course... ---------- Pistolkatt - Pistolkatts youtube
Martin, I don't get this at all: "... blues harp and distorted such: It almost always becomes a letdown to hear it live. Sad but true... but the fat, distorted harmonica sound is so much a studio product that you very rarely hear it convincingly on stage, ´cause it´s so hard to reproduce under live conditions." ??? That, I fear, is an illuminating assertion that brings the conversation inevitably back to the source of tone question. That, or (as 5F6H suggests) you live in an unfortunately obscure place.
"One thing with harmonica, esp. blues harp and distorted such: It almost always becomes a letdown to hear it live. Sad but true. This is not the case w/ other instruments, but the fat, distorted harmonica sound is so much a studio product that you very rarely hear it convincingly on stage, cause it´s so hard to reproduce under live conditions."
Not sad; not true. The best blues harp tone I've heard has been live. (The worst tone I've heard has been live, too, but that is another topic.) The experience of hearing a really good player in a small club setting is perfect for fat gnarly tone if that is what you like. WAY better than any recording I have ever heard. Recordings just cannot capture the dynamics and excitement of a honking Bassman in a crowded sweaty juke joint.
In response to the OP: ,,,a workable all-round sound for several musical styles
Personally, I like using 2 mikes: PE54 for the Butterfield sound - clean with some punch and a bit of an edge provided by my amp, OR, Bullet mic for a ballsier, grittier sound.
If you want something in one package, what about something like this...
@atty1chgo - I asked Billy about why he used the 635A a really long time ago. He told me that it matched his amp, the Peavey Special 130, well. He has said that the SOB's played a lot of tunes that weren't traditional harp tunes. (This was back in the Carl Weathersby & Carlos Johnson days.). He also like the ergonomics of the mic for hand effects.
He had been using that mic for years. He keeps going back to it. It must capture the sound he has in his head. I had picked up a lot of four around the time that all of his stuff was stolen. I sent him two of the mics and kept the other two.
A few weeks later, RJ Mischo picked up an RE10. He was plugged into a Super Reverb. We tried the 635A. It had more low end response. He didn't dig the 635A. I use them periodically. It was a nice match with a Pro Jr.
@pistolcat - Hummel had a vocal mic next to him, I suspect the sound coming out of the amp was the sound he was looking for. It was very reminiscent of George Smith.
I think we all eventually find/create... a tone/sound that we are in love with and is our "go to" SOUND when all else fails. It does take a bit of experimentation…
I now there have been times when I'd be messin with effects and such and being really impressed with the results, but it only worked in context for a particular song/s.
So I suppose each individual will discover what they feel makes their music sound the best to them. Personally for what I do – some reverb/delay regardless of using straight PA or Tube floats my boat.
