ZepFanatic Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Anyone ever notice how Jimmy's guitar tone got thinner and thinner? Up to '73 it was still really ballsy but by '75 and especially '77 it is thin and dry as can be...no sustain, nothing. I am actually not crazy about the sound, especially on SBD recordings...wonder why he got no sustain? I'm sure he was overdriving his amps...contrast it to the tone of, say, Cream-era Clapton or Pete Townshend, both of who just used sheer volume to get their ballsy, sustainy (is that a word?) tone...while playing Gibsons just like Pagey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punksandwich Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Anyone ever notice how Jimmy's guitar tone got thinner and thinner? Up to '73 it was still really ballsy but by '75 and especially '77 it is thin and dry as can be...no sustain, nothing. Notice how Jimmy got skinnier in that time period too? His amps were strung out on Heroin too. Cottonmouth set in as well, to account for the dryness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EzyEric Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Im not sure about the adjectives you used but I do know this, or I think we all do. The tone his guitar early on (69,70 especially) was much more raw (distorted...etc). The whole band was raw back then, a completely different sound and I love it. Later the tone seemed to get cleaner (especially in 73,75). i think this suited the newer songs so I dont mind it at all. 77 was something different I cant describe, maybe in between what it was and is to become. But 79 and 80 was a very different tone that seemed quite distorted, but not raw. I cant describe it well and I dont know why it sounded like that. I prefer this tone least, though it made some solos really rip, especially at knebworth. What changed between these times to change the sound of his guitar, I do not know. Probably a combination of things. Im sure someone on here knows exactly and knows all the correct terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZepFanatic Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 There's a difference between a clean sound and a thin one and Jimmy's in '77 was THIN...no sustain, no beef behind it, nothing (I'm a guitar player so I hope I'm conveying this enough for anyone who doesn't play...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punksandwich Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 There's a difference between a clean sound and a thin one and Jimmy's in '77 was THIN...no sustain, no beef behind it, nothing (I'm a guitar player so I hope I'm conveying this enough for anyone who doesn't play...) I doubt the Wendy's corporation asked Jimmy to do their old theme song in 1977. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZepFanatic Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 I doubt the Wendy's corporation asked Jimmy to do their old theme song in 1977. Great picture, too! :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I'm guessing it had a lot to do with his physical condition, it affected his playing which directly affected his tone. Getting good tone is more than having the right gear. Honestly I've never been a big fan of Jimmy's tone after he started using the Les Paul, his Les Paul tone was somewhat atypical even when he was in his prime. I think some of that is due to trying to cover too many bases, as the recorded music became more dense and layered using one guitar with one tone live tended to thin it out compared to how it was recorded. Billy Gibbons suffered from the same thing. Those early ZZ Top albums are really fat sounding but when hear the live stuff from the same era it's like "what happened?". I've always thought Zep would have benefited from a 2nd guitarist on stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punksandwich Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I'm guessing it had a lot to do with his physical condition, it affected his playing which directly affected his tone. Getting good tone is more than having the right gear. Honestly I've never been a big fan of Jimmy's tone after he started using the Les Paul, his Les Paul tone was somewhat atypical even when he was in his prime. I think some of that is due to trying to cover too many bases, as the recorded music became more dense and layered using one guitar with one tone live tended to thin it out compared to how it was recorded. Billy Gibbons suffered from the same thing. Those early ZZ Top albums are really fat sounding but when hear the live stuff from the same era it's like "what happened?". I've always thought Zep would have benefited from a 2nd guitarist on stage. Wow ! Did you ever have the chance to see Led Zeppelin or ZZTop in their prime during the early 70s ? I know alot of people on here defend the '77 shows, performancewise and tonally. But even earlier, say '71-'73 for BOTH LZ and ZZ, their LIVE sound IN PERSON was UNBELIEVABLE !!!!! FAT as HELL, and I'm talking from seeing both in that period. The recordings you've heard must not project that. But I'm here to tell you the sound at that moment was monumental and not at all thin. What you hear is what YOU hear, but I really heard completely differently. Did you see and hear Led Zeppelin back then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZepFanatic Posted January 21, 2009 Author Share Posted January 21, 2009 I think his tone was really good through 1973. Thinner in 1975 but still ballsy...in 1977 it was harsh and thin and really weak. Got better in 1979 and more distorted and sloppier in 1980... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.