Re: What amp did Paul Weller use?
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 6:52 pm
Vox AC-30s(mainly in the studio, and always live), Roland Jazz Chorus,Marshall(couldn't make it out the model in the photo), Peavey backstage 25 or 30(can't remember), and that's just the stuff he admits to in the various things I've read. As far as electric guitars, his various 300 series Rickenbackers of course, Teles,SGs, and that LP copy. He probably used more, but up untill 1979, he used these instruments to some degree, according again to what I have read.
I am sure there were many, including multiple overdubs,studio tricks and high end outboard gear(like those Fairchild Compressors and such) used in the making of these albums. Who really knows , as all he ever says is he just plugged his Rick 330 into a Vox AC-30 and turned it up. Not buying it Paul, your live tone is way too different to just be the product of a lower fidelity live recording. The playing style comes through, but the sound is not very close to any of the recorded albums. Not bad, just not the same, much thinner, and almost Tele-esque.
This, I think, is one of the biggest bummers of trying to get some of the sounds you love from your favorite artists. You get their instruments,amps, effects, whatever, and still can't quite get it. Laugh your butts off, but for me, one of the closest approximations of his sound I've had was through a Rockman Sustainor module with the compressor and treble boosters up(+ a little tweaking) plugged into a Peavey 2x12 Stero chorus amp. I had a Les Paul with a treble bypass cap on the bridge volume, and backed it off just a hair.This was in the early 90s. No tubes, no Ricks, no $300 boutique pedals. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty close to a "In The City" meets "Modern World" sound.
My point is, you just never know who/what/how things get recorded, and both engineers and musicians are always only going to give you some of the story. Heck, over half of the records made in the 60s were recorded by people other than the ones in the group.
Technique, of course, is a major factor, but just like in Las Vegas, what happens in the studio stays in the studio.
I am sure there were many, including multiple overdubs,studio tricks and high end outboard gear(like those Fairchild Compressors and such) used in the making of these albums. Who really knows , as all he ever says is he just plugged his Rick 330 into a Vox AC-30 and turned it up. Not buying it Paul, your live tone is way too different to just be the product of a lower fidelity live recording. The playing style comes through, but the sound is not very close to any of the recorded albums. Not bad, just not the same, much thinner, and almost Tele-esque.
This, I think, is one of the biggest bummers of trying to get some of the sounds you love from your favorite artists. You get their instruments,amps, effects, whatever, and still can't quite get it. Laugh your butts off, but for me, one of the closest approximations of his sound I've had was through a Rockman Sustainor module with the compressor and treble boosters up(+ a little tweaking) plugged into a Peavey 2x12 Stero chorus amp. I had a Les Paul with a treble bypass cap on the bridge volume, and backed it off just a hair.This was in the early 90s. No tubes, no Ricks, no $300 boutique pedals. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty close to a "In The City" meets "Modern World" sound.
My point is, you just never know who/what/how things get recorded, and both engineers and musicians are always only going to give you some of the story. Heck, over half of the records made in the 60s were recorded by people other than the ones in the group.
Technique, of course, is a major factor, but just like in Las Vegas, what happens in the studio stays in the studio.