Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Pickups => Topic started by: hunter on September 18, 2008, 10:40:02 PM
-
I want this sound out of my SG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vwfwZ6D_U
Now in the past I had already commited to Riff Raff Bridge and Missisippi Queen Neck.
But will I get this tone with that combo?
-
I know it's stating the obvious, but no, not unless you're Frank Marino!
I think this was just an excuse to post that clip! :D
-
Ok ok Philly, but what would you say, would Stormy Mondays bring me closer than Riff Raff/MQ ? I guessed ...?
-
For most of his career, I believe Frank Marino has used a couple of very early 1961/62 "Les Paul" SGs with stock pickups, so I guess, in theory, a pair of low-output humbuckers will get you closer than a RR/MQ combo.
I don't know what guitar he's using there though - it has an unusual scratchplate, maybe covering up the hole where there was a third pickup? The pickups could be anything.
But I'm sure you could get something similar with the RR/MQ set and all your amp knowledge! :D
-
I would say a pair of Alnico IV SMs are what you'd want for that tone.
-
I would say a pair of Alnico IV SMs are what you'd want for that tone.
+1
-
I would say a pair of Alnico IV SMs are what you'd want for that tone.
+1
-
For the tone in the clip posted, SMs would appear to be the way to go.
However, I've listened to some other Marino youtube stuff and his rockier moments would be better served up with Mules imo.
Depends what you want more, sweet clean tones or slightly more snarl.
-
For the tone in the clip posted, SMs would appear to be the way to go.
However, I've listened to some other Marino youtube stuff and his rockier moments would be better served up with Mules imo.
Depends what you want more, sweet clean tones or slightly more snarl.
I want sweet clean snarl then?
:)
But Mules I was recommended against for the SG. Either RRs (MQ) or SMs was the consensus ...
hrmmmmmm.......
-
For the tone in the clip posted, SMs would appear to be the way to go.
However, I've listened to some other Marino youtube stuff and his rockier moments would be better served up with Mules imo.
Depends what you want more, sweet clean tones or slightly more snarl.
I want sweet clean snarl then?
:)
But Mules I was recommended against for the SG. Either RRs (MQ) or SMs was the consensus ...
hrmmmmmm.......
A5/A4 mule set then?
i feel your pain ;)
-
Or ditch the MQ and get a RR/SM set?
-
I'm gonna throw a curve ball here - I've had RRs and MQs in my SG (and the stock Epi things, and Gibson ceramics) and basically, even with SMs (which I've not tried), I cannot imagine me getting that tone out of my SG with any pickups...
All of which got me thinking, and watching ole Frank's fingers - he has what I'd call a light touch (compare him to SRV maybe?).
I reckon it's a case of, like Philly said early on, "not unless you're Frank Marino"...
I use 11s on my guitars, and as a general rule I dig in quite hard to get the tones I want - nearer to the Rory/SRV approach than this clip was showing (live, I always used to break A, D and G strings, very rarely top Es). Frank Marino doesn't appear to be digging in like that, and I'd guess his strings are somewhat lighter than 11s?
Anyway, I believe, with strings in the right ballpark, that Mr Marino would get that tone out of my SG with RRs or MQs - closer with RRs, but not much different though - and he'd go "hey man, nice pups..." (or somethying similar :lol:)
Now, the clips I've heard of yours Hunter - I suspect your touch is nearer Frank Marino's than Rory/SRV, so I think you've got a better chance than me!! :D
In my experience, the MQ neck was just a bit fatter than the sound on display, and the RR is a bit "thinner" - so maybe everyone's right about suggesting the SM neck (but I've not tried one).
I'm not sure I've seen this recommended much, but I personally would then consider the MQ in the bridge, because I think it kicks @rse there :lol: In many ways I find it more usable than a humbucker bridge. It gets close to a humbucker sound but without restricting you to the "it's a bridge humbucker - what else did you expect? :roll:" problem. (Remember I'm a Fender player at heart, and bridge humbuckers seem something of a "one-trick-pony" to me - a nice trick, but only one :D)
I agree that a P90 doesn't quite have that compressed "crunch" that a bridge humbucker gives - but that's what "digging in" is all about when you're playing the bottom ends of chords for tight rhythm on single coils, you have to do it that way on a strat, say, so I don't tend to notice the lack on an MQ bridge.
-
I reckon it's a case of, like Philly said early on, "not unless you're Frank Marino"...
Yes, that probably sounded like a facetious comment, but it wasn't really meant that way. We've said it many times, but there are so many factors in a player's tone apart from pickups - most especially that player's fingers!
We all know Hunter's a fine player who gets lots of great tones from a variety of fantastic amps, so (no offence meant, Hunter) I can't quite see the point of trying to focus on a particular pickup to get one very particular tone. Yes, you're not going to sound like that with a Warpig, DiMarzio X2N or EMG81, but other than "low output humbucker" how specific can you be? :?
-
I reckon it's a case of, like Philly said early on, "not unless you're Frank Marino"...
Yes, that probably sounded like a facetious comment, but it wasn't really meant that way. We've said it many times, but there are so many factors in a player's tone apart from pickups - most especially that player's fingers!
We all know Hunter's a fine player who gets lots of great tones from a variety of fantastic amps, so (no offence meant, Hunter) I can't quite see the point of trying to focus on a particular pickup to get one very particular tone. Yes, you're not going to sound like that with a Warpig, DiMarzio X2N or EMG81, but other than "low output humbucker" how specific can you be? :?
Yeah I admit the question was a bit silly. Maybe it was as you said Philly, I just was so blown away by that youtube vid that I needed a reason to post it :O)
Still I am in decision phase for my SG, so keep em coming ...
-
I saw Frank Marino a couple of months ago and it was one of the worst shows I have seen in a long time, not because he couldn't play, but because he played stuff that was like a kid who wants to show off. Echo, dive bomb and sliding the pick down the strings all at loud volumes, aren't great playing in my view (and I think several other who left the show before he finished). Also it is billed as Frank Marino and Mahogany Rush, but none of the other guys were alive when Mahogany Rush first started out! I saw him around 95 and really enjoyed the show, but this time it lost the plot and about 80 minutes was all I could take. However I can tell you that he has a pedalboard that is about a metre long, and then also has a couple of multi-effect boards as well. His current sound is so processed that it wouldn't make any difference what pickups he uses! In fact he was using an SG with a Strat pickup configuration and controls. He pulled out a 'regular' SG a couuple of times but most of the playing was with the SGrat!
-
I use 11s on my guitars, and as a general rule I dig in quite hard to get the tones I want - nearer to the Rory/SRV approach than this clip was showing (live, I always used to break A, D and G strings, very rarely top Es).
I'm not sure I've seen this recommended much, but I personally would then consider the MQ in the bridge, because I think it kicks @rse there :lol: In many ways I find it more usable than a humbucker bridge. It gets close to a humbucker sound but without restricting you to the "it's a bridge humbucker - what else did you expect? :roll:" problem. (Remember I'm a Fender player at heart, and bridge humbuckers seem something of a "one-trick-pony" to me - a nice trick, but only one :D)
I agree that a P90 doesn't quite have that compressed "crunch" that a bridge humbucker gives - but that's what "digging in" is all about when you're playing the bottom ends of chords for tight rhythm on single coils, you have to do it that way on a strat, say, so I don't tend to notice the lack on an MQ bridge.
Jup.
-
Glad I'm not alone on that Yamhammer :D
It did take me a while to get used to it though. At first I treated it like a humbucker, and sometimes it felt a little uncontrollable, a little too hairy. But I think that was because I was used to the added compression a humbucker gives you - and if you're "expecting" that compression but not getting it, the sound coming out the speakers is a little disorientating. But when I started accepting that it was actually a single coil, I started treating it more like I would a strat or tele bridge, and then everything fell into place.
I might be wrong, but the impression I get is that you need to pay more attention to your technique in the pick-attack area. In comparison, a humbucker takes whatever you give it and comes out with "the sound". The plus side for the extra work required on the MQ is that you seem to have a wider tonal palette. It's also helping on my strat/tele playing: it seems to have opened up my technique in ways I'd never have thought of - I'm suddenly making sounds I've wondered about for years but never figured out how to get them. Sooner or later I'll pick up the guitars with the Mules and Riff Raffs, and find out whether it's helping there as well!
-
I might be wrong, but the impression I get is that you need to pay more attention to your technique in the pick-attack area. In comparison, a humbucker takes whatever you give it and comes out with "the sound". The plus side for the extra work required on the MQ is that you seem to have a wider tonal palette. It's also helping on my strat/tele playing: it seems to have opened up my technique in ways I'd never have thought of - I'm suddenly making sounds I've wondered about for years but never figured out how to get them. Sooner or later I'll pick up the guitars with the Mules and Riff Raffs, and find out whether it's helping there as well!
The MQ is very sensitive to pick
-
I might be wrong, but the impression I get is that you need to pay more attention to your technique in the pick-attack area. In comparison, a humbucker takes whatever you give it and comes out with "the sound". The plus side for the extra work required on the MQ is that you seem to have a wider tonal palette. It's also helping on my strat/tele playing: it seems to have opened up my technique in ways I'd never have thought of - I'm suddenly making sounds I've wondered about for years but never figured out how to get them. Sooner or later I'll pick up the guitars with the Mules and Riff Raffs, and find out whether it's helping there as well!
The MQ is very sensitive to pick attack, the harder you dig it, the more it 'twangs' (depending on the amp settings/set-up it stays clean no matter how hard you dig the strings). That's the true beauty behind these MQ's. With distortion/overdrive you can still hear everything shine through with a thick 'n bluesy neck sound and a biting, more cutting bridge sound. They have that singing character!