FM3 for REAL Jazz

thanks smj,
well that is the other type of answer usually we get: what are your equipment? read 'the problem very likely is you'.
With my setup, completely jazz-wise as that's the music I like and play, I get immediately and easily perfect jazz tone out of any jazz oriented amp.
That's the problem, not my equipment :)
This was back on post #14 on page one. Your response to some straight forward questions was... odd. It continued through this thread.

You have deflected dozens of very straight forward questions, and by your responses, it comes off like you're taking questions to be criticism. Maybe not your intent, but it sure sounds that way.... your 'tone'?

Your last remark in this response... is ironic. It smacks of sarcasm, yet here you are on an FM3 forum lamenting that they didn't model any SS amps and you can't get the sound you're looking for.

I do hope you find what you're looking for though.

Sean Meredith-Jones
 
You really prefer things like Bitches Brew and On the Corner to his 50s output like Kind Of Blue and Porgy and Bess? Remember for Miles being hip was paramount. His wife in the late 60s, Betty Davis, turned him on to Hendrix, Sly Stone and even gave him fashion advice to look more hip and that music, filtered through Miles genius, became Bitches Brew. What you call an art form growing really means making it more popular and popularity for an art form usually means dilution of tbe art.
For tbe record I like Bitches Brew but I don't consider it jazz, it's fusion. Fusion has it's place and is a legitimate form of music but it doesn't swing which is an essential element of jazz. If that makes me a purist then go ahead, resent me.

Also for the record I named my son Miles.
Get real and calm down. See you’re displaying the snobbery I can’t stand. Did I say that I specifically prefer Bitches Brew over Sketches of Spain or Kind of Blue or even earlier? Not exactly or at all!!!!!!! I mentioned Miles Davis in reference to Jazz in general and not as a comparison of Miles’ work as a whole or one recording/period over another. Bitches Brew was simply an example. You have taken what I said put your own preconceived notions on top and made a mess of everything. “More popular” that’s arguable. But more important your arrogance is what leads you to believe that “popularity” is immediately and directly related to “dilution” of an art form. It’s ridiculous. I don’t think his wife really MADE Miles completely move is whole conscious in the direction he moved. He stayed on that path in one form or another until his death. Seems like you read too many gossip rags.

Most important is your complete lack of contextual understanding really is way outside the bounds of this thread. I wouldn’t have replied, but with something as serious as this I felt compelled to defend my reputation.

Probably what was most important and the best about Miles’ later work is the way he gave new and promising players a spotlight to hone their craft in relative freedom and then send them on their way to fill the world with way more music than anything or possibly anyone has. It’s a big deal and not about “selling out” which is what could be taken from your point of view. BTW, after I mentioned Bitches Brew I decided to listen to some Miles and put on Sketches Of Spain which I have always loved. So😜

Edit:
Oh and “Fusion” is just another term the industry used so they can label something and sell it. Fusion doesn’t swing? I think you need to listen to more fusion. I think you probably mean the type of improvisation that Bitches Brew mostly consists. Plus “Swing” is just one expression of Jazz. Groove is the term I use for that “Je ne sais quoi” that moves music and people.
 
Last edited:
While the rhythmic element plays a large roll in Jazz, it’s the specifics of its harmonic structure that set it apart from other forms of music and made it truly unique and original.
 
Get real and calm down. See you’re displaying the snobbery I can’t stand. Did I say that I specifically prefer Bitches Brew over Sketches of Spain or Kind of Blue or even earlier? Not exactly or at all!!!!!!! I mentioned Miles Davis in reference to Jazz in general and not as a comparison of Miles’ work as a whole or one recording/period over another. Bitches Brew was simply an example. You have taken what I said put your own preconceived notions on top and made a mess of everything. “More popular” that’s arguable. But more important your arrogance is what leads you to believe that “popularity” is immediately and directly related to “dilution” of an art form. It’s ridiculous. I don’t think his wife really MADE Miles completely move is whole conscious in the direction he moved. He stayed on that path in one form or another until his death. Seems like you read too many gossip rags.

Most important is your complete lack of contextual understanding really is way outside the bounds of this thread. I wouldn’t have replied, but with something as serious as this I felt compelled to defend my reputation.

Probably what was most important and the best about Miles’ later work is the way he gave new and promising players a spotlight to hone their craft in relative freedom and then send them on their way to fill the world with way more music than anything or possibly anyone has. It’s a big deal and not about “selling out” which is what could be taken from your point of view. BTW, after I mentioned Bitches Brew I decided to listen to some Miles and put on Sketches Of Spain which I have always loved. So😜

Edit:
Oh and “Fusion” is just another term the industry used so they can label something and sell it. Fusion doesn’t swing? I think you need to listen to more fusion. I think you probably mean the type of improvisation that Bitches Brew mostly consists. Plus “Swing” is just one expression of Jazz. Groove is the term I use for that “Je ne sais quoi” that moves music and people.
Hmm, you call me arrogant while you start your reply with "Get real and calm down" as if you were going to proceed to set me straight with your superior opinions and erudition. I can tell what type of person you are just from that.

Let's get to the meat of your bombast shall we not? You seemed to take great umbrage that I "assumed" you preferred fusion era (Bitches Brew) Miles to his earlier output. I didn't assume at all, because here's what you said "...while I’m a jazz lover I much prefer the Miles Davis Bitches Brew form of Jazz.". "MUCH PREFER". What else could one infer from that? That's what you stated. Am I supposed to think counter intuitively and conclude that you like them equally? Perhaps you could express yourself a little more clearly next time especially if someone is going to read it as written?

"...I decided to listen to some Miles and put on Sketches Of Spain which I have always loved. So😜"
Given the type of person you've shown yourself to be this comes as no surprise.

Swing is without a doubt (see most every book ever written about jazz) an essential part of jazz along with improvisation. "Groove" as you refer to it, as in music that makes people want to "move", is found in myriad genres of music so becomes virtually moot in any definitions we may seek.

Fusion is not just a label as you so wrongly contend. It has stylistic traits of its own but implicit in the word "fusion", it typicall combines elements of other genres mostly in the form of jazz influenced improvisation over a rock or funk beat. It's fine unto it self but, I still stand by contention, fusion is not jazz, it is fusion. Much, though certainly not all, of fusion was an attempt to simply sell more units by diluting the portion of its lineage that came from jazz. It may have grooved but it did not swing.There are no shortage of examples of this. If you don't like that, you can start playing a Helix!

Sidebar: Freddie Hubbard, who was well established in straight ahead jazz, jumped on the fusion bandwagon early but after a few years came back to the jazz fold saying he "couldn't handle playing that music (fusion) anymore". O the snobbery Freddie.

I'll end with a quote from Louis Armstrong: "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know." O the arrogance of Mr. Armstrong.

PS I do agree with you on one thing: this is off topic to this thread so this will be my last missive. I'll let you have the last word since you seem the type of which that would be essential to maintain your self image.
 
On topic this time. Here's a partial list of the amps used by my favorite jazz guitar players. Aside from Wes and Grant Green, I have seen all of them play live FWIW.

Kenny Burrell - Gibson Super 400, Fender Twin, Roland JC120
Barney Kessel = Gibson GA-50T (during the 50s)
Jim Hall - Polytone Mini-Brute
Herb Ellis = Ampeg JS-35 (endorsed them in the 60s), Polytone Mini Brute
Wes Montgomery - Twin Reverb, Super Reverb, Ampeg Gemini II
Grant Green = Fender Deluxe Tweed (?), Ampeg Jet J-12D
Joe Pass - Polytone Model 102 (when I first saw him in the 70s he was playing something but can't recall what)
 
There's a list of predefined tonestacks under the preamp section of the amp block.
There's no Polytone there, but one of the tonestacks might be close. Some polytones i have tried has an active tonestack i think, so perhaps the active one will be close. There's also an option to change the position of the tonestack. Some tonestacks works better as pre, some as post etc.

Other parameters in the ampblock that can be useful:

In the poweramp section: Negative feedback. This reduces distortion, but also makes the sound harder and more harsh.
In the power supply section: Variac: This tightens the amp and cleans it up somewhat when you increase it. Reducing supply sag also does this.
In the speaker section: Speaker drive and speaker compression can be reduced to clean it up more.

that's very useful! I think with your help we're getting into something in the desired direction. Thank you so much for this.

So last (late) night I tried your presets 'jazzsounds2', very interesting work.
Actually the ampless seems the one without the 'valvish' attack, tone and sustain (forgive me if I cant describe it better) and nearer to an SS.
Then I worked a bit with the Eq (putting in a second one too) trying to give back some 'life' to the sound, specifically some mid/lowmid freq, to have those more 'in front' like in a jazz amp. Also raised high-pass in the cabs, somewhere to get rid of some boominess.
For reference, I tried with an Ibanez Artist series 335-like from late '80, with a Classic '57 Gibson neck pickup and Tomastik 0.12-0.50 strings, thick pick.

I attach the presets with the my eq's try.

PLEASE NOTE you may need to adjust (lower) general level and maybe some frequences in the eq, since I tried at bedroom level and likely exaggerated some tweaks due to low level volume. ASAP I'll try to adjust it better at normal volume level .
Still, so far your ideas work: attack and sustain are nearer to an SSamp, still keeping that general warmth and inspiring tone that no other modeller match in my experience.

I'm eager to try the Tonestack tweak as in your last post, but I guess it will be a bit longer process to get into those stuff effectively.

fabio
 

Attachments

  • Jazz-sounds (Patrick).syx
    24.1 KB · Views: 25
On topic this time. Here's a partial list of the amps used by my favorite jazz guitar players. Aside from Wes and Grant Green, I have seen all of them play live FWIW.

Kenny Burrell - Gibson Super 400, Fender Twin, Roland JC120
Barney Kessel = Gibson GA-50T (during the 50s)
Jim Hall - Polytone Mini-Brute
Herb Ellis = Ampeg JS-35 (endorsed them in the 60s), Polytone Mini Brute
Wes Montgomery - Twin Reverb, Super Reverb, Ampeg Gemini II
Grant Green = Fender Deluxe Tweed (?), Ampeg Jet J-12D
Joe Pass - Polytone Model 102 (when I first saw him in the 70s he was playing something but can't recall what)

Hi Mal,
thank you, amazing chart!

I just wanted to add, for the sake of conversation, that in those days guitarists often played what they found; just think of Joe Pass: I think he played through ANY system, in fact sometimes his sound wasn't 'spot-on' at all , but he was Joe Pass and he could afford it ;).

That's probably why it's not hard to find recordings with other setups.
Fender amps are and have been everywhere, I'm pretty sure you can find sessions with Fender for any guitarist in the world, even the ones which dont consider it their first choice (myself included, sometimes in the rehearsal room ;)

ciao, fabio
 
Wow, never thought I'd see the day after playing hundreds of international Jazz Fests, but here it is for the first time for me...

...a "JAZZ FIGHT" LOL!

Will wonders never cease...

On Topic: Ok, at the vast majority of those festivals the vast majority of the guitar and bass players used whatever backline was provided (typically smaller combo amps, but in Europe at times early on there were occasionally JTM Marshall half-stacks provided as well seeing they were plentiful at the time, and of course they can do nice cleans at moderate volumes as well. Amazingly, not once did I hear anyone complain seeing it's relatively easy to clean up an amp and turn down the treble/presence, plus some mids depending on the amp etc, seeing the FOH and monitor guys did whatever else was needed?

The exception IME would be Tuck Andress as he's totally unique as a soloist who plays percussively with his picking hand's fingers (Tuck and Patti), and he prefers a more scooped full-freq tone with compression to handle his right hand, which ultimately provides more definition to his lower strings (round wounds). Bela Fleck on Banjo of course had different requirements as well, but for obvious reasons. Everyone else was relatively happy turning down the gain and treble on whatever backline was provided LOL!

True clean and dark is about the easiest tone to get out of anything providing the gain levels are handled correctly, in addition to the undeniable fact that the audience at jazz gigs really doesn't care what the guitar tone is assuming it's relatively clean, and relatively dark, so that it properly blends with the other mostly acoustic instruments in a pleasing, and as desired traditional manner.

Do except the fact however that the FM3 can easily create this type of tone, and any of the so called jazz amp's tones with the proper cab/speaker/mic-position IR, as filtered clean reproduction with minimal compression is technically the easiest thing to create in any number of ways (the hard part is dealing with the non-linear aspects of driven amps/cabs).

Would having these clean so called jazz amps modeled be better, perhaps, and by all means ask Fractal about adding some going forward etc, but in the mean time there are already a number of great suggestions in this thread as to how you can create anything you could possibly desire for traditional jazz guitar tone!
 
Last edited:
Couple of things …

First off “REAL Jazz” can only be played by horns :cool: None of that sissy guitar stuff. :rolleyes:

And reading the RULES FOR DISCUSSION preamble had me wondering if I’d stumbled across an amendment to Leviticus.

But otherwise, I think it worth looking at using a drive block along with EQ and filter options. The beauty of it is that the drives are SS emulations to begin with and you can use them in the place of a tone stack. @yek ‘s Drive Models document provides ample suggestions for potential candidates and approaches. I’ve been playing with the SSD Preamp and have been happy with the results but there are a wealth of alternatives to try.

I’m also using some of @dr bonkers Polytone IRs but he says that the closest one in the library is the WMAN.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, this is what I came up with trying to put together a preset that sounds like Wes or Joe Pass when I play it with a neck humbucker. It's an ODS-100 Ford amp model with modified tonestack, RCA preamp tubes, 6CA7 power tubes, and less sag. Dumble 4x12 / EV 1x12 cabinet blend. To me it's pretty close to what my Jazz Guitar teacher's amp sounded like (silver face Vibrolux that someone around here had modded for him). I always thought those sounds were fat and round yet had this upper harmonic shimmer on the high notes.

-Aaron
 

Attachments

  • FM3-Jazz.syx
    24.1 KB · Views: 36
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom