Randy Rhoads 1959SUPER LEAD

[Digital Jams]

That is not a SLP... Super Lead Plexi. It is a Super Lead, you Marshall noob

Why yes I am a Marshall n00b

 

[Greazygeo]

good eyes George


Altec is still dicking around with little speakers, wonder if they're on board for this or if they're gonna have some kind of clone?

A friend of mine has some of those speakers....they are weird sounding to say the least

 

[Bob Savage]

Now that I think about it, how wimpy was J.S. Bach's tone when he used that harpsichord? Why didn't he play a Schecter Hellraiser tuned down to drop Q through a Krank Bachenstein?

I've been pondering this myself. Let's start a new thread about it.

 

[Digital Jams]

I The JVM was a good move in that direction, but they cut corners and overpriced the thing.

Randy was one of the true greats but I didn't always love his tone. Cool looking amp regardless.

$1800 for a 4 channel amp is overpriced? Yes I know I am not including the new floundering dollar price but that is not Marshall's fault.

The number of amp channels is irrelevant to the price. If the amp sounds great on all 4 channels then it's very versatile. I've played plenty of 3 channel amps that are effecitvely 1 channel amps for me since only 1 of the channels sounded really good and the other 2 were pretty much useless to me.

I like the JVM clean and crunch channels, but the OD channels are lacking IMO. To me, the biggest feature of the JVM is the extreme flexibility in programming the footswitch for options. You can have a clean and a crunch and a clean boost and a crunch boost, which makes it a great 2 channel amp with solo boosts for both channels.

The JVM sounds good, but not great. The cheap board mounted pots and crammed interior are a recipe for problems down the road, and for $1800 I won't settle for that type of cheap workmanship. PCB's are fine, but pots should always be chassis mounted. Marshall is mass producing these amps on an assembly line that amortizes the cost and the JVM shouldn't cost much more than a TSL (which is also overpriced). For $1800 you can buy a boutique amp that's ridiculously over built using top quality components and sounds great.

Sorry but this is all over the place, you love flexibility but the amount of channels is irrelevent

Would I want Bogner / Diezel / Soldano quality? Yes but that amp with the JVM features would be over $5000 and I believe Marshall is in business to make money

 

[amiller]

I wonder if it gets that awful thin fizzy tone from Blizzard Of Oz?

Yeah, it's so weird that Randy's tone was so thin and fizzy on that Blizzard of Ozz album. It's really in contrast to the absolutely huge sounding drums and massive sounding bass guitar on that album.

That ALBUM sounds very poorly produced 28 years later because, well, it WAS poorly produced. Ozzy had no budget whatsoever and could not even afford a producer, so they used the studio's in house ENGINEER as the producer. That was Max Norman and he was a total NOOB on that record. Listen to Rhoads live bootlegs from around that same time. FOR THE TIME, Randy's tone was freaking huge. I blame Randy's studio tone on the guy responsible for capturing Randy's tone and getting it to tape, Max Norman.

And before anyone brings up the Tribute album tone, listen to the original recording of the concert Tribute was taken from. Max Norman in an interview talked about how heavily they EQ'd Randy's live tone to make it sound more like the albums. When I read that before Tribute was released I wanted to smack Max Norman silly

And let's try and get some perspective here. NO ONE at the time was saying Rhoads tone was thin and fizzy. Max Norman became one of the most sought after producers AFTER he recorded those two Ozzy albums. Loudness, George Lynch and everyone else wanted Max Norman to produce them. Why would all these guitar oriented bands want Norman if his claim to fame, which obviously was Ozzy and RHOADS, was a horrible guitar tone?

So yeah, 20-28 years after the fact, Randy's tone WAS kind of thin. I don't know why Randy didn't use a Dual Rectifier or a Diezel, or Engl or Bogner Uberschall......... oh wait, there was no such thing. There were Marshalls, or there were Marshalls. Anyone ever hear an old Super Lead with a ton of low end thump? Now of course Van Halen had a way better Super Lead tone two years before Randy did, but Van Halen had Warner Bros and Ted Templeman behind them. Ozzy had anyone with a pulse behind the console and was scraping for change under the couch cushions to pay for that first album.

Now that I think about it, how wimpy was J.S. Bach's tone when he used that harpsichord? Why didn't he play a Schecter Hellraiser tuned down to drop Q through a Krank Bachenstein?

Funny stuff...and on point.

 

[messenger]

Randys tone on After Hours was pretty good

 

[Capulin Overdrive]

good eyes George


Altec is still dicking around with little speakers, wonder if they're on board for this or if they're gonna have some kind of clone?

A friend of mine has some of those speakers....they are weird sounding to say the least

Altec had some fairly decent Pro Audio stuff way back when, guess JBL and EV just did better? they even hand some decent little bookshelf speakers back in the early 80's.

would be cool if they're involved, but guess it's no big deal either way.

 

[Chubtone]

Randys tone on After Hours was pretty good

EXACTLY my point. Some little piss-ant TV studio in upstate New York was able to more accurately capture Randy's real tone than Max Norman was in a studio. Yet, internet guitar forums can't fall over themselves quickly enough to talk about how thin Rhoads tone was as you look back 25 years or so at it. I'm telling you guys, at the time no one was saying his tone was thin. Thin compared to what? Molly Hatchett, Scandal, Foreigner? Everyone was freaking over how much gain he had. He was really the first high gain guy that I was ever aware of.

 

[zuel69]

I wonder if it gets that awful thin fizzy tone from Blizzard Of Oz?

Yeah, it's so weird that Randy's tone was so thin and fizzy on that Blizzard of Ozz album. It's really in contrast to the absolutely huge sounding drums and massive sounding bass guitar on that album.

That ALBUM sounds very poorly produced 28 years later because, well, it WAS poorly produced. Ozzy had no budget whatsoever and could not even afford a producer, so they used the studio's in house ENGINEER as the producer. That was Max Norman and he was a total NOOB on that record. Listen to Rhoads live bootlegs from around that same time. FOR THE TIME, Randy's tone was freaking huge. I blame Randy's studio tone on the guy responsible for capturing Randy's tone and getting it to tape, Max Norman.

And before anyone brings up the Tribute album tone, listen to the original recording of the concert Tribute was taken from. Max Norman in an interview talked about how heavily they EQ'd Randy's live tone from the concert for Tribute to make it sound more like the albums. When I read that before Tribute was released I wanted to smack Max Norman silly

And let's try and get some perspective here. NO ONE at the time was saying Rhoads tone was thin and fizzy. Max Norman became one of the most sought after producers AFTER he recorded those two Ozzy albums. Loudness, George Lynch and everyone else wanted Max Norman to produce them. Why would all these guitar oriented bands want Norman if his claim to fame, which obviously was Ozzy and RHOADS, was a horrible guitar tone?

So yeah, 20-28 years after the fact, Randy's tone WAS kind of thin. I don't know why Randy didn't use a Dual Rectifier or a Diezel, or Engl or Bogner Uberschall......... oh wait, there was no such thing. There were Marshalls, or there were Marshalls. Anyone ever hear an old Super Lead with a ton of low end thump? Now of course Van Halen had a way better Super Lead tone two years before Randy did, but Van Halen had Warner Bros and Ted Templeman behind them. Ozzy had anyone with a pulse behind the console and was scraping for change under the couch cushions to pay for that first album.

Now that I think about it, how wimpy was J.S. Bach's tone when he used that harpsichord? Why didn't he play a Schecter Hellraiser 7-string tuned down to drop Q through a Krank Bachenstein?

Great post Chubtone! Thanks for taking the time to write this...Randy bashing makes my jaw drop. The guy was amazing, tone was amazing, songwriting was brilliant.

 

[Shiny_Surface]

Back then Randy's tone was never a huge topic of discussion, it was his playing we couldn't get enough of

 

[Digital Jams]

I wonder if it gets that awful thin fizzy tone from Blizzard Of Oz?

Yeah, it's so weird that Randy's tone was so thin and fizzy on that Blizzard of Ozz album. It's really in contrast to the absolutely huge sounding drums and massive sounding bass guitar on that album.

That ALBUM sounds very poorly produced 28 years later because, well, it WAS poorly produced. Ozzy had no budget whatsoever and could not even afford a producer, so they used the studio's in house ENGINEER as the producer. That was Max Norman and he was a total NOOB on that record. Listen to Rhoads live bootlegs from around that same time. FOR THE TIME, Randy's tone was freaking huge. I blame Randy's studio tone on the guy responsible for capturing Randy's tone and getting it to tape, Max Norman.

And before anyone brings up the Tribute album tone, listen to the original recording of the concert Tribute was taken from. Max Norman in an interview talked about how heavily they EQ'd Randy's live tone from the concert for Tribute to make it sound more like the albums. When I read that before Tribute was released I wanted to smack Max Norman silly

And let's try and get some perspective here. NO ONE at the time was saying Rhoads tone was thin and fizzy. Max Norman became one of the most sought after producers AFTER he recorded those two Ozzy albums. Loudness, George Lynch and everyone else wanted Max Norman to produce them. Why would all these guitar oriented bands want Norman if his claim to fame, which obviously was Ozzy and RHOADS, was a horrible guitar tone?

So yeah, 20-28 years after the fact, Randy's tone WAS kind of thin. I don't know why Randy didn't use a Dual Rectifier or a Diezel, or Engl or Bogner Uberschall......... oh wait, there was no such thing. There were Marshalls, or there were Marshalls. Anyone ever hear an old Super Lead with a ton of low end thump? Now of course Van Halen had a way better Super Lead tone two years before Randy did, but Van Halen had Warner Bros and Ted Templeman behind them. Ozzy had anyone with a pulse behind the console and was scraping for change under the couch cushions to pay for that first album.

Now that I think about it, how wimpy was J.S. Bach's tone when he used that harpsichord? Why didn't he play a Schecter Hellraiser 7-string tuned down to drop Q through a Krank Bachenstein?

Great post Chubtone! Thanks for taking the time to write this...Randy bashing makes my jaw drop. The guy was amazing, tone was amazing, songwriting was brilliant.

I love it when he goes off on his 80s historic tours, he has killer stories!

 

[thenine]

Randys tone on After Hours was pretty good

EXACTLY my point. Some little piss-ant TV studio in upstate New York was able to more accurately capture Randy's real tone than Max Norman was in a studio. Yet, internet guitar forums can't fall over themselves quickly enough to talk about how thin Rhoads tone was as you look back 25 years or so at it. I'm telling you guys, at the time no one was saying his tone was thin. Thin compared to what? Molly Hatchett, Scandal, Foreigner? Everyone was freaking over how much gain he had. He was really the first high gain guy that I was ever aware of.

This is how I remember it too. People were freaking over how much gain he had. Ozzy used to call his pedalboard "the frypan" because it was always sizzling and popping!

 

[Chubtone]

Great post Chubtone! Thanks for taking the time to write this...Randy bashing makes my jaw drop. The guy was amazing, tone was amazing, songwriting was brilliant.

It just makes me mental. I KNOW these guys who bash Rhoads' tone are not guys who were serious guitarists in that era. Maybe right after that era, but they didn't experience it as it happened. They have no perspective on it. At the time there were guys who liked Rhoads tone better than Van Halen's. Lots of guys. Tons. Perhaps even one writing this post. However, listening back I now much prefer Eddies tone. Randy's tone and the production on those albums hasn't aged well whereas the Van Halen stuff sounds timeless.

Hey George, maybe you could see if your rep can get you two of these Rhoads heads ?

 

[zuel69]

Yea, he also called it the "chipboard" I think chip meant shit or something like that.

 

[Chubtone]

Yea, he also called it the "chipboard" I think chip meant shit or something like that.

Chip meant french fry in England. Fish and CHIPS.

 

[Bob Savage]

Great post Chubtone! Thanks for taking the time to write this...Randy bashing makes my jaw drop. The guy was amazing, tone was amazing, songwriting was brilliant.

It just makes me mental. I KNOW these guys who bash Rhoads' tone are not guys who were serious guitarists in that era. Maybe right after that era, but they didn't experience it as it happened. They have no perspective on it. At the time there were guys who liked Rhoads tone better than Van Halen's. Lots of guys. Tons.

I don't know if I was "serious" but I was a part of that scene and you're right, nobody was complaining about Randy's tone back then. Heck, people were trying to thin their Marshall's out with pedals to make it sound like Blizzard and Diary...

 

[Bob Savage]

Chip meant french fry in England. Fish and CHIPS.

I love Fish and Chips!

 

[zuel69]

Chippan thats it! Ozzy had a pretty good sized gut back then, he probably likes Fish and Chips as well.

 

[MrDan666]

Chippan thats it! Ozzy had a pretty good sized gut back then, he probably likes Fish and Chips as well.

He's british. Of course he likes fish and chips

 

[zuel69]

As long as is not Long John Silvers so do I!