anyone prefer marshall to the many offshoots ?

Ufoscorpion

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
2,892
I don't look down on anyone - I was saying, the sneers and jeers came MY way from the hairspray heads because I was not using the cool gear (according to them). I wrote that as an example of " I play what I like, not what is "popular" because someone else says so", and I still do to this day. I will say If you are offended by my opinion, don't expect an apology, but there is no need to be bothered by it. Maybe you missed the "you do you" part. :shrug:

Therefore- my tastes in gear are what they are. Again, "you do you".

I was always more into the European stuff. We were pretty much an Iron Maiden cover band as well as some doing some Fastway & Scorpions tunes.
Well not being funny but we’re the bands you mentioned not maybe a little bit about the hair ????
 

Ufoscorpion

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
2,892
I don't care for the high gain modded Marshall clones and tones- even those from Marshall itself. I prefer the original NMV JTM and lead/bass circuits- that is THE sound for me- the original Marshall sounds. 2203/4 less so, but also much loved. 2205/10 and beyond are not my thing, EXCEPT for the Vintage Modern. I like to say that " I'm all about sustain without all the gain" which comes from older circuits jacked up and speakers flapping your bell bottoms, not riding your pre-amp gain knob up to 10, lowering your master volume and plugging into a IR. I've always been old fashioned- I used to get laughs and sneers in the music store in the 80s when I would grab a Les Paul, Explorer or SG off the wall and go to the used section and plug into an old Marshall or Fender while everyone else was hairspray and super strats into their ADA MP1 and ART digital rack effects. I tried all that stuff of course (not the hairspray) spent way too much money on it. But I didn't like any of it. I make no apologies for what I like to hear and you can do you.

I like what I hear/see from the following Marshall inspired amps-
Magnatone (M 80, Super 59, Super 15, etc)

Friedman's Phil X and Smallbox (channel 1)- only. The rest are too compressed, gained out or EQ'ed out the wazoo too bright/too dark (Dirty Shirley, Runts, Minis, BE series, etc).

Bogner Helios and Plexi/Blue channels (only) on the Ecstasy.

Engl Retro 50/100 (a little dark, but the vibe is there)

David Bray amps

That's about it. I've played the VHTs (original Pitbulls, etc), Soldanos, Splawns, 5150s, and other "super marshalls"-while I think they are fun, ultimately they are just a short lived diversion. I quickly get bored of it.

Were money not an issue I'd own a Metropolous Metro-Plex- JTM45 and 1959 with some added boost functions that are voiced "vintage". Tahat's all I ever wanted (for Marshall tone)

But I'd also be set for life with an 1987X, or 1959 RI, a cab of 55hz, and an goose pedal or two.

Hell, the right Bassman, Dual Showman, or Hi Watt DR would be A-OK too.

/crankyoldguy
I very much doubt you’ve played many of the amps you’ve mentioned above . I can smell the bovine excretion from here . No apologies offered for my opinion btw
 

jeffb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
3,368
I very much doubt you’ve played many of the amps you’ve mentioned above . I can smell the bovine excretion from here . No apologies offered for my opinion btw

I've played most of them- some I've only heard thus why I said "Like what I hear/see"

The one's I've not played myself are the PhilX, Metroplex, Super15, and the Retro 100.

But if calling BS makes you feel better about yourself, go right ahead. It's obvious you are very upset by opinion. Maybe you should grow some thicker skin, or get off the internet.
 

jeffb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
3,368
Well not being funny but we’re the bands you mentioned not maybe a little bit about the hair ????

For me it's all about music, not hair. But if appearances are what concerns you, then it does not surprise me you are upset about hairspray comments- it was clearly a time when image trumped talent.
 

Ufoscorpion

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
2,892
I've played most of them- some I've only heard thus why I said "Like what I hear/see"

The one's I've not played myself are the PhilX, Metroplex, Super15, and the Retro 100.

But if calling BS makes you feel better about yourself, go right ahead. It's obvious you are very upset by opinion. Maybe you should grow some thicker skin, or get off the internet.
For me it's all about music, not hair. But if appearances are what concerns you, then it does not surprise me you are upset about hairspray comments- it was clearly a time when image trumped talent.
You are very contradictory, as much as I like Iron maiden my memories of them include lots of hair and spandex and a great over the top themed live show ( saw them on the SIT tour at the Hammersmith btw ) . What were/are they about then in your world talent or image ????
 

jeffb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
3,368
You are very contradictory, as much as I like Iron maiden my memories of them include lots of hair and spandex and a great over the top themed live show ( saw them on the SIT tour at the Hammersmith btw ) . What were/are they about then in your world talent or image ????

I have no idea what point you are trying to make- Just because they have long hair and wore spandex they are considered hair metal? If that's what you are getting at, sorry, can't agree.

Iron Maiden is Iron maiden. Spandex, hair and makeup did not define them. Their music did not die off immediately when the Seattle scene took over. You can say that about Ozzy too. Is he hair metal? Nope. It's just Ozzy and his music (and his addictions) define him. Bands like Poison, Ratt, Britney foxx, Warrant, Twisted sister, Quiet Riot, Cinderella, Dokken/Lynch Mob and a slew of others suddenly found themselves with no record contracts and no shows to play (until the mid Y2Ks when 80s music became a thing again). It was time for a new image, and a new sound (as much as I despise "grunge", I was glad to see the absurdity of the last wave of hair metal bands go the way of the do-do)

An amazing live show (FWIW, I saw Maiden on the Powerslave tour* at the now long gone Capitol Center*) does not make them "hair metal" either. Michael Jackson had probably the most amazing live shows of the decade. He wore spandex and leather pants- kinda long hair too at that time. Pink Floyd had an amazing live show- so did the Who. Styx. The Kinks. The Police, Van Halen, Tom Petty, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some great shows I saw in the 1980s. They all had long hair and many of them even wore spandex in the 1980s. That doesn't make them hair metal bands. That image did not define them or their music.

At this point you have dragged me way off topic, so feel free to start another thread if you like about "what makes a hair metal band a hair metal band" and maybe some others would like to chime in. I've made myself pretty clear and I'm not interested enough in the subject to give you any more of my time discussing it.


*
 

Ufoscorpion

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
2,892
There you go again disrespecting hair metal , can’t help yourself can you , lol . Don’t do it , keep it to yourself , coz some of us do that’s what I’m saying .
 

Ufoscorpion

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
2,892
So anyway going back to the question in the original post , some people will undoubtably prefer a Marshall to any of the many off shoots ( let’s be honest sometimes just because it’s a Marshall ) , I personally prefer many of the offshoots to a Marshall . For me what it comes down to is how much better they sound at lower volume , plexis , 800’s etc sound fantastic at the ear splitting volumes they’ve been designed for , but sound really lame at low volume . How many can honestly say they can even play a SV20 flat out ( to get the optimum tone ) at a gig let alone at home without attenuation , very few . Now if I could play for example a 1987 at the required volume to get the optimum tone I would definitely take that option , but I can’t . Volume is a must with an ‘ old school ‘ Marshall , they do tend to lose the magic attenuated . ‘Other amps ‘ like Friedman for example just keep the magic at low volume , that’s really it imo .
 

PowerTube44

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
958
Reaction score
1,899
I can't believe Marshall hasn't jumped more on the aftermarket competition than they have. Sure, I get that they've increased the gain over the years, the JVM series, etc... But what I mean is, they should do it more like Ceriatone and the like. A lot of the clones can do anything from a Plexi to an overdrive monster.
 

Ufoscorpion

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
2,892
I can't believe Marshall hasn't jumped more on the aftermarket competition than they have. Sure, I get that they've increased the gain over the years, the JVM series, etc... But what I mean is, they should do it more like Ceriatone and the like. A lot of the clones can do anything from a Plexi to an overdrive monster.
Exactly, why don’t Marshall make a modded plexi ? Is it too obvious and easy to do for them , a few simple switchable mods to a 1987x done in house would sell no problem. I would have bought one instead of my Runt 50 probably . I only live 10 miles from the Marshall factory so It would make me feel better supporting a local business (a non essential but added bonus ).
 
Last edited:

ibmorjamn

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
11,187
Reaction score
11,448
Location
North
I don’t want to pick sides on the debate but Iron Maiden may have had the hair but they were never a hair metal band. That is more of poison type. Maiden followed the BWohm lead by Judas Priest. They were always metal not pop. Huge difference and I don’t mind putting down the glam, it was a different thing all together though.You can not lump them in that class.
I have been to damn near every So Cal performance since Killers up until Somewhere in Time as well as several shows after they got Bruce and Adrian back.
Killers - Paul Diano and Clive Burr (spelling)
 
Last edited:

EJstrat&JVM

Active Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
215
Reaction score
104
On one hand to get an Origin modded it's only $40 in components, on the other hand there are a lot of non expensive amps (Victory, Bugera, Blackstar, Orange) that don't want to jump on the Arredondo wagon.
 

Ufoscorpion

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
2,892
On one hand to get an Origin modded it's only $40 in components, on the other hand there are a lot of non expensive amps (Victory, Bugera, Blackstar, Orange) that don't want to jump on the Arredondo wagon.
All well and good , but give players the option of standard or modded in one amp it would be inexpensive to do at manufacture point .
 

Ufoscorpion

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
2,892
I don’t want to pick sides on the debate but Iron Maiden may have had the hair but they were never a hair metal band. That is more of poison type. Maiden followed the BWohm lead by Judas Priest. They were always metal not pop. Huge difference and I don’t mind putting down the glam, it was a different thing all together though.You can not lump them in that class.
I have been to damn near every So Cal performance since Killers up until Somewhere in Time as well as several shows after they got Bruce and Adrian back.
Killers - Paul Diano and Clive Burr (spelling)
I was really just swiping at the comment made that a band is either image or substance where basically they can actually be both . Priest and Maiden have definite over the top image’s ( hair, spandex, leather etc ) but he’ll , they can kick arse play rock aswell . Same goes with 80’s sunset strip hair metal bands , however you want to categorise them . I like both , I think that’s allowed . I like lots of different types of music , some genres more than others but hey is one more ‘ credible ‘ than the other ? Well it obviously is other people’s eyes , not you ibmorjamn , others , lol .
 

George Dickens

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2021
Messages
280
Reaction score
453
Location
CA
"anyone prefer marshall to the many offshoots ?
I like them all- what ever works as long as I got power otherwise a National cone...
or even a tri-cone has a bit amount of harmonic distortion...
In 1936 Charlie Christian put a pick-up on a guitar.
He had an amp which had tubes. Let there be light!
 
Last edited:

George Dickens

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2021
Messages
280
Reaction score
453
Location
CA
So you only like Fender!?
Fender did not invent the audio amp, it was over 100 years ago for radios.
Im sure there are parts of Leos design which were borrowed from his fore bearers too.
Some oof the most advanced designs are happening right now-
but there is only so much you can do with pure analogue and a basic 6 string guitar
Most like what they are familiar with-I am familiar with R& R music so I tend to like Marshalls
Fendr too-but I like over the top German ENGL ones too however anything that gets me there...
R&R wise
 
Last edited:

NINFNM

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Messages
20
Reaction score
36
So you only like Fender!?

Knew sombody will come up with that, but Jim took the Bassman as a reference taking it some steps further and making something new.
Closed cab, 12 inches, different resistor, caps and gain stages... A new paradigm was born.
Sure GnR had Aerosmith as an influence, but that's not the same as being a tribute band, or being Friedman cloning even the font of the Marshall letters.
 
Last edited:


Top