[HAM] Rudy's C-3 Rant - was, Single louver

[Kon Zissis]

Hi Scott.
 
>There is no "magic" in that organ. It's all in the recording process.
It's 
>a fairly ordinary C-3.
 
This is what I expect the Rudy Van Gelder  C3 to have been because as
far as I am aware this was a stock unmodified organ. If the TG output
curve was measured back when it was new in 1959 I expect that the TG
curve would follow the normal typical TG output curve  pattern and if
the TG curve was measured today then I expect that it would follow the
typical pattern that pre 1964 wax capped TG's have. I think that the
whole  thing about modifications  and tweaking  would be something that
started with the Rock organists much later than 1959 although there
might be a possibility that Rudy Van Gelder did try out all the Hammonds
in the shop and he chose that particular C3 because it was the better
sounding of the Hammonds in that shop. 
By "magic" I was referring to the fact that many Jazz/ Blues  lovers
love the Rudy Van Gelder  recordings and they would  consider these
Hammond recordings as being the  quintessential reference examples of
the  Hammond sound .
 
 
>Pardon me for continuing to harp on this, but maybe 
>I'm slightly stung by this "elitist purist" thing. Maybe the shoe fits,

>maybe I'll wear it. And it's obvious to me who else you're referring
to-- 
>someone who has been inside the studio and is intimately familiar with
the 
>organ. You misconstrue that person's motives.
 
I apologise if I unintentionally created the impression that I was
referring to you or to the other person who I think I know who you are
referring to when I mentioned elitist purists . I was not referring to
you at all. Over the years you have shared plenty of information and you
have displayed a keen sense of humour  in many of your posts. My post
mentioning the elitist purists was a light hearted reply to Phil Boug's
post influenced by the fact that there are a few stuffy and snobbish
people who tend to take themselves and these things extremely seriously
and they have an elitist attitude that things such as the particular
settings that musicians use  and also the actual technical details of
the instruments and the amplifiers used  are nobody else's business
except  the musicians themselves and other immediate inner circle people
such as  the recording engineers and that this kind of knowledge should
not be  made public because it somehow  spoils the mystique or the magic
hype because it allows everyone else  to know how the "magic" was made.
This elitist attitude can sometimes raise it's head and be a problem
within  the vintage  organs and the vintage guitars and the vintage
amplifiers scene. This problem with elitist purists can also appear
within the vintage cars scene and in other "vintage" scenes where a
sense of mystique and magic are important factors in the hype.    
 
>It is not the revelation of any TG curves that offends anyone, it's the
idea that this makes much 
>difference at all, in the end. On top of that,  the possible variables
involved in making such measurements from one organ >to the next are
many, even without taking into account all the other possible variables
from one setup to the next
 
I have measured the TG curves of many organs and I have been sent the
measured TG output curves of many more organs so that I have  over fifty
TG  curves in my TG spreadsheet. Most of these TG curves are similar
except for some  differences in the upper midrange and treble region so
therefore from this I can assume that most Hammonds more or less
generally followed the standard factory calibration pattern. Most of the
stock organs that I have played  all more or less sounded similar
although a few did sound better than others. I expect that the Hammonds
used  in the early classic recordings would have had a typical  standard
TG calibration and that it was later on when techs like Bill Beer and Al
Goff began to offer TG recalibration as part of their service  that
distinctive non stock sounds began to appear especially with some  Rock
organists such as Gregg Rolie's  organ sound on the "Santana IV" and the
"Caravanserai" albums , Tom Coster , Steve Walsh ( Kansas)  , Dick Sims
( Eric Clapton's band , Spooner Oldham ( Bob Dylan's early 1980's band)
etc who used Bill Beer modified organs and Bill Beer modified Leslies.  
 
>The people who have made famous recordings on that organ, people like 
>Jimmy, Ray Charles, etc. etc., are master players, and their taste and 
>techniques, coupled with Rudy's superb recording, are what make the
records 
>sound so good. 
>Notice that all of these guys get a different sound out of that same
organ. It's the way 
>they play. I could ID McDuff playing that organ in three notes.
>: my viewpoint is that the real magic is in the PLAYING and the
RECORDINGS.
> I would put my C-3, or my B-3, or practically any console in there and
make the same recordings. They 
>would sound just about the same
 
Over the time that I have been learning more and more about Hammonds I
have come to understand that recording techniques and microphones are an
extremely important factor that help make up  the "classic sound " and
that the organs used often had the regular normal stock sound. A few
years ago on Hamtech  Sal Azzarelli wrote that he has played several
organs that were used on classic recordings  and he said that these
organs sounded ordinary but that the organists produced  extraordinary
performances  on these organs. 
If Jimmy Smith , Jack McDuff  or Jon Lord played and recoded  with  my
own recalibrated 1962 C3 I expect that  they would still sound exactly
like themselves.
All the best.
Kon