Kingston ABC cd

[TonyA]

I have been listening to the Cliff and the Shadows Live at the ABC Kingston 1962.
In the CD sleeve there are four photos of cliff one of which is taken from the
back of the stage and shows Hank playing a Burns.!?
If the date of the photo is legitimate then how is Hank playing the Burns on 7th March 1962.

I have seen many postings which hold these recordings as a reference point for 'The Sound'

Anyone any comments on this anomaly?

Tony

[Moderne]

The photos are from a later period of time than the Kingston concert.

[TonyA]

Thanks for that, it would explain everything.
It's very misleading putting more recent photos of a more recent period
In with the CD.

Tony

[HAIRY]

Tony,
Your question is interesting: 'If the date of the photo is legitimate then how is Hank playing the Burns on 7th March 1962'.

Here is a suggestion:
George Geddes's booklet on Burns Marvins makes interesting reading. In particular the section of the Fender / Marvin transition where he goes into some detail and confirms it took 2 years. As mentioned in Paul Day's book and Barry's site: According to Hank, around 30 prototypes of the new model were assembled before the guitar finally met with his approval. "The 24 months of waiting was a nuisance but it all seemed worthwhile when we first began to use them," Marvin told the readers of his Beat Monthly column.

That being the case, each prototype took 24 days........!

Given the importance / fame of The Shads and the simplicity of the brief 'to produce a Strat clone'(!?!), I would assume that Jim would have jumped-to and had the first prototype in Hank's hands as quickly as it was possible to ensure Hank did not change his mind. With this in mind, the only real design challenge would be to engineer a vibrato that was stable, offered easy string changing and avoided the Fender's patents. Having completed a number of vibrato designs (including the design of the 4 pickup Bison in December 1961), this would have been a relatively simple challenge for Jim and his team/suppliers.

George tells me he has seen a picture of a Marvin 'plank with no embellishment' but has no knowledge of its dates. The possible timeline is unclear though the dates of design registration applications for the neck and vibrato numbers 917831&2 might throw some light on the process.

However, my experience of new product development and design management would suggest a project of this nature establishes the basics fairly quickly with most of the time taken with the to-ing and fro-ing of the various prototypes while the design detail and cosmetics are resolved.

Paul Day and George have identify some of the detailed developments:
- the subsequent addition of the small scratchplate to the upper bout
- changing the 3 way switch to a 5 way
- the subsequent addition of the hand-rest on the vibrato
- a larger black rear surround
- changes to the engraving
- a wider neck
- the scroll headstock
- the addition of an extra fret
- Per Gjorde claims in his book Pearls and Crazy Diamonds that the early examples had a rotary switch.
- I heard somewhere that Hank had the scratchplate moved nearer the bridge to give a brighter sound, while Bruce had his vibrato screwed down for stability.

The point of listing the above is that the fundamental changes that would effect the 'sound' are not reported and given the simplicity of Hank's brief to Jim 'produce a Strat clone' I would not have expected anything of significance. As a consequence, I suggest Jim would have supplied a very playable guitar early in the two year development programme. If this was the case, Hank's first response would have been to try it through an AC30 and test it in the studio, even though it was not ready for stage-work and presentation to the public!

This takes me to the nub of my question: why did The Shads first and second LPs sound so different? Could tracks such as The Rumble & South of The Border on Out of The Shadows (that were recorded in April & May of 1962) have been played on a second, third or fourth generation Burns Marvin prototype? And could the photo observed by Tony on the ABC sleeve be chronologically correct?

[fenderplucker]

Hi.

This is indeed an interesting topic made even more intriguing by the many inconsistent statements about what guitar was available when. Harry's comments above are very informative in this regard.

I have tried a different approach by recording nearly all of the Shadows tunes form May 1963 to Feb 1964 on both a Strat and a Burns (and I used a few different Burns including Hank's prototype 2004 Marvin, a production Marvin and a Shadows Custom Signature to make sure) and in each case mixed the tracks to get a close to the originals as possible. I will be using examples from these to do another "audio essay" for the TVS site on when the changeover might have occurred, but the short answer is that, without exception, all tunes up to and including Shindig (9th August 1963) are a better match with the Strat in a direct A-B comparison with the originals, while all tunes from In the Mood etc (11 February 1964) are closer on a Burns. While the differences are subtle in some cases, there are nearly always some characteristic sounds of either type of guitar that give them away. That leaves Theme for Young Lovers and Walkin', both of which were recorded on 1 November 1963. Walkin' is a better match with a Burns, while so far I just can't chose between the two with TFYL!

Also, having tried to gather as much other written or photographic information as I can regarding the changeover, the only consistent picture I come up with is from comments attributed to both Hank and Jim Burns to the effect that Jim Burns was approached with the idea for the new guitar sometime in 1962 (though some references suggest that this may in fact have been in 1963), some prototypes were produced after that and the final versions delivered sometime in November 1963. There is a quote from New Musical Express on October 25th 1963, saying that Hank had the new Burns, but "It's not finished yet. Going to have adjustments." From the Pearls and Crazy Diamonds book we learn that "Hank decided to have some small improvements made to his guitar before he used it in public and to record with", though it is not clear whether that refers to the ones delivered in Nov 1963 or an earlier prototype. The NME article would seem to suggest that it was referring to a prototype, possibly the one shown in October. All this timing would be consistent with my findings matching the sound of the guitars provided that only the final versions were used on record (Walkin' and possibly TFYL onwards).

I'll put a notice on the sites when the audio essay is done and you can reach your own conclusions on the comparisons.

Regards,

Paul.

[cockroach]

Just a few thoughts/comments from a non-expert!

- I think that's a later photo on the Kingston CD cover.

- I recall Hank saying in his column in Beat Instrumental that the reason the new guitar was taking so long was that even when Jim Burns made changes to suit Hank as lead guitarist, and he thought it was OK, 'a certain rhythm guitarist' would not like it- which I took to mean 'Mr. Picky' (!) was being fussy about his desires!

- Surely there wouldn't have been 20 or 30 separate different prototype complete guitars made? I could imagine say, half a dozen, but it seems absurd that if a minor change (say, scratch plate) was wanted, Jim wouldn't build a complete new guitar each time? Seems illogical to me. Even a different width neck could be made and substituted on an otherwise OK body with pickups etc.

- If there were 20 or 30 prototypes built, what happened to them?? Surely one or two might have surfaced by now and be known about via the internet!- unless they are languishing in dusty cases somewhere in Hank's storage shed?!

[HAIRY]

Paul: I am sure the audio essay will be received with interest.
Cochroach: we are in agreement. The 'prototyping' involving significant changes would have been limited to the early part of the project. The majority of time would have been sorting the detail/cosmetic changes which are less likely to require the construction of a new guitar and also, less likely to impact the audio characteristics of the guitar.

If there is any truth in this hypothesis, it is interesting that Paul's finding suggest the Burns did not find there way on to vinyl until late 1963; and yet the band soldier-on for the duration of the 2 year Burns project with the 'problems' of the Fenders.

[Tigerdaisy]

Surely at the time of the 'Kingston' show and the 2nd Shadows LP Fender were still under ownership of Leo Fender? I thought CBS didn't take over Fender until 65, in which case does this mean their guitars were going down hill quality wise prior to CBS? I assume the reason the Shadows ditched Fender was a quality issue?

[Iain Purdon]

You can speculate about these things for ever.

The only evidence we have is from the people who were there, and even their memories may be tricked by the passage of time. Ask Hank, and you'll get one answer, ask Bruce and you'll get another, the only other people still available to ask are Licorice and Brian. Licorice remembers it differently again. Has anyone asked Brian?

We can't ask Jet, but I don't think he ever mentioned seeing a Burns guitar while he was a Shadow. (Although he was asked a long time ago which Out Of The Shadows tracks he played on, and his recollection didn't match 100% with Licorice's.)

I don't recall there being a problem with the Fenders as far as Hank was concerned. It was Bruce who had the tuning difficulties, as was widely reported at the time and later.

[Fiesta red]

Maybe Hank had Fender pickups in those early Burns guitars. He would want to keep his original early 60's tone. Did he not use Kinmans in his recent Burns on stage?