 That is an excellent question! When you look at them, they are about the same shape. There are even bass practice amps that are smaller than guitar amps. What is the difference and why are guitar and bass amps different? Amps can be really complicated but at a basic level there are two ideas driving amps--size and power level.  SizeSize-- Although we cannot see them, except when they make liquids move (like the cup of water when T-Rex approaches in Jurassic Park) sound waves have size. Pitch, or how high or low a sound is, is determined by how close together or far apart the crest of one wave is to the crest of the next wave. Higher pitched sounds are closer together and lower pitched sounds are more spread out. For guitar, most of the sound waves it produces would be measured from a several hundred millimeters to a few centimeters. Bass notes, on the other hand, are most often measured in meters. In order to produce such large sound waves successfully, bass amps require larger speaker cones or several different sized cones for different frequency ranges. In terms of size, bass amps are most likely going to be larger overall than guitar amps. However it is the size of the speaker cone inside the amp and not the overall dimensions of the outside, what we call the cabinet. Thinking about the size of sound waves, using a bass amp for a regular guitar would mean that the higher pitches would not sound as good as if they were from a guitar amp with smaller speaker cones. Likewise, playing a bass with a regular guitar amp would mean that the lowest notes would not sound as good (or not sound at all) than if it were played on a bass amp.  Power The second layer of how amps work involves the amount of power it can output. More or less power equates to how loud the amp can get, but the size of the sound waves or frequency, also changes how much power is needed. Remember sound waves? The height of the wave is how loud or quiet the sound is. On average, the very low bass notes require more power output than higher notes played at the same volume. This means that a bass amp playing at the same perceived loudness as a guitar amp would need more wattage. It’s also the power idea that makes selecting the correct amp important as using an amp at a loud volume with an instrument that it is not designed for can eventually damage the amp. But how can I tell which amp is which? Here’s a hint- they usually are labelled somewhere on the unit. If you do not see the word “guitar” or “bass” on the amp, find the make and model number name/number and look it up. Google should be able to tell you. Another difference between guitar and bass amps that is more subtle has to do with the EQ settings available or rather the focus of these settings. In order to understand the purpose of them, first we need to understand how instrument pitches work.  Every note has a main frequency (sound wave shape) that gives it the pitch-- we call this the fundamental pitch. But fitting within that wave are other related waves. These other waves are called overtones. While the fundamental pitch is what gives the note its letter name, it is these overtones that give the note its quality of sounding like a bass guitar and not a piano, tuba or other low instrument playing the same pitch. The EQ settings on an amp are obviously not going to make a bass turn into a tuba, but it can enhance or repress certain overtones so that different frequency ranges (sound wave sizes) are brought out. Going back to the sound wave sizes, the low, medium, and high frequency ranges for a bass is going to be different than the low, medium, and high frequency ranges for a regular guitar. Meaning that the medium knob on a guitar amp will not affect the same frequency range as the medium knob on a bass amp.  Guitarists are notorious for chasing the perfect tone with complete pedal boards to assist in that process. Often the focus for bass is more on defining the fundamental and how tight or reverberant the player wants that sound. For a bass, lower EQ boosts would give it more power and depth whereas higher EQ boosts would give the notes more clarity.
Hopefully this post has not confused you more. You should be glad I did not talk about keyboard amps and how they have to work for a wider frequency range than either bass or guitar amps. Unlike many products that are simply marketing gimmicks, bass and guitar amps are two separate products that serve different needs. Please let me know if you have questions!
0 Comments
5/17/2021 0 Comments Profile- The Ladykillers (1955) Context American movies dominated the motion picture market of the English-speaking world for most of the Twentieth Century. In order to fully understand the ability of British comedies to succeed globally in the 1950s, one must first understand the situation in the United States at the time. First, with the American film industry during much of the 1950s living in fear of the Communism investigations by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, comedy, as the most subversive of all film genres and the most critical of the status quo, stood the most to lose. Second, when television became extremely popular in the 1950s, it welcomed tamer comedians such as Lucille Ball, Jackie Gleason, Red Skelton, Jack Benny, and Sid Caesar. Third, as a reaction to the popularity of television, film studios attempted to win back audiences with big-budget, widescreen epics, featuring grand, dramatic subjects. Of course, most comedy was not well suited to this sort of exhibition. The fourth reason that we do not see much pure comedy film in the 1950s is because so much of the comedy of the time appeared in the form of musical comedy. Unlike comedies with musical interludes, like many of the Marx Brothers’ pictures, the musical numbers in a musical comedy are part of the action—in fact, they drive the narrative. While the Marx Brothers could perform a song as a mere aside, the characters in a musical share their thoughts, feelings, motivations, plans, and reveal plot points through song within the scope of the narrative. Comic stars such as Gene Kelly, Danny Kaye, Bob Hope, and Bing Crosby featured most of their work in the form of musicals. Even most of the films of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis are arguably musical comedies. With American film focused elsewhere, other English language comedies could arise. England’s Ealing Studios, under the direction of Michael Balcon, first excelled in the field of documentaries before Balcon realized that British comedies could carve their own niche in the international film market. The most significant performer at Ealing studios was Alec Guinness, who starred in what are today considered Ealing’s greatest comedies, Kind Hearts and Coronets (Robert Hamer 1949), The Lavender Hill Mob (Charles Crichton 1951), The Man in the White Suit (Alexander Mackendrick 1951), and The Ladykillers (Mackendrick 1955). Today, when film historians write about British film comedies of the 1950s, most likely they are speaking of the Ealing comedies, which set the tone for later British comedies. Sir Alec Guinness (1914-2000) was one of the Twentieth Century’s most versatile actors. He began his career on stage and appeared in dozens of plays throughout England, transitioning to mainstream film in the 1940s, although he never left the theatre. In 1946, Guinness first worked with director David Lean on Great Expectations, resulting in a nearly 40 year collaboration with director Lean in such notable films as Oliver Twist (1948), The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Doctor Zhivago (1965), and A Passage To India (1984). Later in his career, his portrayal of Jedi Master Obi Wan Kenobi in George Lucas’ Star Wars saga brought him millions of more fans from younger generations. Guinness brought experience to the cast of Star Wars as the most respected actor involved in the production at the time. Throughout his career, Guinness demonstrated that an actor did not need to specialize in comedy or drama in order to achieve success—indeed, his comic knack for timing complemented his dramatic sense of character study.  Reception The Ladykillers was a commercial hit across the world. Most critics’ reviews at the time were favorable, though many agree that the film has several flaws, of which the reader will soon learn. Variety liked the picture, especially the cast, “Cecil Parker strikes just the right note as a conman posing as an army officer. Herbert Lom broods gloomily as the most ruthless of the plotters, with Peter Sellers contrasting well…. Danny Green completes the quintet”, although the reviewer felt that “Guinness tends to overact the sinister leader”, apparently unaware of the Principle of Comic Logic, particularly the quality of exaggeration. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times called the film a success, also praising the cast, especially Johnson, “a performer who does one of the nicest bits of character acting you could ask for at any time”. He adds however that he felt it was “slightly labored. Perhaps it does have the air of an initially brilliant inspiration that has not worked out as easily as it seemed it should” and that “Michael Balcon’s production in color gives the whole thing a slightly garish look that is not wholly consistent with the humor”—once again supporting the argument that the praised technology of the time, particularly full-color presentations, did not always serve comedy film well. Andrew C. Mayer of The Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television, an American trade publication, was more critical of the film than his contemporaries, stating it “takes itself a little too seriously…. The film is therefore necessarily miscast because it is badly conceived; but it does have its humorous moments”. He was especially critical of Guinness, “in his new role he is far less attractive; in all his previous performances he was, basically, a sympathetic character who occasionally got away with murder, or some lesser offense…. The lighthearted quality of Guinness' early pictures is gone”, overlooking Guinness’ preference for playing a broad array of characters in his career. I believe that Mayer misses the distinctly British qualities of its humor—the understated manner and utterly serious delivery. Recent reviews have been more favorable than the contemporary reviews. In 2002, Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian (London) called it “Subversive, hilarious and more English than Elgar, though written by the American expatriate William Rose, this is one of director Alexander Mackendrick’s masterpieces and a major jewel in the Ealing Studios canon”. Adrian Hennigan of the BBC described it as a “wonderfully macabre black comedy that really does improve with age”. Hennigan praised the cast saying, “Guinness delivers a typically mesmerising performance…. While Guinness’ teeth could have won a best supporting actor award in their own right, every performance shines through in smog-filled London”. It is important to note that these two domestic reviewers give the film more praise than the following American reviewers, who come from a different cultural background and experience of comedy. While James Kendrick of QNetwork called it “very much a stagy production”, he adds, “it is still one of the funniest and most wicked British comedies ever made”. As with any film, there are of course reviewers that find it flawed. Many such critics note how Mrs. Wilberforce seems almost too oblivious throughout the picture—not acknowledging how she follows the absentminded quality of the Principle of Comic Sense. Although he liked the film, Clark Douglas of DVD Verdict did say, “The film’s premise is honestly a little bit thin”. Dennis Schwartz of Ozus’ World Movie Reviews agreed, adding that the film is “Always witty but never fully believable (it takes a lot of crafty writing and smart acting to make the flawed plot line so workable)”. The worst review comes from Christopher Null of Filmcritic.com, who gave it 3 out of 5 stars in a 2004 review. In the review, he said, “As black comedies go, The Ladykillers is neither terribly black nor terribly comedic”. It is important to note that, unlike many other British comedies, reviewers from both the United Kingdom and the United States seemed to agree on many aspects of the film.  Legacy Around the time of Ealing Studios’ 100th Anniversary in 2002, James Christopher of The London Times called it “THE finest Ealing comedy…. The humour is so dark, steely, and polished that it slides through the drama like a knife”.
In the liner notes to the 2002 DVD of the film, filmmaker Rand Vossler describes the appeal of the comedy, “Mackendrick deftly handles Rose’s masterful script that derives most of its humor by contrasting the callousness of the thugs with the polite Victorian sensibilities of their landlady and her circle of friends”. The addition of The Ladykillers to the canon of British motion pictures added not only to the prestige of British comedy worldwide, but of British film in general.  At the time of Sullivan’s Travels, many filmmakers had dabbled in making socially conscious films. Known collectively as The Popular Front, most of these filmmakers focused on the serious nature of social issues. Sullivan’s Travels is ironic. In it, Sturges criticizes the methods and motivations of the Popular Front, yet at the same time, he somehow seems to make a social critique in the style of the Popular Front. At the time of its release at the end of the Great Depression and the start of World War II, the film was almost dated. Audiences had forgotten about many of the problems that the film highlights. One of Sturges’ most significant statements in the film involves race, as the only real sympathetic characters are members of the all Black congregation. The inclusion of these sympathetic Black characters marked one of the few and earliest occasions that Black characters existed in a comedy film for a purpose other than being the butt of a joke. Like Chaplin before him, scholars have called Sturges (1898-1959) an auteur. He began his film career as a writer, later transitioning to the role of director. Within recent years, more critical attention has returned to Sturges’ works, which had been mostly overlooked for decades. Notice that Sturges chose to hire an actress that was not recognized by audiences as a comic performer—adding to the ambiguity that audiences felt when the film premiered and they could not understand if it was a comedy or a tragedy.  Reception Film reviewers all over the United States praised Sturges and his film. Here we see how the manner in which comedy borrows the conventions of other genres is not only confusing to reviewers, but to the studio producing the comedy film as well. Variety liked the film, stating, “Sullivan’s Travels is one of the screen’s more ‘significant’ films. It is the best social comment made upon Hollywood since A Star Is Born. And that, we quietly suspect, is exactly what Mr. Sturges meant it to be”. About Sturges, Bosley Crowther of the New York Times, said “Preston Sturges need make no excuses for the dominance of comedy on the screen, since he has done more than any one over the last two years to give brightness and bounce and authority to this general type of fare”. Notice how these critics address its explorations of the nature of Hollywood and of comedy, yet ignore his explorations of class struggle. The National Board of Review named it one of the Top Ten Films of 1942. However, it was not nominated for any Academy Awards. I cannot find any explanation for why the Academy did not recognize the picture, but perhaps its left-leaning themes and criticism of America were too controversial for a nation at war. Today, many film historians consider the film to be Sturges’ greatest achievement. Although it is a comedy, many say that it is one of the most accurate depictions of the plight of the homeless during the Great Depression—a fact that contemporary critics avoided mentioning. Once again, a Screwball Comedy represents a collaborative effort and the reviewers acknowledge that. As director and writer, Sturges’ talents receive the most praise. In 2001, Glenn Erickson of DVD Savant said “Preston Sturges at his best is nothing short of amazing”, noting its great dialogue as well as Sturges great direction. Jeff Ulmer of Digitally Obsessed echoed Erickson, when he called Sturges “a genius both as a director and as a writer”. Todd McCarthy of Criterion remarked on Sturges’ ability to combine comedy and tragedy, calling the film “both terribly funny and deeply moving”—a statement reminiscent of reviews of City Lights (1931). Derek M. Germano of The Cinema Laser compared Sturges to the title character when he said, “Sturges achieves the goal that he sets up for his fictional director in the film”. Terry Coll of DVD Verdict added “you can’t dislike Sullivan because he’s so well intentioned, if a little naïve. He truly wants to make his work meaningful”, much as we can infer Sturges had wanted. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian added that the film succeeds as “a distillation of pure happiness”. Like the contemporary reviewers, John J. Puccio of Movie Metropolis dubbed it “the finest film about filmmaking ever made,” commenting on its accurate depiction of the Hollywood mindset. Speaking to its longevity and to its exploration of the value and purpose of comedy, Angie Errigo of Empire Magazine said, “Sullivan’s Travels is still as brilliant and funny today as it was back in the early ‘40s,” adding “Few comedies are as smart as this. Anyone with a taste for laughter, even those with the lowest of brows, should forever find the consolation, vindication and affirmation of comedy’s merit”. In 2009, Ed Howard of Seul Le Cinema added that the film is “an ode to comedy, a love letter to Charlie Chaplin and all the other great comic performers who have graced the screen”. Jeffrey M. Anderson of Combustible Celluloid wrote about the film’s history, “Forgotten for years along with its maker, writer/director Preston Sturges, Sullivan’s Travels has only recently enjoyed a comeback and induction into classic status”, adding “It actually describes the same conundrum that’s still going on in real life; that comedy doesn’t get the same respect drama does”. No doubt the attentive reader has encountered this argument before.   (Europe: ~1600-1750 AD) One of the major showcases for comedy in the last few centuries has been in the form of musical presentations. The musical form that we now know as Opera began as a reaction against the musical style of the late Renaissance period. Unlike the musical works performed in the courts of monarchs and wealthy families, Opera was a public presentation made of content that reflected the tastes of the expanding audiences. The early Opera Seria, or “Serious Opera”, told stories of deities, demigods, and epic heroes. These Opera Seria included three Acts and a prescribed number of arias per singer. At first, the Opera Seria had no comic counterpart. But after some time, audiences became bored with the strict structure of the Opera Seria and the esoteric nature of the characters and narratives within them. As a response to this dissatisfaction, composers began to write short comic intermezzi to present in between the acts of the Opera Seria. Unlike the Opera Seria, the comic intermezzi featured characters to whom the common people could relate. Once again, as with Terence, we see one of the major aspects in the development of film comedy: the influence that audience taste exerts on what comic writers create. The plot of the early intermezzi usually came in a two-act structure (one act between each act of the Opera Seria) and often involved humorous, realistic situations, such as an older man trying frantically to woo a younger woman. The unexpected happened when these comic intermezzi became more popular than the Opera Seria for which the composers had created them to accompany. These comic intermezzi evolved into the standalone Opera Buffa, or “comic opera”. One could argue that the leading expression of comedy at this time, and the one that reached the widest audience was in the form of Opera Buffa.  Opera Comique |
