molan

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1383822678' post='2269496'] I spent that period at Lonsdales, and at French Gold Abbott. [/quote] I knew people at both! I was at JWT in Berkley Square

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1383821874' post='2269474'] Strewth! That was slave labour rates at the time ... were you a school-leaver or something? [/quote] University drop-out, lol. I was studying law at UCL but moved into in a flat with Billy Idol (he moved next door as I arrived but was a regular visitor), a stripper / nude model and a fairly high level illicit substance dealer. Surrounded by that lot it seemed that Uni life was a bit dull so i got a job in an ad agency - the link came from someone in their HR team who lived opposite and wondered who all the 'strange' people were that came in and out of our place at all hours. She said she thought I was perfectly suited to work in advertising. . . Money was ludicrous, I lived on soya mince and doggy bags that my work friends bought back from lunch for me. Got a £1,000 pay rise after 6 months though - seemed a lot at the time

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1383817440' post='2269389'] I don't see what the point you are trying to make is. The fact that journalists decided to print a story based on a study is completely irrelevant to the valid scientific findings of that study. Journalists running pieces about research doesn't somehow invalidate that research. There were lots of newspaper articles about the discovery of the Higgs Boson recently, I suppose thats just "cheap scientific hokum" too? [/quote] I had read in quite a few places that this report was only news because the findings went against what was generally believed and I just took their word for it. Maybe I'm just jaundiced from working with too many huge businesses (particularly the global pharma brands) that conduct, incredibly well researched, scientific studies in order to gain publicity or add credence to a product claim. I've seen 10 year studies conducted to prove that one product has a particular benefit in order to validate it. Then another massive global concern publishes a report from a seemingly just as authoritative source saying something different. i guess my point was that a lot of research appears to be conducted with a view to publishing something new and, ideally, newsworthy in order to demonstrate the credentials of the researchers. If all a study does is to expand something people already know then it isn't news, it doesn't generate any sort of significant media coverage and the report disappears without trace. An example might be 'scientists prove water is wet' - no-one is going to publish this because it isn't newsworthy or interesting. Well, I guess maybe the Daily Mail might be able to put some spin on it by adding that English water is wetter, and therefore more desirable so the entire population of Bulgaria are planning to migrate to England, live on benefits and breed openly gay children in order to take advantage

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1383817120' post='2269385'] Returning to historic inflation briefly, I bought a new P bass in 1976 for £280 - or £1,710 in today's money. Question is, where the hell did my 16-year-old self get that kind of cash from?? Oh, I remember now - I had already left home and was in full-time employment. Bit of social commentary, there. [/quote] That was me too Only it was 1979 and it was only £110 for a Fender Musicmaster. My annual salary at the time was £2,500 - even in those days that wasn't really enough to live on but at least I was working and really enjoyed my job

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1383814731' post='2269352'] Sorry, but I can't let this pass. Its not a "story", its a piece of properly performed peer-reviewed science performed by a group of serious, honest scientists. It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, one of the worlds most prestigious scientific journals. Describing it as "scientific hokum" is so wide of the mark that it isn't even funny. I have a PhD in musical acoustics and had several long discussions with Claudia Fritz (the author of the study) several times during the course of my work. She's a very good scientist and her work is completely and utterly above board and without bias.If you think that the Dr Fritz wouldn't have published the results had they been the other way round then you are completely and utterly mistaken. That instrumentalists could blindly select old instruments would in itself be an important finding. Feel free to read more about it here: [url="http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Indianapolis.html"]http://www.lam.jussieu.fr/Membres/Fritz/HomePage/Indianapolis.html[/url] [/quote] I can see where you are coming from but I can't believe this story would have been published anywhere other than scientific journals if it had found that people could tell the difference. It simply wouldn't have been 'news'. I'm certainly not qualified to judge the validity of any piece of scientific research but, having spent nearly 35 years in marketing I am able to have a decent view on PR and journalism.

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1383782195' post='2269197'] Molan - I am interested - how do you find your modern vintage styled wes steed compare to your real '63 Jazz? how would you describe them tonally? [/quote] Interesting - the honest answer is that they are worlds apart but I genuinely can't say how much of that is down to age. The '63 is far more versatile and will do good old classic '60's thump but also has an amazing slap tone (a very, very good pro player who's famed for his slap sound actually thought it sounded better than his all time favourite vintage Fender when being slapped!). The Steed is far more of an old school sound and it carried this off very well - especially when strung with flat wounds. I've never really tried it with a super modern set of rounds so it's possible it has more versatility than I think Visually a lot of people can't really tell them apart in terms of age but the newer bass actually looks more 'distressed' than the older one and many people think it's the more vintage of the two. The neck is a bit of a giveaway though - the '63 has a neck to die for and it's beautifully worn in to a silky smooth feel. The Steed is immediately a much newer feel, it's still very nice but you can tell it hasn't had 50 years of playing. The board on both is Brazilian rosewood but, again, the '63 feels, and looks, a lot older up close.

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1383776221' post='2269113'] Mmm, my '64 sounded about as good as it gets though a B-15 of similar vintage. . It does however mean that folk like me five years back who think they'll find something magical in a 50 year old bass will be either deluded or disillusioned when they buy one. [/quote] I think this is where owning a 'vintage' bass becomes really interesting. For people looking for a certain sound or vibe then owning an original '64P and a similar era B15 represents the absolute pinnacle of tonal nirvana. Whether most people can hear any difference between these and modern equivalents is a, very, moot point. However, for many people, there is so much more to the enjoyment of playing than the simple sound that others can hear. For these people there's some sort of mystique to flipping the power switches on a B15, waiting for it to warm up and smiling as the Ampeg logo comes to life with a warm glow and then going to full power whilst caressing a silky smooth worn in neck from 50 years of gigging and with perfect fretting and a gorgeous feel. For a lot of people that genuinely is the definition of 'magical' This experience is pretty damn tough to replicate with modern kit and I'm absolutely sure that's why lots of people think nothing of dropping thousands on vintage gear. It makes them feel great and inspires them to play in a way that modern equipment never will. I'm not judging these people or saying that they are crazy to spend this sort of money on a couple of planks of wood, a few bits of rusty metal and some out of date electronics plus an amplification system that has its roots in a bygone era but I can completely understand their passion. If, simply by owning these ancient artefacts, they play longer and derive greater pleasure playing then that's only a good thing as far as I'm concerned. The difficult part is justifying cost. If you could remove cost from the equation would you have kept the '64 and B15 because of the amount of pleasure you got for them. If the replacements are not definitively 'better', however you might define that, then maybe the older models might have been more fun to play. The thing I always, without fail, find odd about discussions over expensive objects is that people so often deride others just because they've lashed out on something that may not have an intrinsically greater value than a far cheaper item. If it makes them happier then where's the harm?

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1383774318' post='2269076'] I'm familiar with Wolk but I didn't know he was dead. [/quote] Over three years now, very sad Tribute gig here: http://www.livefromdarylshouse.com/currentep.html?ep_id=15

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1383744177' post='2268410'] They should just sell direct to the shops and cut out one more level of profit. [/quote] In many cases the reduction in profit means a massive reduction in service levels and serious availability (and delivery issues). Many retailers will pull out of a brand completely because they now have to order large stocks in order to save costs on bulk shipping. This then whacks up their cost of retained stock and few people can afford that in this climate. They alternative is to order in small numbers and this throws shipping prices through the roof. Plus the manufacturer now has to deal with loads of individual shop calls and requirements plus warranty conversations. This increases the manufacturer overhead substantially and, hey presto, the price gets put back onto the products to cover the extra costs. Net result can often be significantly worse service and lack of product and prices end up near to where they were originally

Interesting - this new price is £400 more than the last RRP I saw and the last I heard was that it wouldn't change much

[quote name='Jah Wibble' timestamp='1383738990' post='2268305'] This is great! [/quote] I like it a lot - it's actually the vocals & horns that do it for me

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1383684937' post='2267744'] You may find that not every bass player reads that mag, or any others, same as every playstation or xbox owner doesn't buy or read their respective publications. Remember John Hall once said, BC represents 1% of the bass playing populous in the UK. Or some other BS. [/quote] I didn't think anyone read play station or xbox magazines - aren't they too busy playing games all the time Did John Hall say it or sing it? http://youtu.be/CSKMhYY4fAc PS. I see Billy S has made the cover of this month's Bass Player again - that boy certainly gets around!

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1383692089' post='2267893'] I was being sarcastic... I totally agree with you [/quote] Sorry, my bad - I was joking too I really miss T-Bone, such a great player Used a '64P as his #1 bass from what I recall

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1383690840' post='2267852'] Perhaps with a Strad they should try before they buy, and spend a hundred times less... [url="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/02/how-many-notes-violinist-stradivarius"]http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jan/02/how-many-notes-violinist-stradivarius[/url] (or google "blindfold comparison stradivarius") [/quote] I wondered when this would appear. It always comes up whenever anyone tries to compare the sound of different instruments. I've generally seen it on guitar forums to 'prove' that something like an Epiphone Les Paul sounds just the same as a Gibson. I think the general response, just to maintain continuity, is that if someone wrote a story about a Strad sounding better than a modern violin it wouldn't really have been much of a story and would never have been published. Of course, I know nothing about violins so who am I to say whether it was cheap piece of 'scientific' hokum published to generate publicity

[quote name='skej21' timestamp='1383689954' post='2267833'] I bet that would sound exactly the same on those instruments if they played it today [/quote] They might have a problem, not least because the, rather wonderful, T-Bone Wolk is dead For those of you who have never heard of him (and have probably already decided they wouldn't like him anyway) he's another of those strange professional musician people with a string of hits to his name and he's credited on over 600 albums

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1383687338' post='2267788'] I'm bored too because I have not argued that an instrument cannot or even does not change in sound over time but you appear to think that I have claimed exactly that. [/quote] http://youtu.be/mQZmCJUSC6g

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1383684555' post='2267741'] No, I'm saying that authority alone can guarantee nothing. I really have no grasp whatsoever of the meaning of the phrase "help and information about 'tone'". Does 'tone' in inverted commas mean something different to tone not in inverted commas? To me he is a totally random player. I don't need him to tell me about tone or 'tone' and I probably wouldn't even like his tone. So what? Lots of people look up to the Pope or to David Cameron it doesn't make them right. And many people have been on the cover of BassPlayer but they can't all be right. By the way, there are four people in that list I've not knowing heard of and two I would not intentionally listen to. [/quote] OK people, I'm now bored with this. If you genuinely believe an instrument will not change in the way it sounds (for better or worse) after being played for 50 years then I'm not going to convince you. Also I have a monkfish to clean and roast. I was going to use a Rick Stein method but my mate Bert has fish and chips every Saturday night from the local chippie so I'm I'm going to give him a shout because I bet he knows a better way

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1383680478' post='2267662'] No, because it is the very claim to authority which is in question. [/quote] I don't understand? Are you saying a part time non-professional musician will have the same degree of authority as an acknowledged expert in his field with vast experience? Just to add to his 'authority' this is a guy that people turn to when looking for help and information about 'tone'. It's not like he's just a random player who happens to get featured because he's in a famous band. He gets featured on magazine covers, clinics and live events because he's a pretty knowledgeable guy. In fact the last time I saw him at an event I spotted Bootsy Collins, Verdine White, Vic Wooten, Steve Bailey, Brian Bromberg, Divinity Roxx, Anthony Wellington and Jonathan Herrera all watching him.

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1383676961' post='2267578'] You really ought to collect some proper evidence for your claim rather than relying on the supposed authority of others. It sounds like a medieval and non-scientific plea to the knowledge of highly respected priests and scholars. It must be true because they say so. I don't think that's good enough. [/quote] And where is the evidence, other than one person's opinion, that something made 50 years ago sounds identical today? I've yet to see even a single authoritative source?

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1383677058' post='2267579'] Appearing on the cover of a magazine doesn't make you correct. [/quote] No, but it probably gives you slightly more authority than a part time player in a pub band?

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1383676173' post='2267565'] Have you get some actual audio proof of this - i.e. recordings of a bass made using the same recording equipment say 30-40 years apart? [/quote] nope, I've just believed person, after person, after person, after person, after person who are highly respected and well known experts. Maybe every single one of them is wrong. Of course I'm completely ignoring the basic laws of degradation of materials over time. I'm sure a pickup made in 1960 that has been used over and over again, had gallons of sweat poured into it, is covered in rust and crumbling foam sounds absolutely identical today to the day that it was first installed. . .

[quote name='The Dark Lord' timestamp='1383662458' post='2267236'] I'm out of this topic. I wasn't insinuating anything incidentally. That was a wider comment not aimed at you personally. I just disagree with you on this. I don't think basses mature in sound and get better with age. You think they do. That's fine by me. You will note that I have not said anything disparaging about you personally in this thread. I have no reason to do that. I just disagree with your view. I also disagree with the experts as you quote. I will not speak on this subject again. There's no point. You know my views and I know yours and neither is likely to change. I will leave you with this though. I think differently from a lot of the "experts" who you allude to. What about Dick Fosbury. [/quote] I haven't said they sound any better. All I've said is that they will sound different. I find it odd that you think a wooden instrument with magnetic windings will sound identical to the day it was made over 50 years later. I've genuinely never heard anyone say this and that's the thing I found amusing. I just don't understand how anyone can believe this to be true. I also don't understand how you seriously believe that something should never change in value from the day it was made either. This is just basic economics and the principles of inflation. I think it's pretty obvious that you disagree with people who are are experts on things. . .

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1383665519' post='2267301'] I really rate Juan Aldarete as a bass player - I remember seeing him tearing it up in the early '90's in a band called The Scream - and I am always interested in what he has got to say about anything to do with playing the bass . Just to put the other side of the argument for people to consider though, I read an interview with Joe Osborn where he said that the recorded tone of his signature Lakland bass was indistinuishable to that from his 1960 prototype Fender Jazz that he had built his career on , and that the Lakland had other qualities in terms of consistancy that made it preferable to his old Fender . I know that nowadays since his split from Lakland Joe is playing a fairly straightforward Jazz Bass with a maple fingerboard made for him by the Fender Custom Shop . This is not meant as any kind of riposte or challenge to you , Barrie, but as a tool to use , are vintage Fenders really that preferable to a new equivalent ? I love old Fenders in much the same way that I love old cars , but in just the same way , I am enough aware of the pitfalls to decide that owning one is no longer for me . Probably ... [/quote] I don't think I've said that a vintage instrument is preferable to a new one? All I've tried to get across is that instruments will absolutely change their tone over time. There are simply too many highly respected musicians and luthiers who've attested to this for it to be incorrect. I'd assume the degree of change may well be less with modern ones than vintage but we won't know that for 50 years I've also said that the market value of a vintage bass will be higher than it was when it was first made simply because of the relative values of inflation. This doesn't take into account any tonal attributes or desirability. Something made 50 years ago for £50 will undoubtedly be worth more than that 50 years later (so long as it's a decent instrument in the first place). Other market factors will determine whether it's only worth £55 or £5,500 but it'll definitely be more than £50. Whether people prefer vintage to modern is a whole different argument - I wouldn't vote either way. My two choices for my last gig were either a '63J or a Ritter Cora and they are a pretty long way apart in terms of vintage vs modern

Just got round to reading this month's issue. It seems he is a pretty well respected player and surprisingly well known too then: Quotes: "Is this man the most advanced bass player in the world" "The busiest bassist on planet earth" He's made a few other covers too, including no less than three times on the biggest selling bass mag in the world - Bass Player! [i]Surprised more bass players haven't heard of him. . .[/i]

[quote name='The Dark Lord' timestamp='1383659931' post='2267181'] Still doesn't answer the question on, if he has been playing Precisions for roughly the same amount of time as me, what makes his thoughts any better than mine. There is another thought that occurs to me too. There are some people who have a vested interest in believing that old instruments are worth more ..... because they are old and better etc. Namely, people who work in shops where there may be, from time to time, second hand basses. I am unencumbered by that vested interest. That is all. [/quote] I guess I would think him more of an expert because he is a seasoned professional who is extremely well respected in the wider music industry and has direct experience in recording a vintage instrument over a 19 year period and has clearly stated it has changed tone. I think you will find that the bass shop I work at from time to time is a Fender Custom Shop dealer that will regularly own far more brand new instruments than vintage ones. At no stage have I attempted to say that vintage instruments are worth more than new ones and that people should buy them. All i've stated is that they will increase in value from new - the example being a 60's instrument that was £200 new and is now worth more like £3,000. This is a simple fact - saying that it should still be the same price when new is just silly. For the avoidance of doubt I'm saying a 1960's bass is worth more than £200 (or whatever it actually cost at the time). As stated in an earlier post this is simple inflationary factors at play and not because of any intrinsic parts worth. The principal gist of what I've been trying to demonstrate is that instruments change over time and many, many people have confirmed this (the PDF from Stuart Ward is another great piece of 'proof' that this is most definitely the case). To insinuate that I'm doing this for any form of personal gain, or to defend your argument that instruments will never change in tone from the day when they were first made, is simply ludicrous.