Frank Blank

Actually my use of the word harsh was, if anything, a bit harsh! What I actually meant was accurate or correct. I agree wholly with your statement, to impress, to feel good, it's a not often discussed motivator.

This is very interesting. I 'inherited' several items from my parents deaths but all were imbued with feelings of my childhood and family, whom I (hated is too strong a word as is despised...) shall we say didn't get along with, so (with relish in some cases) threw those things away, happily and cathartically. Whereas some people would be ontologically rooted by such artefacts I disliked any notion of my parents as a reference, maybe that has some bearing on my not understanding vintage and nostalgia.

Ha ha. Superb, I'd have to drink several pints of cider, smoke 10 B&H and have a fight with a glued up skinhead to replicate the sounds of my youth. I haven't enough hair left to recreate the mohican...

Not so intuitive to a dolt like me... Sheesh.

Not purely as tools, I very much appreciate them as tools but I am also almost fickle about the aesthetics, what I don't really comprehend is the heritage and nostalgia. I understand the comfort but I find that in new as well as old instruments, same with emotions, I respond emotionally to an instrument on several levels but not in the vintage, nostalgic, heritage sense and I'm wondering why I don't. Oddly enough I do with clothes and with books but not with basses or instruments per se. I agree totally btw about the Nile Rogers example, such a long familiarity with the guitar, his love of it must bring out the best in him.

Yes it certainly wasn't only the punk era, I think all musicians, unless one comes from a reasonably privileged background, had to start with home made or scrounged gear. I never owned any quality equipment until I was in my 40s (apart from a Jaydee that I had when I was 25). I think I'm wondering more if using vintage equipment really reproduces the sounds of the times? You have way more experience in this than me.

How did you split those quotes btw? Another good reason for going with modern instruments to shut out the collectors and investors? I think those who can say they can discern the difference couldn't quantify that difference (not that it matters, all art is subjective after all) but more importantly not feel superior because they can. When people use these old equipment theories for recording I can't ever hear the difference. Then again I'm an old punk so pristine or vintage gear was never an option.

...and this thread is that excellent, good natured conjecture. Again I think the whole subjective/objective schism is beautifully summed up here... How the median-quality pre cbs bass, when new, would compare with the median-quality custom shop current production, sadly is only the subject of conjecture. My guess is you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Of course there is, just as there is such a resurgence of vinyl appreciation. I have a very modern AER amp that doesn't colour the sound of the bass or guitar at all, I'm just wondering what, if anything I'm missing by not having a vintage guitar and/or amp? I listen to music from all ages but 'my era' so to speak was punk music so I may have been heavily (if subconsciously) influenced by that scene with its 'make do with whatever gear was available' way of doing things. I never listen to an album by PIL and think I want to replicate the sound of Jah Wobble by getting similar equipment from the times. I'm not knocking people who do such things, I just think that maybe the punk era kind of frowned on such things, I don't frown on such things but perhaps I'm a product of my era?

I am with you. I am very much of the mind that an instrument is a tool, albeit a tool used to produce that most subjective of things, art! As someone who employs such tools I would like to have the best tools for the job, all my current basses and guitars are modern apart from one battered old classical acoustic that I found under the stairs, this is one of the most played guitars used in my band. It cost £80 in 1978 and once it was set up it became the only classical we use despite me having had two or three modern electro-acoustic classical guitars since, nothing matches the tone, I just don't understand why that is the case?

I have often heard this said about Gibson, some are rubbish, some are gems. Both of your conclusions are absolutely right, turns out it is about much more than simple tone...

Another important facet to the subject, those of influence who may have a vested interest. I suppose the only counter to that is to become knowledgeable oneself (I am referring to myself here, no one else) in order to be able to counter vested interest with objective knowledge.

This is absolutely the core of it, it seems, it's personal taste and no matter how informed that taste is the final arbiter in the purchaser's decision will be personal taste.

I've taken that recommendation seriously and purchased said book so I should recommend one back, albeit a little more esoteric Lud Heat by Iain Sinclair.

What an incredibly interesting tuppence-worth though, trying to replicate the sounds of music from those times by having an instrument of those times. Surely so much of that sound is derived from recording techniques of the time as well..? Actually you are right, it doesn't really matter about the modern equivalent's absolute qualities, you are happy with your choices is all that matters. A very wise tuppence-worth I'd say.

So are we saying there is a line over which all objective bets are off? So regardless of its actual tone because it's a Strad it is the pinnacle and therefore beyond criticism simply because it has a name on it? This is a really good point and I like the differentiation between appreciation and fetishisation. Had I known there was going to be so much food for thought I'd not have had such a huge lunch.

You are, of course, completely right here. If you don't hear the difference, then for you it doesn't exist. ...but if someone else heard or purported to hear a difference then I'd feel outside of the club so to speak. Is that observer, or rather listener, genuinely hearing a difference or are they just influenced by the fact that they can see a modern bass being played and simply believe that the supposed tone of a vintage instrument is not present? Again I think you are spot on when you say... There are far too may factors involved to try to give a definitive answer.

I like your uncertainty here, it's something I always admire in people. Folk who appear to deal in absolutes worry me, 'this thing is this way, definitely' makes for nasty arguments rather than reasoned discussion, I'll leave that to fvcking politicians. I like old things as it makes me think that they are well-made... Me too and I'm trying to give myself more of a reason to think that they are well-made by understanding what it is that might make them so. I have a very old metronome and it stands on my mantlepiece because I have an app that does, I think, a better job, ask me which I prefer and I'd be in trouble. I'd have no trouble deleting the app but I might chin you if you tried to nick the mantlenome. I think you might have summed the whole thing up with your last sentence... Snake oil? Possibly. Do I care? Not at all!

See, here is where I show my utter ignorance. I don't know what a tonewood is! These are the things I'm trying to learn, your comment is a perfect example of a possible reason why vintage instrument may be superior to a modern one.

I agree with the table analogy but both tables would do a 100% excellent job of doing what they are supposed to do, which is support your dinner on a flat surface while you eat it. What is it that's in an original 66 Fender Jazz that would not be in a modern replica built by a luthier? They would do the same thing, produce a sound. Would that sound be 'better' because one has heritage and the other does not. I wholly agree with you btw that we hold heritage dear but does that improve the sound of the bass? I also wholly agree with you that I have asked a question that will spark much and varied discussion but will ultimately fail to provide a quantifiable answer, I would go farther than you though in perhaps suggesting that unquantifiable topics such as this perhaps are the human condition.

Excellent, so what is it about the feel of the neck that you like so much, is it the wear? I ask because I can't imagine any other aspect being something that can't be replicated in a new build? Please don't see that as a dismissal of your opinion, rather of a wanting to know what it is you feel cannot be replicated?

Desirability due to being rare is something I understand yet it wouldn't make an item more desirable for me personally and yet I must be susceptible in this aspect in some way, when I visit my luthier his bass is out sometimes and it's a Fender Squier Jazz and yet I look at it with my gob open sometimes almost with a sort of desire because it's his and I know it will sound great otherwise he'd have no truck with it, whether I could quantify that sound, or even know if it did or didn't really sound any different is another matter. I am primarily driven by aesthetics so if a bass doesn't look 'right' to me, shape, colour, whatever then I dismiss it and I just wonder if I am doing the same with vintage instruments mainly because of my ignorance about them?

You've hit on another hugely important variable there which, of course, as you mentioned, is impossible to quantify. I look at basses that make me shudder because of their colour and I know if I owned one I'd never play it, nor do I believe I would play it as well simply because it's appearance irked me. I think as far as vintage instruments go I'm simply not knowledgeable enough about the materials or construction techniques to discern between the subtler differences such things make but then even if I was privy to such knowledge would that make the instrument more appealing to me or, more importantly, would I actually (and by actually I mean quantifiably) prefer it's tone and playability?

Now we are getting somewhere. The quality of materials. Now as much as I agree about the Victorian table vs the IKEA one is this true with basses, are vintage made of superior materials? I like some old things as I like some modern but I have still never found a bass that sounded of felt any better than my first Fender Modern Player once it was correctly set up. I almost feel like I’m missing out on the goings on in an exclusive club because I do not have an older, more expensive instrument, what I’m trying to ascertain is would I join that club simply because I wanted in with an exclusive club or would I wander in only to be confronted by a group of people operating under an obvious fallacy?

Superb comment, I agree with 1 and 2, certainly 1 applies to me but 2 is the crux of the matter, are those older instruments actually ‘better’ than modern ones in any quantifiable way. Do we just spend money along this ‘vintage is better’ path until we luck out on an older instrument that we actually love or happen across a modern one and see the light? Again I’m not dissing anyone for seeking or owning a vintage instrument, I’m just trying to quantify what makes such an instrument superior that is outside of personal taste, and how, if at all, we can approach such instruments and objectively assess them without the baggage of our bass players subjective knowledge of such instruments.