Frank Blank

8 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

There is, indeed, a thriving market for old reel-to-reel tape decks, and many 'plug-ins' to replicate 'vintage' sounds. Our bass amp is a Hiwatt, I have a Fender Bassman 50 for guitar. 'Old school' is the new black, too..! Now, if only I could graft on a set of Jack Casady fingers...

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?

11 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

The point I’m making is that the instrument is there to make music. My 1966 for example isn’t all original, it’s had a new jack socket to ensure it’s playable. It’s been toured all across the U.K. and Europe, used for recording and even lent to friends. It sounds divine and plays that way too, but if it stopped being functional (truss rod break, needed a refret etc.) I’d get it done.

 

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?

8 minutes ago, mikel said:

Depends on the individual instrument. Some instruments made by the big manufacturers back in the day were rubbish, and some were absolute gems. I bought a Gibson SG in 1970 and it was poorly built and setup. The intonation was also out and it took a good luthier to sort it out. Probably because Gibson could sell everything they produced at the time and competition was no where near as fierce as it is now. If someone is willing to pay lots of money for and old instrument, then that is what it is worth. It could be for the sound it produces or simply the pleasure of owning something rare and beautiful.

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...

5 minutes ago, lurksalot said:

Absolutely , similar with art , antiques , classic cars etc there comes an investment factor which relies on confidence , the old stuff will always be talked up by those with influence as they probably have a vested interest in the value of the things . 

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.

13 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

I`ve played a couple of 60s Precisions and they felt great, a couple that were ok, but all the Road Worn Precisions I`ve played felt amazing.I think it`s down to the actual instrument itself as to whether or not it`s worth the money, and even then it`s compatability with the buyer, what is great to some is pony to another.

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.

13 minutes ago, Len_derby said:

Hi Frank, it fascinates me too. I can recommend 'Albion' by Peter Ackroyd. A study of the English point-of-view through history. Apparently, the first recorded writing by someone who could be called English, a monk called Gildas, was along the lines of 'things ain't so good as when the Romans were here '. 😂😂

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.

28 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

I'm not clued up on basses to any great degree, but my Hofner guitars (and bass, come to think of it...) are over fifty years old. Why did I choose them, at the time of acquisition, over the 'new' equivalent..? Basically, price. The 'vintage' Verithin I bought for £250. The modern, very excellent Verythin (in some ways a superior instrument, I'll allow...) is well over £2500. If I had the money, would I buy the newer one..? Yes, I would, but if I had that sort of money, I'd buy the 'vintage' one as well..! Why..? Maybe in absolute quality terms, as an item, the new one is 'better', but my memories of learning to play guitar, listening to the '50s, '60s and '70s bands, have tuned my (now cloth ...) ears to 'that' sound. I've more modern electric guitars (and basses...), but 'my' music comes from the instruments I grew up with and loved at the time. Same with drums; my kit is from the '60s. Is it good..? Yes. Would I swap it for a new DW kit..? Not for a fortune, despite the absolute qualities of the latter. So, nostalgia..? Partly, surely. Mostly, though, because I find that my old, worn slippers bring me much more comfort that a new pair. Old dogs, and all that..?

Just my tuppence-worth.

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.

24 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

I think there’s a difference between appreciating vintage instruments and fetishising then. 

Take your typical Strad violin, and the original baroque neck will have been replaced on almost all of them, yet they’re still recognised as the pinnacle of the musical instrument world.

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.

32 minutes ago, neilp said:

I think maybe there was more craftsmanship applied to the building of Fender basses particularly, so the "subtractive" effects of poor assembly are less, and it's also pretty clear that there was a great deal more high quality timber available even 40 years ago than there is today. There are other factors that may come into play, like finish, wiring etc but those are much smaller, less significant factors. In the end, though, its all highly subjective. If you don't hear the difference, then for you it doesn't exist. In the audiophile world, people pay crazy sums for mains power leads that can not possibly make any difference to sound output, and swear blind, in the face of all the evidence, that they can hear the difference. It's for you to decide. If you want the older instrument, buy it. Don't ever try to tell a violinist that his Strad is past it. Having it makes him a better player, for a whole heap of reasons, not all related to any quantifiable superiority in the instrument. There are far too may factors involved to try to give a definitive answer

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.

28 minutes ago, JimBobTTD said:

I like old things as it makes me think that they are well-made - the surviving ones have only survived because they are good. I recently bought an antique metronome simply because it is old. I could have downloaded a free app, but I wanted one that was old. 

For instruments, I like the idea of vintage - for the same reason as above - but the instruments I want were not made back then. So I have a few nice Warmoth basses that were made in the same way...with jigs, semi mass-produced but finished in the old-fashioned way with nitro. I feel that they will age better that way. Snake oil? Possibly. Do I care? Not at all!

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!

28 minutes ago, Shaggy said:

That would really depend on the make.   Vintage Gibsons and Guilds used really top quality exotic tonewoods (Honduras mahogany, Brazilian rosewood, African ebony etc) that are prohibitively expensive and / or unavailable now.  Fender from the very start used Northern American tonewoods (mainly ash and alder) to keep costs down, so there would be little difference between modern and vintage instruments except that the vintage instruments would have a degree of acoustic "playing in", and also woods sourced by Fender during the '70's were notoriously often pretty heavy (i.e. dense - with less resonance, but more sustain).

Alembic and their ilk have always used top-notch materials and there would be less "vintage effect"

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.

23 minutes ago, Skol303 said:

What makes old *anything* more desirable to some people / more valuable / worth preserving?

In a word I’d say it’s ‘heritage’. Today we can generally manufacture products to a far higher standard than in the past: be it dining tables, buildings or even bass guitars. What we can’t do is imbue these items with history and heritage and authenticity... only time can do that. And that’s ultimately what the antiques market is based on.

A skilled joiner can build a Victorian style table to the exact same standard as his Victorian counterpart; just as a skilled luthier can replicate a ‘66 Fender Jazz right down to the pickguard screws. But the items will have no true heritage. And heritage is something we humans hold dear - not just in dining tables and bass guitars, but throughout all of our many different cultures.

You won’t boil the value of heritage down to a clear and convenient answer in this or any other context (suffice to say it’s part of the ‘human condition’). But it makes for a fun discussion  

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.

21 minutes ago, Davo-London said:

I have vintage Fenders, which have been bought mostly based on the feel of the neck.  This would be incredibly difficult to replicate in a new build.  If I enjoy the feel of a bass, I play better.

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?

16 minutes ago, LukeFRC said:

I think, especially with Fender, they went from being a small company making basses and stuff to a big company/corporation making basses and stuff. I guess the question is, did the quality change - or more importantly, did the quality control change, and what effect would that have? 
Similar with Warwick, started out as a tiny company, grew, then in 1992 moved to a bigger plant and stopped using solid brass hardware, then late '90's early 2000's on the back of the nu-metal phase started making lots and lots more instruments a month... then later by 2012 or so scaled back to making less again... ask yourself did the quality change - and why, and I don't think the link is exactly to 'vintage'. I would rather have a custom shop Jazz made in 2017 than a vintage Jazz from 1978...

The other aspect is desirability. If there are limited numbers of it then it stands to reason that it will be desirable to some folk. An example is my old JV precision. It was a really nice instrument. But because it said "Fender, squier series" rather than "Squier" it was one of only a few hundred, and because of that worth more than the later ones. Much different to a later one? Probably not! 
That said sometimes construction tequniques change, nitro sounding "better" for example but not safe to apply. The slab and laminate fretboards Fender used, Musicman changing their preamp, Or my current G&L only having the pickups it does for a couple of years....

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?

13 minutes ago, T-Bay said:

Hard to say. Another aspect which is hard to quantify is how the bass makes you feel and how that is reflected in how you play it. My Gibson Thunderbird and Aria Pro are my ‘go to’ basses and I feel they play better, but is that true or is it just that I have more confidence in them so I play better? If you have a hankering for an old bass would you then play with more confidence as you ‘feel’ it has something extra? Almost impossible to answer though I think.

Some aspects are much easier to quantify, the quality of the bridge, how even and well finished the frets are, size and shape of neck etc etc. Some will suit one or other players but things like a quality bridge which provides consistency will help all.

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?

2 minutes ago, T-Bay said:

I would buy a Victorian table because it will be made of better quality materials and built to last. An Ikea one will most likely be a load of junk that won’t last. Not sure the same is true with instruments. I would imagine a new Fender would last as well as an old one. I love old stuff as I feel it has ‘history’ but I appreciate it won’t be any better because of that. With a bass the sound is the first and primary consideration for me.

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?

23 minutes ago, Shaggy said:

It's a recurrent thread this, and no simple answer.  I think a couple of the factors are -

1. Players hankering after the basses they couldn't afford during their formative years (certainly true in my case!)

2. A connection to a past when things were generally over-engineered rather than disposable, quirky designs got through into production which accountants and marketing men wouldn't contemplate these days, and in many cases were made with materials simply unavailable now - same reason that people like classic cars, watches, etc etc

All but 2 of my 15 basses are made pre -1980, but no rose-tinted spectacles here - during the '60's and '70's almost all entry level and much of the intermediate level instruments were utter shite.  These days it's really hard to buy a bad bass at any level.    Despite having a 1950's Fender P and 1950's to '70's Gibsons my go-to bass is a fully hand built 1980's Steve Smith custom with Bartolini's that is incomparably better than any vintage bass with old pickups and electrics.

Acoustic instruments are a totally different matter - a quality hand-built instrument (and most of the surviving antique ones are the quality ones) will wipe the floor with a mass-produced one.  I'm sure I read somewhere that they hit their tonal peak between 100 - 200 years old and thereafter decline, so those multi-million pound Strads are actually past it.

 

 

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.

On 01/01/2018 at 14:52, Skol303 said:

Why do people like antiques? Is it nicer eating your dinner off an old Victorian dining table than an IKEA equivalent? The food will taste the same; but that doesn’t mean all other things are equal

I agree but this is the essence of my question, what, if anything, are the quantifiable aspects of the Victorian table that make it superior or inferior to the IKEA table? Or is it all subjective taste.

I’m now realising this is one of the central themes of Robert M. Pirsig’s superb novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Enquiry Into Morals...

*runs to bookshelf*

27 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

The answer is both. Some vintage instruments are wonderful, some less so and some, I've no doubt, are dogs. Same applies to modern instruments - some that are being made today will become sought after classics, others won't. The high prices of vintage instruments are due to scarcity value and because people invest in them. It's the way of the world. No point in straining at it.

Very wise words. In the end we are, of course, pleasing ourselves and if that is at a cost so be it. I play acoustic bass mostly so I am fully satisfied with the modern basses I have acquired but I still yearn for a Fender Jazz that actually slays me.

22 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Thanks for the kind words.

Authenticity isn’t subjective, it either is or isn’t authentic. 

I’ll wait and see what other people have to say, and hope they’re as constructive as we have all been.

I agree with you to an extent, as in a Fender of a certain year either is or isn’t the genuine article but I think a lot of people use that as an umbrella term to cover vintage instruments generally thus excluding modern instruments when perhaps some genuinely authentic older instruments may be only as good or sometimes not as good as a modern one but the modern ones are disregarded simply because they aren’t ‘authentic’ in the generalised sense I’ve talked about.

I agree, it’s been a delight to hear constructive and interesting discussion.

20 minutes ago, neilp said:

With electric, solid bodied instruments, an awful lot depends on the signal processing you apply. If your amp is run with lots of headroom, clean and with the EQ flat, no effects, the yes, you'll hear differences. If you have EQ'd and compressed the signal and applied effects to get "your tone" then of course you won't hear the differences. I have the instruments I have because I love the way they play and sound, and effects are just that, and used very sparingly FOR EFFECT. The difference in sound between a 66 Jazz and even a VM Squier is easily swamped by EQ and effects, but it is there.

 

This is what I’m after, what are the ‘differences’ of which you speak?

50 minutes ago, Len_derby said:

Luckily we don't apply that to medicine! 😄

This is very true. I do mourn the age of hat wearing but embrace world that includes advanced medicine.

22 minutes ago, PaulWarning said:

they're not, but they're worth more because people will pay more then try and convince themselves it must sound better because of the  cost, People like to own rare things, makes them feel superior

This is harsh but I wonder if it is a motivator behind some purchases and I can’t say I’m exempt. I have the latest iPhone and if I seriously analyse it there is absolutely no reason I can think of to have it really, my old iPhone does exactly the same. Although I am looking into the subject as far as basses goes I fear I am an example of your postulation in phone acquisition, I still can’t explain why I do so though.

23 minutes ago, White Cloud said:

You my friend are not a fool...you are a one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind. You therefore are not missing anything and understand completely. You have sighted the unseen but obvious.

It is all of the above and more...myth, marketing ploy, people strutting about with the most expensive/rare items...human nature my friend

That’s very kind of you although I feel there must be something in it, I can’t imagine everyone who plays and prefers a vintage instrument is being hoodwinked. The more I think about it and the more I read these replies the more I realise it is foolish to seek a quantifiable answer to such a subjective query.

28 minutes ago, ambient said:

I think that with amplified instruments, once the instrument is plugged in it will pretty much sound like any other. The feel and responsiveness to the player between instruments is different though. 

This is a very good point but an experience I have never had. I think perhaps my experience with vintage instruments is just limited and I’ve never found an older instrument that played or felt as good as a cheaper modern version.