molan

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.

[quote name='The Dark Lord' timestamp='1383658313' post='2267133'] That well-known bass player called who? I've been playing Precisions probably just as long as he has. What makes his thoughts on the sound of a Precision any better than mine? [/quote] You must send us a link to your Bass Player Magazine cover article: [color=#4D4D4D][font=Gudea][size=5] And other interviews of course: "Juan Alderete is a name that requires little introduction...[/size][/font][/color][color=#4D4D4D][font=Gudea][size=5] [center][/center][/size][/font][/color][color=#4D4D4D][font=Gudea][size=5] Long time effects champion and bass player with Big Sir, Racer X & The Mars Volta to name but a few, Juan has scored his name among the bass elite during his varied career. His approach to using effects to create textures within music has been the subject of more discussion than almost any other bass player, with forums literally covered in threads dedicated to his set up. Thankfully Juan is more than happy to share his knowledge with everyone, recently starting his own website and forum dedicated to discussing pedals and how to use them."[/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='The Dark Lord' timestamp='1383657721' post='2267113'] Laugh it up. How can you tell that the old bass you are holding sounds better than it did 40 years ago? You and your present ears weren't around then. So you don't actually know. If you are saying that old basses generally sound better - then I say there will be plenty more old basses that sound terrible than good. If you are being specific to the bass you are holding at any one time ...... "this old bass sounds great and has matured over the years" then you are being subjective to [i]that[/i] bass alone. How do you know that the bass you are holding didn't sound that good all those years before? In short, you don't. If you go to a shop with a load of Precisions, and play them all, you'll find they are all more or less the same but subtly different. There will be a consistency of tone in a way, but you will find one you're not so keen on and you may well find one which makes you grin. It has that certain something. A glueing accident? A particular piece of wood with good resonant properties. I think THAT is what you're noticing when you say an old bass sounds good. That one probably ALWAYS sounded good - and that's why it is still around as someone thought it worth keeping. Experts shmexperts. There is no reason to pay more for a bass than the current list price of a new one. In my opinion. [/quote] I'm actually still chuckling. I genuinely can't believe that you think the hundreds of experts on guitar ageing and tone are all universally wrong and that you are right. I guess it takes all sorts. . . So I assume you are saying that a highly respected player like Juan Alderete who has specifically said his bass sounds better now than when he bought it in 1994 is also wrong? This is a guy who can actually go back to his master tapes of recording and hear the differences (or maybe he's hearing different recording techniques?).

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1383656387' post='2267075'] But he's got a point. I would have thought that for a solid electric instrument there is more chance that your hearing changes more than anything caused by the "ageing" of the wood. Pickups though do go through significant changes as the magnets in them become weaker with age. Of course whether any of these changes make the instrument better is entirely subjective, but I can't help but feel that a good deal of these "improvements" with age are being viewed with rose and mojo tinted glasses (and hearing aids). [/quote] Working in a music shop from time to time allows me to hear lots and lots of different basses of all ages. Older ones sound different to newer ones. This is an inescapable fact. Obviously this could be because of different construction methods and materials but people like Fender have spent a fortune trying to replicate the tone of a vintage instrument and they simply can't do it. The best aged Custom Shop bass does not sound like a real early 60's bass however much Fender try to use artificially aged wood and original hand-wound, and then 'aged' pickup construction methods. Wood, that isn't entirely enclosed in a thick poly coat, will react to changes in temperature and basic stuff like playing time. The resonant tones of the body and neck will adjust over time and change the core sound of the bass. Pickup winding degradation also has a huge effect in how a bass sounds from when it was first made. A simple demonstration of this would be to hear an original '60's pickup and then listen to it after it's been re-wound using, as close as possible, vintage style hand winding. To say that old instruments don't change with age is going against pretty much everything that's been said by experts for many years - I'd have to include some astonishingly good musicians amongst these. I find it hard to accept that every single one of these people have said it for some sort of personal gain or because they are all wearing the same rose-tinted specs. Here's a view from someone who should know - Juan Alderete: [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"[color=#000000]Now that I look back at many of the basses I’ve owned – from expensive Wal basses to Tobias 5 stringers; from Lakland USA models to Fenders, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that I’m a vintage bass player, most of the time. I own a handful of vintage Fenders and they all sound better than all the basses I have owned over the years, but the question remains…do they sound better because they are old? Does time have anything to do with the sound from these instruments?[/color][/font][/size] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000]There may be some truth to the idea that the wood dries out over time, making the bass sound more pronounced and have more focussed clarity. This could be the result that the wood also hardens and reflects the sound waves from the string with more resonance. I have also heard that time affects the relationship of the wood with the neck and body. The two, separate pieces of wood become more harmonious from all the years of vibrations going through them. I’ve also read that that relationship has good years and bad, so a vintage bass can sound great one year and but not so much the next.[/color][/font][/size] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#000000][b]From my personal experience, [/b]I can tell you is that my vintage basses sound great, and[b] my 1964 Jazz bass sounds better than it did when I first acquired it in 1994[/b]. I’ve used it on multiple recordings (as you can hear from my bass solo on [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C0F7eFxhXM"]Day Of The Baphomets[/url]) and I’m always amazed at how much more defined the notes sound, and how the overall low end delivers such a deep and expressive tone. I can say, without question, that it’s my favorite bass."[/color][/font][/size]

[quote name='bluesparky' timestamp='1383654493' post='2267015'] Yolanda Charles has today written a very interesting post on her wall on Facebook about people / pretty / girls playing along to covers on YouTube and has opened up a rather interesting debate on the subject. I'm sure it's a coincidence an unrelated to this thread but it makes interesting reading. I would copy and paste the post here but although its on a social network site I'm not sure if its up to me for me to distribute the comments elsewhere. [/quote] It's a public FaceBook page and anyone can see the thread so i don't think it's a problem to re-post: "[color=#37404E]Dunno what to make of musicians uploading video of themselves playing covers along with the original tracks in background... The vids with the most hits are usually of pretty (?) girls playing competently enough I guess.... but what is the point?? If it was an original, self-penned riff or soloing I'd understand after all us musicians are self promoting to sell our music aren't we? Or for some is [/color][color=#37404E]it about just promoting themselves? I can tell you this about me, if I didn't have an album and gigs to talk about I wouldn't be using FB in the way I do. For me it's about the music I write, play and promote for others. Otherwise I guess I could just upload some vids playing some Jaco in a bikini.... hmmm... lol No wise cracks!!"[/color]

[quote name='The Dark Lord' timestamp='1383653764' post='2267000'] I just don't agree with this point of view. There is no way of measuring this unless you have recorded the sound years ago on comparable equipment and compare it to today's sound. Where can the proof be? If someone claims that their instrument has changed and improved in sound over the years .......... they are forgetting that their own ears will change as they get older. I just don't believe it. It's a myth to me which people go along with for all sorts of reasons. Poppycock for other people - I think. But you are untitled to your view just as much as me. [/quote] This genuinely made me laugh out loud, and very little on BassChat does that. I'm sure the zillions of threads about what happens to a guitar and its electronic components as they age and change tonally must all be incorrect but I guess all those experts in the business just have a different opinion to you.

[quote name='The Dark Lord' timestamp='1383642952' post='2266817'] Does a guitar or bass [i]really[/i] get better or sound better with age? You may get more accustomed to it and it might "fit" you better, the more you get used to it. You might also get to hone the set up of it to your taste over time. But I very much doubt if it ever sounds "better" the older it gets. I suspect it will sound the same for most of its life until the components malfunction and it then will sound worse - or different when you have to change the bits. So, in my book, it should never be worth more than the money you paid for it in the first place. [/quote] I think the answer to this is a fairly simple yes. Instruments definitely change in tone as they age, whether this change has a tangible value depends on what someone is looking for. E.G. One person's mellow is another's dull or someone's clean and crisp is another's harsh. Anything vintage, and of decent quality, will eventually rise to a value greater than when it was first purchased. That's just the simple economics of inflation.

The parents of a friend of mine were staying in a ritzy LA hotel once and heading down for dinner in the lift. The doors opened on the floor below them and this large American guy flounced in and proclaimed "Hi, I'm Meatloaf". The parents shrank into a corner and rushed out of the lift when it reached the lobby and immediately reported the 'madman' to hotel security

He had some 66P pickups that were ludicrously overpriced as well recently.

I'd definitely agree that Fenders are much cheaper now than they used to be. My first Fender was £110 brand new and I was earning £2,500 a year at the time. That's a pretty high percentage of my annual salary. If I'd kept it it would be worth about £750 today so definitely not an investment bass. As it happens I traded it for a Precision plus about £25. The same P would be worth maybe £1,750 today. A better price increase but still not much of an investment. I'm not sure there are any basses that are really solid investments when compared to many other mainstream investments out there. However, choose wisely and you can get something that's fun to own that shouldn't lose much value (even taking inflation into account).