Doctor J

@NancyJohnson How are you getting on with this now that you've had some time to live with it?

That looks very nice, congratulations. Red is a bugger to photograph, is it the same in real life as the pics? I've never considered new strings an upgrade, though, changing the strings is the first thing I do on a new instrument 😂

There's a very, very large space between hate and fawning over them and it's possible for people to be in that space. It's not a binary thing, you're not necessarily one or the other. This thread is a discussion about the mythology surrounding vintage instruments, no?

Where's the hate? They were and remain absolute genius designs which have stood the test of time. They were mass produced items, though, and suggesting there could be something better, due to an accumulated knowledge and skill buildup over the last 70 years of electric instrument manufacture, is not hate.

I don't recall shouting anything. I'm just engaging in the discussion, no need to be so aggressive. A Richard move? Seriously? Chill out, fella. I don't know these data points don't exist, that's why I'm asking. I'm interested to see if there actually is anything behind it. I recall an interview with Eric Johnson where he said he believed the steel used in the 50's was a better quality than the steel available after that. That's very interesting. I'd prefer to see something which actually backs it up though, that's all. It's something which can be verified, surely? If so, has somebody actually done the verification? That's what I'm asking. It's very easy to check on the unequal appreciation I mentioned, just compare the original list prices to the going rates now. The information is out there. Very clearly. If I'm sceptical, it's because I'm conscious there's a very lucrative industry built about creating and sustaining the myths around vintage instruments. There is so much hot air around this topic, I would love to get to the bottom of what is actually real and what is mojo 😉. I'm not interested in myths or guesses, I want something tangible. It should be possible for real information to be out there. I think it's a very interesting subject and I'd love to fully understand it. If that upsets you, well, I'm genuinely surprised.

Nice! Is there a block down the middle or is it fully hollow?

I don't think I missed the point at all. When you're using terms like "I imagine the trees used..." and "there was likely..." it just feeds into the vintage mythology without any basis in fact. That is the point. Unless there's some evidence that was the case, before we get into analysing whether that makes for a better instrument body or neck and, even then, how much of a factor that makes to the sound heard by a magnetic pickup of an electric solidbody instrument, we're all just random dudes guessing. It would be so nice to read some facts, for a change, instead of the endless conjecture.

Some documentation on historical and contemporary wood sourcing would make for interesting reading, were it available. Let's be honest, when people talk about vintage basses, most of the time they're talking about Fenders. Fender were, of course, a user of cheap and plentiful rather than any carefully selected wood and not above gluing random offcuts together to get the most out of their wood budget. It would be interesting to see how the wood they used in the 50's and 60's (let's not go into their financially driven decision to use Northern Ash in the 70's just yet) compares to the stuff they use today in the likes of Custom Shop and Masterbuilt instruments where there actually is a bit of consideration given to the quality of the wood used - that is, of course, giving a massive benefit of the doubt to the pre-70's instruments as having any better quality wood than what they use now in standard production instruments. Is there any data for how long there is between felling and instrument manufacture even for modern day Fender. Without any kind of source material it's just conjecture on both sides, though. Outside of Fender, of course, in the boutique realm, there are quite a few builders who source and use very old wood stock if requested. There's still a lot of old wood out there, it's just not really in the supply chain of the mass producers. The point I made before, either in this thread or the recent wood one, I can't be arsed looking, was that if the effects of ageing apply to Fender then it must also apply to all the other old basses out there and logic would lead me to think that an instrument that started out as really good should still be better than one of the same age which was not as good - but the market does not reflect that. The vintage bass market is heavily weighted towards Fender (and now even Squier), substantially more-so than Gibson or Rickenbacker. It's wonderful that all the effects of aging - the wood crystals, the weaker magnets, the missing finishes letting the wood breathe, whatever, they all seem to be a positive thing. That's great, but it must surely apply to all old instruments, even the unloved Kays, Tiescos and relics from behind the Iron Curtain? The likes of the very highly rated early 80's Japanese stuff (Squier aside) has not appreciated to the same degree as the big F (or S). You don't hear this kind of talk around old Aria SBs or Yamaha BBs to the same degree at all but the ageing factor must apply equally to all, no? I picked up a now 36 year old BB1100s for €300 a few years ago. Nice bass, yes, but I bet it started out as a nice bass too. Pickups are an interesting one. The old hand-wound method of manufacture by largely unskilled labour was charmingly inconsistent and scatter-wound is indeed a way of recreating that type of pickup. Given the inconsistency, though, they're never all going to sound the same, either then or now. There can't really be, by definition, a scatter-wound sound. Also, you'd have to imagine that, with some experience under their belts, that labour force would start getting more consistent as they skilled up, no? Instruments are a funny thing, what people read into them. I once had a guy complain I had undone the factory seal which could never be as good - after I had taken the neck off an instrument. His argument was that the neck could never be put back on as well as the first time. Amazing conversation. Could you imagine buying an old Fender these days and not having a look at the neck pocket? 😂 As was said, whatever floats your boat, it's all good once the player enjoys what they have in their hands.

Got any source material for that? How old was a tree in a 63 Jazz before it was cut down?

The long face is Ric Ocasek from The Cars, I think.

It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets three chords again.

This line of thought - you don't like slap because you can't do it - is just a little bit silly lads, let's be honest. You wouldn't say "You don't like technical death metal only because you can't play it" out loud and expect it to be taken seriously, so let's accept that people have different tastes and move on. Statistically, yes, someone who doesn't like slap bass is less likely to be proficient at it you'd have to think that it's quite likely, probable even, that they haven't spent time practising the technique as it's something which doesn't have a home on the palette of musical things which give them pleasure. How many slap fiends spend time getting their Atheist or Obscura chops together in order to find out they actually don't like it once they master it? Not many, I will wager. Playing an instrument is supposed to be something you enjoy, no? It's interesting to see other techniques on guitar and drums mentioned. Just like slapping on bass, guitar shredding and double bass drumming have their time and place and I hope we'd all agree it's not all the time and everywhere. Also, like slap bass, they're frequently the party-piece techniques rolled out when someone wants to show off their chops rather than tastefully play a piece of music. A very brief scan of Youtube will back this up. As a result, it's easy to understand why people take a dislike to them as they frequently soil an otherwise pleasant listening experience. In the right context, however, they can have a very powerful impact but it has got to be musical, first, and technical, second. You see, slap isn't the problem, it's the many bassists without the good sense to employ it tastefully 😁

There are few things as sad as seeing a dog try to learn how to slap.

Great colour, very nice indeed.

Three rockers? Here you go

I left it a bit late to start this month so it's rough as bejaysus but I'll live with it. The pic made me think of the classic TV show Kick Start and, from there, the other great theme tunes of youth TV programming from my childhood. I've gone for a TV theme tune of sorts. This is the show where things go wrong, though, so any chord progressions and melody must be wrong too. Curse my childless loins for not having actual children to exploit for vocals, so the tightest pants available were donned. I do apologise. As ever, Pearl Export drums into the cheapest mics and pre-amp Behringer sell. Hamer Chaparral bass and Bacchus Empire guitar into an Eleven. Vocals too, actually. Synthesis via Reason.

I understand that. To me, a bass is a bass, age isn't a factor and I don't place a value on the age of an instrument. I'm attracted by the spec of something but I don't lust after something just because it's old. Many do, I get that, but referring to the OP's question I'm very much in the Emperor's New Clothes camp, controversial as it is.

Why? Probably because I remember when you could get them for less than a tenth of that. A friend bought a used JV Squier P for, if I recall correctly, £90 in the early 90's. They're budget instruments, albeit very decent ones, selling at what are, to me, insane money. Are they in the same league as the kind of basses at the same price in the FS section here such as EBMM Stingrays, Sandbergs, Warwicks, US Fenders, etc, etc, etc? To me, no, not even close but I understand the allure of hype and old exclusivity although I don't see the value of it. As you say, whatever floats your boat, but the thread was started with a question inviting responses and opinion, hence me offering mine 🙂

Very nice. Congrats.

Their random screams can be unsettling, so it's not all bad

I think we have quite similar tastes. I was put off slap towards the end of the 80's when seemingly every local rock player started thinking every song in their set needed wildly unsuitable slapping and popping. It was truly nauseating. Dark, dark days, they were. There were some notable exceptions, as you say. Billy Gould, Tim Commerford for sure and I'd add Denis Pepa's sterling work on the wonderful Act III as players who could utilise the technique in a way which was musical and interesting, rather than the usual "HEY YOU LOOK AT MEEEEEEE!!!!" Youtube has become a cesspit of gratuitous thumb abuse though, thankfully, many of the preview pictures show the thumb in position over the strings and one knows not to bother pressing play. For all the talk of using it tastefully, when left to their own devices, especially on supposed "gear demo" videos, many bassists cannot resist spending most of the time sticking their thumb in places it shouldn't be. Horrible, just horrible.

70's ones which have been worn for years onstage and in the studio, infused with smoke and sweat and look like they have a story to tell. They have those authentic crease patterns and just feel more comfortable. You just can't replicate that feel or mojo with new jocks, even ones which have been relic'd by an expert.

😂 First things first, is that body tonealder or regular alder?

Add 10 to that. 1991.

Squier were high-end in the 80's?