What's so good about old bass guitars?

[ARGH]

Its what you need vs what you like...and then cross that by what you are prepared to pay....I like a good ol P like the rest of us,I keep one for boring Bass owners to touch,but Old stuff isnt always built well,and usually dosent like an aggressive touch.

But nobody in a correct,professional,versatile,state of mind takes a 4 string bass to gig,where they know that a 5/6/7 will offer AND deliver so much more

[Telebass]

[quote name='ARGH' post='320276' date='Nov 2 2008, 04:49 PM']But nobody in a correct, professional, versatile, state of mind takes a 4 string bass to gig, where they know that a 5/6/7 will offer AND deliver so much more[/quote]

Simply not so...different strokes, is all.

4-stringers are in no way limited, just one form of the instrument. The four is 'traditional'. That does not equate to 'limited'. Ask Jaco and Victor Wooten, for example...

I wouldn't get anything from the extra strings/frets/pickups myself. Others can and do. Doesn't make either one the standard.

By that outlook, everyone should also be using 7-string guitars. They don't. Why? Who knows, I'm no guitarist!

Edited November 2, 2008 by Telebass

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='ARGH' post='320276' date='Nov 2 2008, 05:49 PM']But nobody in a correct,professional,versatile,state of mind takes a 4 string bass to gig,where they know that a 5/6/7 will offer AND deliver so much more[/quote]

Where's the 'O RLY?' Owl when you need him?

[alexclaber]

[quote name='ARGH' post='320276' date='Nov 2 2008, 04:49 PM']But nobody in a correct,professional,versatile,state of mind takes a 4 string bass to gig,where they know that a 5/6/7 will offer AND deliver so much more[/quote]

Yes they do, hordes of pros. Fives may outnumber fours but fours way outnumber everything else. Pros do it for the money so you take what gets you paid! Sometimes I wonder if we're on the same planet...

Alex

[alexclaber]

Back on topic, I'm somewhat suspicious of any vintage instrument in absolutely mint condition: Why hasn't someone wanted to play it for so many decades?

Alex

[ARGH]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='320338' date='Nov 2 2008, 06:15 PM']Yes they do, hordes of pros. Fives may outnumber fours but fours way outnumber everything else. Pros do it for the money so you take what gets you paid! Sometimes I wonder if we're on the same planet...

Alex[/quote]
(tongue is lodged FIRMLEY in cheek)

I love fishing....

Ive an upright,a P-Bass...fretless Ibanez Musician 4 string....I make money playing.

Take your pick and do you think I REALLY mean the above!

Edited November 2, 2008 by ARGH

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='ARGH' post='320276' date='Nov 2 2008, 04:49 PM']But nobody in a correct,professional,versatile,state of mind takes a 4 string bass to gig,where they know that a 5/6/7 will offer AND deliver so much more[/quote]

What a load of nonsense.

[Protium]

[quote name='ARGH' post='320276' date='Nov 2 2008, 04:49 PM']But nobody in a correct,professional,versatile,state of mind takes a 4 string bass to gig,where they know that a 5/6/7 will offer AND deliver so much more[/quote]

A few extra notes, bad back and a sore wrist?

[Telebass]

Edited November 2, 2008 by Telebass

[noelk27]

[quote name='Buzz' post='319936' date='Nov 2 2008, 02:18 AM']Dunno on that, while I'm not a violin player, I do think with them reaching the millions that while they may be really good instruments, made of rare wood, handcarved with lots of love, I can't help but think that 90/95% of the "price" is name alone, with people just percieving it sounds better because they expect it to.

Don't get me wrong, although instrument making is an artform, and can go wrong at any and every stage, it's very forumulatic for the "base" model. They've all got to have X, attached to Y via the use of Z etc... Not to mention they're instruments that amplify sounds by vibration in the wood, who knows, but other violins may have been made from the same trees/batch of wood, but by an equally skilled but unknown builder, they wouldn't fetch a fraction of the price if if they sounded better.[/quote]

No, I can’t agree with that. Apart from the fact that the Stradivarius studio made more than just violins, the instruments they made were unique. They were unique, not because of the woods selected, or the craftsmanship employed, although those played a part, but because of the way in which the finishes were applied. The studio developed a type of coating and a method of applying that coating that allowed the woods to breath, and not smoother the instruments tone. What they realised was that the final layers of finish had a profound influence on the tone an instrument would produce, and they did something that no other studio did with their coating process. Add to this that the instruments they manufactured were produced in very limited numbers, and you have your answer.

I have no experience of playing a Stradivarius, but through RSNO know of someone who has- a leading player, in whose opinion the instrument she played vibrated in a way that no other instrument she’d played before had ever done.

As for vintage basses, at it’s simplest, what people pay for is character. Forgetting that the numbers produced were much smaller than today, that the tolerances in manufacturing were wider, that the finishes had an influence on the characteristics of the woods, and that the woods themselves mature, people pay for character.

[BOD2]

[quote name='Peter Train' post='319846' date='Nov 1 2008, 09:41 PM'].....When manufacturers change designs it's usually done to improve the quality of the product. I can't believe that new basses made now aren't made to the same or higher standard that those made over 30 years ago....[/quote]

Well that's how it should be, but often manufacturers make changes to make the product cheaper to mass produce - maybe changes to the design that require fewer man hours in manufacturing, or moving the entire manufacturing plant to another country where labour is cheaper.

Sometimes these changes benefit the product, sometimes they don't.

So it is possible to find some examples of older guitars that were made when a company cared more about the quality of the end result rather then the cost to manufacture.

All of these things become part of the "myths" that surrounds older instruments and when people start speculating on these things it can inflate prices as guitars with certain "key features" become more sought after.

[Kiwi]

I'm ambivalent about the specific influence of age. What I do like is battered basses though because in my experience well worn instruments don't put up so much of a fight when you play them. My stingray is a result of 2 different basses but because the donor instruments were both heavily thrashed the instrument still has that mellow growl.

[LukeFRC]

get any electrical item from the late 50's or early 60's, open it up and look inside. Look at the construction and finish. Now take a comparable item from today and do the same....
our production values have gone down, metal componants is cheeper, more is is done with preprinted boards mounted on thin plastic chassis.... and so on. Production quality of components is not as good I think.
The same generally with mass produced timber, its not let lie and season for a long.

However this is all a bit silly in my opinion. Given that the origin of the electric bass was the fender P bass which was like the telecaster a mass produced item i cant see how they are comparable to instruments that produce sound acoustically like a Stradivarius.....
As far as I can see the difference between a £3k bass and the one I made myself for under £100 is not that big compared to a Stradivarius and a home made violin.....

[OutToPlayJazz]

I liked the comment about the Stradivarius earlier on in this thread - Did you know that Stradivari violins & cellos are mainly sought after by collectors and not players. Nigel Kennedy (for an example) rejected his Strad & found he preferred an Amati violin. In terms of the string instruments I play, I go for modern and bright sounds. My main double bass was made in 1974 & my cello was made in 1979. My oldest relic is a comparitively modern violin made in 1948! It's all down to what the player prefers.

In the case of basses, I know a lot of people go on about the "mojo", but I think a lot of it depends on the kind of music you're playing. If you're playing in a blues band perhaps you want that vintage sound, but I still think you can get the same from a modern Fender. Some producers & artists want the "vintage Precision sound" and others are fine with what you like and the sound that you as a player are comfortable with.

Me, I like the modern hifi sound, but I guess I've got a little of the history bug as well. My 1990 Status was an emotional buy as I'd sold my 1988 model and wanted a really good early model. But it has no mojo. It's shiny & pretty well like new!

Rich.

[spinynorman]

Surely some of this is due to associations with star players. Would anyone in their right mind want a Framus Star Bass or a Hagstrom 8-string if it weren't for the Wyman and Hendrix/Redding connections? Also eBay and the Internet generally has opened up a worldwide trade in used instruments, which has pushed up prices. It'll be interesting to see to what extent it survives a protracted recession.

[skankdelvar]

I like old Fenders. That said, they're no better than new instruments and there's an amazing amount of snobby b%x talked about 'vintage'.

And if I was offered the choice between a 35 year old Woolies Kay and a brand new Warwick, I'd go for the Warwick. Gotta keep some sense of proportion.

[ARGH]

[quote name='Protium' post='320412' date='Nov 2 2008, 07:50 PM']A few extra notes, bad back and a sore wrist? [/quote]
Ahh...So you have not played any then...

[Guest]

[quote name='ARGH' post='320657' date='Nov 3 2008, 08:06 AM']Ahh...So you have not played any then... [/quote]

While i admire your loyalty to ERB's you won't find any vintage examples, they didn't seem to need them back in the day

[Shaggy]

I honestly don’t know the answer to this, wish I did!

I’ve owned so many basses in 31 years of playing, always moved on basses I didn’t get on with and kept ones I did – result, got too many basses, most of them old but modded to play and/or sound (to me) better than stock. Though I’ve had and moved on some horrible old basses too
Being entirely objective, the “best” - in terms of materials, design, and craftsmanship - 4 string I ever owned was a 1980 Ibanez Artist Musician (bought brand new), and the “best” bass of all in every respect a 2004 Listerud Totem 7. But I just didn’t bond with either of them. .

I guess if I were a pro – which I’m not; or a virtuoso – which I’m certainly not; or did a lot of recording – which I don’t; - my choice of basses would be different. But as a weekend warrior I want a bass I can play live that feels and sounds rock n’ roll and so far I’ve only got that from old basses – if that’s an image thing then it’s self-image not projected image that matters to me.
Probably makes no sense; see first line of post!

[OldGit]

[quote name='ARGH' post='320353' date='Nov 2 2008, 06:42 PM'](tongue is lodged FIRMLEY in cheek)

I love fishing....

Ive an upright,a P-Bass...fretless Ibanez Musician 4 string....I make money playing.

Take your pick and do you think I REALLY mean the above![/quote]


Ok Who are you and what have you done with Ross?
He'd have never let that one go so quickly

I like old (60's) basses (P basses almost exclusively) 'cos they look good when run in (to my eye), feel good (to my hands) sound good (to my ears) and make other bass players go "ooooh" ..

I also have two absolutely flawless new hand made instruments that work for me too ...

Edited November 3, 2008 by OldGit

[Kiwi]

[quote name='spinynorman' post='320615' date='Nov 3 2008, 12:40 AM']Surely some of this is due to associations with star players. Would anyone in their right mind want a Framus Star Bass or a Hagstrom 8-string if it weren't for the Wyman and Hendrix/Redding connections? Also eBay and the Internet generally has opened up a worldwide trade in used instruments, which has pushed up prices. It'll be interesting to see to what extent it survives a protracted recession.[/quote]
Definitely, in fact it has been suggested that nostaligic baby boomers were responsible for driving the demand for vintage gibson and fender instruments in the first place during the early 80's.

[Prosebass]

[quote name='noelk27' post='320536' date='Nov 2 2008, 10:19 PM']No, I can’t agree with that. Apart from the fact that the Stradivarius studio made more than just violins, the instruments they made were unique. They were unique, not because of the woods selected, or the craftsmanship employed, although those played a part, but because of the way in which the finishes were applied. The studio developed a type of coating and a method of applying that coating that allowed the woods to breath, and not smoother the instruments tone. What they realised was that the final layers of finish had a profound influence on the tone an instrument would produce, and they did something that no other studio did with their coating process. Add to this that the instruments they manufactured were produced in very limited numbers, and you have your answer.

I have no experience of playing a Stradivarius, but through RSNO know of someone who has- a leading player, in whose opinion the instrument she played vibrated in a way that no other instrument she’d played before had ever done.

As for vintage basses, at it’s simplest, what people pay for is character. Forgetting that the numbers produced were much smaller than today, that the tolerances in manufacturing were wider, that the finishes had an influence on the characteristics of the woods, and that the woods themselves mature, people pay for character.[/quote]

I have read that the wood had a major influence on how good a Stradivarius sounded. It has been researched and found that the wood used in them was from a period were the winters were mild and sunny and the summers cool and wet.
This meant that the 2 annual growth patterns (winter and summer) were very similar so the wood had a very even consistency in its growth rings.
I think the manufacture and coatings just added to this. As an acoustic instrument this is of paramount importance compared with a bass which essentially is a lump of wood / plastic with a pickup on it.

How good an instrument is has little to do with its value. In 1981 I bought a Hofner S7B bass. I bought it from Barretts in Manchester and I actually went in the shop to buy a Wal. On comparing the basses the Hofner was better made, nicer to play, sounded better and had a better pickup and electronics.
I still have the Hofner and would be lucky to get £200 for it whilst the Wal would be in the £800-£1000 range.

I would gladly buy Jaco's old Jazz for $75,000 dollars rather than spend the money on a car or 6 custom basses just because of the Mojo / Kudos associated with it and the fact it will be an investment. Old Fenders of all ilks are the same.
Some of the basses I make will blow away a Fender for half the price but they will never have that logo on the headstock.
The nicest sounding Precision I have played was a mid 90's Mexican model and the best Jazz a 76 Model. I have played late 70's Ricky's that I though were terrible things akin to playing with rubber bands and have found some £89.00 copies to be really nice basses.

So basically, Name, Age, Kudos, Mojo , Actual Quality ......seems to be the order of the day with older basses.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Prosebass

[ezbass]

I like a bass that plays well and sounds good regardless of age. However, it should be noted that on the playability front one of the "advances" made in the last 20 years has been rolled fretboard edges that gives a played in feel, or put another way old/used. I don't think anyone could argue that this is a bad thing. Some of the changes that happens with old basses (ones that were good to start with that is, but that's another subject) is that the wood dries out more which gives different resonance and the pickups degauss a bit which gives them a different tone to new. Better? No just different and that matter is subjective. You like what you like, but there are a huge number of people who like vintage guitars, hell Fender alone have made fortunes with their reissue lines so there might be something in it if only from a looks perspective. The extra mojo of a bass that has a history is unquantifiable and you either buy into that or you don't. What can't be denied is that vintage guitars are a good investment that up until recently were attracting around a 10% increase per annum. Just like a car a brand new guitar looses a shed load of its initial value once you take it home, fact.

So why do people like old guitars?

Tone
Feel
History
Mojo
Investment

I wanted a new P bass earlier this year and went out to get a MIM Fender 50s reissue. On my search I saw an old, tatty looking P hanging in the corner and decided to give it a play just for laughs as the wife would never sanction spending that much (yeah I'm whipped and not working at the moment). It was easily the best feeling and sounding bass I've ever played. Long story short the Mrs thought it would be a good investment and said I should buy it over the reissue (what a great lady). So now I'm the proud owner a 1963 Fender P Bass. This isn't kept locked up or even just played indoors, it is my number 1 go to bass and gets gigged over a Roscoe Beck signature and Stingray. It gets more positive comments from other musicians on how it good sounds and looks (from those who like tatty axes anyway) than my other basses did. Are old basses better than new ones? In this instance and IMHO an emphatic YES!

[Stag]

totally agree with poster above.

I would add "looks" to that as well. I know its (sort of?) vain but my Les Paul Bass has had nothing but admiring comments from any of the gigs its been seen at, from players and just punters alike. Does that sort of come under the heading of "mojo"?

[Telebass]

I understand entirely about a well-used bass feeling good, sounding a bit 'lived-in', as it were - I've worked in a guitar shop and played them and worked on them. I just prefer new when possible, and then gig it until it feels the same as those old ones. My black MIM Precision has done hundreds of gigs, is 4 years old, and I look after it. It plays beautifully, the fingerboard has worn in nicely, and, to me, it sounds good also.
Just so happens my no.1 (the51RI) was not new to me, although it was almost completely unused...

What really gets my goat is the notion that the older stuff was 'made 'better'. Yes, the wood has aged, and this may or may not affect the sound. 70s 'thick-skin' Fender finishes don't age or change colour like nitro finishes (exception: some of them were even then clear-coated with nitro laquer). The consistency of build cannot have been other than more variable than it is now, even at its best. 70s and early 80s Fenders, now well into vintage territory, could be truly dreadful, and there were certainly more duds from that era than any other. But there were also good ones.

As the Strad post mentioned, they sounded better not neccessarily because of wood or basic craft, but because a new method was also introduced with the explicit intent of improving the tone. Robert Benedetto and Bob Taylor have said, and proved, that close-grained tonewood, although more consistent, is not remotely needed to make a good instrument, even a craftsman-built acoustic guitar, and Mr Taylor has built several first-rate acoustics from pallet wood, just to prove the point that it's build that counts. And build today is more consistent than it ever was before.

It's entirely subjective, is the point I'm trying to make. There's no science whatever that says this is better or worse than that, and no matter how hard you look, or who you listen to, it's not likely to change any time soon...