Vintage Vs Comtemporary

Doctor J

Inspired by some off topic banter on another thread, let's have your thoughts on vintage instruments vs contemporary instruments. I think we have entered a golden age in the relatively short life of electric guitars and basses. I think that there are manufacturers putting out instruments that surpass anything that has gone before. Humans have made so many advances in the last 70 years in every field except how to make a guitar, seemingly. Some folks would have you believe that we were great at it for the first ten or fifteen years after it's invention and then, like the pyramids, we somehow lost our way and now instruments are, for reasons unchartable by scientific equipment, tonally inferior and less playable. I dunno, is a 50 year old washing machine just better than a new one? Were the old black and white tellys more authentic than modern LCD's? Why is it that musical instruments are somehow different? Don't get me wrong, I would kill you all to have a 62 Fender Jazz, even if I can't fully explain why, but I don't think it would somehow be a better playing or functioning instrument than something the likes of Bacchus or Sadowsky are currently putting out. Well, what do you think?

DublinWriter

In terms of drums, anything top of the line from the 1960's onwards, and that has been well looked after, will beat the equivalent today.

I have a Ludwig Black Beauty snare that I bought in 2003. It doesn't sound half-as-good as a vintage with the same heads.

The same can apply to toms. The old Gretch\Ludwig\Slingerland kits from the 60's and 70's change hands for big money.

Cymbals just deteriorate with time and playing. But I do remember playing vintage Ziljian 'K' cymbals in the 80's and to my memory they sounded a lot better than modern 'K's.

Doctor J

Why though? What is it about the art of making a drum that has regressed since the 60s?

feylya

You have to wonder about anyone who collects vintage items, be it cars or guitars. A Mustang from the 60's is a lovely car and everything but the new Mustang has nearly 50 years extra engineering on it. The new one won't break down, should be more fuel efficient etc etc but people still love the old ones.

Personally, I prefer brand new shiny guitars that I can batter myself. That said, I do love guitars that have been through the wars - Rory Gallagher's strat being the prime example.

mr_fruitbowl

Modern...can't beat a good ol prs.

he new one won't break down, should be more fuel efficient etc etc but people still love the old ones

True about the fuel efficiency but i'd have to disagree with the break down statement....now i'm not too sure on the mustang....but take rover for example most of their modern cars are very unreliable whereas their older models are still holding strong to this day....some people find it the same with jags...

Karl Hungus

I think it's an image thing aswell. If you asked people which would they rather, a Les Paul or a Parker Fly, I'd say 9/10 would pick the LP.

feylya

Just using the car example for arguments sake.

Quick warning to everyone: there is to be no off topic discussion on this thread. This is for discussing Vintage guitars and why people like them.

Doctor J

There's a definite coolness factor, but we're getting to the point where a lot of vintage instruments are priced out of reach of regular players and so pricey you wouldn't risk bringing one to a gig in your local ****hole. Even with Les Pauls, if you could get, for arguements sake, a mid 70s Les Paul or a mid 90s Les Paul (omitting resale value ) you could be sure most people would choose the older one. Same with Strats, I would say.

mr_fruitbowl

I think it's an image thing aswell

Ya exactly, a lot of companies just try to make nice looking guitars instead of nice sounding guitars these days.

But even taking amps....look at marshall ffs....the mg..need i say more.

I'm on the side of modern but i still think that gibson and marshall made higher quality stuff back in the day.

Doctor J

mr_fruitbowl wrote:

look at marshall ffs....the mg..need i say more.

The older companies have branched out into cheaper, lower end items while retaining their higher end flagship models. The MG isn't an accurate refelction of the state of Marshall, no more than Epiphone is a reflection of Gibson. Both are still capable of putting out excellent product. The question would be, is it as good as what they used to put out and if not, why not and is anyone else doing it the way they should be doing it. I'd say that many of the big brands have a reputation they trade off and that there are smaller companies doing a much better job putting out better instruments. If I needed a guitar to play at a gig or in a studio, I'd take a 2007 American Strat over its 1977 equivalent without hesitation, if I wanted to make money, I'd go with the old one

Johnny Storm

I'd be interested to know if anyone here has actually played a vintage strat or LP and what was their opinion of it compared to the modern equivalent?

I'd imagine that a guitar that has been well played in could feel a bit better to play than a new one but it hardly takes 25 years to achieve that.
Another argument is that if is a guitar is a real POS then it doesn't survive 25+ years so in other words surviving older guitars are a group selected out of the general population of guitars because they were better to begin with. Who knows?

Doctor J

I've had a fair bit of time on a 77 Fender Jazz recently. It has mojo, yes, but in terms of build quality and hardware it's a joke compared to my 87 MIJ ESP Jazz. Compared to my Bacchus, it's like a completely different concept of bass. The Bacchus, derived from the basic Fender Jazz design, reflects years of enhancements and improvements and the build quality is so much better than the Fender it's quite hard to believe. I know 70s Fenders shouldn't be used as a reference cos so many of them were ****e, but even on things like the design of the bridge, you can see how the modern design is infinitley superior in design and execution. The problem is there aren't many guys with 50s or 60s guitars who let you have a go

Edit -> I also had the opportunity to play a couple of mid 70's Ric 4001 basses. I used to have an early 90's 4003, the updated version of the 4001. To my mind, though they are very similar instruments, the 4003 was just way better. Better truss rod design (it's worth reading up on the 4001 and 4003 truss rod designs), better sounding pickups, just better. No contest.

Rustar

Johnny Storm wrote:

I'd be interested to know if anyone here has actually played a vintage strat or LP and what was their opinion of it compared to the modern equivalent?

Not a strat or LP, but my first electric was a '70 Gibson ES125C (the George Thoroughgood guitar). Didn't like it much, but then again I couldn't afford an amplifier back in those days, so it was played acoustic.

As far as vintage vs. new, I'll take new anyday. I think they've been made better in the past 5 years than they ever have been before, in general.
Plus I like shiny things. Preciouuuuusssss!

ES125

Johnny Storm

Doctor J wrote:

....The problem is there aren't many guys with 50s or 60s guitars who let you have a go

Sad but true

Johnny Storm

Rustar wrote:

Not a strat or LP, but my first electric was a '70 Gibson ES125C (the George Thoroughgood guitar). Didn't like it much, but then again I couldn't afford an amplifier back in those days, so it was played acoustic.

As far as vintage vs. new, I'll take new anyday. I think they've been made better in the past 5 years than they ever have been before, in general.
Plus I like shiny things. Preciouuuuusssss!

ES125

Cool. I wonder what that guitar would be worth now?

Voodu Child

Johnny Storm wrote:

Another argument is that if is a guitar is a real POS then it doesn't survive 25+ years so in other words surviving older guitars are a group selected out of the general population of guitars because they were better to begin with. Who knows?

If a guitar was a legendary player, it'd have had the sh1t played out of it long before it became valuable.

Most of the surviving 50s guitars in good condition are like that because they were crap and nobody played them.

The ones that were good were played for decades, and sure now they're old and crap anyway, all chipped and rusty, bandy necks etc.

And if you were to gut all the rusty crap on them and put on new tuners, trem, pickups etc, the vintage nuts would have a go at you for turning it 'non-stock'.

ZenforHead

Isn't there something about the wood sounding richer as it ages too?

Karl Hungus

ZenforHead wrote:

Isn't there something about the wood sounding richer as it ages too?

This, I think there is truth to.

Take my 2005 Ibanez RG1527, and my 1997 Ibanez Universe, both of which are basswood, the Universe sounds nicer to my ears.

Doctor J

I'm not sure how much wood, sealed in several coats of paint, would age in 8 years. I mean, you don't know how the wood was treated or how long it was allowed to dry before it became a guitar, so even guitars with the same kind of wood can sound different. The 77 Jazz and my 2003 Bacchus are both ash, but the 2003 bass is acoustically louder, more resonant, sharper and doesn't have dead spots

Karl Hungus

Doctor J wrote:

I'm not sure how much wood, sealed in several coats of paint, would age in 8 years. I mean, you don't know how the wood was treated or how long it was allowed to dry before it became a guitar, so even guitars with the same kind of wood can sound different. The 77 Jazz and my 2003 Bacchus are both ash, but the 2003 bass is acoustically louder, more resonant, sharper and doesn't have dead spots

Curse you... Defeating my casual observation with your well thought out and insightfull logic.

Voodu Child

The only good thing wood will do over time is dry. When they make the guitar, the wood is going to be 95% as dry as it ever will anyway.

I don't see any link between dryness of the wood and an improvement in tone, not when you're talking small differences anyway. Makers use wood dried over many years primarily because it's more stable, not because it sounds better.

Johnny Storm

Karl Hungus wrote:

Curse you... Defeating my casual observation with your well thought out and insightfull logic.

Yeah! Isn't that against the charter ?

Doctor J

Shush man, don't ruin it... you ruiner

Ahh I mean the whole thing of how much a difference different kinds of wood makes and all that is for another day. What I kind of getting at is, taking a Les Paul for example - an old Les Paul from the 50s or 60s or it's modern equivalent, not Gibson - I don't think they are putting out the best quality guitars they can, but a company who are making the best modern equivalent of the Les Paul design, maybe Navigator, Bacchus, Heritage, Tokai, etc... I can't see a reason for a quality builder of the modern age to be unable to make a guitar of equal or better quality than the vintage guitar. You can apply that to Strats, or J basses, P basses, whatever. Yes, there is a cool factor to having an old guitar, but are they better guitars or is it just bull**** in the psyche of the player? Was there something unique about how Fender made guitars in the 50s or what they made them out of that is somehow better quality than Ibanez master luthiers making a J Custom for example? I don't think so. If anything, guitar building should improve over time, meaning, from the right builder, you're getting the best guitar possible, you just need to beat some mojo into it

Ancient1

Johnny Storm wrote:

I'd be interested to know if anyone here has actually played a vintage strat or LP and what was their opinion of it compared to the modern equivalent?

The place I grew up in (a galaxy far far away) was awash with vintage Fenders and Gibsons. I played a selection of tasty old Strats (yum yum) and 2-3 Gibsons (one that particularly stands out in my mind is one of them Black Beauties with 3 Gold humbuckers, damn) and some ancient Hoefners. Those were my first experiences with electrics and they were all vintage without exception (because you couldn't get new guitars there in the first place). They just felt instinctively right and to this day I feel right at home with vintage guitars. Doc will tell you that my feeling "right at home" is actually a form of mania.

Johnny Storm wrote:

I'd imagine that a guitar that has been well played in could feel a bit better to play than a new one but it hardly takes 25 years to achieve that.

All those guitars felt so goddamn good, like your favourite pair of jeans or runners - well worn in and comfy. Or a nicely aged whiskey.

Johnny Storm wrote:

Who knows?

I know that I'm still bitter about that EJ.

Doctor J wrote:

Yes, there is a cool factor to having an old guitar, but are they better guitars or is it just bull**** in the psyche of the player?

You answered your own question below, dude - mojo!

Doctor J wrote:

If anything, guitar building should improve over time, meaning, from the right builder, you're getting the best guitar possible, you just need to beat some mojo into it

And real mojo takes time. It needs to simmer a bit, and get a regular dose of smoke, spilled beer, whiskey and drool. All them things help!

Having said all that, there's no doubt that my shiny new Strat is a better guitar than my vintage Thinline, but the Thinline is just wooooooow. It just can't be put into words man.

Ancient1

Doctor J wrote:

I would kill you all to have a 62 Fender Jazz

LOL, how did I overlook this gem? Great quote man, I learnded you well, didn't I?

Doctor J

Ancient1 wrote:

my vintage Thinline

Yeah, and you want to start getting out of the habit of calling it "my"

You know it is inevitable, man

judas101

Doctor J wrote:

Edit -> I also had the opportunity to play a couple of mid 70's Ric 4001 basses. I used to have an early 90's 4003, the updated version of the 4001. To my mind, though they are very similar instruments, the 4003 was just way better. Better truss rod design (it's worth reading up on the 4001 and 4003 truss rod designs), better sounding pickups, just better. No contest.

I hope youre wearing you dueling gloves mister :mad:

fourmations

hi all

my observations/thoughts..........

Craftsmanship: an awful lot of people would say that
they dont make em like the used to, i hear this for regularly about fender gibsons and ibanezeses,

"Mojo": if it works for you, well and good, if your guitar gives you vibes and you love to play it, great!

cool: vintage guitars are cool, make no mistake, the more fuel efficient mustang mentioned above... is it as cool as the old one?... not likely!
you have a piece of history, thats cool!

investment: a lot of axes are investments nowadays, whats happening to
60's jazzmasters (and many others im sure) is that they are being broken down and sold as parts on ebay for better profits, soon it will be a rarity to have one that is a one piece original, therefore prices go up,

i have to laugh at the PRS comment, great guitars I'm sure, but dont tick
any boxes for me in the "cool" dept, I couldnt think of a more generic, styleless yoke if i tried,

60's jazzmaster (icon of all coolness) vs. PRS (aging pub metaller)??

ciao

4

Dord

The basic designs of guitars and basses hasn't really changed much since the 50's. Although one thing that would have changed is quality control. Many vintage guitars had bad QC. Simple fact. Inconsistencies in production because of lack of materials, just plain bad qc and designs being changed on the fly.

Modern instruments don't tend to fall prey to this, although I'm not saying it doesnt happen. But QC definitely HAS improved.

I agree entirely with what voodoo_child said. Most vintage guitars that are around today are probably the bad players of the day that nobody wanted.

I do think a lot of the vintage guitars look cool, but IMO i couldnt see myself playing one even if I had the cash. I'd miss active electronics too much!

Dord

judas101 wrote:

I hope youre wearing you dueling gloves mister :mad:

why's that?

because the 4003 DID improve on the 4001!

The 4001 had big problems, its well known about by those who have an interest in RIC's.

Voodu Child

Most guitars are mass-produced. Even in the 50s, they were mass produced.

You might say that Gibson guitars were hand-made back then, but it was still mass-production - they made as many as they could, as quick as they could (it wasnt one guy lovingly crafting an instrument, taking as long as he wanted).

The trick to mass-producing a good guitar is getting it right first time - when it's your job to make X number of guitars a day, you don't have time to throw away a body because you cut the neck route a few mm too big (or cut a new neck a few mm too big to compensate). You just shove it in there with lots of glue and move on to the neck one.

And that's where modern guitars have an advantage - getting it right first time. A properly maintained CNC machine will cut bodys and necks better than any craftsman using a ruler and pencil, tracing a template, or using a duplicarver. Especially a craftsman under time constraints.

God knows how Gibson are doing it badly these days, but there's no doubt in my mind that a Japanese made Edwards is technically a better guitar than 95% of vintage Gibsons. Better body/neck join, straighter neck, more uniform fingerboard profile, hardware, pickups, you name it.

Doctor J

judas101 wrote:

I hope youre wearing you dueling gloves mister :mad:

Sorry man, I like the 4001s that I've played, I just found the 4003 to be the better instrument... even though I sold it I'd love to try a 4004, see how they've moved along with the design further



Still, it's nice to have a proper discussion here rather than another "Where can I get my guitar set up" thread, no?

judas101

joe robot wrote:

why's that?

because the 4003 DID improve on the 4001!

The 4001 had big problems, its well known about by those who have an interest in RIC's.

No probs with mine.

Wouldn't trade it for anything either.

Quattroste

I think when we are talking Vintage we are generally talking about the Good Vintage guitars. The upper side of the market. Even back then.

Nowadays we have so much ****e out there aswell. Tell me what the difference is between a USA Fender Strat for €1000 and a Rockwood Strat complete with starter amp and bits and pieces for €150. Break the guitar down to parts and put costs beside them. Then take the manufacturing costs, and the labour costs. I think you will find that when A/B'd the Fender will have a considerably higher profit margin. So if Rockwood used the same quality parts as Fender they could produce a similar product for less. The problem is who would pay €6-700 for a Rockwood guitar.

Vintage is as much about "mojo", "coolness", "branding" "famous players" and all that stuff. Personally I'd rather have a new guitar and my Tokai 335 and Eggle are two of the most comfortable and well made guitars that I have played bar none. My strat is a highway 1 and I have no need for another strat. This one does the job nicely.

Doctor J

Quattroste wrote:

I think when we are talking Vintage we are generally talking about the Good Vintage guitars. The upper side of the market. Even back then.

Yep, the models that have become icons, Strats, Teles, Les Pauls, etc and their modern equivalents, not budget models.

Johnny Storm

Seems like all the posters so far who have had a chance to try vintage guitars, preferred them.

As regards all the changes/improvements made to guitar manufacturing over the years, IMHO most of those changes are to make the guitrar cheaper/easier to manufacture and therefore more profitable. They are not particularly improvments to the design or function of the guitar per se. I agree that increased use of CNC machines makes the resulting guitars far more consistent.

Doctor J

No functional improvements? Take a strat for example - Shielded electronics, bi-flex truss rod, staggered tuners, 4 bolt neck joint with micro-tilt, delta tone pot, S switch, 2 point trem.... that's just a Fender AmSe. Consider what other manufacturers have done with strat designs. Consider the super strats that evolved from strats, from early Charvels to Ibanez J customs.

judas101

Doctor J wrote:

Shielded electronics, bi-flex truss rod, staggered tuners, 4 bolt neck joint with micro-tilt, delta tone pot, S switch, 2 point trem...

Can't believe you didnt mention the opto-band jibber jabber and quazi-funtional trans regulator. :cool:

Doctor J

I didn't want to type all that out

Edit -> and besides, what I'm getting at is this - are modern builders, even those who are building to ideantical specs to vintage models, making inferior guitars and if so, why? Is a handmade Bacchus strat made this year somehow inferior to a 55 Fender Strat in any aspect other than age? Why do we think that a vintage guitar has an advantage on a new guitar? How much of our percieved level of quality is psychological?

Quattroste

I suppose all this points to the fact that a modern handbuilt custom made guitar will be superior to all vintage and modern mass produced guitars. (Obviously providing the luthier is using the best of woods and electronics and taking great pride in his work)

Makes you think that..........

feylya

But that's not definate though. It should be better but people may still prefer the Vintage guitars. Example: Ran and Eggle - both comparable quality, both high standards of production etc etc. But the Eggle was "mass" produced. It all comes back down to perception of what someone likes in a guitar and I think that the Vintage label warps too many peoples opinion.

judas101

what about the arguement that the quality of wood was far superior back then?

i know nothing about wood or whats good or bad but ive heard some guitar gearheads say this before

feylya

I suppose you could argue the carbon and other nastiness in the air nowadays would cause the trees to grow slightly less quality wood. That said, those types of gears heads sound like the guys that buy used bass strings from the 50s and 60s...

Voodu Child

Wood is wood. It has a structure, density, flaws, knots, grain pattern, stability, yadda yadda.

No one piece of timber is magically more musical than another. It's the job of the manufacturer to look at the properties and choose what they consider good quality wood.

Even if modern pollution or forestry practices have changed the structure of trees/timber, there's no reason why that should have any correlation with the musical properties of an instrument.

Johnny Storm

Doctor J wrote:

No functional improvements? Take a strat for example - Shielded electronics, bi-flex truss rod, staggered tuners, 4 bolt neck joint with micro-tilt, delta tone pot, S switch, 2 point trem.... that's just a Fender AmSe. Consider what other manufacturers have done with strat designs. Consider the super strats that evolved from strats, from early Charvels to Ibanez J customs.

Dont get all ****in' logical with me either!:D
First of all, all those things you mention are only on certain Strats (mainly the Deluxe model AFAIK), seems like many strat-fanciers are all excited about getting the non-improved versions - ie nitro finish, vintage bridges, staggered pole pups.
Second, you can't compare super strats with vintage strats, they're not the same animal.
Third of all, ehhhhh...... I give up!

Doctor J

Nope that's the AmSe. The Deluxe has all that plus the LSR Roller nut and other gizmos

As I said though, comparing like with like, a strat built to exact vintage specs, or a Les Paul, or a P bass, or a J bass, whatever, but built this year instead of 60 years ago. Can anyone think of a solid, provable reason based in fact, not myth, why a modern guitar should not be as good or even better than one made back in the day? I can't. All the talk about wood, meh, wood is wood, it's all different. As I said, the ash in my Bacchus bass sounds more responsive to my ears than the ash in the 77 Jazz I've played, but there are variables like strings, bridge etc to consider having a big factor in the sound too. Let's not forget that Leo Fender wasn't trawling the world looking for the finest timbre timber (do you see what I did there? ) and neither were the Gibson folks. These days you can buy exotically wooded instruments. Back then Leo used maple because it was tough and cheap, he didn't go with the best sounding wood he could find.

Can anyone actually find proof that wood sounds better as it gets older or is it another myth?

Baggio

Personally, i wuldnt have any vintage drums before the newer stuff, I know some of the vintage snares in particular like ludies and slingerlands etc were a different classs, but overall newer gear is sooo much better made and finished today, drumworld just gets better and better every year, even starter kits have far better hardware than top of the range from 80's etc,
So for me? modern gear brand new if possible all the way, look at the variety of wood types now being used,,the sound quailty, the finishes etc...terrific stuff, yu can see vintage stuff ,,its collectable sure, but the flimsey hardware etc,,ughhh makes me groan everythime.

thats my penny's worth,,,oops i mean Euro's worth!

ciao' amigos....Baggio..........

Johnny Storm

Doctor J wrote:

Can anyone actually find proof that wood sounds better as it gets older or is it another myth?

No. But it's all tied up with people's half-baked notions about Stradivarius's etc. Personally I wouldn't rule it out either.
OTOH maybe it's the resonant quality of the plastic in the pickguards and pickup rings that improves over time? :cool:

Doctor J wrote:

(do you see what I did there? )

You invoked the charisma of Saint Leo

fourmations

hi

I do think my 9 yr old solid top spruce acoustic
sounds better that when I bought it - more warmth

but i could be foggied by the aging theory (which i believe)
also I could just be playing it better of course (9yrs practice!)

rgds

4

Don1

Vintage stuff just has a whole coolness/mojo thing for the most part.

In terms of modern quality of say, Gibson, slipping I think it could (hopefully not) be compared to the likes of the aforementioned Rover and Ford and GM. Once seen as quality leaders and makers of the "best" they swelled too large and focused on increasing margins by dropping manufacturing costs. Now the quality (Ford USA and GM) has slipped so far the companies are in dire straits and will find it difficult to get back.

Modern makers of top quality instruments are definitely making better instruments than the vintage ones, it's just the fact that having an instrument with 30 to 50 years history tied into it just "feels" better.

Others though (tone whores) like the really old and often crappy sound for authenticity. I like a mix. Old sounding p/ups for some stuff, brand spanking new sound for others.

Would kill for reeeeaaaly old stuff purely for the snob-value! :rolleyes:

fish-head

I'm not interested in modern styled guitars at all.. but I do love modern appointments like locking tuners.