Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Anti-Relicing thread
- Thread starter emor
- Start date
- Status
I think "mojo" implies something far too esoteric to apply universally; so, no I wouldn't consider relicing "fake mojo." Relicing is to some people what AAAAA quilted maple tops are to others. Ask die-hard Fender fanatics whether custom 6-string basses with AAAAA woods are an attempt to "appear legitimate," that they're "self-absorbed" or "compensating," or something to that effect and you'll find a predictable agreement. Is the aesthetic of the instrument part of the purchase decision and if so, is that motivation legitimate? That's the basic question. They offer different colors because not everyone digs fiesta red. I will admit that inflicting physical damage to a new bass is not always my cup of tea but I'm not opposed to someone doing that.
I'm not against dissenting opinions; I'm providing one now, aren't I? I'm justifiably impatient concerning tangential, subjective thread derailment. So, thanks for making a thread devoted to the subject.
Well done.So guys, in all seriousness, let me ask you this -
Is someone buying a relic really any different than them buying a vintage bass that is scarred up ? (other than saving lots of $$$). I mean, it seems like the main "criteria" for most anti-relic people is that they didn't put the "scars" on themselves, they bought the instrument "already beat up".
Is the guy who buys a bass like this looked on as "ok"-
------ but the guy who buys one like this is thought of as a "cheater ? -
I mean, either way the guy didn't put the time in to put those marks on the bass by playing it himself. Either way it was someone else's hard work that made the bass look that way.
I'm seriously curious as to your thoughts.
+ 1
I for one, though, totally dig the aged Olympic White better than the distressed new Olympic White look.
I would rather have a vintage P in perfect condition that doesn't weigh a ton, feels great, and sounds fantastic than [a new] one that's been beat up. I'll flip any bass that doesn't sound good/fit in my tonal category regardless of what it looks like.
I think something that today's instruments offer is a level of consistency in quality and fit that is higher than their older counterparts. I mean, take a poll on neck joints from Fenders during that time period.
For me, it's about the look, the feel, and the tone. If I can get that from a reliced fiesta red, tort guard, rosewood board, 1.62" at the nut P bass strung with TI flats...you'd better believe I'll get it.
I am not into it but I take the "It's not your instrument why do you care?" approach. 
Why are some of you people so passionate about what someone else does with their property?
Think about Jaco's bass. Sure he played the heck out of it. A lot. But seriously a lot of that body damage was because he abused it badly. Dragging it around with no case, throwing it to the ground, whatever. So was Jaco lame because a bunch of the wear and tear on the bass of doom was basically done on purpose and not by playing notes?
Why are some of you people so passionate about what someone else does with their property?Think about Jaco's bass. Sure he played the heck out of it. A lot. But seriously a lot of that body damage was because he abused it badly. Dragging it around with no case, throwing it to the ground, whatever. So was Jaco lame because a bunch of the wear and tear on the bass of doom was basically done on purpose and not by playing notes?
I do not care what any other musician does to their instrument. That includes sparkly new or scratch n" dent finish, electronics, pickguard etc.
However, if they post a thread for example "Look at my new bass...what do you think?" They have to realize this isn't going to be your mother giving you praise for getting a good report card in kindergarten, you may get some negative feedback of people who do not genuinely like your bass or what you have done to it.
However, if they post a thread for example "Look at my new bass...what do you think?" They have to realize this isn't going to be your mother giving you praise for getting a good report card in kindergarten, you may get some negative feedback of people who do not genuinely like your bass or what you have done to it.
What's the "story" for a guy who buys a vintage bass that has some wear ? Or is buying a vintage bass just as silly as buying a relic ? Either way there's no "story", and the guy didn't put the miles on the bass.
I do have some vintage guitars, and the best way to put it is that they feel worn in, and have their own distinct sound. The relics may look like relic's, but they lack that sound that a guitar can only have after years of playing.
They look good on the outside but lack the brains on the inside so to speak
Then you shouldn't condemn what you don't understand. Make sense??
Make a point. dont flame.
I think "mojo" implies something far too esoteric to apply universally; so, no I wouldn't consider relicing "fake mojo." Relicing is to some people what AAAAA quilted maple tops are to others. Ask die-hard Fender fanatics whether custom 6-string basses with AAAAA woods are an attempt to "appear legitimate," that they're "self-absorbed" or "compensating," or something to that effect and you'll find a predictable agreement. Is the aesthetic of the instrument part of the purchase decision and if so, is that motivation legitimate? That's the basic question. They offer different colors because not everyone digs fiesta red. I will admit that inflicting physical damage to a new bass is not always my cup of tea but I'm not opposed to someone doing that.
I'm not against dissenting opinions; I'm providing one now, aren't I? I'm justifiably impatient concerning tangential, subjective thread derailment. So, thanks for making a thread devoted to the subject.
+ 1
I for one, though, totally dig the aged Olympic White better than the distressed new Olympic White look.
I would rather have a vintage P in perfect condition that doesn't weigh a ton, feels great, and sounds fantastic than [a new] one that's been beat up. I'll flip any bass that doesn't sound good/fit in my tonal category regardless of what it looks like.
I think something that today's instruments offer is a level of consistency in quality and fit that is higher than their older counterparts. I mean, take a poll on neck joints from Fenders during that time period.
For me, it's about the look, the feel, and the tone. If I can get that from a reliced fiesta red, tort guard, rosewood board, 1.62" at the nut P bass strung with TI flats...you'd better believe I'll get it.
Exactly.
Relics are like going to AE and buying an article of clothing that is brand new and has holes and wear that was artificially inseminated. It costs more and looks sloppy. Frat boy guitars is what I like to call them. If you are/were in a frat, you know what I'm talking about. I know what you kids are doing.
To me, a "relic" makes no sense.
The condition of tools, instruments and equipment tells you how well the owner has cared for them. Do you think trombone players, cellists or flute players "relic" their instruments? No way - they take meticulous care of them, and although they will acquire a patina of wear over decades of use, there is no value attached to excess wear on those instruments.
It's inconceivable to me that there would be a market for "reliced" orchestral instruments, because there is no false value attached to that wear. When you sell a used instrument, it is most valuable when it is in as close to original condition as possible. To me, electric guitars and basses are EXACTLY the same.
Yes, instruments acquire wear after being used constantly over decades. Personally, if that occurred to my instruments, I'd hae them refinished periodically because I like to keep them in great condition. To me, that shows respect for the instrument and reflects its value for me. I know that others who have used an instrument for many years choose not to have it refinished, and that's clearly their decision to make. But making a new instrument look beat-up makes absolutely no sense to me. It's fake, it's phony, and those who think it makes them look cool and experienced are deluding themselves.
There are plenty of people in the world who beat the hell out of their cars, tools, instruments and other belongings. I disapprove of that habit pattern, I am not one of them, and I don't want the visual evidence provided by my instruments to ever put me in that category.
Therefore, although I see the reasons that someone might leave a well-used instrument in the condition it has earned through years of use, I think the concept of reliced guitars makes no sense at all. A relic needs to be refinished to pristine condition before I'd be interested in it...or it would have to be cheap enough that I could buy it and have it refinished. To me a relic is a used car after a front end collision - damaged goods, and worth much less than one in good shape.
The condition of tools, instruments and equipment tells you how well the owner has cared for them. Do you think trombone players, cellists or flute players "relic" their instruments? No way - they take meticulous care of them, and although they will acquire a patina of wear over decades of use, there is no value attached to excess wear on those instruments.
It's inconceivable to me that there would be a market for "reliced" orchestral instruments, because there is no false value attached to that wear. When you sell a used instrument, it is most valuable when it is in as close to original condition as possible. To me, electric guitars and basses are EXACTLY the same.
Yes, instruments acquire wear after being used constantly over decades. Personally, if that occurred to my instruments, I'd hae them refinished periodically because I like to keep them in great condition. To me, that shows respect for the instrument and reflects its value for me. I know that others who have used an instrument for many years choose not to have it refinished, and that's clearly their decision to make. But making a new instrument look beat-up makes absolutely no sense to me. It's fake, it's phony, and those who think it makes them look cool and experienced are deluding themselves.
There are plenty of people in the world who beat the hell out of their cars, tools, instruments and other belongings. I disapprove of that habit pattern, I am not one of them, and I don't want the visual evidence provided by my instruments to ever put me in that category.
Therefore, although I see the reasons that someone might leave a well-used instrument in the condition it has earned through years of use, I think the concept of reliced guitars makes no sense at all. A relic needs to be refinished to pristine condition before I'd be interested in it...or it would have to be cheap enough that I could buy it and have it refinished. To me a relic is a used car after a front end collision - damaged goods, and worth much less than one in good shape.
Or, you could go with the take "as is" to keep the integrity of the performance. Auto-Tune has been used so much that people don't even remember what a real singing voice sounds like. I wonder what it would sound like to auto-tune fretless instruments (the pedal version would be all the rage over in the effects forum).
Sign of the times, IMHO. Instant everything. I am officially old now I suppose. Get off my lawn!
Now you know that's not true, you're simply trying to justify your earlier statement. Vintage guitars can sound terrible, just like a new one can. Every instrument is different. I've played relics that smoke 90% of vintage instruments.
Proof please ?
Typically most "quality" guitar body/neck builders dry their bodies to about 6% or less, pretty much the equivalent of what you'd have with a vintage instrument.
Pickup magnets are easy to age so that they have slightly weakened pull, or you can use a "naturally weaker" magnet.
Vintage pickups were not wound as "exact science", so they vary greatly, just like a typical scatterwound pickup will today.
Nitrocellulose lacquer ? Easy to apply. Funny thing that most people don't realize about their vintage Fenders is that from about 63 on they had a polyester based coating (Fullerplast) applied over the wood to help make finishing easier. This pretty much invalidates a lot of the arguments about "vintage guitars wood "breathes" because of nitro lacquer", however, as I mentioned you can easily just shoot nitro on the wood.
Fender typically used the least expensive parts they could in manufacture, I.E. thinnest and cheapest available metal to make a bridge, simple threaded rods for the saddle, etc. This is simple to replicate.
Bone nut ? OK. Easy enough.
So what does that leave ? Pots, capacitor, wire - all easily copied, including the taper on the pots if you so desire.
A vintage bass costs more and looks sloppy. Are you against buying vintage basses as well ? Are they "frat boy" instruments ?
Not to derail my own thread but just to clarify my comparison re Auto-Tune:
I have no problem in using technology to produce a a more acceptable finished product. In my own limited recording experience, I have used an occasional "punch in" to correct a wrong note. I don't see anything wrong with fixing a clam in an otherwise legitimate performance, but I do have a problem with using technology to create something out of whole cloth to put one over on the public.
I guess (to me) it's a matter of degree. Situational ethics? Perhaps.
Thanks to a fellow TBer, (I don't remember who), for mentioning the film "Before the Music Dies'" in which the filmmaker takes an admittedly beautiful young model with no vocal talent and creates a polished music video.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed] (segment starts at 16:30).
Another example would be the use of Photoshop (especially in photojournalism). There is a difference between cropping or adjusting the contrast of a picture to create a more pleasing composition, and using those same tools to create an image that changes the meaning of the event to mislead the viewer.
Now, are the consequences of relicing a bass as dire as my photojournalism example? No, unless someone is trying to pass it off as authentic (counterfeit). Is it an example of the seemingly increasing phoniness in society? That's at least part of what I had in mind in putting it up for discussion.
I have no problem in using technology to produce a a more acceptable finished product. In my own limited recording experience, I have used an occasional "punch in" to correct a wrong note. I don't see anything wrong with fixing a clam in an otherwise legitimate performance, but I do have a problem with using technology to create something out of whole cloth to put one over on the public.
I guess (to me) it's a matter of degree. Situational ethics? Perhaps.
Thanks to a fellow TBer, (I don't remember who), for mentioning the film "Before the Music Dies'" in which the filmmaker takes an admittedly beautiful young model with no vocal talent and creates a polished music video.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed] (segment starts at 16:30).
Another example would be the use of Photoshop (especially in photojournalism). There is a difference between cropping or adjusting the contrast of a picture to create a more pleasing composition, and using those same tools to create an image that changes the meaning of the event to mislead the viewer.
Now, are the consequences of relicing a bass as dire as my photojournalism example? No, unless someone is trying to pass it off as authentic (counterfeit). Is it an example of the seemingly increasing phoniness in society? That's at least part of what I had in mind in putting it up for discussion.
Here is a question from someone, me, who is unbiased. What about people who inherit an instrument from say their uncle. Bass is all beat up, "reliced", before they get it. Does that make the person getting the bass a fake because they did not put the wear on it themselves. Are they not trying to be cool with a wicked old bass?
If you like it or not, it's become a trend that people find attractive. I mean, does everyone keep thier first bass for it to get all smashed up? No, they don't. Maybe it's a way of paying tribute to the days of old? Who are we to judge people's motives?
IMO, YMMV, Relicing is a way for people to make a statement about their dedication to bass playing. Kind of the way some bands act all street tough like they live in the streets but in reality they live in mansions. I view it in the same way as putting a sticker on you instrument. It's a way of expressing yourself.
For the record, I am not going out to buy or beat up my bass intentionally and with basses no longer using Nitro finish, its going to take a long time for my bass to be a "relic".
Do you only wear dark blue perfect condition jeans? I'm sure you don't buy or wear pre-faded cloths on stage at all...
- Status
