Basses with 'Mojo' Rant!

I think there is a difference between worn from many years of playing and beat up from not being taken care of properly. Any bass is going to get a few dings here and there, but a newish bass with a poly finish is really hard to make look like a well used vintage bass with a worn nitro finish just from normal wear and tear.

 

I've recently learned that the only basses I really feel comfortable playing on are beat up, vintage Fenders. They make me feel at home like no other.

 

I don't know, my Fenders aren't vintage, but I've played the snot out of them and they have the wear to show it, and I don't think that's undesirable. I think a lot of the issue comes...well, I know it's a touchy subject, but...relics. I won't state my opinions either way, but I think that might be part of the reason newer basses that are beat up might not be seen as having he same credible "mojo", because one doesn't know if that's real wear from being played hard and regularly, or just the work of a luthier making it look like it has "mojo". YMMV, of course, but those are my thoughts on he matter, not looking to start any relic arguments.

 

I have an idea of how different basses and playing styles wear on a bass. IMO, it's pretty easy to tell "mojo" from "nojo", but we all have different tastes and tolerances.

 

I think there's truth to that. I have three poly finished instruments, and they are all played, but not abused, and the finishes have barely a mark. My strat was brand new in 2008(with me the sole owner) and still mostly looks it. My Jazz bass(also a 2008 model) is a former rental instrument and still fairly clean, but for some wear above the neck pickup from where I play. My Precision is a 2000, and spotless. But it was donated to a local second hand store and Iknow nothing of its history. For all I know, it could have been played very little, before me.

And maybe relicing has created some bias. It certainly is a polarizing topic. So many people seem to either really love it, or really hate it. I say to each their own, but my personal preference is to have spotless instruments and maintain them well, but if honest wear happens, it happens.

 

Mojo normally means played often, played a Long time and played with respect for the instrument. So 10 year old bass with some buckle rash, a chip here and there and a groove worn in the body near where your thumb rested on the pickup over the thousands of gigs you played is mojo.

A three year old bass hanging in the pawn shop scratched to hell, chipped, stickers all over it and maybe some rust in spots is not mojo it's abuse. So not hypocritical at all. Damage and lack of care is not mojo. I got to play Jerry Jemmotts highly modified 1964 J bass this week. No abuse evident. Signs of a bass being played for 50 years? You bet! But there were no huge scratches, no chunks of wood missing no signs of terminal beating. Just a lot of wear where u would expect from a legend playing it.

 

What difference does it make? You like it you buy it. You and I don't have to like the same things.

Having said that, to me wood = Mojo. it's hard for me to get excited about anything with a thick solid paint job. Seeing wood grain, feeling the bass "breath" as I play, that's Mojo (to me).

 

Faulkner people pass on buying basses for many reasons. I will buy a mojo covered bass for the right price. I personally wouldnt pay more then $200 for a relatively new but clearly beat on Ibanez (the choice of bass terrorists) but I would pay a grand for a well played but loved Ibanez Musician from the '80s. Could have the same exact defects.

Also what some consider a player bass is trash to another.

 

Name brands on the one hand, and character marks on the other hand. There's a tension here.

I'll leave us to ponder this and let everyone decide if and how to apply it as they see fit:

"If your momma raised you on manure, you'd develop a taste for it."

 

Like Tom, there's a world of difference to me whether a bass shows the cosmetic scars from years of making music, or whether someone's tried to fake that look.

I mean no offense to folks who like the relic thing. I'm just saying it ain't my thing.

 

I agree with the honest wear vs. abuse comments. I've played hundreds of gigs on my 1995 Fender Am Standard P-Bass, and has only a couple of minor sings due to the poly finish and reasonable care. Same with my other main player, a Lakland Skyline Duck Dunn.
I personally don't mind buying a newer bass with some normal wear, but not with signs of abuse.

 

I tend to be just the opposite. I really like nice, solid color paint jobs. But the great thing is there's so much out there that I can have what I like, everyone else can have what they like, and it's all good IMO.

On that note, I'd have no problem buying honest wear myself. To me, it just means someone else cared for it, but actually played it too. But I wouldn't buy a badly abused instrument unless the price was cheap and I wanted a platform for a complete rebuild.

 

+1 - although there is something about buckle rash that makes me crazy.....

 

I like to pour lots of coffee on my bass for mojo.....

 

Mojo, to me, is something that cannot really be seen on an instrument. It's the way an old instrument feels really smooth and broke-in with regards to playability.

Usually, the edge of the fingerboard has sections that seem to have shrunk or worn in between the frets. The frets themselves have been dressed a few times are are kind of flattened out. The finish gone in all the right places behind the neck. It's things like that that you might think it would hinder playability, but just enhances it instead.

Not every old instrument has it, nor does every well-worn one.

 

Hey, that's how it go. Old yuck > new yuck.