Do Americans need more expensive basses?

[i_got_a_mohawk]

 

[brconflict]

On the whole American vs. Non-American, sure Americans prefer higher quality than Japanese or Korean, or Mexican, for example, because the quality of the build has been shown to be better (or at least, more scrutinized and of more choice woods), but that doesn't mean it's going to be affordable, or sound better to *your* ears. You may, like me prefer a Korean-made Squier bass to an American Fender bass, if you're looking for the tone that it provides. I tend to think there's a level of pretentiousness that goes along with certain makers, such as Gibson. A fine Gibson Les Paul may cost $5,000 new. Gibson manufactures these daily or weekly. Is it really THAT much better than a $1,500 Epiphone of the same caliber, manufactured much the same way in another country? Was the humidity better there? Is this a subjective answer? I own several different basses, from different manufacturers. I evaluate the need, the tone, playability, and otherwise, familiarity and quality for each one. I own some Ricks, a Wal, Fender Jazz, ErnieBall Stingray, a St. Blues, and a Kramer. I've owned other in the past. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each is more important to me than what it is and who made it. If I put the Wal to something that needs some bellowing low-end, it's not a match---not at all. But if I want a punchy low-end and a silky mid-range, the Wal is immediately sought.

Blind test the basses you evaluate. Then evaluate the price, then the quality, etc. The brand name should be the LAST thing you worry about. Now, if we could just convince some purists and collectors of this, we could bring in some lower prices and make music. After all, when you're listening to the music, what are you truly listening to? The amazing plush basslines that just make you cry in joyful bliss, or the knowledge that the bass player is playing a Fedora?

Sidenote: I think old Fender basses are quite nice. I don't think they are worth what people pay for them. I think they're MUCH more valuable if you inherit one vs. roll over your IRA's to buy one. If people stop over-valuing these things, the prices will drop. Hit the pause button, players! Wait it out and buy when the demand is low.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

Sidenote: I think old Fender basses are quite nice. I don't think they are worth what people pay for them. I think they're MUCH more valuable if you inherit one vs. roll over your IRA's to buy one. If people stop over-valuing these things, the prices will drop. Hit the pause button, players! Wait it out and buy when the demand is low.

A billion tangents in this thread already, so I don't feel too bad... I doubt that the vintage market will drop much. They aren't making new 60's / 70's instruments, so the supply isn't going to increase and most would rather hold on to the instruments than sell them at a loss. The market may cool from time to time, but I don't think there will ever be a huge drop.

 

[bassbenj]

That is way cool that you have footage of shows from back in the day!

And not only that but the footage actually has a shot of a BASS in it rather than being te usual nothing but singer and guitards.

 

[bassbenj]

On the whole American vs. Non-American, sure Americans prefer higher quality than Japanese or Korean, or Mexican, for example, because the quality of the build has been shown to be better (or at least, more scrutinized and of more choice woods), but that doesn't mean it's going to be affordable, or sound better to *your* ears. You may, like me prefer a Korean-made Squier bass to an American Fender bass, if you're looking for the tone that it provides. I tend to think there's a level of pretentiousness that goes along with certain makers, such as Gibson. A fine Gibson Les Paul may cost $5,000 new. Gibson manufactures these daily or weekly. Is it really THAT much better than a $1,500 Epiphone of the same caliber, manufactured much the same way in another country? Was the humidity better there? Is this a subjective answer? I own several different basses, from different manufacturers. I evaluate the need, the tone, playability, and otherwise, familiarity and quality for each one. I own some Ricks, a Wal, Fender Jazz, ErnieBall Stingray, a St. Blues, and a Kramer. I've owned other in the past. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each is more important to me than what it is and who made it. If I put the Wal to something that needs some bellowing low-end, it's not a match---not at all. But if I want a punchy low-end and a silky mid-range, the Wal is immediately sought.
.

Say what you want, but sure Gibson does have an attitude (maybe not as bad as Ric's but still) I used to think it was all smoke and mirrors. And then I got a huge deal on a real LP. All I could say is WOW! You can say the differences between that and the LP I built from a kit are minor and indeed they are not THAT great. But the point is that even though the differences are minor, they are real and the only way you can make that "last step" is to fork out and put up with Gibson's attitude. Is it worth it? Well that is up to the person. But at least now I can understand why some people do buy expensive instruments even though you can't justify it by minor differences with cheaper ones.

My main axes these days are G&L L2500. Two USA and one Tribute. How big is the difference? Not big. But IS there a difference. Yes, there is. I can FEEL it. I can HEAR it. So is it worth the large increase in cash to have that minor difference? Well, sometimes the Tribby bar bass is plenty. But then sometimes you want EVERY last little thing tweaked as much as it possibly can be. And if you want that, you are going to have to do some work (or pay someone else to do the work) to get it. Simple as that.

 

[brconflict]

A billion tangents in this thread already, so I don't feel too bad... I doubt that the vintage market will drop much. They aren't making new 60's / 70's instruments, so the supply isn't going to increase and most would rather hold on to the instruments than sell them at a loss. The market may cool from time to time, but I don't think there will ever be a huge drop.

Perhaps I'm not clear on my point, although I have no disagreements with the fact that a bass made in the 60's will always be a bass made in the 60's and certainly will increase in value. My point is that, at this moment, a bass made in 1960 is 54 years old. It was built a certain way, and may either be desirable more or less than a modern bass. However, and Fender would probably back me up is that a 1972 bass would probably have been considered an improvement. In fact, Fender probably believes their most modern basses are by far superior in tone and quality (I'm not vouching for them, specifically).

So, what exactly IS vintage? How many years does it take to age a bass into the vintage class? Then, how does a bass in that class that's been very carefully archived and stored, never played, and therefore never weathered, compare to a 1960 bass that's been played heavily by hundreds of hands and worn down to no viable finish left on it?

My point is, people place so much emphasis on vintage that they'll pay $250,000 for a pristine first Stratocaster (in the hands of Gruhn Guitars in Nashvile), whether it sounds good or not. If nobody seeks them, the prices would drop. We can't fix that, but the reason to pay THAT much money for a vintage instrument can't be likely because of how it sounds.

I simply don't recommend buying an old Fender with a life's savings unless you cannot possibly get the sound you're looking for in something less expensive. Buy it if it suits the sound you're looking for vs. the status or collectable value.

 

[buldog5151bass]

What is funny is the definition of "vintage" and "collectible" keeps changing. I have a 70s Fender, which in the 80s was not considered especially desireable. But now, the prices for 70s Fenders have also skyrocketed.

Supply and demand.

 

[topo morto]

My point is, people place so much emphasis on vintage that they'll pay $250,000 for a pristine first Stratocaster (in the hands of Gruhn Guitars in Nashvile), whether it sounds good or not. If nobody seeks them, the prices would drop. We can't fix that, but the reason to pay THAT much money for a vintage instrument can't be likely because of how it sounds.

I simply don't recommend buying an old Fender with a life's savings unless you cannot possibly get the sound you're looking for in something less expensive. Buy it if it suits the sound you're looking for vs. the status or collectable value.

A colleague of mine who has just escaped from the banking sector in London reckons that the first 3 things that a typical City worker buys with his ill-gotten gains are : 1) a Rolex 2) a Porsche 3) a vintage Les Paul to hang on his wall.

Same on Wall Street?

 

[brconflict]

Say what you want, but sure Gibson does have an attitude (maybe not as bad as Ric's but still) I used to think it was all smoke and mirrors. And then I got a huge deal on a real LP. All I could say is WOW! You can say the differences between that and the LP I built from a kit are minor and indeed they are not THAT great. But the point is that even though the differences are minor, they are real and the only way you can make that "last step" is to fork out and put up with Gibson's attitude. Is it worth it? Well that is up to the person. But at least now I can understand why some people do buy expensive instruments even though you can't justify it by minor differences with cheaper ones.

My main axes these days are G&L L2500. Two USA and one Tribute. How big is the difference? Not big. But IS there a difference. Yes, there is. I can FEEL it. I can HEAR it. So is it worth the large increase in cash to have that minor difference? Well, sometimes the Tribby bar bass is plenty. But then sometimes you want EVERY last little thing tweaked as much as it possibly can be. And if you want that, you are going to have to do some work (or pay someone else to do the work) to get it. Simple as that.

Yes. There's a difference, I agree. In fact, there's a difference between two of the Ricks I have, both being basically the same models. And yes, Rickenbacker are pretentious, IMO. I don't have any love for the company, because they don't have any love for their own basses. Poor quality, poor workmanship, lacking reliability, and inconsistent. but, regardless how I feel about the company, I haven't found another Rick sound, and not another Rick that sounds like my '99 4003. In fact, I've modded both of them to sound more like what I'm looking for.

I love some values Gibson has, like (forgive me that I don't recall the guitar lines) the Government wood series guitars, built from the wood the U.S. Government seized, and the the Old Hickory line built from the broken trees from a tornado that tore through Andrew Jackson's estate in 1999, also volunteering to clean up some of the wood from the grounds. They're proud of the LP's. Some are prized, but they're new. But, nonetheless, if the sound is what makes a recording great, then that's what will make the recording, regardless of price.

Do Americans need more expensive basses? Probably not, but they want them, and they'll pay for them. Just the way they roll, I guess.

 

[smperry]

Closed.