It's all marketing BS. Some older instruments were great. A lot of them were bad.
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.
Do some basses just need 20+ years before their good?
- Thread starter liveburning274
- Start date
It's all marketing BS. Some older instruments were great. A lot of them were bad.
For a slab bodied electric instrument? No. Aging means almost nothing. Aging of wires and pots??????
70s Fenders were much maligned until recently. Now.....collectors items. There are some GREAT ones out there, but not everything made by Fender in the 70s is great.
Do vintage cars get better with time? As far as man made objects go I'm not sure time improves anything.
I own a 68 P bass. It was never a class leader, but I played it exclusively for 25 years and it did everything that I needed.
IME most Fender basses were not as bad as they were made out, some were very good and all of them were better than the competition. No matter what their quirks were, all of them were capable of doing a good job at the time.
It was cool to knock 70's Fenders now it's cool to eulogise 70's Fenders. IMO that's the only difference.
I own a 68 P bass. It was never a class leader, but I played it exclusively for 25 years and it did everything that I needed.
IME most Fender basses were not as bad as they were made out, some were very good and all of them were better than the competition. No matter what their quirks were, all of them were capable of doing a good job at the time.
It was cool to knock 70's Fenders now it's cool to eulogise 70's Fenders. IMO that's the only difference.
No need for any mystic mumbo-jumbo. I think it's just Darwin at work.
1) The better sounding ones get treated more respectfully by owners who tend to hold on to them longer.
2) The better built ones hold up.
So after 30 years, the ones most likely to still be around, and in playable condition, are the well-made ones that sounded better than average.
It's just a simple process of elimination. The fittest survive.
P.S. "I ain't sayin' it was Aliens…but it was Aliens."
1) The better sounding ones get treated more respectfully by owners who tend to hold on to them longer.
2) The better built ones hold up.
So after 30 years, the ones most likely to still be around, and in playable condition, are the well-made ones that sounded better than average.
It's just a simple process of elimination. The fittest survive.
P.S. "I ain't sayin' it was Aliens…but it was Aliens."
Last edited:
The sounds that serve as a basis for all popular music, basically 60s and 70s rock weren't recorded on 20+ year old instruments.
Reversible argument.
A good bass will be played to death and may get damaged or stolen more easily, while a lemon is likely to remain in almost mint state Under a bed.
Agree. But anything left untouched in a case for 30 years is also equally likely to look good cosmetically - but suffer with problems brought on by being left unmaintained while in long term storage.
You'll find a lot of those instruments have mold and serious neck issues.
So I'll still stand by my original guess…erm…I meant hypothesis.
To me, all this vintage thing is because we associate the instruments with the music that was made during that era, have you ever heard: Music in the past was better, is rock dead, why there are not good bands today? We translate the same mentality to the instruments.
Not necessarily true: In many cases, some of those have just been untouched hiding under beds or in closets for decades.....
1. Wooden instruments do improve a little with the natural drying process of age but as other have said, if it was trash hen it was new - it won't age into a uality instrument.
2. Nostalgia is a powerful thing - old is always cooler than new (except when its not).
3. As the guy who's usually in the 70s threads defending 70s instruments and saying they get a worse rap than they deserve - I can honesty say the 70s was a low point for Quality control at all three of the "big" American Electric guitar manufacturers F G and G.
That doesn't mean there weren't some really nice instruments made then - but the percentage of good ones is lower than other decades before and since and the percent of bad ones was higher - the average one was about average.
Leo Fender conceived his solid-body guitars and basses as mass-produced utilitarian tools with little intrinsic value beyond their very specific musical purpose, which included reliability and interchangeability of major components. In keeping with his founding spirit, it follows that these instruments are no better after 20 years have passed than, say, a hammer or screwdriver would be after 20 years (a saw would be noticeably worse from normal use). In fact, the commodity parts that make them up can only deteriorate over time, if only from oxidation. Wires, pots, pickups, caps, bridges, etc. cannot possibly improve with age. They do become scarcer, however.
Any appeal vintage gear has for me, and it's not that deep, is that it has survived and maintained its utility, not that it works any better. This is proof that it was a good product to begin with. That's all. Over time, the wood may gain a tiny amount in stability, but it will never sound better than what you're bolting into it.
All of this having been said, I DO enjoy playing the game of 'If this bass could talk, what stories it would tell'.
Of course, YMMV.
Any appeal vintage gear has for me, and it's not that deep, is that it has survived and maintained its utility, not that it works any better. This is proof that it was a good product to begin with. That's all. Over time, the wood may gain a tiny amount in stability, but it will never sound better than what you're bolting into it.
All of this having been said, I DO enjoy playing the game of 'If this bass could talk, what stories it would tell'.
Of course, YMMV.
Last edited:
No need for any mystic mumbo-jumbo. I think it's just Darwin at work.
1) The better sounding ones get treated more respectfully by owners who tend to hold on to them longer.
2) The better built ones hold up.
So after 30 years, the ones most likely to still be around, and in playable condition, are the well-made ones that sounded better than average.
It's just a simple process of elimination. The fittest survive.
P.S. "I ain't sayin' it was Aliens…but it was Aliens."
Definitely this.
No need for any mystic mumbo-jumbo. I think it's just Darwin at work.
1) The better sounding ones get treated more respectfully by owners who tend to hold on to them longer.
2) The better built ones hold up.
So after 30 years, the ones most likely to still be around, and in playable condition, are the well-made ones that sounded better than average.
It's just a simple process of elimination. The fittest survive.
P.S. "I ain't sayin' it was Aliens…but it was Aliens."
Where do ones that don't make it go?
I started playing back in the 60's and owned my share of 60's and 70's instruments. Some were decent, some not so good. Seriously, I am stunned at the quality of instruments that are available today off the shelf at a very reasonable price - in my opinion, much, much better than was available back then. For example, I just bought an Epiphone Les Paul 60's tribute that is easily as nice (even better!) than the Gibson Les Pauls I played back in the 60's. I went over it with a fine-toothed comb and could find no issues whatsover and it sounds and plays great! To heck with the vintage instruments - there's nothing magical about them. I'll leave those to the collectors.
Anywhere but the present, doesn't matter.
If it wasn't good enough to take care of all this time, it could have ended up anywhere.
I know I've thrown out bass bodies and necks over the years when they weren't worth the time to deal with. I didn't think twice when I threw out a twisted neck about a year ago. I was after the body when I purchased it as basically "scrap wood".
