Let's be completely honest here about vintage basses...

[Vertigo Jones]

But half the reason people want vintage basses is because they want the intruments they grew up hearing and playing - which means new THEN, old NOW. That's the nature of vintage. You can go either way about whether they are great or not, but vintage had to be new sometime or it would not have existed to become vintage - that's reality.
As my post above makes clear, I am not dazzled by the myth of vintage - I bought my now 40 year old bass when it was just a cheap old bass and I couldn't afford the new model I wanted - and most of my basses are under 15 years old. But there is something (which you may like or not like) about vintage instruments that new just doesn't do. Similarly, as I described above, there are a lot of advantages of new instruments that you'll never get from a vintage one.
There are bad new instruments and there are bad old instruments. And there are differences in construction and design between them. Pick a good one with the features you want and be done with it.
As for the people who claim everyone down on vintage can't afford one - get over yourselves. Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or bitter due to some deficiency. (Admittedly, you probably have a point about some of the most strident haters, but you can't generalize and it makes your point seem far less credible).

Of course. There's nothing wrong with people who want what their favorite player used. There's nothing wrong with a preference for older (or newer) instruments if that's what floats your boat. I have both vintage and newer instruments. I even have a (gasp) Relic, so I could give a s*** either way. However, the hype about vintage instruments sometimes gets way overblown to the point of absurdity. The bloated vintage market of the 90's to 2008 is testament to this.

Again, I invite anyone who thinks stuff is inherently better simply because it's older to navigate a steep cliff with vintage brake pads.

 

[JimmyM]

As for the people who claim everyone down on vintage can't afford one - get over yourselves. Don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is either ignorant or bitter due to some deficiency. (Admittedly, you probably have a point about some of the most strident haters, but you can't generalize and it makes your point seem far less credible).

I agree. I could afford a pre-CBS bass if I really wanted one, especially since the vintage market is now a buyer's market and prices have dropped. I just prefer flatter necks and owning a bass that I'm not going to feel guilty about replacing the strap buttons with Straploks.

But let's face it...this thread is filled with responses from people who can't, and many of them are of the bitter variety, so it's not exactly dishonest to say that. Doesn't apply across the board, of course, but certainly does apply to many.

 

[bonespatrol]

Here's the bottom line...

Bass players, by and large, are easily the most passive aggressive bunch of haters out of any musicians out there. If they can't afford vintage Fenders or expensive new basses like Foderas and Ritters, they attack those who can. I once saw a guy on here tell someone who bought an expensive bass that he should sell it, buy a $1000 bass, and give the money left over to charity! And he was dead serious! People have major balls sometimes, I'll tell you.

And if they like 5 or 6 string basses, they hate when someone else doesn't like them, and if they play 4-strings, they think 5 and 6 stringers are wankers. Those who like actives think passives are limiting, and those who like passives think those who like actives are wankers. And God forbid you ever mention that you use effects to someone who doesn't...then you get the old tired lines like "I don't need effects to disguise my bad playing," and "Why don't you just play guitar if you don't want your bass to sound like a bass?"

SHUT THE **** UP, YOU BIG NINNIES!!!

huh, interesting. the bass players i know (real, pro players for the most part), are not like this at all. but i can understand if you base this opinion on what tb'ers (whom i think are hobbyists and wanna-be's for the most part) have to say. oh, and i like old instruments.

 

[LanEvo]

For me, the argument would be absolutely tedious at this point if not for the fact that there are so many other values brought into play in the discussion.

The only reason I'm interested in this topic is that I do believe Gibsons and Fenders built from the '50s to mid-'60s sound better than their modern counterparts (all else being equal). In my fairly extensive experience, I find they tend to be lighter, more resonant, and sound better. Why is that? If we can figure out the formula, we can make modern instruments that sound, play, and feel just as good for a hell of a lot less money.

Fender Custom Shop seems to have figured it out. As far as I can tell, they're pretty obsessive about wood selection and matching. That seems to be a difference

Um, nobody dies if they play a vintage bass. Car analogy rejected.

Considering a modern P-Bass has the same specs as a 1957 P-Bass (only with lesser quality wood IMNSHO) the analogy is doubly stupid.

 

[JimmyM]

huh, interesting. the bass players i know (real, pro players for the most part), are not like this at all. but i can understand if you base this opinion on what tb'ers (whom i think are hobbyists and wanna-be's for the most part) have to say. oh, and i like old instruments.

Oh, I've had plenty of bass players bust my balls in person. It's certainly not a new thing.

 

[bonespatrol]

Oh, I've had plenty of bass players bust my balls in person. It's certainly not a new thing.

fair enough. carry on!

 

[peledog]

Don't forget the GOML factor:

 

[TMARK]

My theory about what behind the vintage hate is the perception

Graeme Mitchell, eh? That is indeed a great shot.
As I google his work I'm seeing lots of fabulous black and white.
Here's one Mitchell took driving into Neil's Broken Arrow Ranch in 2012.

View attachment 708384

I love Graeme's work. He is really a fantastic street photographer.

 

[Vertigo Jones]

Considering a modern P-Bass has the same specs as a 1957 P-Bass (only with lesser quality wood IMNSHO) the analogy is doubly stupid.

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun
noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

Suggesting the "old is better crowd" drive a car with old brakes is sarcasm.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē/
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

1. a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
   • a correspondence or partial similarity.
     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing that is comparable to something else in significant respects.
     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

Having said absolutely nothing about a comparison of a modern/vintage P bass to car brakes doesn't qualify as an analogy.

 

[Rocktometrist]

Here is the problem I have with vintage instruments. They were once working-class-accessible music tools bought by young rockers who used them to craft the rebellious youth movement known as rock'n'roll. Now these same instruments are being bought by rich old dudes as music room trophies and financial status symbols. Guitars are faked as relics to give them a false sense of authenticity. That is so un-rock'n'roll it hurts, and the whole scenario is a cultural travesty. So keep your romanticized, mythologized, price-inflated vintage basses and guitars, old wealthy dudes. Those cool old guitars are all tainted by your money and lies now. They're dead to me.

 

[MrRobert]

Here is the problem I have with vintage instruments. They were once working-class-accessible music tools bought by young rockers who used them to craft the rebellious youth movement known as rock'n'roll. Now these same instruments are being bought by rich old dudes as music room trophies and financial status symbols. Guitars are faked as relics to give them a false sense of authenticity. That is so un-rock'n'roll it hurts, and the whole scenario is a cultural travesty. So keep your romanticized, mythologized, price-inflated vintage basses and guitars, old wealthy dudes. Those cool old guitars are all tainted by your money and lies now. They're dead to me.

No, these instruments were very expensive for their time. If you do the inflation math, current non-custom shop fenders are way less expensive now than they were in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

 

[micgtr71]

My tech was complaining that another client brought in a 75 precision with a A neck that could not be straightened. He paid a lot for it. The guy bought another neck for the bass...a 76. Similar issue but not as bad. He said that it was not a vintage issue in that he had seen the problem with newer bases, but it was more often the case with older basses and guitars. He said for better luck with more playable basses, save the money and buy newer. A lot of older instruments were not taken care of and left in too humid or too dry (or both) environments. He said mojo and look are one thing, but playability is what most people want.

 

[TMARK]

Here is the problem I have with vintage instruments. They were once working-class-accessible music tools bought by young rockers who used them to craft the rebellious youth movement known as rock'n'roll. Now these same instruments are being bought by rich old dudes as music room trophies and financial status symbols. Guitars are faked as relics to give them a false sense of authenticity. That is so un-rock'n'roll it hurts, and the whole scenario is a cultural travesty. So keep your romanticized, mythologized, price-inflated vintage basses and guitars, old wealthy dudes. Those cool old guitars are all tainted by your money and lies now. They're dead to me.

I understand this sentiment. I met a guy who has over 100 guitars, ranging from vintage Strats and LPs to new Music Man JP15s. Dude can barely play anything. I asked him why he had so many guitars, and he gave me some BS reasons about versatility etc etc but what rang true is that many of the guitars he owns reminded him of his youth. So one way to look at it is that these old dudes were once dropping acid, blowing up their stereos listening to Purple Haze, and wood shedding Sympathy for the Devil. Now they can buy back some of their lost youth after a life of toil and responsibility. I have empathy for their desire to collect these emblems of a lost youth. Its like a time machine for them. I just hate what it does to the prices of even CBS Fenders.

And yes the false authenticity drives me to distraction. It bothered me in 8th grade when glam metal types cut their jeans and new T shirts and it bothers me now seeing Road Worn guitars.

 

[nerkoids]

Well, as the OP, I don't hate on anyone but haters. And it's not so much hate as bemusement.

As I stated before, I don't care about collectability, mojo (I think mojo is something a player brings, not the supposed stories an instrument 'might' have).

I am grateful that in all the back and forth about the vintage/collectability/relic, etc... many of the more experienced players have imparted their experiences with the actual physical basses, their hardware, pups, tuners, etc.

So, a general consensus seems to be forming. It's the wood that makes it good. Now I'm hungry for rotisserie chicken.

 

[JimmyM]

Here is the problem I have with vintage instruments. They were once working-class-accessible music tools bought by young rockers who used them to craft the rebellious youth movement known as rock'n'roll. Now these same instruments are being bought by rich old dudes as music room trophies and financial status symbols. Guitars are faked as relics to give them a false sense of authenticity. That is so un-rock'n'roll it hurts, and the whole scenario is a cultural travesty. So keep your romanticized, mythologized, price-inflated vintage basses and guitars, old wealthy dudes. Those cool old guitars are all tainted by your money and lies now. They're dead to me.

The first musicians to use those instruments were jazz and country players. But you keep raging against the machine...it's good for circulation.

 

[boristhespider9]

Finally, a fresh topic for Talkbass!

 

[markjazzbassist]

Well, as the OP, I don't hate on anyone but haters. And it's not so much hate as bemusement.

As I stated before, I don't care about collectability, mojo (I think mojo is something a player brings, not the supposed stories an instrument 'might' have).

I am grateful that in all the back and forth about the vintage/collectability/relic, etc... many of the more experienced players have imparted their experiences with the actual physical basses, their hardware, pups, tuners, etc.

So, a general consensus seems to be forming. It's the wood that makes it good. Now I'm hungry for rotisserie chicken.

@nerkoids i responded to this earlier but i don't know if you saw. "Mojo" is certainly a real scientific thing. Electronic components drift in tolerance over time, especially vintage ones where the tolerance was low to begin with. So "mojo" is this change and shift in the electronics as they age. It doesn't always sound good or bad, but there certainly is a change and they aren't "spec" or "stock" anymore.

Also the wood has aged 25+ years more than a new instrument. This can affect resonance, depth, clarity, brightness, warmth, etc.

So there certainly are "mojo" or things about vintage instruments that are different than their custom shop equivalent (even when they try and fake the drift by modifying the electronic components its still not the same).

 

[Muddslide]

I disagree with the idea that just because someone doesn't drool over something or isn't interested in owning it means they "hate" it or "can't afford it" or are envious of people who have such an item.

That's silly.

I have absolutely zero interest in a boutique, custom-built bass made out of highly figured exotic woods. It doesn't mean I hate them or deride anyone who likes them or owns them. I'm just not personally interested in them.

As I said earlier, I am fortunate to have owned many vintage instruments in my day, including a number of pre-CBS Fender basses. They were all very nice instruments and I enjoyed owning them. But I honestly don't care to own one now, in part because of their perceived value and in part because I don't personally believe they are "worth" as much as the prices they generally fetch. In my opinion and experience there is nothing about a bass or other instrument being of a certain age that automatically, arbitrarily makes it "better" to a similar instrument made more recently. That's all.

 

[10cc]

I know my 72 sounds better than my 04. That's all I got.

 

[nerkoids]

@nerkoids i responded to this earlier but i don't know if you saw. "Mojo" is certainly a real scientific thing. Electronic components drift in tolerance over time, especially vintage ones where the tolerance was low to begin with. So "mojo" is this change and shift in the electronics as they age. It doesn't always sound good or bad, but there certainly is a change and they aren't "spec" or "stock" anymore.

The mantra I keep hearing everywhere is 'tone is in your hands'. As my playing continues to improve and my personal misconceptions about the instrument continue to be defeated, I'm finding this to be true.

But then, your assertion here begs the question: why does 'stock' matter so much if electronic components like pots, pickups, wiring age to different specification then? To me, it would make more sense to improve an old instrument with appropriate components that help it play, sound or even look better for the person playing it.

The main source of my bemusement is this: to me, a bass is meant to be played. It's why most of them were built in the first place. To render a bass as being a mere collector's item just because it's old and a 'all original' is to basically render it useless, like a bowl of plastic fruit occasionally dusted off as to look relevant in someone's dining room.