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

[TMARK]

. . .snip . . . For me, personally, it's a perception issue. Vintage gear is so expensive, over-hyped and romanticized it represents conspicuous consumption and nostalgic self-delusion to me. That is an image I don't wish to project, so I mostly leave it alone (and even when I have it, I rarely play it out). If I thought vintage gear was "better" I'd get over that issue quickly, but I don't.

. . .snip . . .

I get your point.

I think it is apparent from reading this thread that the main objection to "Vintage Instruments" isn't necessarily the instruments themselves, but rather the lie at the heart of the Vintage market. I will simplify here, but the argument is that vintage basses aren't as good as modern equivalents in any measurable way and, taking their inferiority as true, they are overhyped for sentimental reasons and represent conspicuous consumption or other values that have nothing to do with actually playing an instrument.

As to the quality of vintage versus modern, I don't argue that vintage is better. I think the advantage of a vintage bass is subjective, but for me the value of a vintage bass, in terms of playability and tone which is my concern, are the different specs. They are made differently, have different neck thickness, different tuners, bridges, wood and electronics, and they feel worn in. I'm not saying these are necessarily better specs, but just different. If those specs suit you, and the bass sounds great and isn't too heavy it is the better choice over a modern bass.

The main objections, and I share them, are the perception issues, which are sociological and frankly involve symiotics and post-modern theory. I don't object to nostalgia, as it is an honest human emotion. here is why: I don't think vintage basses in particular represent nostalgic self delusion, as all nostalgia is delusional. Nostalgia drives sane people to make insane choices, like buying a '68 Mustang or buying a certain house when these choices just don't make sense. This is why they have Harley Davidson dealers. Such is the human heart.

As to the conspicuous consumption aspect, I don't think that is limited to vintage basses. Not to knock boutiques, but I think spending $10k on a bass might qualify, depending on the buyer, as conspicuous consumption. Buying a Bentley or Maybach is conspicuous consumption.

So here is my real problem with vintage, from a cultural/sociological perspective: the irksome issue of vintage instruments being used as an outward symbol of authenticity by people who are inauthentic. I note that the vintage market started blowing up around the time "relicing" became popular. So at base it can feel like a lie.

Vintage is often overhyped, and the prices are ridiculous, so ridiculous that many are simply not players' basses anymore, and come to represent something else, like a nostalgic talisman against the evils of the modern world. A bass is not a bass, its utility besides the point.

The entire vintage market feels to a large degree like a marketing game luring in well heeled sort of sad older guys. And that sucks for everyone but the dealers. Just a few years ago players bought "an old Fender", not a "vintage instrument". This is particularly bothersome to young broke players who really do like the vintage specs but now will never have a vintage Fender.

All that being said, I have a '75 Fender that just kills. It is way better than the AVRI '75 and the American Standard Jazz I had at the same time. It feels much different, much better to me, and sounds better. To me. I could not care less about the perception issues, it is a killer bass.

 

[Bear From Delaware]

They're cool, the big difference between a old bass from a new bass is patina and wear. It's like owning a old car.

Around 20 years ago before eBay killed the vintage guitar market, I lucked out of a '71 P-bass and a '67 J-bass.
Both at the time still were younger and fresher, now the tuners squeak and they have trouble staying in tune.
The necks get funky and have to be tweeked, the hardware rusts, the pickups go dead, the frets get chewed up and need replacing.

A old bass is just like a old car.

 

[Son of Wobble]

I get your point.

I think it is apparent from reading this thread that the main objection to "Vintage Instruments" isn't necessarily the instruments themselves, but rather the lie at the heart of the Vintage market. I will simplify here, but the argument is that vintage basses aren't as good as modern equivalents in any measurable way and, taking their inferiority as true, they are overhyped for sentimental reasons and represent conspicuous consumption or other values that have nothing to do with actually playing an instrument.

As to the quality of vintage versus modern, I don't argue that vintage is better. I think the advantage of a vintage bass is subjective, but for me the value of a vintage bass, in terms of playability and tone which is my concern, are the different specs. They are made differently, have different neck thickness, different tuners, bridges, wood and electronics, and they feel worn in. I'm not saying these are necessarily better specs, but just different. If those specs suit you, and the bass sounds great and isn't too heavy it is the better choice over a modern bass.

The main objections, and I share them, are the perception issues, which are sociological and frankly involve symiotics and post-modern theory. I don't object to nostalgia, as it is an honest human emotion. here is why: I don't think vintage basses in particular represent nostalgic self delusion, as all nostalgia is delusional. Nostalgia drives sane people to make insane choices, like buying a '68 Mustang or buying a certain house when these choices just don't make sense. This is why they have Harley Davidson dealers. Such is the human heart.

As to the conspicuous consumption aspect, I don't think that is limited to vintage basses. Not to knock boutiques, but I think spending $10k on a bass might qualify, depending on the buyer, as conspicuous consumption. Buying a Bentley or Maybach is conspicuous consumption.

So here is my real problem with vintage, from a cultural/sociological perspective: the irksome issue of vintage instruments being used as an outward symbol of authenticity by people who are inauthentic. I note that the vintage market started blowing up around the time "relicing" became popular. So at base it can feel like a lie.

Vintage is often overhyped, and the prices are ridiculous, so ridiculous that many are simply not players' basses anymore, and come to represent something else, like a nostalgic talisman against the evils of the modern world. A bass is not a bass, its utility besides the point.

The entire vintage market feels to a large degree like a marketing game luring in well heeled sort of sad older guys. And that sucks for everyone but the dealers. Just a few years ago players bought "an old Fender", not a "vintage instrument". This is particularly bothersome to young broke players who really do like the vintage specs but now will never have a vintage Fender.

All that being said, I have a '75 Fender that just kills. It is way better than the AVRI '75 and the American Standard Jazz I had at the same time. It feels much different, much better to me, and sounds better. To me. I could not care less about the perception issues, it is a killer bass.

Deeply engaging posts such as this one are what keep me coming back to TB. Thanks so much for taking the time to organize your thoughts.
Everything you wrote is well-argued and persuasive. Forced to counter your argument, I would rejoin that yes, "Nostalgia is delusional," as you say -- but so what? As Nietzsche says (and I paraphrase), a good lie improves the flavor of living. I know rationally that the Les Paul used by Neil Young to record the solos on the Crazy Horse albums is just a guitar, but I love hearing how the Neil and the boys themselves fetishized and mythologized the guitar beyond reason. It's like a samurai sword or other ceremonial object -- goblets, altar pieces -- our belief imbues them with meaning. Granted, a contract lawyer in his den polishing a "birthday year heritage bass" he cannot even play is a rather degraded level of transmutation. But such is the paucity of modern life.


Thanks again for your great sandwich with so much meat! I'll be picking at this one for a good while.
JWF

 

[TMARK]

Deeply engaging posts such as this one are what keep me coming back to TB. Thanks so much for taking the time to organize your thoughts.
Everything you wrote is well-argued and persuasive. Forced to counter your argument, I would rejoin that yes, "Nostalgia is delusional," as you say -- but so what? As Nietzsche says (and I paraphrase), a good lie improves the flavor of living. I know rationally that the Les Paul used by Neil Young to record the solos on the Crazy Horse albums is just a guitar, but I love hearing how the Neil and the boys themselves fetishized and mythologized the guitar beyond reason. It's like a samurai sword or other ceremonial object -- goblets, altar pieces -- our belief imbues them with meaning. Granted, a contract lawyer in his den polishing a "birthday year heritage bass" he cannot even play is a rather degraded level of transmutation. But such is the paucity of modern life.


Thanks again for your great sandwich with so much meat! I'll be picking at this one for a good while.
JWF

Thank you for the compliments, I enjoy your posts as well.

I actually had a sentence or two on nostalgia being harmless but took them out. And yes I was thinking Nietzsche!

This is a great line: "Granted, a contract lawyer in his den polishing a "birthday year heritage bass" he cannot even play is a rather degraded level of transmutation. But such is the paucity of modern life." So true.

I don't loath that guy with the Birth Year Bass he can't play, he (and it is always a He) is a symptom of the culture.

 

[reddesert]

So here is my real problem with vintage, from a cultural/sociological perspective: the irksome issue of vintage instruments being used as an outward symbol of authenticity by people who are inauthentic. I note that the vintage market started blowing up around the time "relicing" became popular. So at base it can feel like a lie.

Vintage is often overhyped, and the prices are ridiculous, so ridiculous that many are simply not players' basses anymore, and come to represent something else, like a nostalgic talisman against the evils of the modern world. A bass is not a bass, its utility besides the point.

The entire vintage market feels to a large degree like a marketing game luring in well heeled sort of sad older guys. And that sucks for everyone but the dealers. Just a few years ago players bought "an old Fender", not a "vintage instrument". This is particularly bothersome to young broke players who really do like the vintage specs but now will never have a vintage Fender.

All that being said, I have a '75 Fender that just kills. It is way better than the AVRI '75 and the American Standard Jazz I had at the same time. It feels much different, much better to me, and sounds better. To me. I could not care less about the perception issues, it is a killer bass.

I agree with some of what you are saying, such as the nostalgic talisman part - this seems to me part of why people fetishize old tone capacitors, for example. But the idea that we can draw a bright line between authentic and inauthentic, much less define certain people as one or the other, is deeply problematic. Authenticity is a very slippery subject. There are general trends, like if I were to sing the blues about growing up in the cotton fields it would be a put-on. However, one of the best blues musicians in my city is a transplanted Englishman, so there.

Even 30 years ago players were talking about pre-CBS and vintage appeal (AFAIK this has gone on even longer for acoustic guitars, since they have been around longer, and certainly for orchestral instruments). What has changed seems to be that the prices have gone up due to the excess capital some customers have to spend, and the time interval (pre-CBS is 50 years old now, not 20). The increase in prices to glass-case levels has dragged other previously un-valued instruments into vintage markets of their own, like 70s Fenders or Japanese guitars. Sure this sucks if you're a player looking for bargains, although Fender figured out they can sell you reissue models (they, too, need to make money off the cachet somehow). But, IMHO, musical instruments are still fundamentally instruments in the hands of a musician. Let the glass-case people have their collectibles - no amount of vintage is going to make a player seem authentic, genuine, or even interesting if their fingers don't have it.

 

[Son of Wobble]

...(and it is always a He) ...

Intriguing observation! Why do you reckon it so?

 

[Son of Wobble]

More great stuff, REDDESERT.

But the idea that we can draw a bright line between authentic and inauthentic, much less define certain people as one or the other, is deeply problematic. Authenticity is a very slippery subject.

So true. To present a rockist riddle as example: Was Lou Reed a deranged, mental-patient junkie (read: "authentic") or a mollycoddled suburbanite (read: "poseur")?

Let the glass-case people have their collectibles - no amount of vintage is going to make a player seem authentic, genuine, or even interesting if their fingers don't have it.

You're right! The simple fact is the onus is on players to impress with their chops rather than through property bragging rights. Same as it ever was and just as it should be.

 

[TMARK]

I agree with some of what you are saying, such as the nostalgic talisman part - this seems to me part of why people fetishize old tone capacitors, for example. But the idea that we can draw a bright line between authentic and inauthentic, much less define certain people as one or the other, is deeply problematic. Authenticity is a very slippery subject. There are general trends, like if I were to sing the blues about growing up in the cotton fields it would be a put-on. However, one of the best blues musicians in my city is a transplanted Englishman, so there.

Even 30 years ago players were talking about pre-CBS and vintage appeal (AFAIK this has gone on even longer for acoustic guitars, since they have been around longer, and certainly for orchestral instruments). What has changed seems to be that the prices have gone up due to the excess capital some customers have to spend, and the time interval (pre-CBS is 50 years old now, not 20). The increase in prices to glass-case levels has dragged other previously un-valued instruments into vintage markets of their own, like 70s Fenders or Japanese guitars. Sure this sucks if you're a player looking for bargains, although Fender figured out they can sell you reissue models (they, too, need to make money off the cachet somehow). But, IMHO, musical instruments are still fundamentally instruments in the hands of a musician. Let the glass-case people have their collectibles - no amount of vintage is going to make a player seem authentic, genuine, or even interesting if their fingers don't have it.

I agree with you. Let me attempt to square the circle in the few minutes I have. Authenticity is a fundamental that just is. If you have to try to be authentic, you aren't. Countless examples of English guys and rich kids from Pacific Palisades who lived the blues. They share the same emotion Robert Johnson conveyed in Terraplane Blues, or Hell Hound on my Tail. Its not a put-on. Canned Heat, the Stones, et al. Even a corporate lawyer or dentist. So yes I agree that bright lines cannot be drawn based on profession, age etc.

As to people talking about pre-CBS 30 years ago, I vaguely remember this. I was just a kid, but remember my parents musician friends talking about it. The difference from now and then is that the pre-CBS fetish started when Fender quality was going down the drain. It wasn't totally based on nostalgia.

 

[TMARK]

Intriguing observation! Why do you reckon it so?

My experience is that women are less dependent on material things for their sense of self worth. Women and girls tend to derive their wellbeing from relationships. I also suspect there are fewer female bass players.

edited to add: The female musicians I know in popular music have two guitars, one for recording and one for touring. Both do what they want. They derive satisfaction from what they and their band are playing, not from the tech or prestige of the instrument.

 

[MrRobert]

Good stuff! In regards to 'authenticity' I have many thoughts... What is authenticity? I feel that just because somebody didn't grow up in the cotton fields doesn't mean they can't connect with those emotions and create art. Musicians are artists, and like actors, they don't have to actually BE what they are creating. Art has the power to move people, and good art does that regardless of the artist's real life background.
In terms of image, does anyone really think the 20 something playing the 40 something year old guitar bought it brand new and put 'honest wear' on it? I don't. It doesn't make anybody more or less authentic to have vintage gear, it just shows something about that person's taste and/or financial situation. The relic jobs are the same to me. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my 'fake play wear' but maybe it looks great or it's the best sounding and playing bass I own. Personally I think people spend way too much time judging other people for their taste. I hate anything with more than 4 strings and I can't stand exotic woods. But I could care less if some other dude loves that stuff. It's all cool with me.

 

[TMARK]

More great stuff, REDDESERT.

So true. To present a rockist riddle as example: Was Lou Reed a deranged, mental-patient junkie (read: "authentic") or a mollycoddled suburbanite (read: "poseur")?

The answer is YES. He was all those things, partially cognitive dissonance partially his pain, no matter what zip code his high school was in.

 

[Son of Wobble]

My experience is that women are less dependent on material things for their sense of self worth.

Louboutin to block!

 

[TMARK]

Louboutin to block!

View attachment 709138 View attachment 709139

Ha!

Edit: I think Louboutin, or any LVMH product, goes to intimidating other women. Most men, not all but most, are like "yeah huh, sexy shoes". But to other women there are a plethora of signs and symbols bound up in those shoes that denote status, taste, which identifies their perceived place in a societal hierarchy. The word paucity comes to mind.

As I write, I realize this is not that different from the guy who can't play polishing the Heritage Birth Year Bass and then putting it back in its glass box. There are distinctions: Status is more important to younger women. I think women grow out of it as they get to know themselves. The second distinction is that the status and message being delivered by the Louboutins involves social hierarchy on what is a fundamental level, not just bragging rights on Talkbass.

 

[Son of Wobble]

My experience is that women are less dependent on material things for their sense of self worth.

Actually, I think you're on to something, which is why I asked you to elaborate. Perhaps things simply hold different meanings for women than they do for men?

American women spend 30 billion dollars per yer on cosmetics. Granted, those are consumables, but they are also products of fetishism that feed self-delusion and tell a good lie ("Within weeks your jawline will be more taught and youthful").

 

[king_biscuit]

I don't object to nostalgia, as it is an honest human emotion. here is why: I don't think vintage basses in particular represent nostalgic self delusion, as all nostalgia is delusional. Nostalgia drives sane people to make insane choices, like buying a '68 Mustang or buying a

Is nostalgic bass buying any more delusional than name brand clothes buying, tattoos, art buying, or any other purchases based on subjective value? Most of us don't live hand to mouth, and we certainly don't have to concentrate energy and resources on basic survival, which lets all of us make all kinds of irrational choices -- whatever that means -- which are not based on utility. You can not possibly hope to explain or even understand the driving motivation for these subjective value judgments and especially not in a few paragraphs on TB. Yes there are motivating factors besides pragmatic utility driving vintage instrument purchases, the same as there are driving Nike shirt purchases, expensive tattoo purchases, coin/stamp/comic/card collecting, joining of civic fraternities/organizations, churches, choosing of mates and spouses, etc... No there in no simple one paragraph explanation for any of this, but what you have discussed is certainly not limited to vintage instrument purchases or nostalgia, and certainly describes all of us on some level. Is it Nostalgia that drives "sane" people to buy new cars they can't afford? Which is more common, nostalgia driven vintage car purchases, or status driven expensive car purchases? In fact, you could make a utility argument for say a real 75 Jazz bass strictly based on the fact that it will hold it's value compared to a new 7x reissue? So the reissue purchase would be a more irrational nostalgia based purchase than the real 75.

Back to the question, are new basses generally built to tighter tolerances than vintages? I would say yes. Are new basses more enjoyable to play and own than vintage basses? Sometimes, sometimes, not. Are there complicated reasons for this that no one -- certainly no one posting in this thread -- understands? YES!

 

[king_biscuit]

My experience is that women are less dependent on material things for their sense of self worth. Women and girls tend to derive their wellbeing from relationships. I also suspect there are fewer female bass players.

\

Where do shoes, diamonds, clothes, etc., fit in with this?

 

[TMARK]

Actually, I think you're on to something, which is why I asked you to elaborate. Perhaps things simply hold different meanings for women than men?

American women spend 30 billion dollars per yer on cosmetics. Granted, those are consumables, but they are also products of fetishism that feed self-delusion and tell a good lie ("Within weeks your jawline will be more taught and youthful").

Cosmetics are more fundamental. They can be fetishized, and have been through advertising, but the draw is fundamental and biological in nature.

The advertising is keyed to insecurity and angsiety, and good Account Strategists know that people will do almost anything to relieve their fears. So its not that women believe that their jawline will be more taught and youthful, its that they worry about their jaw line and they will apply what they know probably won't work so they are doing everything they can.

Cosmetics give a woman confidence that they look their best, which goes to biological determinatives of reproduction and finding the most powerful, suitable mate. I read a study about the very real science behind cosmetics. Blush, rouge, mimic sexual physical responses during intercourse. Eye shadow and mascara accentuate eyes, which are big draws for the boys. Cheeks can be made to look sculpted and asymmetries masked, giving a sense of health. These are fundamental drivers that really overshadow the reasons for some dude buying back his youth by spending $12,000 on a '63 P bass.

 

[Son of Wobble]

Ha!

Edit: I think Louboutin, or any LVMH product, goes to intimidating other women. Most men, not all but most, are like "yeah huh, sexy shoes". But to other women there are a plethora of signs and symbols bound up in those shoes that denote status, taste, which identifies their perceived place in a societal hierarchy. The word paucity comes to mind.

As I write, I realize this is not that different from the guy who can't play polishing the Heritage Birth Year Bass and then putting it back in its glass box. There are distinctions: Status is more important to younger women. I think women grow out of it as they get to know themselves. The second distinction is that the status and message being delivered by the Louboutins involves social hierarchy on what is a fundamental level, not just bragging rights on Talkbass.

Agree absolutely with all you say here. In fact I intended to say much of it, but could not have said it better. I appreciate your making these arguably provocative statements
about the primacy of social hierarchy to women -- you spared me the dirty work. But I think it key to understanding women, and woe to the man who ignores this truth.

Interestingly, I think our hypothetical "man in the den polishing vintage bass" doesn't really much care what others think of his bass, a pal or two aside. He bought that
object for himself, not the world. I think his pursuit is more hermetic. Perhaps it is as simple as the fact that contemporary men no longer get a "gold watch" from the company. They have to get their own. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and all that.

 

[Son of Wobble]

Cosmetics are more fundamental. They can be fetishized, and have been through advertising, but the draw is fundamental and biological in nature.

The advertising is keyed to insecurity and angsiety, and good Account Strategists know that people will do almost anything to relieve their fears. So its not that women believe that their jawline will be more taught and youthful, its that they worry about their jaw line and they will apply what they know probably won't work so they are doing everything they can.

Cosmetics give a woman confidence that they look their best, which goes to biological determinatives of reproduction and finding the most powerful, suitable mate. I read a study about the very real science behind cosmetics. Blush, rouge, mimic sexual physical responses during intercourse. Eye shadow and mascara accentuate eyes, which are big draws for the boys. Cheeks can be made to look sculpted and asymmetries masked, giving a sense of health. These are fundamental drivers that really overshadow the reasons for some dude buying back his youth by spending $12,000 on a '63 P bass.

Points granted. You're killing it today! Which brand coffee?

 

[Son of Wobble]

Damn, now I regret merely auditing this thread. I should have taken it for credit.