Good point. Really what we need is to quantify the normalized mojo per pound.
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.
Let's be completely honest here about vintage basses...
- Thread starter nerkoids
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vintage bass
Good point. Really what we need is to quantify the normalized mojo per pound.
I ain't buying a vintage bass.
I have tried one - basses have become better with time.
Last edited:
I've become a vintage guy after making fun of vintage guys since the '80s.
What changed my mind was a '59 Melody Maker I randomly picked up one day, followed by a '56 Les Paul Junior. Since then, I've played tons and tons of vintage guitars and basses from the '50s and '60s. I have come to believe that overall there is a difference, which most people seem to attribute to the wood. Lightweight, straight-grained, old-growth wood cut into huge pieces that was properly dried before becoming a guitar...and has maybe continued to dry until today.
Many of the best old Gibsons I've played had bodies made of a single, thick slab of mahogany with razor-tight grain mated to a neck with a similarly huge slab of mahogany...yet the whole thing weighs 7 lbs. When you strum it, the whole guitar vibrates as one. You really can feel it. Coupled with low-output (and slightly microphonic pickups), that vibration/resonance comes through the amp.
If you're going to stick EMGs and active preamps into the bass, then the wood probably makes little difference. If that's the tone you're after, then vintage stuff makes no sense.
Anyway, that's what lead me to drop $6k on my '66 Jazz rather than a Fodera or other modern wunderbass. I like the vintage, low-output, passive tone.
What changed my mind was a '59 Melody Maker I randomly picked up one day, followed by a '56 Les Paul Junior. Since then, I've played tons and tons of vintage guitars and basses from the '50s and '60s. I have come to believe that overall there is a difference, which most people seem to attribute to the wood. Lightweight, straight-grained, old-growth wood cut into huge pieces that was properly dried before becoming a guitar...and has maybe continued to dry until today.
Many of the best old Gibsons I've played had bodies made of a single, thick slab of mahogany with razor-tight grain mated to a neck with a similarly huge slab of mahogany...yet the whole thing weighs 7 lbs. When you strum it, the whole guitar vibrates as one. You really can feel it. Coupled with low-output (and slightly microphonic pickups), that vibration/resonance comes through the amp.
If you're going to stick EMGs and active preamps into the bass, then the wood probably makes little difference. If that's the tone you're after, then vintage stuff makes no sense.
Anyway, that's what lead me to drop $6k on my '66 Jazz rather than a Fodera or other modern wunderbass. I like the vintage, low-output, passive tone.
YES. We also need a to establish a clear definition of mojo in order to more help people with the threads such as "How much mojo does this bass have" or "what is the proper amount of mojo for metal?"
Not necessarily, I'm insisting that the average weight of basses has gone down over times due to manufactures (such as Ibanez) opting for smaller bodies and lighter weight species of wood and lighter weight metal for the bridge and tuners, ect.
Mojo is a desperado's description of instrument damage.
Mojo is positively correlated with how much a person lives in the past.
Don't necessarily agree, but I do appreciate a succinct and provocative assertion. Nice fightin' words!
Wood = tone
Whether that's true or not doesn't matter. The scarcity of older basses in playable condition is increasing.
The same is true of vintage classical instruments. It only matters to the musician and no one else.
Whether that's true or not doesn't matter. The scarcity of older basses in playable condition is increasing.
The same is true of vintage classical instruments. It only matters to the musician and no one else.
I have it in a 5 and w the MarkBass stack it makes me smile. And thump. And play the big notes.Makes two of us. I've got the exact same model, and I'm amazed every time I plug it in. Which has become increasingly often.
Completely subjective! Imho its about needs, genres, sensibilities, experience, ears, mood. I have 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s 90s, and a few post millennial ones. The old ones have a sound and feel of their own and thats mostly what I use... but I'll use anything if it sounds cool. Some old ones are incomparable with anything available new. Someone mentioned Nash etc. I love em all.. Its like vintage vs new cars. They all have their merits. technology and hardware have advanced vs the hand work, aging, accidental magic, lo tech, design and many other factors. ive done blindfold tests and differences in the same type (ie a P bass) can be subtle. Experienced or sensitive ears pick that up, some people might just feel it or it just fits in a track. Whatever floats your boat but anyone who disses vintage basses and amps, a decent old P bass for example, is a mighty fool . lol
I was just in GC an hour ago. I'm presently looking for my new bass, getting back into it after finally giving up on guitar. Had my heart set on a jazz bass. I thought playing a p bass,or even a sting ray migh t work as well. Then I picked up an ibanez sr....something. 500? Couldn't believe how nice it was to play,super lite. Really really easy to play. Super fast neck. And it seemed that there is quit a range in sound. It really made my other choices seem...old and primitive.
might be time to let go of that old way of thinking and enjoy some newer technology
might be time to let go of that old way of thinking and enjoy some newer technology
This question appears to be asked frequently. However, it seems that no one asks "Which is better, old bass players, or new bass players?" It seems intuitive that you would judge the player individually. It must be less intuitive that the instruments need to be judged individually as well.
Pick a bass, any bass. Play it. It's either good, or not good. No other details change that.
Pick a bass, any bass. Play it. It's either good, or not good. No other details change that.
