• 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.

Old or new? What is the consensus?

#103
tplyons said:
What is the consensus?

Obviously, there isn't one.

New instruments are a dime a dozen. Old instruments are finite and won't be produced anymore. If you like them, there aren't anymore being produced, so people hold onto them longer. They're harder to replace.

I'll take old over new any day. But my needs in a bass were met in 1957 with the split-coil P. Anything made in the past 50 years will meet my needs. Some other people have different requirements of an instrument, but I can work with just about anything.
Click to expand...

I agree. In fact there may not be a consensus even in a given person (say me!). I love nostalgia. If I had a bunch of "extra" cash laying around I'd be scarfing up classic basses just for the history value which is often what collectors are into. Old roots music played on authentic period instruments? Yeah! I can dig it.

But then another day I'm in some kind of avant garde mode and 7 strings doesn't seem enough. I'm wondering why I don't own a bass with a midi plug on it and how I can get all manner of digital syth sounds at low frequencies without a keyboard. It's the complete bipolar opposite mindset of the above. And oddly both seem to coexist in my mind at various times.
 
#104
The Big Chief said:
Being a lucky owner of a '65 P Bass I always enjoy these threads. As I was reading some of the debates regarding the aged wood, I remembered an old review comparing a '62 Jazz reissue to an original 1960 jazz.
The review is from the 1991 Jan/Feb issue of Bass Player magazine with Jaco on the cover. The the person doing the review was none other than the highly respected Roger Sadowsky. I managed to dig out the mag and since I don't have a scanner I thought I would paraphrase a small section that some may find interesting.

Roger says about the sound;

"However, the '60 bass does have the superior sound - it's louder and more vibrant than the reissue. This is especially noticeable when comparing the instruments unamplified, indicating that the wood is most likely responsible. In a reproduction such as this, one thing can't be reproduced: 30 years of wood aging, which is why the old basses will always be special."
Click to expand...


Roger's statements make a lot of sense. However, how many years does that aging of wood take to really become noticible in the tone? I wrote this in a thread quite a while back, and I'll mention it again here. My old guitarist had a '66 Jazz that we did some setup work on about 2 years ago. We threw on a set of DA rounds, exactly like I had on my '92 Jazz (sporting SD Antiquities). Absolutely no difference in the tone.... with the exception of there actually being a bit more of the "wood" in the tone of the '92. The big difference in the basses had more to do with playability, and the condition.

My original statements stand..... if you can find that perfect bass, then get it. For me, I have yet to run into the vintage Fender that nails it all.... tone, condition, playability..... at least one with a price tag under 7 grand. So I've stopped looking. Maybe one day, that perfect pre-CBS P bass will just fall into my lap.
 
#107
I feel that aged wood does make a difference to the tone of electric basses. The 60's basses I believe would have sounded more "played in" when new compared to new instruments of the same design simply because the tonewood stocks of the 60's were plentiful (mass production of electric instruments in it's infancy) and the drying process of that wood was done naturally (before kiln-dried wood was adopted widely to keep up with the demands of our mass-produced needs) So the wood from that coveted '62 jazz bass for example was probably milled in the 1940's, possibly the 30's.
That said, all trees are as individual as the basses they become.
I just side with those who believe that naturally dried wood = less moisture content therefore more resonance which is what we want in our instruments right?
 
#108
Gibenbackerbass said:
I'm happy you recovered the T-Bird!! :)

They are great instruments - my very favorite. :bassist:

How about posting a picture in the T-Bird Club or Gibson Club Thread. All of us Gibson Lovers would love to see it. There's never a time when we have too many T-Bird photos! ;)

I had a late 60s T-Bird back in the mid 70s, and like a fool, sold it because I got away from playing for a few years. I've always regretted it. :crying:
Click to expand...

I posted these in the Show Me Your Thunderbird thread awhile back


101_0238_small.jpg



101_0239_small.jpg
 
#109
miles'tone said:
I feel that aged wood does make a difference to the tone of electric basses. The 60's basses I believe would have sounded more "played in" when new compared to new instruments of the same design simply because the tonewood stocks of the 60's were plentiful (mass production of electric instruments in it's infancy) and the drying process of that wood was done naturally (before kiln-dried wood was adopted widely to keep up with the demands of our mass-produced needs) So the wood from that coveted '62 jazz bass for example was probably milled in the 1940's, possibly the 30's.
That said, all trees are as individual as the basses they become.
I just side with those who believe that naturally dried wood = less moisture content therefore more resonance which is what we want in our instruments right?
Click to expand...
Is this merely speculation or do you have anything to substantiate it?
 
#110
The Big Chief said:
Being a lucky owner of a '65 P Bass I always enjoy these threads. As I was reading some of the debates regarding the aged wood, I remembered an old review comparing a '62 Jazz reissue to an original 1960 jazz.
The review is from the 1991 Jan/Feb issue of Bass Player magazine with Jaco on the cover. The the person doing the review was none other than the highly respected Roger Sadowsky. I managed to dig out the mag and since I don't have a scanner I thought I would paraphrase a small section that some may find interesting.

Roger says about the sound;

"However, the '60 bass does have the superior sound - it's louder and more vibrant than the reissue. This is especially noticeable when comparing the instruments unamplified, indicating that the wood is most likely responsible. In a reproduction such as this, one thing can't be reproduced: 30 years of wood aging, which is why the old basses will always be special."
Click to expand...

I remember that review (I have that issue of Bass Player). The thing is though, how do we know what the 1960 Jazz sounded like new? Maybe it was loud and vibrant acoustically back in 1960.
 
#111
The Big Chief said:
Being a lucky owner of a '65 P Bass I always enjoy these threads. As I was reading some of the debates regarding the aged wood, I remembered an old review comparing a '62 Jazz reissue to an original 1960 jazz.
The review is from the 1991 Jan/Feb issue of Bass Player magazine with Jaco on the cover. The the person doing the review was none other than the highly respected Roger Sadowsky. I managed to dig out the mag and since I don't have a scanner I thought I would paraphrase a small section that some may find interesting.

Roger says about the sound;

"However, the '60 bass does have the superior sound - it's louder and more vibrant than the reissue. This is especially noticeable when comparing the instruments unamplified, indicating that the wood is most likely responsible. In a reproduction such as this, one thing can't be reproduced: 30 years of wood aging, which is why the old basses will always be special."
Click to expand...

If Roger Sadowsky told you that certain pickups sounded better because Fender used pixie dust in them, would you believe him?


Fact is that the wood used on both basses would have to be identical species, identical grain, and identical density to make an judgment like that accurate. It's almost certain that wasn't the case. Furthermore, the surface finish on both basses would have to be the same, and that absolutely wasn't the case.

Two original '62 Jazz basses subjected to the same test would have the same result, i.e. one would sound different than the other.





So... if "old wood" sounds better because it's more dry, then basses kept and played in Arizona should sound better than basses kept and played in Louisiana or Mississippi. And y'know.... I haven't found that to be the case.
 
#112
You know what. Make a bass that sounds, feels, and plays like a vintage Gibson Thunderbird, and I could care less about, who makes it, how old the wood is, how the pick-ups were wound, what kind of material was used, where it was made, how long the wood cured in the open in the oven or on someone's lazy-suzann.

The reality is we love what we love because it appeals to us. And that's not gonna change. :bassist:
 
#119
I think just having one and playing it and realizing that it was built 30+ years ago adds to the desire. Added to that, in the 60s and 70s, musical history was made, and almost always a Fender, Gibson, or Rickenbacker was there. Thinking that these years of basses made history, and/or imagining all these basses have been through, it's really hard to explain.
 
#120
poorbassist15 said:
I think just having one and playing it and realizing that it was built 30+ years ago adds to the desire. Added to that, in the 60s and 70s, musical history was made, and almost always a Fender, Gibson, or Rickenbacker was there. Thinking that these years of basses made history, and/or imagining all these basses have been through, it's really hard to explain.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to put a price tag on nostalgia. ;)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back