This 68 is definitely my number 1. Science has displayed that older instruments sound better. I can't argue with science.
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.
I just love how futuristic has become retro .
This 68 is definitely my number 1. Science has displayed that older instruments sound better. I can't argue with science. View attachment 3898840
I don't really agree with that, Brian. I know a lot of people who buy the newer ones for that exact reason...they don't sound like the originals and they feel better.90% of the appeal is the look, because many of the current "retro" replicas don't have the tone and feel of the originals.
Some examples:
-- The current Supro line have the body shapes but not the electronics and other features that made them unique and quirky.
-- The Gibson/Epi reissues of the EB-0/EB-3 "SG" models use pickups that look like the old "mudbuckers" but don't sound like them.
-- Danelectro has issued a number of models that didn't even exist in the old days, like long scale basses, while not making oddballs like the 15-fret shorthorns.
Etc.
This is not the science I was referring to.Science says otherwise.
Invalid Link Removed
This is not the science I was referring to.
I found an article from the 90s that expresses the science I was referring to. I'm not sure how it fits with what you posted. I'll post it later. Just hanging with my son.What science were you referring to? I'm not aware of any similarly rigorously conducted double-blind comparisons of, e.g., 1950's or 1960's basses to identical modern basses that resulted in statistically significant data. If you can provide a link to one, I think we'd all like to see it.
Otherwise, I think this paragraph (from the Science magazine link that I provided above) pertains here:
The finding also leaves open the possibility that Strads do sound better than modern instruments under certain circumstances—when the listener knows they are hearing a legendary instrument. "If you know it's a Strad, you will hear it differently," Fritz says. "And you can't turn off that effect."
You are THE original retro!Some of it may be pushback from the predominance -- near tyranny -- of Fender-ish basses, which by now have surpassed ubiquity. But that largely would be based on looks. The new Retros that are patterned after actual vintage models do not have the same pickups or electronics as the originals. But they will sound different from Fenders.
I don't need a Retro bass of choice; I have the originals.
Well, I’m old enough (67) to remember when the brands currently being copied, or reissued, were what we had available. Danelectro, Teisco, Kay, and others were marketed at Sears under the Silvertone brand. Montgomery Ward (you have to be pretty old to remember this Sears wanna-be) also marketed guitars under the Airline brand.
These guitars were also available under their own brands, as beginner or first guitars in some music stores. This is what we owned at 13 years old, in our first garage bands.
But, a couple times a month we’d pedal our bikes across town to G. Sharp Music to look at the real Fenders and Gibsons and Gretsches.
We knew, even then, that the Sears and Wards guitars played terribly, sounded horrible and looked weird. Who knows, it may have just been bad set-ups, but at 13 who knew “set-up”?
But once I got a real Fender (even that, just a new 1967 Mustang, and I don't care to own a re-issue of this, either) I never looked back.
The new retro tributes to those old guitars hold no charm for me at all.
edited to add:
I have to be honest, though. My early influences were surf bands, and I wanted what the Beach Boys and the Ventures played. I can see that I have never let go of that, as evidenced by my Avatar.
View attachment 3898896 View attachment 3898891