this is THE ABSOLUTE BEST BY FAR bass clip that i've EVER heard on all my years here on TB.
thank you
thank you
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.
SHOW YOUR DISTRESSED FINISHES!
- Thread starter JIO
- Start date
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,612
- 222,129
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Many thanks to bluesdogblues for keeping the flame lit on this thread. He has another concurrent thread on the topic of distressed vs mint instruments: http://www.talkbass.com/threads/vintage-bass-lover-mint-or-distressed-look.1072481/ and after reading opinions I've come to the conclusion that a definitive framework for the concept of "distressed" is needed to establish the parameters of our topic.
Let's first consider the brand new instrument - A new instrument is presumably unblemished, but even this is a hopeful assumption. Nothing on earth is "perfect". When speaking about perfection, use of "___" is a given. So let's accept more the term "clean", meaning fresh, new unused. The term "unused" can also be used if in fact it was never a floor model and came directly from the maker/factory. Every bargain-hound who walks into a guitar store will try to get a new instrument price lowered by pointing out a very tiny ding or imperfection which inevitably could be found on most instruments if one has their pocket magnifying glass w/them. Then there is "the floor model", which has been played and might have a ding or two or super-fine scratches because of that. Still plays exactly the same as new and will continue to accumulate more of those little scratches when purchased and played. It's called "use" and if an instrument is played and not a simply a sculpture in the corner - it is inevitably affected by its use.
As compared to "abuse". Abuse can be related to someones nature - a nonchalance in handing the instrument for many reasons: the basses owner treats all possessions like that (whether a professional gigging musician or a home-bound amateur), or the bass trades hands many times in it's lifetime and each chapter adds new marks of its use, or even if cared for - it's used a lot so the finish is worn away and it needs a fret-job. It can look abused but is for sure very used. I've found this combination (cared for but very used) to be an indication of the quality of the instrument. As in, why would it be used that much, and re-fretted/maintained if it didn't sound good? On the other hand, the neglected/stored/unused instrument can be pristine "mint", a time-capsule/closet classic. The mint instrument looks good and generates universal approval. To some people, this is enough - a prized possession whether used or not.
a breakdown of what we are talking about -
1) worn from use - depending on care/maintenance history can be anything from "worn" to "near mint"
2) abused - can be "trashed" by neglect/not caring, or very worn from being very played
3) original use/abuse - personal story for each and every ding, repaired crack, re-fret - a close companion through life
4) purchased use/abuse (used/resale) - recognition of its service judged by its wear / appreciation for the visual transformation/gestalt from actual players use
5) purchased "distressed" - appreciation for the visual gestalt created by an artist/artisan capturing that specific look/style.
To clear up misconceptions, at least from the "distress-ors" point of view, this is an aesthetic endeavor based on a visual appreciation of the look of used/aged instruments. Many DIY attempts at this fall short, and makers like Fender and Sandberg offer varying degrees of authenticity - but the concept of distressing has been around long before Leo was born in the realm of Decorative Arts furniture. Like anything - it can be done well and be very convincing/attractive, or not. The bottom line is one either appreciates this craft/look - or not - just like you like one colour/style of anything over another. To bring in "faked" or to dis it because it's "not earned" misses the point completely. Looking at it this way reflects a "I put those marks/wear on it" mentality (which by the way - no one is challenging) and as much as I acknowledge/respect #3 on my list - artificial distressing is purely an aesthetic consideration. The same attitude prevails mocking "someone else's wear". As covered in #4, it's a personal choice to own/appreciate an instrument w/past use/wear - and not to cop "I put this wear on it". As I've pointed out in past debates on this topic - is Sting copping that he put all that wear on his early 50's P-bass? I think not. He appreciates the iconic vintage bass in its sound, feel and very distressed look.
Let's first consider the brand new instrument - A new instrument is presumably unblemished, but even this is a hopeful assumption. Nothing on earth is "perfect". When speaking about perfection, use of "___" is a given. So let's accept more the term "clean", meaning fresh, new unused. The term "unused" can also be used if in fact it was never a floor model and came directly from the maker/factory. Every bargain-hound who walks into a guitar store will try to get a new instrument price lowered by pointing out a very tiny ding or imperfection which inevitably could be found on most instruments if one has their pocket magnifying glass w/them. Then there is "the floor model", which has been played and might have a ding or two or super-fine scratches because of that. Still plays exactly the same as new and will continue to accumulate more of those little scratches when purchased and played. It's called "use" and if an instrument is played and not a simply a sculpture in the corner - it is inevitably affected by its use.
As compared to "abuse". Abuse can be related to someones nature - a nonchalance in handing the instrument for many reasons: the basses owner treats all possessions like that (whether a professional gigging musician or a home-bound amateur), or the bass trades hands many times in it's lifetime and each chapter adds new marks of its use, or even if cared for - it's used a lot so the finish is worn away and it needs a fret-job. It can look abused but is for sure very used. I've found this combination (cared for but very used) to be an indication of the quality of the instrument. As in, why would it be used that much, and re-fretted/maintained if it didn't sound good? On the other hand, the neglected/stored/unused instrument can be pristine "mint", a time-capsule/closet classic. The mint instrument looks good and generates universal approval. To some people, this is enough - a prized possession whether used or not.
a breakdown of what we are talking about -
1) worn from use - depending on care/maintenance history can be anything from "worn" to "near mint"
2) abused - can be "trashed" by neglect/not caring, or very worn from being very played
3) original use/abuse - personal story for each and every ding, repaired crack, re-fret - a close companion through life
4) purchased use/abuse (used/resale) - recognition of its service judged by its wear / appreciation for the visual transformation/gestalt from actual players use
5) purchased "distressed" - appreciation for the visual gestalt created by an artist/artisan capturing that specific look/style.
To clear up misconceptions, at least from the "distress-ors" point of view, this is an aesthetic endeavor based on a visual appreciation of the look of used/aged instruments. Many DIY attempts at this fall short, and makers like Fender and Sandberg offer varying degrees of authenticity - but the concept of distressing has been around long before Leo was born in the realm of Decorative Arts furniture. Like anything - it can be done well and be very convincing/attractive, or not. The bottom line is one either appreciates this craft/look - or not - just like you like one colour/style of anything over another. To bring in "faked" or to dis it because it's "not earned" misses the point completely. Looking at it this way reflects a "I put those marks/wear on it" mentality (which by the way - no one is challenging) and as much as I acknowledge/respect #3 on my list - artificial distressing is purely an aesthetic consideration. The same attitude prevails mocking "someone else's wear". As covered in #4, it's a personal choice to own/appreciate an instrument w/past use/wear - and not to cop "I put this wear on it". As I've pointed out in past debates on this topic - is Sting copping that he put all that wear on his early 50's P-bass? I think not. He appreciates the iconic vintage bass in its sound, feel and very distressed look.
Last edited:
Thanks JIO,
I agree with what you wrote above.
Actually I only have simple motivation/reason on this, it is that I love to see (and I wish that sometime in the future I'll be able to have one of) these basses that for me are really beautiful & artistic, no matter what people call or think about them. I love to see beautiful basses (both 'distressed' or 'mint' actually), and for me the basses pictures here in this thread are fantastic.
So I'd like this thread (and other similar kind of threads) to keep on 'alive', and if for that purpose, what I can do for now is only googling and upload the pics that I think are appropriate -even if they are not mine (yet, LOL)- I'll do it
I don't care what 'vintage/old/distressed look/etc basses haters' said about them (sometimes with their sophisticated language and terminology that I don't understand)... All I know is I love to watch them/their pictures, and I know some TBers also do, so I like to share them.
I agree with what you wrote above.
Actually I only have simple motivation/reason on this, it is that I love to see (and I wish that sometime in the future I'll be able to have one of) these basses that for me are really beautiful & artistic, no matter what people call or think about them. I love to see beautiful basses (both 'distressed' or 'mint' actually), and for me the basses pictures here in this thread are fantastic.
So I'd like this thread (and other similar kind of threads) to keep on 'alive', and if for that purpose, what I can do for now is only googling and upload the pics that I think are appropriate -even if they are not mine (yet, LOL)- I'll do it
I don't care what 'vintage/old/distressed look/etc basses haters' said about them (sometimes with their sophisticated language and terminology that I don't understand)... All I know is I love to watch them/their pictures, and I know some TBers also do, so I like to share them.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,612
- 222,129
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Thanks JIO,
I agree with what you wrote above.
Actually I only have simple motivation/reason on this, it is that I love to see (and I wish that sometime in the future I'll be able to have one of) these basses that for me are really beautiful & artistic, no matter what people call or think about them. I love to see beautiful basses (both 'distressed' or 'mint' actually), and for me the basses pictures here in this thread are fantastic.
So I'd like this thread (and other similar kind of threads) to keep on 'alive', and if for that purpose, what I can do for now is only googling and upload the pics that I think are appropriate -even if they are not mine (yet, LOL)- I'll do it
I don't care what 'vintage/old/distressed look/etc basses haters' said about them (sometimes with their sophisticated language and terminology that I don't understand)... All I know is I love to watch them/their pictures, and I know some TBers also do, so I like to share them.
It is as simple as you said - you either appreciate/like/love them as beautiful objects, or not. As the OP - I will only ask that we all keep it this simple w/o the unnecessary personal justifications of taste and preference. If you don't like the concept and just can't stop yourself from letting the world know why - please start your own thread to bludgeon that dead horse. This thread is about enjoying looking at distressed basses/instruments. I apologize to those who are enjoying this thread for me restating the obvious, but sometimes it's better to put it out there so false assumptions are not made. As Al Franken likes to say "to assume is to make an ass out of you and Uma Thurman"
Can't remember if I put this bass in this thread... Too long to go back and look 
Here's my '78 Jazz
Here's my '78 Jazz
Ha! Thanks man. I just got this bass back from being planed, refretted and Plek'd. It's a boat anchor, but a perfectly playing and great sounding one.
What a very beautiful bass!!Can't remember if I put this bass in this thread... Too long to go back and look
If I can, I'd like to click the 'Like' button on that for 1000x LOL..
Can't remember if I put this bass in this thread... Too long to go back and look
I'm right handed,..so I imagine, if only that beautiful bass is mine, if I'm playing it, it would be like Paul McCartney with his Jazz Bass (in the pic below), only the reverse...
.... cool
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,612
- 222,129
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
A Plek job is the way to go - once you've experienced it, you'll want all your basses Plek'd!
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,612
- 222,129
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
devnulljp
Supporting Member
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,612
- 222,129
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Yes, I've has 2 of my custom basses and a third upcoming done there by luthier Dan Ransom, who made the necks.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,612
- 222,129
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
My 77 P isn't pristine
Nice! Always liked the walnut-stain/black guard 70's Fender look. At this point, I probably wouldn't mod a 60's Fender but considering the 70's basses were generally heavy, I'd for sure make a P/J happen. Looks like you considered a 3rd J pu at the neck.
- Jun 30, 2010
- 49,612
- 222,129
- Disclosures
- musician/artist/owner - Gildaxe
Not knowing the real story, one can only conjecture. Those nitro finishes were very thin and once they were worn down - they fall apart into sections/islands. It's possible areas were deliberately pealed off (like the section at the upper horn elbow) because they were flaking - like picking a scab. It's even possible the owner decided to sand out the section where his arm rested to have a nice smooth interface after it was unevenly worn from use. If that was the case I'll guess it was more about player comfort than any further attempts at distressing for aesthetics sake.
