vintage = good? why ?

[thumpbass1]

if it's trolling to be ignorant and not able to read other's minds - then yes - I'm a huge troll. As stated in the beginning, and also later - I'm not here to bash out at you guys who fancy retro sound - I'm just wondering why that sound has apeal.

you guys are right - I don't know how basses sounded live in the 60/70's so all I have to go on is records - and that doesn't apeal to me.
it's like I try to widen my knowledge of my favourite instrument - and people like you, One Drop, goes "beat it kid - if you don't know you are not worthy of knowing" - that's just about the most arrogant thing I've seen from a bass player.

most people in here are friendly and willing to share their 2 cents when people like me wants to know more, heck I've even chipped in where I can.

I just don't find any place in the "lawz of teh interwebz" that justifies people acting like arrogant pricks, just because it's not to the persons faces.

to those of you who contributed to this thread in a decent manner: thanks alot for the whole bunch of info - it's been a eyeopener, but I think this should be </thread> this way I wont ask any more stupid questions, or be "senseless generalizing" and what else I've been called through this thread, I'll just ask questions to the wall behind me and think up answers like One Drop's on my own.

Crusie, I apologize for even suggesting you might be trolling in my first posting in this thread. You aren't a troll. I do know I wasn't exactly sure what you were intending with your post. I thought that your definition of vintage tone was pretty narrow, and incomplete, given the examples you put up for comparison. It also seemed to appear as if you were poking the stick a bit at fans of vintage basses as if they were oblivious to where the instrument has evolved. Yes you pushed some buttons, even if you weren't try to start a bash fest. Please understand why I took issue with your post at first. I misunderstood your intentions and I do apologize.

There are many monster bass players who employ a completely modern style and sound, but do go for the vintage vibe once in awhile. I wouldn't make fun of Randy Jackson for liking his Fritz Brothers replica of a 50's era Kay hollow body bass that he's been seen playing in the past few years. Now that's got some thud factor!

If the vintage thing isn't for you, then it's not for you. I respect that. Also don't be afraid to ask questions here. We can be respectful more often than not. I wish you the best.

 

[michael_atw]

I know, but that's not a vintage instrument nor a vintage price range. You could do the same on 2005 instruments.

Is there such thing as a "vintage" price range? I just bought a '67 Fender Coronado for $1000, but the same year Fender Jazz would cost 3-5 times more. Does that make the Coronado any less "vintage"? C'mon. Yeah, I know you can on a 2005... and that's why I said it didn't matter whether they were vintage or not: if there's money to be made it's worth my time. You were the one arguing there's no money in buying and selling vintage. I'm just commenting to disprove that by my own experience.

I'm assuming you're not talking about making $250 on flipping a $15,000 instrument.

Nope.

 

[king_biscuit]

I'm not; I'm merely pointing out that people aren't being rational and what they believe is largely factually untrue, and have explained why. Why is that so scary?

At the risk of getting a little too epistemological, it is not a fact that you have proven that vintage instruments are not special to others. It is your subjective "opinion" that vintage instruments are not special. It is my opinion that mayonnaise tastes bad. That doesn't make it an objective fact. My wife can't tell the difference in flat wound strings and round wound strings, that doesn't make it a fact that they sound the same. You are attempting to extrapolate your self-styled expertise about the vintage guitar market to people who claim they genuinely feel their vintage instruments are special. I fail to see any "proof," "science," "facts," or "scientific method" involved in your position.

 

[michael_atw]

Yes, because that's all you have, a bunch of parts.

Yeh. And your point is?

 

[Bongolation]

Not trying to sound short or smart but there is more to the tone or sound than the bass. You have the strings, amp, speakers and cabnet then you need to consider the recording quality and the mixdown, then the playback quality i.e. Youtube, etc then finally the system you are listening on. Enough variables to make the same recording sound different for each end user.

Yep, that's the elephant in the parlor.

I was making the same point in a message that I decided not to post. Perceived "vintage tone" isn't something that's inherent to any old bass. It's the differences in strings, amplification, signal path modification and audio engineering practice.

 

[Dark Horse]

Perceived "vintage tone" isn't something that's inherent to any old bass. It's the differences in strings, amplification, signal path modification and audio engineering practice.....

....and the players attack, note choice, note placement, etc..

You can take a guy like George Porter Jr, give him a Fodera, and guess what ??? He'll STILL sound like "George Porter Jr".

You can also take a guy like the bassist from Tool (I can't remember his name right now), give him a 1962 Jazz Bass, and he'll STILL sound like himself.

Everything adds up to make a instrument sound the way it does... wood, strings, pickups, cable, amp, room, player, etc... it ALL matters.

 

[Mark Wilson]

Closed while I read over this mess.

May be re-opened.

 

[Mark Wilson]

And it's staying closed.