Why do people consider old basses to be "beautiful"? when you can get same model

[bullshark]

I'm with you Oreomeister365, I don't understand the appeal either. There's always somebody to bring the old car argument, but it certainly isn't the same ie: you can't buy a 1967 Mustang brand new today, there is a car model that's called a Mustang but it's a completely different model down to the last bolt.

As to, say, a '67 Precision, well, it looks exactly like the one new one hanging at the guitar store, except old and decrepit in most cases and doesn't have the same fit and finish quality that the new one have. It may well turn out to have some esoteric playing quality (believe it's called mojo around here) that some believe them to possess, who knows, but looks?

 

[WoodyG3]

Overall, I'd have to say new instruments are nicer looking to my eye. There are some exceptions. A Guild Starfire in good shape is really a thing of beauty. But I admit I like poly finishes better than nitro, and I've always thought chrome pickup covers and "ash trays" are really ugly.

Being a Mustang lover, I've always thought Cameros are kinda' boring to look at. I'd never tell a Chevy guy there's anything wrong with his car or his choice, though.

The thing is, I don't play a bass because of how it looks. I have a couple of basses that are kinda' plain looking to me, but I love the way they feel in my hands, and they sound good. That's what matters most, after all.

 

[sup3r_k]

I think its a sensory relationship for some people, let say you walk in to a guitar shop and spy a 62' p bass, everything is original apart from the finish. First thing i think when i see it is "i bet that sounds great". yeah its about 2 inches thick, probably weighs a stone and OK compared to the more slimline "refined" designs of modern p basses doesn't look as nice (to some people) but because you know its going to give you a wonderful warm tone its aesthetic appeal is far greater.... in my opinion!

 

[Jim Carr]

I appreciate everyones replies, but many of them have reasonings that have nothing to do with looks.

The answers I've gained from this thread:
- Collectors
- Trip down memory lane, if is old but looks new, it would better bring back those memories (since it was new back in the day).


I keep forgetting that most people here are just a little older than me

I have a bass that is over 150 years old. The iron tuner ends where probably hammered out on an anvil in a Tirolean village by a 15 year-old boy and his little sister. "Crude" carving tools were used by different households around the valley to make the neck, top, back, etc. It is an expression of the desire of working craftspeople to create something musically valuable and practical that would enable them to earn their living. It is old and they are dead. I play it for Jazz, bluegrass, and radio/TV/studio gigs.

The sound of the instrument is beautiful, though it is obvious the bass has had a long life by looking at it--kind of like a grandfather.

My grandfather was an orphan, a cowboy, a farmer, a machinist, and a real estate dealer. He lived to be 106 years old and died in his sleep in his own house. He was a happy, kind, and wise person who shaped my life in many ways.


Sometimes, older is better.

IMHO, using the expressions "trip down memory lane" and even "back in the day" reveal your youth, at least in terms of worldly experience. It is no sin to be young or inexperienced, nor to ask questions, assuming they are not driven by hidden anger.

I think it is fine that you want to know what is beautiful about old and often beat up basses. Yet I doubt you can understand the answers in terms of Bass lore, so think of grandfathers. Youth is beautiful, but young people often make the mistake of thinking that once something is "explained" to them that they will actually understand it. Music, knowledge, and life are just not that explainable.

Consider this. To me, my 1955 P-bass sounds better than the "Sting" basses I have played--though I think they sound pretty darn good.

Is mine more beautiful than a "Sting" single-coil Fender P-bass?

It depends on what you see when you look. When I see my bass, I see an instrument I have owned since 1973 and played on thousands of gigs. Take a look. You can't see or hear what I see and hear, so it is not beautiful to you. That's OK. It is not sentimental, it is life.

 

[von buck]

Now, I'm not knocking on people who ogle over vintage basses saying they're "Beautiful!" (see 54' P bass thread), but when I see vintage basses, the last thing I'm thinking is beautiful, and more along the lines of "it looks like they took the ugliest piece of wood, carved it into a mass produced shape and screwed a bunch of metal plates on it"...

Why, might I ask, do so many of you consider something so...unrefinined, something that was made when crafting was much less sophisticated and technically worse than today, something that would be considered a piece of crap if it were made today, beautiful?

I mean, you all excuse it because it's vintage...sure its worth a lot because of its age, it has a particular tone because of its age, but that don't got anything to do with looks!

My 66 Jazz is a worn down, paint chipped ugly peace of wood. It is the most beautiful instrument I own. Every crack I put there. The worn away edges, it's all I have for a lifetime of playing (I'm the original owner) I like the feel of an older bass. I just have to touch the neck and i know what note I'm playing. There is a warmth you feel from a vintage bass (sorry relic owners, but they ain't got that warmth) With an old beat up bass you know someone spent time with it.
People hang on to these basses.They're not something you buy and sell when the newest thing comes out. Owning and caring for a vintage bass shows a dedication to the craft. And of course to some untrained kid it's going to sound boring IT'S A BASS !!!!

.

 

[superfunk47]

I have a bass that is over 150 years old. The iron tuner ends where probably hammered out on an anvil in a Tirolean village by a 15 year-old boy and his little sister. "Crude" carving tools were used by different households around the valley to make the neck, top, back, etc. It is an expression of the desire of working craftspeople to create something musically valuable and practical that would enable them to earn their living. It is old and they are dead. I play it for Jazz, bluegrass, and radio/TV/studio gigs.

The sound of the instrument is beautiful, though it is obvious the bass has had a long life by looking at it--kind of like a grandfather.

My grandfather was an orphan, a cowboy, a farmer, a machinist, and a real estate dealer. He lived to be 106 years old and died in his sleep in his own house. He was a happy, kind, and wise person who shaped my life in many ways.


Sometimes, older is better.

IMHO, using the expressions "trip down memory lane" and even "back in the day" reveal your youth, at least in terms of worldly experience. It is no sin to be young or inexperienced, nor to ask questions, assuming they are not driven by hidden anger.

I think it is fine that you want to know what is beautiful about old and often beat up basses. Yet I doubt you can understand the answers in terms of Bass lore, so think of grandfathers. Youth is beautiful, but young people often make the mistake of thinking that once something is "explained" to them that they will actually understand it. Music, knowledge, and life are just not that explainable.

Consider this. To me, my 1955 P-bass sounds better than the "Sting" basses I have played--though I think they sound pretty darn good.

Is mine more beautiful than a "Sting" single-coil Fender P-bass?

It depends on what you see when you look. When I see my bass, I see an instrument I have owned since 1973 and played on thousands of gigs. Take a look. You can't see or hear what I see and hear, so it is not beautiful to you. That's OK. It is not sentimental, it is life.

Dang, Jim...that was beautiful

And one beautiful bass, to boot.

VERY well said.

 

[chris818]

Dang, Jim...that was beautiful

And one beautiful bass, to boot.

VERY well said.

+1.
I just read every post and could not put it better than Jim just did so I'll save my two cents. I think that ought to end the discussion.

 

[Rakie]

A very ironic comment in a thread that is about the aesthetics of basses, don't you think?

Yea, this kid is a little mixed up.

I appreciate everyones replies, but many of them have reasonings that have nothing to do with looks.

The answers I've gained from this thread:
- Collectors
- Trip down memory lane, if is old but looks new, it would better bring back those memories (since it was new back in the day).


I keep forgetting that most people here are just a little older than me

You're looking at it the wrong way, and I doubt this thread alone will change your opinion.

You cant JUST qualify vintage instruments by looks... its every aspect of it, Looks, sound, feel, quality... I'm fortunate enough to live in LA, where there is an abundance of musicians and instruments. I've played through some of the finest hand made instruments created.. Ritter, Fodera, Fbass, MTD, Zon, Skjold, Sukup, Nordstrand... You name it, i've played it. Including some really nice old Jazz basses, and you know what ?

The Old J basses hold their own against any boutique instrument i've touched. Looks included. (And this is from a guy that generally dislikes fenders)




Also, please keep in mind... The tools Luthiers use are usually pretty old, and are not fancy by any means... Well, except the computer they use to get emails from people placing orders. You got me there.

 

[AndrewClaycomb]

People can see themselves playing that old piece of gear and in their minds it is a beautiful sight.

I for instance find rat-rods (cars) beautiful. I have a sort of rat-rod motorcycle that I love. Flat black and stripped Suzuki from 1978. You just have to have an appreciation of the path these old things have taken.

It's sort of like comparing a reprint of a piece of art to the original. There is something beautiful about the original that the reprint lacks. A journey the reprint hasn't taken.

 

[GregC]

As to, say, a '67 Precision, well, it looks exactly like the one new one hanging at the guitar store, except old and decrepit in most cases and doesn't have the same fit and finish quality that the new one have. It may well turn out to have some esoteric playing quality (believe it's called mojo around here) that some believe them to possess, who knows, but looks?

The part I put in bold is highly debatable. In fact, I'm not sure I've heard anyone before say that new Fenders have better fit and finish than, say, a '67 P.

 

[bassrique]

40 years of finger cheese embedded in it

Mmmmmmmm...aged finger cheese....

 

[Oreomeister365]

Yea, this kid is a little mixed up.



You're looking at it the wrong way, and I doubt this thread alone will change your opinion.

You cant JUST qualify vintage instruments by looks... its every aspect of it, Looks, sound, feel, quality... I'm fortunate enough to live in LA, where there is an abundance of musicians and instruments. I've played through some of the finest hand made instruments created.. Ritter, Fodera, Fbass, MTD, Zon, Skjold, Sukup, Nordstrand... You name it, i've played it. Including some really nice old Jazz basses, and you know what ?

The Old J basses hold their own against any boutique instrument i've touched. Looks included. (And this is from a guy that generally dislikes fenders)




Also, please keep in mind... The tools Luthiers use are usually pretty old, and are not fancy by any means... Well, except the computer they use to get emails from people placing orders. You got me there.

Hence why I said lets not get into it, yet that user seems hell bent on putting the boot to me.

If you bring all other aspects into play, a vintage instrument is understandable in its beauty, this is dedicated to looks only. If you have a history with the instrument then I can easily see why it's beautiful. But if you're buying a 65 P today that you haven't seen until you saw it on ebay a week ago...well, all the mojo (good mojo) belongs to someone else...

 

[Oreomeister365]

People can see themselves playing that old piece of gear and in their minds it is a beautiful sight.

I for instance find rat-rods (cars) beautiful. I have a sort of rat-rod motorcycle that I love. Flat black and stripped Suzuki from 1978. You just have to have an appreciation of the path these old things have taken.

It's sort of like comparing a reprint of a piece of art to the original. There is something beautiful about the original that the reprint lacks. A journey the reprint hasn't taken.

Quite true.

 

[ysand]

Well, i find old basses nice to look, but i doubt if they sound better than today's basses ( i mean of equal quality).
Plus, the prices to get one are outrageous for what you take, if u're not a bass collector.

So to sum up, i don't think that there's a reason for the average bass user to get an antique instrumenet and spend a fortune, when he could get a new super-bass

 

[GreaserMatt]

Now, I'm not knocking on people who ogle over vintage basses saying they're "Beautiful!" (see 54' P bass thread), but when I see vintage basses, the last thing I'm thinking is beautiful, and more along the lines of "it looks like they took the ugliest piece of wood, carved it into a mass produced shape and screwed a bunch of metal plates on it"...

Why, might I ask, do so many of you consider something so...unrefinined, something that was made when crafting was much less sophisticated and technically worse than today, something that would be considered a piece of crap if it were made today, beautiful?

I mean, you all excuse it because it's vintage...sure its worth a lot because of its age, it has a particular tone because of its age, but that don't got anything to do with looks!

I'm not knocking anybody, I just don't understand.

I mean if it sounds beautiful to you okay...(I think it sounds old and boring), but looks wise? Lets be honest.

To clarify what I'm wondering:

Is the bass only beautiful because it is old? So if a pristine vintage bass that looks like ti had been cyrogenically frozen for 60 years came about, would it still be beautiful even if it looks, like you say, brand new? What is the point of a vintage bass that looks new?

I was a tad unclear: I'm talking about old basses period, not their designs so much.

Let me guess: you're a Lakland guy, right? Or whatever those basses are called...It's all personal taste. Matt

 

[efenaye]

I like vintage basses much for the same reasons I like antique stuff. They have unique character and there's a story to be told behind those wears and dings that you wont get out of a new bass.

 

[Rattman]

Hmmmm.. lemme go thru my "flame-proof" check list really fast:

1. umbrella
2. hip waders
3. electrician's gloves
4. thick skin
5. kevlar vest (15 layers)
6. full face shield

I think I'm set.. so bring it on

 

[RickC]

But if you're buying a 65 P today that you haven't seen until you saw it on ebay a week ago...well, all the mojo (good mojo) belongs to someone else...

I've read through this entire thread, and I'm still not clear what the original point was.

But the above quote did remind me of something. I've bought a lot of old, well worn instruments in my day. And I often wonder what their history was, where they'd been, who owned them, how many notes were played on them, were they ever used in a bar-fight, etc. Just an object, but also a tangible contact with another world of experience. I wonder what tales they could tell, if they could talk. You can look at every mark and ding, and in a way it does tell a story. Most of which will remain a mystery. There's something I find very cool and appealing about that.

/rick

 

[RONQUITO]

I think that the OP is a an extremely Trollish TROLL!!!

 

[Oreomeister365]

I think that the OP is a an extremely Trollish TROLL!!!

You bet.