# The old gear myth



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Eric Clapton recorded his classic Beano album with a 5 year old Les Paul and a 2 or 3 year old Marshall.

Page's best work was on his #1 and #2, 10 to 15 year old guitars with basically new amps. Same with Pearly and Greenie and all the others.

The stuff that was recorded, that we listen to now and put on a pedestal, was basically with new to slightly used equipment. None of it was 40 or 50 year old gear.

And the manufacturers haven't lost the recipe. They all made good and bad stuff back then - and still make good and bad stuff now. It's luck of the draw as much as anything. Why do some pieces of wood sound better than others, certain winds or magnets sound better? I don't think we understand completely enough to replicate 'the magical mixture' over and over again, sometimes a mix of components makes magic, most of the time it doesn't. It is as it ever was.


----------



## marcos (Jan 13, 2009)

They way i look at it is that sound is subjective. What sounds good to my ears does not mean it sounds good to all. Whatever the instrument, age etc.. is personal like so many things in our lives. Good post and i am shure it will get interresting as the days go by.


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

You are talking about recordings? What about all the magic from the recording engineers , the studio itself(room), microphones, and all the other mojo that influences what you think you are hearing? I believe that there is much more to it. Then there is the mind or will of the artist, the hands, the strings, etc. This could be endless.

And then again how your brain perceives and interprets, vs. reality (reality of the end product).


----------



## Swervin55 (Oct 30, 2009)

My R9 is now 17 years old. Apparently I missed my opportunity at stardom. I agree with everything you've stated in your op. Even the experts will attest to the fact that there are "stinkers" in the vintage world (even in 50's Les Paul land). There are spectacular and not so spectacular instruments/amps from every era.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

tone is a funny thing anyhow. all of you know that some days, you can have great tone. then the next day, without making any changes, it's somehow become a shit pizza.
also, if you ever spend any time listening to isolated guitar tracks, then you know that tone on a record is all about context. i've heard a few iconic recordings where the guitar's tone was crap all on it's own, but in the context it was used, it was the perfect thing. van halen comes to mind as one, off the top of my head. lastly, i think tone chaser makes a really important point. you can have all the musical ability you want, and play through the greatest gear, in the most famous studio, but your engineer and producer will make or break your record


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Sometimes, a manufacturer will radically change the recipe for a given product and it sounds better. Sometimes they change it, and while production costs are lowered, it sounds worse. Sometimes attention to relevant details is not a question of year-of-issue but weekday of completion A guy I used to work with had worked on an automotive assembly line and told me he would never buy a car that came off the line on a Friday or a Monday. Sometimes things that weren't so special at first do get better with age and "breaking in".

The bottom line is that some desirable qualities ARE attributable to year-of-issue and age (if year-of-issue was long ago), but one should never equate age as necessarily implying quality. I feel pretty confident in asserting that humans knew how to build crap long before they ever learned how to make good stuff.


----------



## Pedro-x (Mar 7, 2015)

cheezyridr said:


> tone is a funny thing anyhow. all of you know that some days, you can have great tone. then the next day, without making any changes, it's somehow become a shit pizza.


Geez i thought i was the only one who had this problem. One day i pick up a guitar and say this sounds amazing im never selling it ! A week later, meh, time to move it on.....


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

marcos said:


> They way i look at it is that sound is subjective. What sounds good to my ears does not mean it sounds good to all. Whatever the instrument, age etc.. is personal like so many things in our lives. Good post and i am shure it will get interresting as the days go by.


this, for me.
I don't believe "tone" as a quantifiable, objective item, exists.
That guitar that you tried in the store and said "ugh...what a dog....bad/no tone"...will be bought an appreciated and raved about in an NGD thread by the next guy.
I doubt there are very many guitars, not showing obvious quality flaws, that most would agree should be taken out and put through the wood chipper based on "tone" alone. its just musical cork sniffing.
Id love if it instead of talking about tone like unicorns and leprechauns, if some sort of standard measurements were used and included with a guitars documentation...quantifiable numbers on acoustic volume, resonance, maybe a graph of the guitars highs, lows, mids. for a $10k LP, I think im entitled to more than just some phony road wear and airy prose of unicorns and nymphs in the sound.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

Agreed, but good luck getting people to agree on empirical evidence of what constitutes "good tone." You couldn't even get everyone to agree on the best way to document and measure such things. Tone is like unobtainium.... rare, extremely cool and hugely mythical. My great tone could very well be your "meh" tone, and vice-versa.

But I also agree with Tone Chaser - the studios, with their ace producers and engineers, are also responsible for some epic recordings... their contribution to the music we love is often overlooked, but the more I get into the production/mastering side of things, the more respect I'm feeling for the people who came before me, the ones who recorded and massaging any given band's sounds via compression, reverb, mics and mic placements... the whole grab bag of things you can do on the studio/production side.


----------



## Geetarz (Jan 19, 2016)

I think it's fairly safe to say more hand work was involved in earlier production..no CNC stuff like today and when pickups were "hand wound" that produced a uniqueness all their own. Really hard to overlook the analog days of recording and the great engineers that were helping make that sound. As for Mr. Page, what is likely his most famous solo: Stairway; was done on his trusty old Telecaster...


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

Most studio productions are often quite subtle and subdued vs. a live stage production. It is quite surprising how the often pounding and driven live production has little to do with the original studio mix and how the recording was obtained.


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

marcos said:


> They way i look at it is that sound is subjective. What sounds good to my ears does not mean it sounds good to all. Whatever the instrument, age etc.. is personal like so many things in our lives. Good post and i am shure it will get interresting as the days go by.


Tone is subjective and somewhat overrated. We also tend to listen with our eyes and hands (neck feels great, guitar looks great etc.). Although I'm not much of a vintage fan, old wood does feel good and the resonance/vibrations adds a comfort to most players.

I do believe we are in the golden age of instrument building. You can get really decent instruments for low $$$$ but also, attention to detail with uncompromising quality for unlimited $$$!

I like Jol Dantzig's take on things...there's a quote of his to the effect that some of the favorite music ever recorded was done on much inferior instruments compared to the instruments being built today.

On a slight tangent, He also has a different view on perfection in instruments - interesting article (link below)

http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Perfectly_Imperfect


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Maxer said:


> But I also agree with Tone Chaser - the studios, with their ace producers and engineers, are also responsible for some epic recordings... their contribution to the music we love is often overlooked, but the more I get into the production/mastering side of things, the more respect I'm feeling for the people who came before me, the ones who recorded and massaging any given band's sounds via compression, reverb, mics and mic placements... the whole grab bag of things you can do on the studio/production side.


that begs the question then, could all the above compensate to the point that a great recording could be made from gear found at BestBuy, for example? its leading down the path that the musical instrument business is pretty much a fraud.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I am finding it interesting that the guitar sellers. I call them sellers because they don't make them themselves, that started off selling guitars online manufactured mainly in Korea and asking around $400 are now selling the same guitars for around $2000


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

It's obviously a combination of everything that creates a recorded sound. Back to the original question: "The old gear myth?". It's only a myth if you believe it's a myth and it's only true if you believe it's true. I know I play better and thus sound better if I'm using a guitar I really like. I really like old guitars, oddball guitars, guitars with a certain shape and feel to the neck. etc. When I play those guitars my tone is better. If someone else played those same notes on those same guitars with the same amps but they really didn't like the guitars or amps I'd venture a guess their tone would suck. I'm pretty sure this tone comes across in a recording. It's in the fingers.


----------



## Jim9guitars (Feb 15, 2016)

I've often wondered about whether music recorded in Britain sounds more "present" in some cases because of the difference in voltage. Does a Marshal stack that's set up for 240VAC sound better than one over hear set up and running at 120VAC ? Since I first pondered this question I have learned that some of these bands recorded classic tracks in North America but I still have to wonder. And on another note, I'm one of many people my age who bought a Les Paul because every picture we saw of Jimmy Page showed him playing one, only to find out later that he recorded most of Led Zep 1 and 2 with a Telecaster!


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Sometimes things that weren't so special at first do get better with age and "breaking in".
> 
> The bottom line is that some desirable qualities ARE attributable to year-of-issue and age (if year-of-issue was long ago), but one should never equate age as necessarily implying quality. I feel pretty confident in asserting that humans knew how to build crap long before they ever learned how to make good stuff.


I do agree, to a point, that some things may get better with age. Well, it might be better to say they change with age, and we qualify the change as 'better'? Acoustic guitars in particular - I've played some old Martin's that were wonderful. But were the wonderful because they were old, or because I knew they were old? And I think that whole 'better with age' phenomenon is debatable with electrics. And amps. If anything, an amp will degrade with age. Again, we may 'like' the degradation as say it's better, but that's a judgement call at best.

What brings this up is a pal is buying an old guitar, without playing it, and saying it is going to be the best guitar any of us own. He automatically assigns value with age. It would be wonderful if we did this with our elders, but not wood and wire. Good gear is luck of the draw, not time served in existence.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Geetarz said:


> I think it's fairly safe to say more hand work was involved in earlier production..no CNC stuff like today and when pickups were "hand wound" that produced a uniqueness all their own. Really hard to overlook the analog days of recording and the great engineers that were helping make that sound. As for Mr. Page, what is likely his most famous solo: Stairway; was done on his trusty old Telecaster...


More hand work means less repeat-ability, less consistency. So the swing between good and bad instruments will be wider. But because of that, all instruments weren't automatically better. More unique, perhaps, but not better. 

And this is bypassing all the recording and other 'trickery'. It is just a general consideration that old gear equates to better gear. These guitar heroes found great 50's instruments, used them extensively in the 60s' and 70s' (Pages Tele included), and now people talk about how these instruments sounded so great because they were old. They weren't that old. 

The other variable is the people finding the instruments. Perhaps some of the magic of a Clapton or Page or Walsh or Green is their ability to recognize a special instrument and make great music on it. I've played guitars that were deader than others (which I've rejected as 'not good to me'), but I don't think I have that special level of experience/hearing/perception to recognize one of those 'one in 10,000' instruments that they've found. Every year, manufacturers turn out a few special instruments, where all the magic comes together. Some of those are in some rich kids basement, given as a birthday present and never really played. Greatness not realized. Would we know a Pearly or Beano if it hit us?


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> Would we know a Pearly or Beano if it hit us?


100% sure I wouldn't...especially given my fingers and amp.


----------



## Geetarz (Jan 19, 2016)

High/Deaf said:


> More hand work means less repeat-ability, less consistency. So the swing between good and bad instruments will be wider. But because of that, all instruments weren't automatically better. More unique, perhaps, but not better.


"Uniqueness" was the only word I used to describe the old gear sound...not better. Sound is subjective...


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

And 'uniqueness' is made as much yesterday as it was in 1959. 

I would wager to bet Fender and Gibson made just as many (maybe more) magic guitars last year (wait, not last year - that was 'annus horribilis' for Gibson, lets say 2 years ago) than they did in 1959. Technology means the average guitar is better, they make more per year than then, so it's just math to say they are building more 'magic ones' now than then. 

Unless you subscribe to the 'older is better' myth.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Kerry Brown said:


> It's obviously a combination of everything that creates a recorded sound. Back to the original question: "The old gear myth?". It's only a myth if you believe it's a myth and it's only true if you believe it's true. I know I play better and thus sound better if I'm using a guitar I really like. I really like old guitars, oddball guitars, guitars with a certain shape and feel to the neck. etc. When I play those guitars my tone is better. If someone else played those same notes on those same guitars with the same amps but they really didn't like the guitars or amps I'd venture a guess their tone would suck. I'm pretty sure this tone comes across in a recording. It's in the fingers.


that sounds like a combination of 1)placebo effect 2)comfort...neither of which really have anything to do with aural qualities like tone. its more about how you find your inspiration than some quality of the instrument itself. it may even go as far that when you say your "tone is better", you may be the only person in the room hearing that difference....or perhaps "feeling" is a better word than "hearing".


----------



## Geetarz (Jan 19, 2016)

Some guy finish carving then sanding a neck off a routing machine compared to a fully CNC'd neck that just needs sanding will produce more uniqueness and similarly, hand-wound pickups compared to computer/machine-wound. That's why "scatter" winding has popped up...people think there is "magic", as you say, in the old variances that occurred when someone was holding the gauge-wire spinning the pickup. Technology is about consistancy and whether or not that is "better", as you say, is subjective to the buyer. I'm just saying "uniqueness" here, not better. I've played brutal dogs from the 50's...the best Tele I've ever played (best to me) was by a guy who does everything by hand...everything. Every aspect of an instrument, from feel to sound, in regards to being "the best" is totally subjective to whomever is going to buy it...and even then, the day may come where that instrument may part ways with the owner that once cherished it so.


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

Diablo said:


> that sounds like a combination of 1)placebo effect 2)comfort...neither of which really have anything to do with aural qualities like tone. its more about how you find your inspiration than some quality of the instrument itself. it may even go as far that when you say your "tone is better", you may be the only person in the room hearing that difference....or perhaps "feeling" is a better word than "hearing".


While some of it is in the player's head I disagree that I would be the only person in the room hearing it. When you play an instrument that you like you are more expressive musically. You play better. I'm sure some of it is the equipment. Obviously each bit of equipment in the chain contributes to the tone but even with the "best" tone if the player doesn't feel it the music will suck.


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

It has taken me years to learn how to set up an electric guitar; only because I never gave it any thought for the first 40 years of playing. I can now tweak what most consider junk into: "I can't believe that this guitar is so good!!!"

I turned down countless good guitars, because they were not good for me instantly. No matter how hard I try to own and experience everything, that is not a reality. I now know that given enough time, I can tweak or adjust an electric guitar into something that is worthy of being a keeper. Too little, too late; but I do know better now.

Old tube amps take more knowledge of electronics, and a stash of tubes. Good contact spray and good tubes only take you so far. I have dabbled a little, had some fun, but leave the serious problems to the better informed. However, how many times have you read that the famous riff came from a little old 'practice' amp in the studio; not 100 watters. I am spending more time with 5 to 20 watt tube amps and have been revisiting solid state amps, forgotten pedals. etc.

I am not sure that it is a myth to all, just to some, who like to promote the myth for gain. I would love to hold one of the first Les Pauls in my hands again with what I know now. In the early '80's it just felt like a very thick neck guitar that was poorly set up, that I played through a Yamaha 50 watt solid state amp, meh! I did not appreciate it for what it was at all. I know now that I was wrong, wrong, wrong!!!.It was not my guitar, and it was not owned by a player. The friend that loaned it to me for weeks, kept it as a keepsake from his deceased father, never to be sold. He just wanted it to be played respectfully.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Kerry Brown said:


> While some of it is in the player's head I disagree that I would be the only person in the room hearing it. When you play an instrument that you like you are more expressive musically. You play better. I'm sure some of it is the equipment. Obviously each bit of equipment in the chain contributes to the tone but even with the "best" tone if the player doesn't feel it the music will suck.


maybe its semantics but again, to me, what youre describing is inspiration....not tone.
'Tone" is something I think if you plucked just one note, you could hear the difference, it really doesn't have anything to do with your performance.
if tone is simply inspiration in a bottle (or in a guitar shape), then I don't see how any owner could claim their item has it....whos to say I will be as inspired to play well on the worlds greatest Gretsch for instance, if Im a flying V guy, but does that mean I can say the gretsch didn't "have tone"?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Jim9guitars said:


> I've often wondered about whether music recorded in Britain sounds more "present" in some cases because of the difference in voltage. Does a Marshal stack that's set up for 240VAC sound better than one over hear set up and running at 120VAC ? Since I first pondered this question I have learned that some of these bands recorded classic tracks in North America but I still have to wonder. And on another note, I'm one of many people my age who bought a Les Paul because every picture we saw of Jimmy Page showed him playing one, only to find out later that he recorded most of Led Zep 1 and 2 with a Telecaster!


that's an interesting idea....but I think the differences/similarities have more to do with culture than technology. Players from the same area tend to sound similar....like all the 80's metal guys in LA did, or the grunge guys in Seattle in the 90s , Nashville, Memphis, Austin, Mississipi delta blues etc. or it could just be something in the water 
The Page telecaster / LP thing is IMo one of the biggest frauds in music. I hope Gibson paid him handsomely for it.


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

Diablo said:


> maybe its semantics but again, to me, what youre describing is inspiration....not tone.
> 'Tone" is something I think if you plucked just one note, you could hear the difference, it really doesn't have anything to do with your performance.
> if tone is simply inspiration in a bottle (or in a guitar shape), then I don't see how any owner could claim their item has it....whos to say I will be as inspired to play well on the worlds greatest Gretsch for instance, if Im a flying V guy, but does that mean I can say the gretsch didn't "have tone"?


You're right. We are arguing semantics. For me tone encompasses the totality of the music being played. I could have the exact same gear that SRV or BB used, play the exact same notes, and I'd never have their tone. What you describe I would call sound, which is something that can be measured. Maybe I need to change my terminology but I think we are just using different words to describe the same thing.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Diablo said:


> that's an interesting idea....but I think the differences/similarities have more to do with culture than technology. Players from the same area tend to sound similar....like all the 80's metal guys in LA did, or the grunge guys in Seattle in the 90s , Nashville, Memphis, Austin, Mississipi delta blues etc. or it could just be something in the water
> The Page telecaster / LP thing is IMo one of the biggest frauds in music. I hope Gibson paid him handsomely for it.


From wikipedia;

"For the recording of most of Led Zeppelin material from Led Zeppelin's second album onwards, Page used a Gibson Les Paul guitar (sold to him by Joe Walsh) with Marshall amplification. A Harmony Sovereign H-1260 was used in-studio on _Led Zeppelin III_ and _Led Zeppelin IV_ and on-stage from 5 March 1971 to 28 June 1972. During the studio sessions for _Led Zeppelin_ and later for recording the guitar solo in "Stairway to Heaven", he used a Fender Telecaster (a gift from Jeff Beck).[147] He also used a Danelectro 3021, tuned to DADGAD, most notably on live performances of "Kashmir"."

So we shouldn't discount the LP, considering it wasn't used on 1 album. And you have to admit, the majority of those poser pics are him and an LP. Live? Mostly the LP.

But you're right, there was a lot a classic stuff he played on a Tele (and probably other guitars) that just gets credited to the LP.


----------



## jimmy c g (Jan 1, 2008)

I think the players you reference could make great sounds using sticks with strings, and engineers could make them better,


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Swervin55 said:


> My R9 is now 17 years old. Apparently I missed my opportunity at stardom. I agree with everything you've stated in your op. Even the experts will attest to the fact that there are "stinkers" in the vintage world (even in 50's Les Paul land). There are spectacular and not so spectacular instruments/amps from every era.


If tone is in the fingers, as they say, wouldn't one mans dog guitar be another mans magical instrument?


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

There's a video of a Swedish metal player named Ola Englund, where he is demoing a lowly marshall MG15. Solid state practice amp, nothing special.

Since Ola is so good at dialling in his sound, and he has pretty good production skills, it still sounds great. It still sounds like him. I think there's videos of other famous players doing the same thing - taking a practice amp, plugging in a squier, and sounding immediately identifiable. 

I wager that some tone is in the fingers - and also knowing how to get "your sound" out of whatever you plug into. A dead guitar is a dead guitar, and a pickup swap or setup won't save something that barely vibrates. However, anything beyond a dead guitar can usually be made playable. If you know what you sound like, chances are that is how you will sound if you plug 5 different guitars into your rig.

Part of why I like trying guitars or amps I used to shy away from is to see what kind of music I produce. I recall being at a music store in Kitchener with a former bandmate (the one owned by Blue Rodeo member, name escapes me). I was playing a 50's (?) tele into a vintage combo of some sort. My bandmate was in the other room, and was absolutely astounded to find it was me playing when he came in. I didn't sound like "me" in the sense that he was familiar with (high gain shred-ish chugging stuff). I was just playing what I wanted to hear out of that specific setup. I think a lot of more experienced players will "go where the gear takes them", but also know exactly how to get back to their signature sound. 

Hand me a tele, 5150 and a 112 cab and I'll still dial in "my tone" I got with a JCM800 + boost, 412 cab and Les Paul.


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

ive always disliked the 'tone is in the fingers' argument.
not that it isnt valid or anything,
i just dont agree with it as a blanket statement.

one example often cited is hendrix-
he still sounds like hendrix while using an sg or flying v.
so tone is in the fingers.

but i say, no-
sure it sounds like jimi, because it is jimi.
but it sure doesnt sound like jimi playing a strat.
why?
because his tone is all different.

i guess it depends on how tone is defined.

i see tone as the sound a certain combination of gear produces.
other guys somehow see tone as the result of a players technique
and phrasing.

too confusing for me.
i will shut up now.


----------



## Jim9guitars (Feb 15, 2016)

And then there's David Lindley, I saw him in a bar in Victoria in the 80's and he had about 20 "pawn shop relics" on stage and played them all during the gig. Kent, Silvertone, Danolectra, you name it, everything but Gibson and Fender and he made them all sound brilliant.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Jim9guitars said:


> And then there's David Lindley, I saw him in a bar in Victoria in the 80's and he had about 20 "pawn shop relics" on stage and played them all during the gig. Kent, Silvertone, Danolectra, you name it, everything but Gibson and Fender and he made them all sound brilliant.


At one point those guitars rose in resale value when he started making a name for himself--this made people overprice other cheap ones that weren't part of what he used--but were close enough...

But it's cool what he can do.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I was raised to believe tone is strictly in the fingers.

I've been using the same gear for almost 40 years, and it's harder to determine whether 'my sound' has gotten better or worse. Maybe it's just 'different'. Perhaps a bit more sloppy (but in a good way).

I've noticed I have to be more careful when I crank it. I'm afraid to shit myself.

To further complicate things - I can't ignore that my wife's cooking plays a major role on output volume, warmth, and frequency.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Everything in the chain, from your brain to the audience's ears has an impact on the sound.

If I had to choose one element that impacts the sound most profoundly however, it would have to be the player.

I'm convinced I would NOT sound like Brian May or Jeff Beck were I fortunate enough to play through their rigs.

Older isn't better because it's older, but sometimes materials and production methods are made because of cost, not quality.

That's why the reproduction market is so strong.


----------



## Lemmy Hangslong (May 11, 2006)

I love old gear but also love new gear, especially stuff that improves upon an old design.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I personally think chops are in the fingers, but tone is in the gear and how the different elements work with each other and how its dialed in.
and then theres the grey area in between...in how the 2 marry with each other. for example, someone with monster hands that pick really hard etc like Zakk Wylde, will likely sound better with different gear and settings than someone with more subtle technique.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

fraser said:


> ive always disliked the 'tone is in the fingers' argument.
> not that it isnt valid or anything,
> i just dont agree with it as a blanket statement.
> 
> ...


I believe the core tone - his sound - comes from the fingers. More accurately, the feedback loop between the ears and the brain and the two hands - and the way the fretting hand frets and the picking hand picks and how they interact, the minute timing and pressure inputs.

Jimi would sound more like Jimi on even the most inappropriate gear than I would with his #1 rig (I'm more a Jimmy guy). Some guys can get really close without the correct gear by concentrating (woodshedding) on a specific player. So that 'hand tone' can be learned. But it is still the core.

The gear we hang around the edges of that core tone will change things a bit. But in our heads, we still have intentions of sounding like something specific and that intricate feedback loop is always engaged. I think of it like television - the core tone is the black and white image (about 90% of what we're seeing) while the color component is the last 10% painted over top, adding the final realism to an already realistic picture.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Everything in the chain, from your brain to the audience's ears has an impact on the sound.
> 
> If I had to choose one element that impacts the sound most profoundly however, it would have to be the player.
> 
> ...


I've been saying this for some time.
But the player is the most important part.


----------



## white buffalo (Jan 31, 2016)

i'm in such a weird place when it comes to vintage.
being 26, the level to which i fetishize/obsess over vintage gear due to artist association isn't as prominent as someone 20 years my senior might (though that link is still there on some level).
BUT there's still something i just _love _about vintage and it's not necessarily in the way it sounds or plays- i've owned and played plenty of $$$ dogs-; rather, it's an indiscernible _something_ that draws me in.
the truth is, as the op says, that there were good and bad guitars made back then just as there are good and bad guitars made today. people get too hung up on "but it doesn't have hide glue or extra thin, low plasticizer, nitro finish" when that stuff, in reality, couldn't matter less.
a good guitar is a good guitar is a good guitar, regardless of vintage, materials used, aesthetic, etc. of course this is all quite hypocritical of me to say as i constantly chase a unicorn (a '59 burst) that i won't ever catch for no justifiable reason, while i know there are plenty of great modern alternatives.
going back to that indiscernible something that draws me to vintage... it's kind of like these old instruments i've loved, regardless of how they played/sounded, took me to another time and place; nostalgia for a time i never lived in. i don't care who played a '52 tele, '63 335, etc. when i look at one- it's what it does to _me_.
a few times now i've shelled out big bucks for a vintage piece, only to be disappointed. the reality is that i'd feel much more 'at home' on a $1500 partscaster, yet i'm yet to go down that route for some odd reason. i might not even play a vintage piece of mine for months, just like having it around and i promise not for collector purposes- they eventually leave the stable once i come to terms with the fact that i'm not yet at a point where it's financially feasible to have something kicking around just 'cause it looks cool.


----------



## Jim9guitars (Feb 15, 2016)

I recall reading an interview in one of the guitar mags several years ago with Eric Clapton. When asked what he thought of the vintage guitar prices relating to strats like his "Blackie" he laughed and said that guitar was a partscaster put together by his guitar tech and he didn't know if all the parts were even Fender, let alone vintage. He just liked it and chose to play it most of the time.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Diablo said:


> ...its leading down the path that the musical instrument business is pretty much a fraud.


Why a fraud?

Guitars mean different things to different people... see different, feel, different, sound different. Just like music or any art, It's that subjectivity that makes the experience so personal. Guitars are appealing far beyond their use as musical instruments... people that don't play them even love to collect them.

There is nothing fraudulent about any of that.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I am finding it interesting that the guitar sellers. I call them sellers because they don't make them themselves, that started off selling guitars online manufactured mainly in Korea and asking around $400 are now selling the same guitars for around $2000


Any business person would be a fool to sell for $400 into a market that would pay $2000. That's good business.

Before the self righteous chime in, I ask them would they sell their house 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, or even 3/4 of market value?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Old does not mean better. In some cases it can. I suppose if you use a guitar from 1960 it will sound a lot like the 60's sound you're trying to capture and therefore sound "better".

Perhaps "old" inspires us - It puts us in awe and heightens our senses and as a result makes us play better. I think, for example, if you handed me the rig that Townsend used for Don't Get Fooled Again, the first thing I'd do is play some Who's Next licks and I suppose I'd be in heaven.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

But what is that '60s' sound? They were playing relatively new instruments into relative new amps - instruments and amps that we can buy today that are so similar to those built then that there would be bigger differences between two guitars/amps coming from the same facility the same day (considering the amount of hand-craft) at the time. 

So that's my point, is there really a sound to those instruments that we can't capture today with similar instruments?




white buffalo said:


> i'm in such a weird place when it comes to vintage.
> being 26, the level to which i fetishize/obsess over vintage gear due to artist association isn't as prominent as someone 20 years my senior might (though that link is still there on some level).
> BUT there's still something i just _love _about vintage and it's not necessarily in the way it sounds or plays- i've owned and played plenty of $$$ dogs-; rather, it's an indiscernible _something_ that draws me in.
> the truth is, as the op says, that there were good and bad guitars made back then just as there are good and bad guitars made today. people get too hung up on "but it doesn't have hide glue or extra thin, low plasticizer, nitro finish" when that stuff, in reality, couldn't matter less.
> ...


I agree. There is something - a cool factor - about old gear. Nothing like a beat up old guitar or amp, road worn, smokie, beat. You can see and smell the history, you can imagine the sounds it made and the stories it could tell. Much like old cars. But I don't believe they are inherently superior due to their age. With cars of course, except for the cool cache, they are inherently inferior.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

Swervin55 said:


> Even the experts will attest to the fact that there are "stinkers" in the vintage world


Most of them are stinkers if you ask me.
When I say most, I mean almost all. Like .... 99%
Like some of the members here, I am old enough to (somewhat) remember the 60s. I was born in the 50s so I have no memory of them directly but I do have memories of consumer items like cars, TVs and even guitars from the 50s. 
I began learning to play guitar in the 60s.
In the 60s those items were not that old and it was quite common to see and touch things made in the 50s.
Nobody thought of them as vintage.
In those days, far more than nowadays, when you went into a store you tried every guitar and chose the best one.
Manufacturing was less consistent.
As a matter of fact it was extremely inconsistent.
You absolutely HAD to try each one.
There were some real stars but there were also some real duds.
The stars got played to death
The duds wound up in a case in a closet or under gramma's bed.
They found themselves hidden away because they weren't good.
Nobody wanted to play them.
There were much better guitars to play and people played those good ones instead.
Those duds were found after gramma passed on, God rest her soul, and the family decided to cash in on the vintage guitar they found.
Now you have a 50 or 60 year old guitar in really, really nice shape looking like it's hardly ever been played and it's the most popular item on eBay and people pay $25K (plus) for these guitars on a regular basis.
Thing is ... they were the duds.
The good ones were played to death.
They got modified and beaten up.
They got parted out so that two guitars ended up becoming one good one and one bad one by swapping necks or pickups, etc.
The music industry is chock full of stories of how musicians of all calibers from pro to amateur used to make one great guitar out of two or three guitars and then sell off the rest.
They got very badly hacked up when somebody shoehorned a humbucker into a Strat. (a VERY common mod in the 60s and 70s)
The good ones then ... became the ones nobody wants now ... because they aren't stock, they're beaten to crap and they got shit missing.
That stuff happened to them BECAUSE they were good.
They were the ones that got played, used and abused.
The crappy ones were the ones that were forgotten about and found decades later.
There are almost no exceptions; good ones are gone, bad ones fetch huge coin.
In my opinion people who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
You're far better off with a modern vintage re-issue.
Those guitars are patterned after the extremely few great guitars that somehow managed to miraculously survive the ravages of time and are only the hands of the very wealthy and will never be for sale on eBay.
Ever.

That's my 2 cents.
I'm old enough to have actual, personal, sentimental reasons for owning vintage instruments rather than simply because it's hip and trendy to own them. 
Yet I do not own a single vintage instrument and I never will.
I know too much.

Food for thought.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

That's a bit of a broad brush. I agree with a lot of it but I think 99% is a bit high. There are good guitars and then there are magic guitars. Maybe those rare magic ones are 1%? Good ones are significantly higher than that or Fender. Gibson et al would not have created any sort of reputation or legacy.

Also, I think a few good ones under up under Gramma's bed. They couldn't all be dogs. Jo Blo buys a 57 Strat, it is a good one, but he doesn't pursue it. Goes under the bed and sits there for decades until it is found. Just the sheer numbers make me believe that had to happen occasionally. But the ones that were passed around and around - they've gotta make ya wonder why no one latched on to it as a keeper?


----------



## amagras (Apr 22, 2015)

I don't believe in the old gear myth because every guitar that falls in my hands will be old and useless in around 5 years


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

High/Deaf said:


> I think 99% is a bit high.


Yah, maybe a tiny bit high.
OK, I'll go with 98%.

That said, I disagree. 
I don't think anybody ever found a good one under gramma's bed. 
Ever.
The likelihood that gramma bought a guitar for herself and kept it secret from the family is so small as to be equal to zero for all intents and purposes.
That means there's a 99.99% chance it wasn't hers. 
Whether she bought it or someone else did, it was purchased for someone other than gramma.
So, if there was a good one in that house and somebody knew about it, they would have gotten it out of there years ago and it would be hacked up and beaten up by now.
Little Bobby grew up knowing that guitar was at gramma's house but he didn't care.
He never wanted to play it and neither did any of his friends.
All of his friends who had any interest in guitars at all has already played that guitar.
That's what kids do.
They try out each other's toys.
If he or they did want it, it never would have ended up under her bed for 4, 5 or 6 decades.
Somebody, anybody, somebody would have grabbed it up long ago.


----------



## Geetarz (Jan 19, 2016)

One-of-a-Kind Vintage Gibson Sold

I played this instrument before Mark decided to let go of it. Fantastic instrument, in superb condition that nobody's kid or grandkid messed with and destroyed...one of many I've heard stories about over the years and while I can't confirm others, I know with 100% certainty of this one...


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Looks like someone has an issue with gramma not buying him a guitar. 
She was heartless, kept it to herself.
For those of you that have a vintage instrument in good shape, throw it away, it's a reject. 
It only made it into this millennia because ol' Booby didn't want gramma's garbage.
It's the internet.
Trust me.
I know a lot, but not enough actually.
Fugazi, its a wazzy its a woozy, fairy dust.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

I quote Han Solo.
Laugh it up, fuzz ball.


----------



## ed2000 (Feb 16, 2007)

Yah, but.. but.....it's an old guitar, so it's gotta be good...no?


----------



## sambonee (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> ...... I feel pretty confident in asserting that humans knew how to build crap long before they ever learned how to make good stuff.


This somehow must be crystallized in your signature. 


On topic:

We discuss having quality control. Referring to consistency. Well the consistency achieved was not monitored years ago therefor everyone became better at what they did largely by their own intuition. Or there would be no duds in revered models of specific eras. The duds could have been certain under achieving employees. 

I'm a strong believer that the pickup - pick - picking technique- string composition - effects - and finally amp are 90% or greater of one's tone creation. The wood is nice, but not as crucial as people think. My Japanese collection proves my point. And they all have hand made pickups. $300 guitar, $250 pickups = $3000 Ferrari with 6 strings 

Old isn't necessarily good. But it usually is cool. 

On the other hand - a good pickup winder who knows the rpm sweet spot, knows the right patterns , and has the right components will be 9/10 times onto the good tone train. 

Adios.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

ed2000 said:


> Yah, but.. but.....it's an old guitar, so it's gotta be good...no?


Yah, not really ...

Bin there.
Got the tee-shirt.
Lotsa hype.
Not much proof.
Actually, truth be told ... no proof ... whatsoever.
Just hype.
Hype is king.
Hype sells Gramma's guitar.
For big bucks.
Long live hype!!
(just not in MY collection .... )


----------



## Geetarz (Jan 19, 2016)

One-of-a-Kind Vintage Gibson Sold

Truth be told, proof...once again..



...and I suppose there's this too: Strat in the Attic: Thrilling Stories of Guitar Archaeology: Deke Dickerson, Jonathan Kellerman: 0752748343856: Amazon.com: Books and this:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Strat-Att...bxgy_14_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=14JRTN0VE80ZR4V4PFPH

As well, unfortunately the webpage no longer exists but about a decade ago a wealthy man in Toronto had donated a very large portion of his collection of fine guitars and amps to a children's cancer institute to raise funds for research. I played a few of these instruments and amps, which were all in flawless shape and by no means dogs or trash pieces kids destroyed. The collection was called "The Roots of Rock" and the gentleman raised millions of dollars for a very worthy cause...


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> Yah, maybe a tiny bit high.
> OK, I'll go with 98%.
> 
> That said, I disagree.
> ...


I know of at least 2 situations that dispute this. One is a dad who bought Fender stuff new in the early 60s, played it till he died 20 years ago, and son #1 is hanging on to them for the memories and sentimental value. He does not play guitar at all. He knows they're worth a fair bit but, AFAIK, no one but Dad has played them. So no one (you included) knows if they are good, bad, indifferent. They are complete original and have never left the house, except to get moved to son #1's house. Completely out of circulation for 50 years. 

There's lots of stories like this one. But not all of these bedroom finds are gems or magic guitars. This one may be dead as a post or a magic one. No one knows, not even son #1. Maybe Dad knew, but he ain't tellin'.................


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

I hope they're amazing!!
I imagine there's a pretty good chance they're at least decent.
Pop played them for a lot of years so they must have had something at least.

Don't get me wrong ... I hope for these kinds of stories to be the fairy tale come true.
I just don't think it's wise to bank on it.
Rather, I think caution and suspicion are more appropriate when approaching them.
What little experience I have had in the past 20 or so years looking at vintage guitars has lead me to a pessimistic view.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> I hope they're amazing!!
> I imagine there's a pretty good chance they're at least decent.
> Pop played them for a lot of years so they must have had something at least.
> 
> ...


Yea, I never new Dad. Only know #1 son through my g/f. So I don't know if Dad was a good player or not, or if he had good ears or not.

I just want to play them. I would think the son would want to hear them wrung out. But not yet. Damn, I sure want to play them though. Maybe I'd get pulled into the vintage thing and my mind would over-ride my hearing. I'd certainly lust over the originality and cleanliness, by the looks of the pics.


----------



## big frank (Mar 5, 2006)

Sentimentality can enter the picture. I played a '66 Mustang when I was 15 in a garage band for one gig. Could never afford one; rented it for a week. So now; I have the '66 in my avatar and it plays beautifully. Would a re-issue Mustang ring the bell. Not a chance. I'd know it wasn't built while Leo was still in the CBS factory, and I have always lusted for a Fender from my teen years. My luthier; Freddy Gabrasek says "There's something about the old wood in these Fenders" and pronounced my guitar very "chimey". I'm happy every time I lift it from it's original case and play it; so please don't p_ss in my cornflakes. I do have a couple of other vintage guitars and a couple of 'this century' guitars.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

dradlin said:


> Why a fraud?
> 
> Guitars mean different things to different people... see different, feel, different, sound different. Just like music or any art, It's that subjectivity that makes the experience so personal. Guitars are appealing far beyond their use as musical instruments... people that don't play them even love to collect them.
> 
> There is nothing fraudulent about any of that.


to me, its a fraud because these things are conveyed/marketted and perpetuated as magic beans/magic tonic for making music. the attributes are associated to the instrument.
I may be being a little overly harsh, but we may also be desensitized to that sort of power of suggestion.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Diablo said:


> to me, its a fraud because these things are conveyed/marketted and perpetuated as magic beans/magic tonic for making music. the attributes are associated to the instrument.
> I may be being a little overly harsh, but we may also be desensitized to that sort of power of suggestion.


I agree with you wholeheartedly. These companies play on people's emotions in many cases to sell their product. 

It is also true that some people allow themselves to be taken in by this type of marketing because they like having their ears "tickled".


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It's been danced around here, but not touched on directly: relic-ing.

Relic-ing relies on the cachet associated with older instruments. If you can't own something that is 40 or more years old, then pay a little more to own something that _looks_ like it's that old.

Relic-ing is kind of the guitar equivalent of purchasing "the girlfriend experience" from an escort service. That is, you don't actually _have_ an established relationship with the guitar, so you pay a little more to have a facsimile of that relationship.

At one level, I sort of understand it. And hey, if feeling like you're playing something well-loved and broken-in makes you play better because the visuals inspire you, more power to ya. At quite another level, there is an obvious poseur element to relic-ing. And at still another level, if the guitar comes already banged up and chipped, then there won't feel like there are any constraints on playing with wild reckless abandon in order to preserve the finish. In that latter sense, relic-ing means "You now have permission".


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Good points, Mark. Relic'ing hasn't seem to catch in the auto market.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Steadfastly said:


> I agree with you wholeheartedly. *All* companies play on people's emotions in *all* cases to sell their product.
> 
> It is also true that some people allow themselves to be taken in by this type of marketing because they like having their ears "tickled".


Fixed.

And those products are everything from expensive guitars to raising money for homeless shelters. The widget doesn't change the marketing formula.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> Good points, Mark. Relic'ing hasn't seem to catch in the auto market.


actually it has.... google "rat rod".
obviously its a niche though, not something you'll find at a Honda/bmw stealership.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

For the most part, that fad is keeping old cars original rather than restoring them, so lack of effort, no relic'ing required - as compared to taking a Cobalt and making it look like it was from the 40s.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

mhammer said:


> It's been danced around here, but not touched on directly: relic-ing.
> 
> Relic-ing relies on the cachet associated with older instruments. If you can't own something that is 40 or more years old, then pay a little more to own something that _looks_ like it's that old.
> 
> ...


I'm exceedingly glad I'm not the only one who thinks this business of relic-ing new guitars has the distinct stench of the poseur.
I have trouble keeping my yap shut sometimes when I see these people and their brand new "professionally-banged-up" instruments, which they paid for on purpose.
They embrace an utter lie (with full knowledge it is an utter lie) and then brag about it, proudly displaying the lie and imagining that somehow, some way, the lie is bestowing a measure of status in some twisted, psycho way. Like it's something to be proud of.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Relic'd guitars play like vintage guitars. Both play better than new unrelic'd guitars

Anyone who disagrees obviously can't play guitar.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

I got thinking about the RatRod thing.
Somehow I don't think the idea of keeping it original ever once entered this guy's head.
Just sayin'.










Just like relic'd guitars, I'm not much of a fan of these cars either.
They've got to be just brutal to drive.
Armstrong steering and manual brakes.
No clearance. Gotta be no suspension too.
No soundproofing. It's all been stripped out.
Reliability? God only knows.
And ya gotta wonder about the legality of it all, too.
How do they even get away with that?
So many violations. So little compliance.
This is the ultimate expression of the poseur spirit.
The funniest part is ... there were no cars in the 50s or 60s that were modded like these pieces of shit.
This kind of visual imagery came from the Ed Roth teeshirts that were popular in the 70s.
There were no actual examples being built and taken to local club events.
It was just a cartoon.
About as close as you got would be the solid front axle gassers that were around in those days but they were tall, not low, and they were built to race, not just for show.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

It's been a while since we had the relics debate flare up.
Don't let me down....


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

BMW-KTM said:


> This is the ultimate expression of the poseur spirit.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

LOL


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

High/Deaf said:


> For the most part, that fad is keeping old cars original rather than restoring them, so lack of effort, no relic'ing required - as compared to taking a Cobalt and making it look like it was from the 40s.


Tell that to all the VW kids, and a handful of Hondas, who grind the paint off their hoods (mainly) and other body panels and then douse them in salt and vinegar and other things to intentionally rust them. It's a very common trend these days.

The most recent trend is removing the entire skim from the hood and leaving just the skeleton structure underneath.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

High/Deaf said:


> Fixed.
> 
> And those products are everything from expensive guitars to raising money for homeless shelters. The widget doesn't change the marketing formula.


I can't agree that it is true in all cases of marketing but certainly in most there is some emotional side to the sales pitch.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

OK, I'm game. Tell me which product is not marketed using emotions and doesn't try to tickle you behind the ear? I'm curious and can't think of one myself. There is no higher motive, it's all about getting you to partake or participate. Always.




cboutilier said:


> The most recent trend is removing the entire skim from the hood and leaving just the skeleton structure underneath.


Maserati was doing that 70 years ago.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

It takes all kinds to make the world go round...


----------



## flyswatter (Apr 6, 2016)

My two favourite amps are my 2015 Vox Ac10 and my 1975 Traynor YBA-1. Made 40 years apart.

One is PCB mass produced in China, very well designed on Vox principles; the other is handwired, built in Toronto with vintage components. 

Both are great amps for completely different applications and sizes of venues. Whatever works, works. I couldn't care less where, when, or by whom it was made if it does what it is supposed to do and sounds how I want it to sound.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Yes, electrons in particular have a hard time telling 2016 from 1959. There are some things that may soften in time (particularly speakers), but that wasn't happening with 60's amps in the 70's.

Wood, on the other hand, does change over time. Acoustic guitars in particular must go through some sonic changes over time (decades). We then assign those changes a positive attribute. Maybe some parts of the tone are actually worse, not better. But there is no better or worse, only taste.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Electrons may not change over time but the materials and components they travel through certainly do.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Debatable. 

Electrolytic caps dry out. Alnico may lose gauss strength over time. Speaker suspension - already mentioned. The wooden box? Maybe. Transformers, resistors, wire - don't age if they've never been stressed. Whether they get better after being repeatedly stressed? Debatable. 

And there's no reason why the transformers we make today aren't just as good as the ones they made in 1963, if made to the same spec.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

High/Deaf said:


> So that's my point, is there really a sound to those instruments that we can't capture today with similar instruments?


Perhaps,if you are inclined to believe /consider the wood used in instrument construction.
I think in the early years of building some companies were a lot more selective and there was more old growth material available .


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Maybe. PRS, Gibson CS, Suhr and numerous other high end electric and acoustic builders don't seem to have a problem finding decent wood. 

But if there is one topic where there may be something to the myth, yes, old wood would be it, IMO.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

Right,decent wood,but is it wood that would have been selected in the past ?
With the proliferation of builders, and the yearly production numbers, that seems doubtful to me.

How much old wood would a wood chuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood 
Could a woodchuck chuck more wood if the woodchuck was chucking new wood .


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I'm a believer in vintage guitars, well, vintage Gibsons, I don't own any other vintage brands. I don't want to play a vintage Strat, because I might want it and certainly can't afford it.

I think the difference between a vintage Les Paul and a great R9 are very small, and may or may not be worth it to someone. To me, it is. It's all about my interaction with the instrument, the feel, the tone, the sustain, etc.

But regarding tone, I think it's more important chasing the right amp than chasing guitars. In the 60's we didn't have kazillion watt PAs, they were running Marshall stacks set on 'kill' to blast stadiums and open fields. Not only is the sound hard to recreate, you can't recreate what those speakers were doing to the guitar.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I'm going to say that old vs. new gear doesn't matter much at all. TBH, I think that the actual guitar has the LEAST amount of affect on tone*.

I agree with Dwagar that the amp plays a huge factor (if not the biggest) with the pick-ups at a very close second, because these two things correlate the most to what your fingers and hands are doing - they respond while your guitar just 'is'. 

It feels like I have to fight with one amp versus another to get my point across. New vs. old has no bearing.

*this would be outside a tele sounding like a tele, an LP sound like an LP, a strat like a strat, etc. This would also exclude strings (gauge and new vs. old, etc)


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think many of us focus on the gear a bit too much and not enough on our hands and ears.

It's not the guitar, not the pick ups , not the amp and not that million dollar Klon overdrive.

If you sound good, it's mostly because....you're good.

If not.......


Just my opinion of course.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

It's fine to point at hands as being the distinctive factor in tone generation but that's not a useful discussion with regard to one specific guitarist.

Such as we all are. 
We, each of us, are one unique guitarist.

My hands will always be my hands. My hands are not something that is likely to change in the next few weeks. My hands only change after years of training. For me, right now, the differences in tone from one rig to another are completely about the gear. For you as well whether you admit it or not. It is something of a minor pet peeve for me when people talk about hands being the deciding factor in tone. I see that and I'm like, "Yah, of course but ..... You're missing the point."


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Nope.

I disagree.

Your hands will change. Ok, so what? They will still remain the single most important factor in how you sound.

Enjoy the gear. I do.

I just know now, after decades of playing, that I will sound like me regardless of how much dough I drop on equipment.

But, if you think otherwise, that's ok.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I don't think it's as much in the hands,as its in the ears. Players that sound good, are just awesome at twiddling knobs and setting and getting gear to sound good. 

It's not the hands, as I've heard known great players demo some of their riffs through a POD and it sounded like shit, same hands. But in this case the gear was too limiting for them to sound great, but I bet with a little better gear they would have, it wouldn't need to be vintage or boutique.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

BMW-KTM said:


> It's fine to point at hands as being the distinctive factor in tone generation but that's not a useful discussion with regard to one specific guitarist.
> 
> Such as we all are.
> We, each of us, are one unique guitarist.
> ...


If you are lucky you will never know how fast your hands can change. Not talking weeks either, try minutes. If you can't/don't put the right pressure on the string you don't get a clear note. Not talking changing rigs here, talking same guitar and amp.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

What I'm saying is, I always sound like me.
There is very little I can do to sound just like Stevie Ray Vaughan or Keith Richards or Doyle Bramhall II or Audley Freed or Warren Haynes.
Not in 5 minutes anyway.
Not even in 5 months.
Maybe in 5 years ..... maybe.
Maybe.
I can play the same guitars with the same pups through the same stomps and the same amps as those guys and I still sound like me.
I can vary my pick attack, I can dig in or I can gently caress, I can wail or I can hammer or I can sweep, it makes not one bit of difference.
I could play their lines note for note and it wouldn't matter.
I don't sound like them.
That's because I sound like me.
Any change I make in my tone is a relative change.
Relative to my tone, my sound.
I am a constant.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Just curious as to how you'd explain the guys who are in fact able to sound like X pro players then? Look up the guy who plays one song 20 different ways, nailing SRV, Hetfield, Santana etc.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

This guy sounds like Satch and you'll note that the 11r gets him close, but he's emulating satch's vibrato and using his fingers for the pinch harmonics (among other techniques).

This player certainly understands the relationship between fingers, gear, and tone.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Diablo said:


> I don't think it's as much in the hands,as its in the ears. Players that sound good, are just awesome at twiddling knobs and setting and getting gear to sound good.
> 
> It's not the hands, as I've heard known great players demo some of their riffs through a POD and it sounded like shit, same hands. But in this case the gear was too limiting for them to sound great, but I bet with a little better gear they would have, it wouldn't need to be vintage or boutique.



Maybe, but you could also say the player was the weakness with the POD because he didn't have the inclination or skills to deep edit.

We've all (whether we'll admit it or not) heard plenty of players sound great on modelers.

I do agree it's really the ears and mind and not the hands as I and others often state.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

Does he really "nail" them?
And if he does, how long did it take for him to learn to do that medley?
And can he sound like anyone he chooses, on command, right then and there, even someone brand new to him?
Can he really do that in just minutes?
Can you? Can I?
And if he can, in fact, do all that is he not the exception that proves the rule?

Hypothetical situation:
You (no particular "you" intended, just anybody) and I are in the same room.
Let's say the room is a recording studio and we are the only people in the room.
I am playing a simple rig consisting of a Stratocaster, a TS808 and a '59 Bassman RI.
You are an onlooker for the moment.
Let's say I am playing a standard song commonly played in classic rock cover bands, such as Mary Jane's Last Dance.
You know this song forward and backward just as well as I do.
I finish up the song.
I mute the strings with my hands.
I touch no controls at all, whatsoever on anything except to flip the amp into standby mode.
I place the guitar on a stand while being careful not to change any guitar knob settings.
You strap the guitar on, being careful not to change any guitar knob settings.
You mute the strings with your hands and flip the amp out of standby mode.
Without touching any settings on anything, you begin to play Mary Jane.
As mentioned already, you are very familiar with the song and you just watched me play it.
You are now trying to play the same song the way I played it ... roughly.
Do you sound like me?
If both of our performances had been recorded, since we are in a recording studio, does the playback sound like the same guitarist doing two slightly different takes?
Or is it pretty clear that two guitarists played the same song roughly the same way?


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

When I refer to the sound being 'in your hands', I assume people know that it isn't just the hands, it's the whole feedback loop, from ears to brain to spinal cord to arms to hands. Hands on their own don't do much (with exception to the Addams family).

I think we can learn to play like others. I think I play similar to Page - because I spent so many years trying to sound like him. Again, it's that whole feedback loop, hearing what I'm sounding like, unconsciously modifying my touch and timing to get a tiny bit closer. I don't sound much like Angus because it wasn't an interest of mine so I didn't put in the time. 

But with enough skill, time and training, this is possible......


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

BMW-KTM said:


> Does he really "nail" them?
> And if he does, how long did it take for him to learn to do that medley?
> And can he sound like anyone he chooses, on command, right then and there, even someone brand new to him?
> Can he really do that in just minutes?
> ...


Hard to say unless I actually heard both recordings, but what I would expect to hear is two very different sounding takes.

Let's make it more simple.

If Brian May put down his guitar and I picked it up right after he did, I EFFING guarantee I would not sound like him even if I played a Queen riff I know well.

Not a chance.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> Hands on their own don't do much (with exception to the Addams family).


I just want to make sure that no one missed that.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I can't agree that it is true in all cases of marketing but certainly in most there is some emotional side to the sales pitch.


Hmmmm.......emotional side to the sales pitch.....reminds me of the way that many religions are marketed. Oh well, at least the emotions that guitar manufacturers use to push their prospective clients' hot buttons aren't guilt & fear.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Late to the party here, but I had an interesting weekend a couple of years ago that cured me of my long-standing vintage fever. I was in upstate NY & spent a few hours at Rumble Seat & house of guitars, got to play 15-20 vintage guitars. The best of the bunch was a wraptail Les Paul GT. They had three '54/'55 LPs & they were all good, but only one made me want to open a line of credit to buy it. FWIW it was the one that looked like it had been played the most. The '59 Black Beauty was a dog.

The best Strat was an early 70s - couldn't actually hear the Oly White '65 since there was a wiring issue. I therefore enjoy lightly reliced Fenders for the following reasons:

1) I won't spend $10-20K+ on a Strat
2) I can't stand that sticky feel on the back of a maple neck
3) I don't have to worry about dinging it up
4) Reliability/no need to worry that rewinding a pup etc. will hurt the value 

But those Road Worn guitars are awful, they look like someone ran them through a belt sander. In the exact same spot on every one.

This being said, if there's a fire, one of the two guitars that I'm grabbing is a beat to shite '65 SG Jr. that weighs next to nothing & makes my belly happy because she sings to it when I hold her close.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

@Roryfan you don't actually have to worry about dinging up a new guitar either, it's just that most people do. Signed, the guy who put the first ding in his limited run PRS.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Although there is often something to old wood - I truly believe that we are currently experincing the second golden age of guitar building. The quality & selection of mid-range guitars is quite good, and if you wish to open your wallet a little wider there is a wide variety of absolutely stellar instruments to be had. 

Can't afford that real '59 Les Paul? Still working on that time machine to go back & load up on gear? No problem, there are a numerous amount of replicas, both from Gibson & umpteen smaller builders that will come really darn close at a fraction of the cost. Want some modern enhancements to those tried & true designs? Want it built to your exact specs? No problem, go to Brian Monty or Tom Bartlett's workshop.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Budda said:


> @Roryfan you don't actually have to worry about dinging up a new guitar either, it's just that most people do. Signed, the guy who put the first ding in his limited run PRS.


"Most ppl" reminds me of some nut job I met via Kijiji who was int'd in a gently used Am Std. Strat I had for sale. This guitar had pushed a twice the price Anderson out the door yet he absolutely lost his mind over some minor fret wear on a 15+ yr. old guitar.


----------



## EchoWD40 (Mar 16, 2007)

I played a 61 strat, a 63 strat, a 63 Les Paul and a 67 tele. None of them sounded or played better than the modern versions of the same guitar, but they sure were special to play. 
I don't buy the old gear myth personally but I can see why people fall into it.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Roryfan said:


> Hmmmm.......emotional side to the sales pitch.....reminds me of the way that many religions are marketed. Oh well, at least the emotions that guitar manufacturers use to push their prospective clients' hot buttons aren't guilt & fear.


I agree; many religions do have that history. When Jesus preached he did state the alternative from time to time but his message was one of hope, not guilt and fear.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I agree; many religions do have that history. When Jesus preached he did state the alternative from time to time but his message was one of hope, not guilt and fear.


Unfortunately, things have changed.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Meh, religion depends on people completely ignoring the best that science has to offer.

If you can look someone in the eye and say you thnk the earth is only 5000 ~6000 years old, you're a prime target for religion.

It's a painful reality to accept that we're on our own and that when you die, you die.

It's much easier to hope for a magical end.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Meh, religion depends on people completely ignoring the best that science has to offer.
> 
> If you can look someone in the eye and say you thnk the earth is only 5000 ~6000 years old, you're a prime target for religion.
> 
> ...


It all depends on what you believe and there is only one way to find out if you are right or wrong.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I shouldn't have posted that. If people want to believe inmagic and fairytales it's their right to do so.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Milkman said:


> I shouldn't have posted that. If people want to believe inmagic and fairytales it's their right to do so.


Unless Jesus played guitar. You probably shouldn't have posted that on a guitar forum. But that would be really old wood if he did.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2016)

Milkman said:


> Meh, religion depends on people completely ignoring the best that science has to offer.


Ah, but religions were created to control the uneducated 
and to keep them that way by the imans/rabbis/priests.
It's also why girls are not allowed to go to school in some societies.

The three levels of ignorance;
Those that don't have the capacity to learn.
Those that can't afford to learn. 
And the most dangerous,
those that refuse to learn.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Guitar101 said:


> Unless Jesus played guitar. You probably shouldn't have posted that on a guitar forum. But that would be really old wood if he did.


True.

Although I didn't raise the issue, I'm admittedly easy troll bate for those who come here and preach.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

How do you explain Jesus building my hotrod?


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

I remember playing a vintage 335 from the 70's a few years ago at a buddy's place. I remember when he bought it although I can't remember if he bought it new. We had just finished jamming for a couple of hours and I picked up the guitar and played it. I remember saying "nice guitar but it's out of tune". He wasn't impressed. Definitely not my finest moment.


----------



## flyswatter (Apr 6, 2016)

Once you get past all the smoke and mirrors of marketing and fetishism of this model of a certain age versus that one, and electric guitar is a relatively simple contraption. The manufacturer chooses several pieces of premium wood, glues or bolts then together, cuts out familiar shapes and contours -- mainly ensuring the shapes are correct and the neck is straight and situated in appropriate relation to the body. This has all been made simpler and simpler with time-tested experience and CNC machines to ensure a perfect cut every time. Then the builder attaches a handful of metal hardware components, a smattering of electronic components about as simply wired as any electric circuit can be. String it up and set it up to maximize intonation. 

Compared to building a Formula 1 racer, a Nasa spaceship, a submarine, or almost any form of computer, building a guitar is, technically speaking, child's play. If it weren't, there'd be no way one could buy a $300 Korean built guitar or a $500 Mexican built one and have it function basically as well a higher end one worth 5 or 10 times as much. 

Some vintage guitars -- it comes down to individual specimens, not whole brands or models -- have a certain edge over modern ones because of the craftsmanship and attention they received in an era when craftsmanship was a noble trade and companies weren't bent on churning out hundreds of identical products as cheaply as possible in as short a time as possible. 

Modern guitars have their own advantage -- consistency that comes from high volume manufacturer, affordability owing to larger economies of scale at the manufacturer, and the precision that comes with digital design and building technology. 

To say that a vintage or modern guitar is the better one is something only the individual player can decide by picking up a particular guitar on a particular day and playing it under particular circumstances. 

Everything else is just verbal noise -- and we can go on all day about it, but the only ones who benefit are the marketeers who'll be happy to take all the money players will throw at them based on whatever myths and mojo they've absorbed.


----------



## flyswatter (Apr 6, 2016)

double post


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Lots of good, even great guitars being built today.


----------



## big frank (Mar 5, 2006)

There is no doubt that fabulous guitars are being built 'today' in many different countries. I don't think anyone disputes that. However; the original poster wanted to know if old gear being better was a 'myth'. Well, no; not really. You won't find many Brazilian rosewood fingerboards on China or Mexico or American made guitars these days; and that is conceded to be the 'best' rosewood available. Figured maple isn't so hard to come by; but 50 year old figured maple is alleged to sound better than newly felled tree maple. You can't order P.A.F. humbuckers because there aren't any. Machines don't 'think',so sometimes brilliant neck carves from the 50's and 60's aren't available from the mass producers.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

big frank said:


> Machines don't 'think',so sometimes brilliant neck carves from the 50's and 60's aren't available from the mass producers.


And they weren't as consistent from guitar to guitar--one reason no re-issue--no matter how painstakingly researched-- will please every fan of the old ones.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

big frank said:


> There is no doubt that fabulous guitars are being built 'today' in many different countries. I don't think anyone disputes that. However; the original poster wanted to know if old gear being better was a 'myth'. Well, no; not really. You won't find many Brazilian rosewood fingerboards on China or Mexico or American made guitars these days; and that is conceded to be the 'best' rosewood available. Figured maple isn't so hard to come by; but 50 year old figured maple is alleged to sound better than newly felled tree maple. You can't order P.A.F. humbuckers because there aren't any. Machines don't 'think',so sometimes brilliant neck carves from the 50's and 60's aren't available from the mass producers.


There is as much 50 year old hardwood maple today as there was 50 years ago. A new batch comes out every year. Companies use old maple all the time. 

And as for the uniqueness of PAF winds and neck carves, that led to as many bad pickups/carves as good ones. I'd like to think, while very few repro's have 'that' undefinable magic, virtually none of them are as bad as some of the original PAFs/carves may have been, due to inconsistent production techniques. Was this pickup wound on a Wednesday or a Monday? Better hope it was a Wednesday, eh?


----------



## big frank (Mar 5, 2006)

Maybe; but the work ethic 50 years ago was somewhat different than 'today'.


----------

