Members heem6 Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 Here's my 2 cents on vintage gear vs. new gear. And it is JUST my two cents. Whether a guitar is brand new or 40 years old, some are going to be dead pieces of wood that are impossible to get a good sound out of, and some are going to be absolute gems that sing to the heavens. For me, if I'm choosing between two that are good musically and tonally, I'd just as soon have the one that's new and doesn't have all the wear and tear on it. That's not to say that there's not some vintage gear that is really cool. Some guys always come back to that '68 Plexi and still have not found anything better. George Lynch said at a recent clinic, "You know, we have to remember too that the original guys who were playing the vintage gear weren't playing it because it was vintage. They were playing it because it was NEW." I'd be interested to hear what everybody thinks about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Treborklow Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 I agree. I prefer new over old, but I own both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Voltaire Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 New for me ala can't find really old amps capable of death metal tones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Save The Pine Weasel Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 Whatever is cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DenverDave Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 There is something to the vintage mojo - but way too much is made out of that. A great guitar is a great guitar whether it is 40 years old or 4 years old. Vintage mojo is not worth the extra $2,000.00 to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarbilly74 Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 New gear for me. I like locking tuners, different pickups etc and I wouldn't want to do that on a vintage guitar. And George Lynch is 1000% right on this one. I find it funny when someone says they only use vintage gear and their hero is someone like Jimi Hendrix.. Hendrix was anything BUT a purist..he always used the state-of-the-art technology of his time.... Even guys like Clapton, Beck... none of them used vintage gear back them.. as matter of fact they STILL don't if you look at Beck's main live guitar it has locking tuners, fender noiseless pickups etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Soul Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 two different things going on here. Collectible v.s. Utility For utility for a million one and reasons, you cant beat newer gear, esp when it comes to amps. I own a 59 Les Paul jr, but you better believe its NEVER EVER EVER going to see a stage. Thats where my army of Squiers come in. Or maybe some of Gibson reissues. On the other hand, there is definitely something to good vintage guitars that you just cant find in a new one.. but as others already said, its just not cost effective... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Soul Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 New for me ala can't find really old amps capable of death metal tones. lemme see if I can dig em up, but I did some death metal recordings using a 1965 bassman. Stock amp, with higher gain pre tubes and a TS9 in front set as a clean boost only... AMAZING tone. It cut JCM800s out of a live mix...however I sold it because it just wasnt as reliable as a Boogie...so I guess that just proves the point even further.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members aenemated Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 i think vintage gear is super, super cool ... but, really, i'll take a new one, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Faber Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 I only need utility - never mind collectability, so for me it's a no brainer - I go new or used, and stay away from the vintage stuff which by its very definition is priced disproportionatly compared to its utility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wyatt Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 George Lynch said at a recent clinic, "You know, we have to remember too that the original guys who were playing the vintage gear weren't playing it because it was vintage. They were playing it because it was NEW." Either Lynch is a moron or you misquoted him. The Les Paul had been discontinued for years before Bloomfield put it on the map (with Clapton and Page coming afterwards). Strats (Hendrix made popular)? Teles (Bloomfield again)? Both had been around for 15+ years before they became popular in pop music. Hardly cutting edge. The pre-65 Fenders and Gibsons were built by hand at a craftsmanship level that was unparalleled for decades afterwards. Not to say there weren't duds before and good ones after, but the odds are definitely in favor of the early guitars. Blackie and brownie were pre-CBS and made long before Clapton picked them out, be picked older models for a reason. Granted Hendrix was more utilitarian, but Fender gave him dozens of guitars every month, he could wipe his ass with them if he wanted. Neil Young's Old Black was almost 20 years old when he traded for it, Page's LP was at least 10 years old, he didn't go out and buy a new '68 RI, he got an old burst. Today, with Custom Shops and RNC machines, it's much easier for a company to build a solidbody* on par with those old instruments for a competitive price. That wasn't the case just 15 years ago. As to wear and tear, that's purely subjective, to each his own, you can't rationalize it being better or worse beyond your own tastes. *Acoustics and jazzboxes are different, you want a good guitar made and hand-tuned by a craftsman from hand-selected, non-kiln dried woods? They are out there and they start around $10K and many makers have a 10 year waiting list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members myname1 Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 Like I stated in the other thread, if I get the money,I would not mind owning a 1950's built guitar. But only if I went to Gruhn's and played it myself. I can get a new guitar anytime. But decent prices for vintage instruments may not last forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members csm Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 New gear for me. I like locking tuners, different pickups etc and I wouldn't want to do that on a vintage guitar.And George Lynch is 1000% right on this one. I find it funny when someone says they only use vintage gear and their hero is someone like Jimi Hendrix.. Hendrix was anything BUT a purist..he always used the state-of-the-art technology of his time....Even guys like Clapton, Beck... none of them used vintage gear back them.. as matter of fact they STILL don't if you look at Beck's main live guitar it has locking tuners, fender noiseless pickups etc... The 'vintage gear' of the 60s ... the Les Pauls Clapton, Beck, Bloomfield et al were using around 1966 would then have been around 7 or 8 years old. EC's 335 was bought pretty much brand new in 1964 or '65; his 'Fool' SG was 3 years old when he got in early 67 to replace a stolen Les Paul. The pre-CBS rosewood-board Strats Hendrix bought used and played until he switched to box-fresh big-head models in 1968 would have been anything between 2 and 7 years old. Everybody's Marshall amps were straight out of the factory. Bloomfield's Tele and Bob Dylan's Strat (both pre-CBS rosewood) would have been eeither new or 'recent used.' On the other hand, Beck's Esquire (bought from John Maus of the Walker Brothers) WAS a vintage piece even then: a maple-board 1954 already 11 years old when Beck got hold of it. ("Everybody wanted the white neck, which you couldn't get any more.") JB's current guitar has, essentially, evolved from the early-60s reissue , but with radically upgraded hardware: a vintage-accurate reissue (let alone a real-life vintage piece) simply couldn't handle what he does to it. Original 60s PUs couldn't deal with that much gain without excessive squeal and hum and, as everybody from Jimi Hendrix to Eddie Van Halen learned the hard way, original 60s Strat trems simply aren't stable enough to withstand the big dives and zooms -- or Jeff's patented microtonal melodic excursions -- without going out of tune. Hence the locking tuners, roller nut and 2-point trem bridge. Not to mention the stacked-HB Hot Noiseless PUs (on the production guitars) or custom-wound John Suhr units (on Jeff's personal instruments). Bottom line: vintage gear can sound fabulous, feel wonderful and look amazing, which is why nearly everything the Stones use is either vintage or period-correct vintage replica gear. The downside is that vintage gear can be seriously temperamental, fairly fragile and cripplingly expensive to replace (I vaguely remember seeing an interview with Rick Nielsen about being told exactly how much of Cheap Trick's touring budget was consumed by the insurance costs of his massive arsenal of vintage guitars). The Stones can afford this stuff -- hell, their uber-accountants have probably turned it into a tax deduction -- but most people can't. New gear is stronger, more stable, easier to afford and easier to replace.It may lack mojo, but mojo comes with time. Finally: a long time ago, my band was playing a Saturday night gig in some hell-hole night-club in London's West End. Just before sound-check, we had the guitars laid out on a table ready for tuning: my co-guitarist's 62 Strat and 69 ES345, my 63 Strat and 68 Trini Lopez. He turned to me and said, "Do you realise we've just brought out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members aenemated Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 good god man, that was an excellent post. +1 it's so great to have you more seasoned fellows around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heem6 Posted November 15, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 I agree. Great post, CSM. Many good posts here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarcapo Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 There's lots of reasons to own vintage gear... but superiority over modern instruments as tools for making music isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members stanfield Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 It really depends on the sound you're looking for..But don't forget that the good mass-produced vintage gear was built with components/materials of higher quality than most mass-produced modern gear. So while they might sound very good, modern gear may not stand the test of time.. guess we'll just have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ItchyFingers Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 CSM - thanks for the history lesson. That was awesome! I'm always looking for ways to improve my sound, yet also improve the stability and dependability of my live rig, and have found that vintage gear (at least the stuff that I can afford) is just too quirky for me to rely on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members orzklegbok Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 Personally I DO believe that there IS some "vintage" hardware out there thats nicer (better playing, better built, better sounding) than some of the NEW equipment. I DO believe in the possibility of something thats been played often for 30, 40, 50 years may well have been affected by that, sometimes in a positive way. I also, personally, like the look of an old "vintage" piece of gear - in the same way that some people like the look of, say... all-black hardware, or pointy guitars, or exotically flamed maple tops, or BLUE guitars. I also am rooted enough in reality to know that there ARE stinkers out there both old AND new - just as there are some beautiful, wonderful playing, lovely sounding, NEW instruments. I ALSO think that there can be a very Personal sort of connection between a musician and his instrument. (pause for the obvious smirks) Really, even if it plays well and sounds well - if you HATE the look of your guitar, are you really going to play your best? If the feel, the sound, AND the LOOK are something you really personally dig - isn't THAT the kind of instrument you'd want to have? So - the world is a big place - with beeellions of people in it - that are all different ...and thus will like different guitars. Big surprise. Like ANYthing... ANY! thing ... there are those in our society who take something and find a way to turn it into a commodity, to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members niche773 Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 CSM you always have killer posts man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ESchmidt Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 I like new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Milkman Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 i love the look of vintage gear but its too expensive. when i get more money i want to get reissue guitars and an amp or two, but at the moment i'm fine the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dewees Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 I don't buy anything that's brand new. I buy used so I can resell equipment without losing money. I'd go $2000 for another early 80s ES 335. But I don't think I'd be interested in upwards of $12,000 for an early 60s one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members csm Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 *Elvis voice* Thangyew, thangyewvehmush* Check it: I ADORE vintage gear. I sorely miss every vintage piece I've owned and lost, either through theft, forced sale during cash crises or simply selling off due to attacks of dumbosity. I sometimes wake up sobbing over ... the OTHER 63 Strat and the 1962 Gibson B25 12-string acoustic (stolen); the 63 SG Jr, 66 Jaguar, 68 ES355, blue piggy-back 63 AC30 (foolish sales), the 67 Trini Lopez and matched pair of blond 62 AC30s (forced sales). I loved every one of those pieces (well, not the Jaguar: the frakkin thing NEVER stayed in tune and the bridge was Leo's. Worst. Design. EVER), but many of them were flawed. The old AC30s hummed and buzzed if you even looked at them funny, which wouldn't be a problem if you were either a dedicated hobbyist who's never happier than when wielding a soldering iron (I'm not), or a multibultibillionaire megastar with a permanently-on-call team of highly-paid techies who swarm in like ER at the first fart from a cranky old amp. I still maintain that nothing looks better, feels better or sounds better than a well-maintained good example of a gear classic. But my Lord, those things can be a major pain in the ass! My lovely 63 Strat never goes out any more: its ancient pickups are buzzy, its elderly tuners cranky and inconsistent and if godforbid anything happened to it my insurance premiums would go through the roof. My 2006 Custom Shop Strat, OTOH, also looks great, also sounds great and is not only 100% reliable but 100% replaceable. The old one would sound sweeter if we sat in a room together and A/Bed them through a nice amp, but in a band context or a studio mix I seriously doubt if any but the most bat-eared tone-hounds on this board could tell the difference. I agree with an earlier poster: the explosion of the vintage market and the vertigo-inducing pricing of the cool old stuff has taken it out of the reach of everybody but Japanese bankers and RICH BASTARDS WHO SHOULD BE MURDERED ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES [just kidding, mods!]. I'm very lucky to own a decent vintage Strat, but I bought it a very long time ago waaayyyy before prices got silly. I sureas{censored} couldn't afford anything remotely like it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members aenemated Posted November 15, 2007 Members Share Posted November 15, 2007 man, spot on, totally. i've said it before, i LOVE the vibe of vintage gear. the stories a 40+ year old guitar could tell? amazing. if i had the cash to throw away, i'd certainly own every vintage piece i could, simply because of the coolness factor. but i'd never take one down to the bar for a saturday night gig! like anything else vintage - i'm sure any of it requires some sort of constant maintenance. as i'm getting older - and becoming more stable in life and career and bank account - i'm wanting a vintage muscle car. but i know it'll require a {censored}ton of work to keep running. i'm sure old guitars are somehow the same way. nothing's really built to last forever, especially stuff from 50 years ago. i'm perfectly happy, for now, with my re-issues of the glorious days before robot tuners and amp modelers. if for no other reason than i'm pretty sure i was born about 20 or 30 years too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.