Is old stuff better?

GuitarMonkey

ESBlonde said:

Guitars then were made to last a lifetime and most people only owned one guitar.  

I think that in the 50s, as today, most people owned no guitars.

Phil_aka_Pip

@impmann said There is a lot of big business tied up in perpetuating this idea that old is better - that way they can sell you reissues of the old stuff you can't afford.

@ToneControl said From my perspective, if I bought a replica E type Jag, I would not want it to have a knackered paint job and simulated 250,000 mile wear on the cylinders, pistons and valves. In fact I'd want ABS and a few other modern things added on


FWIW I concur. I never got the relic thing, just struck me as a way of shifting stuff from the skip at the back of the factory that couldn't be used on a new instrument.


Some of us don't listen with our ears though, we use our eyes instead.

frankus

Yes, old stuff is better and here's why.

Back in the 70s and 80s Analog Mike and Mike Fuller got pedals that they were inspired by: the small clone, the fuzz face, MIJ Boss SD-1s, Ibanez TS-9s - those guys loved it and tried to recreate those sounds in their pedals - almost all of our effects pedals are styled on stuff that has already been. That's influence.

Back in the 50s, 60s and (I can't believe I'm saying this) 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s - musical genres were being established by reaching out to teenagers - some people think it happens now but there aren't any teenagers any more (might not be true). At this time an alternative to establishment in the form of visceral music created an indelible bond in our brains.

When played the music of their youth, residence of old people's homes become more lively animated and may talk more in the 30 minutes after than they have for a month before. That's powerful.

Old stuff has to survive to be old - that means it has to have had value to endure. Else it becomes rare and obscure.

Old stuff might be perfected in slow gradual intelligent increments - whereas the knew innovative things might not have been consumer tested and contain design flaws - some of these flaws might be contextual and completely impossible to predict... but in 40 years time ... innovations have worked around them. That's progress.

Old stuff may have been made at a time when one craftsman oversaw the entire production of the instrument. It's a common myth that division of labour improves anything other than rate of production. It doesn't - when things go wrong only a craftsman can turn around a mistake because he understands the whole product - a mis-cut neck pocket might need shimming but the assembler knows to conceal the issue by changing the neck relief.

But what is old stuff better than? The automatic invitation is to compare old stuff to new stuff. Which is logical but utterly crazy.

What determines what new stuff is? The success of old stuff. If money was not a factor then new stuff would automatically be better because we learn with each iteration.

So if old stuff is made good, and the design of new stuff is informed by enhancements of old stuff - if anything old stuff should often be inferior to the new stuff. But that's not the case.

Improvements are not taken up by manufacturers because of the cost of retooling or the cost of production.

Similarly those points inhibit the quality of new products, chasing the dollar, the manufacturer seeks cheaper workers, cheaper materials and cheaper manufacturing techniques. The 1983 Strat - that was new once, and it wasn't great.

I think it's crazy to look for a one-size-fits-all solution (which is what the question is) there are examples of either, so what is the function of the question? Some companies have pursued quality others haven't - no company seems to have had consistent quality throughout, so there's variety and inequalities - too many to catalogue, so a quantitative decision is impossible, and therefore, so is a consensus.

littlethoughts

thomasw88 said:

A. Few years ago I was in that music shop in bristol which is full of old guitars and amps etc. can't remember the name of it. The guy showed me a very early strat. Thing I noticed was that it was so light it was unbelievable. Certainly didn't seem as well made as any of the more recent fenders anyways.

Electric Ladyland by any chance? It's an interesting shop, although i've never actually tried anything in there...

ICBM

Many years ago a chap I knew bought a '79 Annivesary Strat. It was so light it was unbelievable too… actually it weighed about the same as a Strat should, which is truly unbelievable for one of those . Something wasn't working right in the electrics, so I opened it up, and discovered…

… that it had been "routed" (with what looked to have been a blunt screwdriver and a sledgehammer) out for at least three humbuckers and a pedal circuit or two :-O. Almost the whole area of wood under the pickguard was missing. Surprisingly, it actually sounded OK, as a semi-acoustic Strat goes . I have no idea what he did with it in the end.

So the moral of the story is, whenever you find an old guitar that seems amazingly light, find out why before you buy it .

impmann

Have a wisdom, sir.

This is especially true of those Anniversary Strats - they appear to be made of some kind of dark matter that doubles the earth's gravitational pull in a localised area...

ESchap

very eloquently put @Frankus

koneguitarist

New guitars are better than old due to consistency, if comparing like for like, ie a Fender strat. But a 70's Strat is not as good as a 50's strat, yet a 2013 strat is better than a 50's strat. Flaws in all the arguments.

There is however truth in Acoustics being better or sounding better, due to age and how they have been used, not the quality of workmanship. I love Martin guitars, but no doubt in my mind there are uk Builders building as good if not better than that.

So what's the reality, well, some old guitars are better than new some new guitars are better than old ones simple as that.

If we are talking design and innovation then, possibly 50's guitars were great because everything was new, and since then we have been re-inventing 50's designs rather than starting afresh. Mainly because guitarists want what their heroes play and they played what their heroes played, during the golden era of rock and roll guitar, 50's-late 60's.

You can argue well the wood was better then, how ? We can't go back in time to hear what it sounded like when it was new. Brazilian rosewood is better than Indian ? Is it ? Who knows. Play guitars with your ears and listen to them, you may be surprised.

One simple thing though, a 50's strat was made by cheap labour on inaccurate machines, are we saying they are better than skilled luthiers can make with CNC machines ?

OilCityPickups

koneguitarist said:

One simple thing though, a 50's strat was made by cheap labour on inaccurate machines, are we saying they are better than skilled luthiers can make with CNC machines ?

Very often yup
One word: gestalt

koneguitarist

TheGuitarWeasel said:

Very often yup
One word: gestalt

Would like to see that proved in any way !

koneguitarist

Another thing !!!!! Why does all my paragraphs merge into one ? No matter how I type it, ok on PC but not on IPad ?

impmann

On the subject of wood, I thought Leo used ash because it was cheap, easily worked and locally sourced. Ditto maple. Both woods were sneered at by the guitar purists of the time, including a certain Mr Lester Paulfus...

WezV

impmann said:

On the subject of wood, I thought Leo used ash because it was cheap, easily worked and locally sourced. Ditto maple. Both woods were sneered at by the guitar purists of the time, including a certain Mr Lester Paulfus...

its true, essentially  the ash he got at the time just happened to be sourced from a relatively light source.  much lighter wood than the 70's supply.

now people seek out that lighter ash specifically for guitars, its rare you just stumble across it.  its also possible he brought cheap  ash that was specifically rejected by furniture makers because it was too soft difficult to finish and had less stiffness than heavy ash - the stuff we now pay a premium for.

my own silly theory about this is based on lumber transportation (especially with south american mahoganies).  rivers have long been a cheap and efficient way of transporting wood, the felling often starts closest to the rivers for this reason.  as time passes you have to go further inland for the suitable trees.  as technologies for moving wood develop you are less constrained to the rivers as your means of transportation. water content when alive will have a big affect on cell size and final weight

its not just leo who was tight either - there are also stories about old violin makers like Stradivarius choosing flamed maple because it was cheap and rejected by everyone else because of its structural faults  ... even stories about them using salvaged broken maple oars, flamed maple oars would be more likely to break 

skay

The common belief of an old guitar sounding better, just because it is old, is an odd one. If the main difference between an old guitar and an identical model of a new one is that it is old, people tend to make a sweeping statement and generally conclude that it must be the age of the wood making the supposed improvement.

You cannot propose that old guitars are 'better' if you believe the above, as the new one hasn't had that chance to age yet, to directly compare and make an assessment which is truly better. The only conclusion is that you prefer an aged guitar to a new guitar, not that 'new ones' don't sound as good as new 'old ones', as there's no way to compare without a time machine and an anal retentive personality :-D

Another proponent of the argument of superior 'old wood' being used, that grew in some idyllic location, is also flawed as the wood used for these golden era guitars probably grew during the industrial revolution, so there was plenty of air pollution while that tree was growing, so if anything the wood growing now is equal or better? 

I've got a1950's Gibson acoustic that sounds great, I've no idea what the past 60 years has done to it from an ageing wood perspective, but I bet it also sounded pretty good when it was made as well...

  

Monstronaut

For me, I like old Les Pauls. Not because they're old, or look worn but because until 1965-ish Gibson were using old-growth wood for their solid bodied guitars. So the wood was already a hundred of years + old before the guitar was even made. If you listen to the great recordings of Clapton, Green, Kossoff, Gibbons, those Les Paul's sounded old then. Of course, they were making far fewer guitars then and old-growth stocks were easier to find. It is the main difference between original LP's and the reissues. The reissues sound great, but they don't have that 'old' sound. The only guitars I've had that come close to the few 50's-60's Gibsons I've had are Japanese Navigator guitars, because they are still made with old growth mahogany.

WezV

skay said:

Another proponent of the argument of superior 'old wood' being used, that grew in some idyllic location, is also flawed as the wood used for these golden era guitars probably grew during the industrial revolution, so there was plenty of air pollution while that tree was growing, so if anything the wood growing now is equal or better? 

  

Its not that the old wood grew in an idyllic location, its that there were more locations where it was left unmolested to grow.  there were more stocks of wood available 60 years ago than they are now because there were more untouched forests, it was simply easier to find suitable wood than it is now.

if in doubt go try and find construction grade oak grown in the UK.  not impossible for a niche market, but you couldn't found a construction industry on it any more

the air pollution thing probably has less effect than many of the other factors that allow trees to grow well. In fact forests do wonders for air pollution. Most do this without suffering too much, although that does depend on species. The virgin forests these trees grew in could just as easily had less air pollution than they do now, certainly once you get away from the industrialised edges which is easier to do in those older, bigger forests.  the biggest issue for trees growing during an industrial revolution would be the reduction of sunlight, but smog tends to be very localised

koneguitarist

Monstronaut said:

For me, I like old Les Pauls. Not because they're old, or look worn but because until 1965-ish Gibson were using old-growth wood for their solid bodied guitars. So the wood was already a hundred of years + old before the guitar was even made. If you listen to the great recordings of Clapton, Green, Kossoff, Gibbons, those Les Paul's sounded old then. Of course, they were making far fewer guitars then and old-growth stocks were easier to find. It is the main difference between original LP's and the reissues. The reissues sound great, but they don't have that 'old' sound. The only guitars I've had that come close to the few 50's-60's Gibsons I've had are Japanese Navigator guitars, because they are still made with old growth mahogany.

 

 

But is it the sound that's on the albums that you like ? as in front of guitar and amp, it will probably sound like a new Les Paul as most were new Les Pauls then !

 

I had a 54 tele, that I had to trade a MIJ 62 reissue in for, at first the honeymoon period won over any doubts, but after a while I realised the MIJ 62 reissue was the better tele !

Monstronaut

koneguitarist;84935" said:

Monstronaut said:

For me, I like old Les Pauls. Not because they're old, or look worn but because until 1965-ish Gibson were using old-growth wood for their solid bodied guitars. So the wood was already a hundred of years + old before the guitar was even made. If you listen to the great recordings of Clapton, Green, Kossoff, Gibbons, those Les Paul's sounded old then. Of course, they were making far fewer guitars then and old-growth stocks were easier to find. It is the main difference between original LP's and the reissues. The reissues sound great, but they don't have that 'old' sound. The only guitars I've had that come close to the few 50's-60's Gibsons I've had are Japanese Navigator guitars, because they are still made with old growth mahogany.  But is it the sound that's on the albums that you like ? as in front of guitar and amp, it will probably sound like a new Les Paul as most were new Les Pauls then ! I had a 54 tele, that I had to trade a MIJ 62 reissue in for, at first the honeymoon period won over any doubts, but after a while I realised the MIJ 62 reissue was the better tele !

The point I was trying to make is that a new Les Paul 1959 wouldn't sound like a new Les Paul in 2013 due to the age and species of the mahogany used at the time of construction. 'Better' is subjective.

ICBM

The modern guitars I've found which come closest to the sound of the old ones are Gibson 'pre-Historics' from around the mid 90s. I don't think they were using old-growth wood then! But those guitars are around twenty years old now, and are starting to sound really good. They still don't sound like real old ones, but they're some of the best modern guitars I know of.

Again to be absolutely clear, the 'old' and 'new' sound doesn't necessarily correlate with 'good' and 'bad', you can get either combination. My PRS sounds great too, and it's not an old guitar... nor does it sound like one.

One thing that's important to remember about those old recordings that were made with (then new, or at least new-ish) vintage guitars and amps… they used cables and in some cases pedals, which by modern standards were horrendously tone-sucking. The loading effect of a non-true-bypass pedal and thirty or more feet of coily cable probably makes more difference to the final sound than any subtle difference in the guitar or the amp.

koneguitarist

Quite agree, the sound you hear on record is not what it sounds like in front of amp. Point is no one knows what the difference is between a brand new Les Paul std and an original 1959 std when it was new. Probably the same as the difference between two brand new Les Paul std's. Minute. Myself personally I have had crap old guitars and crap new ones, plus good old ones and good new ones. A mid 70's heavy ash Strat is an old guitar today, older in relation to early 60's ones when they started to make money back in 80's, certainly not a better guitar to me, but some think its worth the stupid money that people are asking for them. I do love the idea and thoughts of old guitars, but the reality is often painfull.