#1
Hey guys, I was just thinking about like the sounds that older amps produce like a 1960's ToneMaster and a 1960 Les Paul. And what an amazing tone it produces, and I thought with all the technology and equpiment we have today, why aren't we producing products like this anymore?

Why do we have to pay in the excess of £1000's when we have technology and understanding of electronics today to make amps and guitars like this again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRnXiHGQBSs&feature=PlayList&p=F59C44F91872B1EA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=55

Thanks guys
Last edited by Stratopower at Nov 4, 2009,
#2
To raise the value of older amps and guitars, for two purposes.
1) Resale value and prestige.
2) To make crappy, but expensive, reissues.
Quote by Tone Deaf
Someone has had too much jager in their slushy. :/
Quote by CL/\SH
First person on UG to be a grammar nazi and use the correct form of "your" in the correct context.

+ 70 virgins to you, my good sir.

Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Girls DO fap...I don't though.
#3
Please stop reigniting my Les Paul GAS, especially when my tele is in the shop for repairs and can't defend itself. ><

Right then, a few simple reasons;

1. Cheaper. They can make more per dollar.
2. Quantity vs. Quality. Make a few quality guitars, sell them and you get a lot of happy customers. Make a lot of so-so guitars with some gems mixed in, you get a bunch of customers who don't know better, a bunch of customers who get the good ones and are happy and a bunch of annoyed people.
3. If the word of employees is anything to go by, the current manager at Gibson sucks.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 75-87
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 4-5
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 92-54
#4
You need to consider a few things. Demand for guitars and amps have increased a lot since the 60s. Gibson cannot produce millions of top quality Les Pauls a year like we wish. There's simply not enough quality wood to keep everyone happy. Same with amps. Amp components are expensive, especially since there aren't many tube makers anymore. It's all economics.

You also have to consider that musical tastes have changed a lot. High-gain is what's popular now, and high-gain is a lot more expensive.
#5
Thanks for your replys guys, I just think that it's sad that we cannot produce quality instruments anymore, perhaps Gibson should expand it's business to cater for such a large demand. Because there is no way in hell i'd lay out a £1000 on a Les Paul, which is going to be shit quality because some asshole a couple miles away can't be bothered to do his job properly.
#6
Quote by Stratopower
Thanks for your replys guys, I just think that it's sad that we cannot produce quality instruments anymore, perhaps Gibson should expand it's business to cater for such a large demand. Because there is no way in hell i'd lay out a £1000 on a Les Paul, which is going to be shit quality because some asshole a couple miles away can't be bothered to do his job properly.

It's not likely that it'll be shit quality. We can produce quality instruments. But the thing is that most people aren't ready to spend quality instrument money. You mention £1000 on a Les Paul, but you're only going to get a low-end Gibson Studio. They do make Les Paul Traditionals, Standards, and Customs that will be a lot better. I don't think you should complain when your cheapness is the reason you're not getting an amazing guitar.
#7
Quote by JELIFISH19
It's not likely that it'll be shit quality. We can produce quality instruments. But the thing is that most people aren't ready to spend quality instrument money. You mention £1000 on a Les Paul, but you're only going to get a low-end Gibson Studio. They do make Les Paul Traditionals, Standards, and Customs that will be a lot better. I don't think you should complain when your cheapness is the reason you're not getting an amazing guitar.



But £1000.00 isn't cheap, that is alot of money, and it's ridiculous that we have to pay insane amounts of money for a musical instrument. Especially because of the name on the headstock, i'm pretty sure you could pay a luthier to make you a Les Paul that has better build quality and electronics for £1000.00.
#8
you also have to take inflation into account.


back in the day ('70s?) you could buy a Mustang (or similar car) for like $5000.

Now stuff is nearly 10x more expensive.
#9
Quote by Stratopower
But £1000.00 isn't cheap, that is alot of money, and it's ridiculous that we have to pay insane amounts of money for a musical instrument. Especially because of the name on the headstock, i'm pretty sure you could pay a luthier to make you a Les Paul that has better build quality and electronics for £1000.00.

I highly doubt that. If you buy everything to build a guitar yourself, it'll probably cost about half of a LP Studio. And that's not even getting top quality materials. Then labor comes into play and it takes a long time to build a guitar. If you go to a local luthier, it'll probably cost a lot more than a LP Studio since it's technically a custom boutique guitar. Guitars are on the bottom end of the spectrum when it comes to musical instruments.
#11
Quote by Stratopower
But £1000.00 isn't cheap, that is alot of money, and it's ridiculous that we have to pay insane amounts of money for a musical instrument. Especially because of the name on the headstock, i'm pretty sure you could pay a luthier to make you a Les Paul that has better build quality and electronics for £1000.00.


You're actually complaining about £1000.00? Really, guitars are actually quite inexpensive. Yes, in the guitar world that seems like a lot, mainly because of brand names. However, have you actually looked at more classical instruments? Violins, Cellos, Pianos? Those range VERY high. The violin teacher at my local guitar shop paid over $50,000 for her violin. That's without the bow. The bow was $10,000. I've seen Violins go for as much as $400,000.

So really, while it may seem like a lot, guitars are actually quite inexpensive when compared to other instruments.
#12
Quote by FallsDownStairs
You're actually complaining about £1000.00? Really, guitars are actually quite inexpensive. Yes, in the guitar world that seems like a lot, mainly because of brand names. However, have you actually looked at more classical instruments? Violins, Cellos, Pianos? Those range VERY high. The violin teacher at my local guitar shop paid over $50,000 for her violin. That's without the bow. The bow was $10,000. I've seen Violins go for as much as $400,000.

So really, while it may seem like a lot, guitars are actually quite inexpensive when compared to other instruments.


violins have been in the millions O_o

but really, if you have the £1000 to spend, dont really complain.

a vintage les paul goes for liek 5000$, and a vintage violin liek 10s of thousands.

5000<50,000 its economics brah
Quote by 23:50 inbleach
can't i just eat the fucking cactus?

Quote by WildChicken
Go suck a cat westdyolf!

Quote by Cat Of Pain
So, West...

I hear you'll suck my cat...

Ill suck your cat
PEACE LOVE PANCAKES
call me zach

chocolate chip pancakes!
#13
Quote by Stratopower
Hey guys, I was just thinking about like the sounds that older amps produce like a 1960's ToneMaster and a 1960 Les Paul. And what an amazing tone it produces, and I thought with all the technology and equpiment we have today, why aren't we producing products like this anymore?

Why do we have to pay in the excess of £1000's when we have technology and understanding of electronics today to make amps and guitars like this again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRnXiHGQBSs&feature=PlayList&p=F59C44F91872B1EA&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=55

Thanks guys
Old les pauls are made with old wood. This wood is stiff and hard (har har) but at the same time, is very lightweight and resonant. That les paul in the video is what? like 9 lbs? We just don't have the materials to produce guitars like that anymore, and Gibson has to keep up with the demand for les pauls.

As for tube amps? There is nothing spectacular about that amp, it sounds good, but you can find amps like that everywhere.
#14
Quote by FallsDownStairs
You're actually complaining about £1000.00? Really, guitars are actually quite inexpensive. Yes, in the guitar world that seems like a lot, mainly because of brand names. However, have you actually looked at more classical instruments? Violins, Cellos, Pianos? Those range VERY high. The violin teacher at my local guitar shop paid over $50,000 for her violin. That's without the bow. The bow was $10,000. I've seen Violins go for as much as $400,000.

So really, while it may seem like a lot, guitars are actually quite inexpensive when compared to other instruments.


I recall an article once... you'd have to search teh interwebz for it.

Compared to lots of other musicians... guitarists ranked the stingiest when it came to spending on gear.
Quote by Blompcube
it's so cool to hate Gibson, even the federal Department of Justice hates them.

( )( )
( . .) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
C('')('') signature to help him gain world domination.
#15
Quote by ragingkitty
I recall an article once... you'd have to search teh interwebz for it.

Compared to lots of other musicians... guitarists ranked the stingiest when it came to spending on gear.


it's because there are so many guitar companies out there. That's one of the benefits to playing the world's most popular instrument is that many firms make guitars at affordable prices. the downside is that many of these instruments are crap.

I've never bought into the whole "vintage" thing. sure a 1963 strat made by Leo Fender himself is surely a fine instrument, but I could find a renowned luthier at a custom shop somewhere and he could make me a fine guitar comparable to a vintage instrument. Of course there are things that can't be replicated (like playing time, since well-made guitars tend to sound better with age) but I'd much rather have a well made custom shop guitar made to my specifications rather than dropping upwards of $15000 on an old instrument (unless of course I was one of those millionaires)
#16
Quote by Sir Anonymous
With the old Gibsons isn't it also that the wood that they would have used now is restricted?


Brazilian rosewood is very restricted these days. If you see it on a new guitar, like a high-end PRS, it has been in the country for quite a while. Guitar makers now use Indian rosewood for the fingerboards. The rest of the stuff - the mahogany for the body and neck, the maple for the top and the ebony for the fingerboard (Les Paul Custom and such) are not restricted. They just cost a lot more than they used to cost. During the 1970s and 1980s, Gibson tried to save money by using non-figured maple for the tops of their Les Paul guitars, which did not go over well with people who wanted a cherry sunburst finish over flamed maple. Gibson's return to highly figured maple tops has added a great deal to the price of their instruments.

As for old amplifiers, a lot of them don't sound as good as people whould have us believe. That they sound different is because they were made with 1950s or 1960s components, and they were made to 1950s or 1960s electrical specifications - which is illegal anymore (they won't meet modern safety standards). Good guitars and amplifiers made today sound very good. People wouldn't buy them if they didn't.
#17
One other factor to consider is that yje woods used have had 50 years or more of extra maturing. Mahigany and Spruce, on acoustics, mature very well and improve over time, tonewise. Get a top quality Les Paul now and in 50 years it will sound even better.
I pick up my guitar and play
Just like Yesterday

T C Ellis Series 2 LP w/Skatterbrane Quiescence pups
Cort EVL-K6
Yamaha RGX211 modded
H&S Electric 12-string
Shaftsbury Ricki 4001
'84 Fender Yale
Roland Cube 15x