Page 1 of 3
#1
I often check wiki or a website to see what players I like are playing. And I lost count of how many times it a 1976 XXXX or a 1983 XXXX or what have you. What's up with this? I mean they sound good so I'm not complaining but these are pros who can have any guitar they want, why use old ones? Do they get better sounding with age? Do they just not make good guitars anymore? Is it just that they'd have that particular guitar since it was new and don't like change? I feel like I'm missing a major piece of the puzzle here. I would have thought that an older guitar would be somewhat worn out. And at the very least out-dated. Is guitar producing technology at a standstill so that newer ones aren't really better? It's not that I'm bashing *seasoned* guitars I just don't get why all the good players seem to be playing them(well a lot of good players anyway).
Last edited by JoeRayClapton at Aug 30, 2011,
#2
Guitars do tend to sound better with age, you also get attached to your guitars you know? They just have that feel that you get familiar with. Even if playing two guitars of the same model, there will still be a difference if you have been using one longer then the other.
...
#3
well everyone has their preference... but nowadays a lot of guitars are being made "cheaper" i mean high end guitars are still good but like back then some mid ranged guitars could pass as high end today
Quote by Jack Off Jill
Man, thank God the russians created UG. Otherwise, how would I have gotten this information?
#4
So an Epi from the 70s might be better than an Epi today maybe even as good as a Gibson itself? And guitars do sound better when worn in a bit?
#5
You'd be surprised how much better a 1972 LP sounds when played side by side with a more modern LP, on the same amp.
Quote by rancidryan
Do they come with heroin because I heard thats the only reason Dave Mustaine used them


"The power of the riff compels me"
Bury Me In Smoke
#6
Quote by Flying Afros
You'd be surprised how much better a 1972 LP sounds when played side by side with a more modern LP, on the same amp.


So from what I'm gathering the guitar companies make shit guitars now. Cared more used better materials etc back in the day? Except maybe with the ultra high end stuff? Or is it just that 40 years of aging makes it sound better and it probably didn't sound any better than a modern LP when it was brand new?
#7
ever hear the term "they don't make em like they used to"?

it's true.

there are a plethora of reasons why they sound different.

i have my own theories on it.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#8
Quote by Flying Afros
You'd be surprised how much better a 1972 LP sounds when played side by side with a more modern LP, on the same amp.


Agreed.

Even more so with amps. AB a 60s Super reverb with a new one, and provided the old one is in working order, you will be blown away by the difference.
#9
some old guitars are made of now-illegal materials
HILT!

Where's Waldo?

#10
Quote by hawk5211
Agreed.

Even more so with amps. AB a 60s Super reverb with a new one, and provided the old one is in working order, you will be blown away by the difference.


Maybe the problem is that they figured out over the years that 99% of the guitar/amp buying public can't tell the difference in quality if they use less desirable parts and manufacturing techniques? And therefore they make more money now because they cut all kinds of corners? Leaving the 1% of guitarists who can actually tell the difference(the professionals) forced to scrounge for older used guitars. It's all kinda starting to make sense now. Even though they lose sales to that 1%(they get no money from the used) they get that back 100x by cutting the cost of their guitar drastically with cheap parts. And since every major company is doing it, you can't just buy elsewhere to solve the problem.
Last edited by JoeRayClapton at Aug 30, 2011,
#11
Quote by gregs1020
ever hear the term "they don't make em like they used to"?

it's true.

there are a plethora of reasons why they sound different.

i have my own theories on it.


does it involve sanskrit, pyramids, and the illuminati?
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#12
Quote by JoeRayClapton
Maybe the problem is that they figured out over the years that 99% of the guitar/amp buying public can't tell the difference in quality if they use less desirable parts and manufacturing techniques? And therefore they make more money now because they cut all kinds of corners? Leaving the 1% of guitarists who can actually tell the difference(the professionals) forced to scrounge for older used guitars. It's all kinda starting to make sense now. Even though they lose sales to that 1%(they get no money from the used) they get that back 100x by cutting the cost of their guitar drastically with cheap parts. And since every major company is doing it, you can't just buy elsewhere to solve the problem.

Or maybe they just got under new management who didn't know shit about guitars and cut corners because they thought they'd make a bigger profit.
HILT!

Where's Waldo?

#13
Quote by OliOsbourne
Or maybe they just got under new management who didn't know shit about guitars and cut corners because they thought they'd make a bigger profit.


Also entirely possible. It could be as simple as the new guy saying "How the **** are we supposed to stay in business if a 1972 LP sounds amazing in 2011?!?!?! We need people at some point to feel the need to REPLACE their ****ing GUITARS!!!!" and the throwing shit around the boardroom and then the walking cliche with the fumanchu mustache who designed the original Telecaster says he can't work for the company if they won't make guitars his daddy would have been proud of so they fire him and **** with his pension. I smell a movie of the week!
Last edited by JoeRayClapton at Aug 30, 2011,
#14
its like the same thing for cars isnt it? most people would take a 1969 Mustang or Camaro over a new one, because like someone said above, they just don't make them like they used to
"It's not about who has the biggest stick, it's about how hard you can swing it"
#15
Quote by M_16A
its like the same thing for cars isnt it? most people would take a 1969 Mustang or Camaro over a new one, because like someone said above, they just don't make them like they used to


See I personally never felt that way. Old cars are old. Heavy gas guzzling all metal death traps that beat you to death driving down the road and break constantly. They got 200,000 mile warranties now! Try that with a 1965 Stang. A lot of people say cars were better back then but I quite frankly never saw how. I mean if you like the old look better than more power to you, but I never saw the quality itself as superior. Seems that with guitars that's actually the case, though.
#16
They don't make em like they used to, now everybody cuts corners when ever they can to save money because our governments like to regulate the crap out of everything, thus jacking up the costs of everything.

^ Older cars are better because the average person could fix one...easily, these new cars coming out today, are just as complex as your computers in terms of how they operate and how precise they are.
Last edited by ethan_hanus at Aug 30, 2011,
#17
Quote by ethan_hanus
They don't make em like they used to, now everybody cuts corners when ever they can to save money because our governments like to regulate the crap out of everything, thus jacking up the costs of everything.

^ Older cars are better because the average person could fix one...easily, these new cars coming out today, are just as complex as your computers in terms of how they operate and how precise they are.


Being simple enough for Cousin Cleetus to fix in no way makes them better. If it did we'd all ride bikes because they are *better*.
#18
better is relative i suppose. with cars there are improvements for sure but most of them are electrical and computer controlled systems.

sooo...a firebird x.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#19
It depends on the brand and the preferences of the player. In the case of something like Fender strats, they really do not make them like they used to. Neither do they make Twins like they used to. While sometimes it can come off as a collector's fetish, there are some substantive reasons behind why some people like vintage stuff.
#20
Quote by ethan_hanus
They don't make em like they used to, now everybody cuts corners when ever they can to save money because our governments like to regulate the crap out of everything, thus jacking up the costs of everything.

^ Older cars are better because the average person could fix one...easily, these new cars coming out today, are just as complex as your computers in terms of how they operate and how precise they are.

I agree
Last edited by megaduu at Aug 30, 2011,
#21
Quote by AcousticMirror
better is relative i suppose. with cars there are improvements for sure but most of them are electrical and computer controlled systems.

sooo...a firebird x.


very truee
"It's not about who has the biggest stick, it's about how hard you can swing it"
#22
Quote by M_16A
very truee


Don't knock it till you try it. Firebird X is ugly as sin, if you play that live you had better be a hot chick, or a dude in a gay band. But for all we know it may well ROCK. I know it probably sucks but we can't know for sure yet. It's not doing anything guitar players don't already do with stand-alone stomps and boxes anyway. I find the concept itself rather interesting although I doubt Gibsons ability to pull it off.
Last edited by JoeRayClapton at Aug 31, 2011,
#23
Quote by JoeRayClapton
Being simple enough for Cousin Cleetus to fix in no way makes them better. If it did we'd all ride bikes because they are *better*.


Your ignorance shows, you have no idea how precise a dual overhead cam 289 direct port fuel injection interference engine is compared to a overhead cam style 289. Both are precise down the to thousands of an inch, a piece of paper is 5 thousands of an inch, and both of these engines are precise to the thousandth of an inch, except the newer ones are more precise.

Back in the day, most people know how to do things, so they weren't "cousin cleetus" as you so arrogantly put it, they actually knew what they were doing, because working on cars was a normal task for Americans. Things were actually fixable, unlike today, where you just replace all the worn out, or broken parts. Hardly anything today is built to be fixed, just replaced.

How does this relate to guitars...well, since more pride was taken in building those cars, and people actually took care of them and such, guitars and things built back then had more care and effort put into them. Now days, a guitar is just another guitar, it's money to the company, back then every guitar was a companies reputation, and it better be good otherwise it'll bring a bad rep to the company. Now, I'm talking back in the 60's and such, as time progressed, and people became less and less dependent on themselves, and more on services, they lost this mindset and became selfish bags of worthless crap that we know of as of today.
Last edited by ethan_hanus at Aug 31, 2011,
#24
The car argument is irrelevant since cars are obviously become much more advanced and completely different than they used to be.

Guitars on the other hand, haven't changed very much except where they are made and some slightly improved designs. And obviously, they may have used up all the better wood and are now working with the less desirable cuts, but that is debatable.

I recall a thread not too long ago where someone played a 59 Les Paul and was not impressed, as well as others who'd also played one from that era. Of course, tone is subjective, as is neck profile, but it seems like if guitars really were "better" back then, anyone who plays a 59 Les Paul would be blown away by it.

There's no doubt in my mind that my 2008 Ibanez Prestige will last 50 years if I take care of it, and that it will impress me just the same then as it does now. I can tell it's a quality guitar after playing the hell out of for the last 9 months. This isn't the case with most of my other guitars though, including my other Prestige. So did I just get lucky with this guitar?
#25
Quote by ethan_hanus
Your ignorance shows, you have no idea how precise a dual overhead cam 289 direct port fuel injection interference engine is compared to a overhead cam style 289. Both are precise down the to thousands of an inch, a piece of paper is 5 thousands of an inch, and both of these engines are precise to the thousandth of an inch, except the newer ones are more precise.

Back in the day, most people know how to do things, so they weren't "cousin cleetus" as you so arrogantly put it, they actually knew what they were doing, because working on cars was a normal task for Americans. Things were actually fixable, unlike today, where you just replace all the worn out, or broken parts. Hardly anything today is built to be fixed, just replaced.

How does this relate to guitars...well, since more pride was taken in building those cars, and people actually took care of them and such, guitars and things built back then had more care and effort put into them. Now days, a guitar is just another guitar, it's money to the company, back then every guitar was a companies reputation, and it better be good otherwise it'll bring a bad rep to the company. Now, I'm talking back in the 60's and such, as time progressed, and people became less and less dependent on themselves, and more on services, they lost this mindset and became selfish bags of worthless crap that we know of as of today.


most of the mechanical parts aren't even that much more precise, the electrical timing circuits just make it more efficient and the tolerances can be much wider.

even something like the window crank. before it had to be like 4 pieces that had to work together or it would work.

now with a button open close that window is controlled by like 8 billion tiny components.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#26
Quote by ethan_hanus
Your ignorance shows, you have no idea how precise a dual overhead cam 289 direct port fuel injection interference engine is compared to a overhead cam style 289. Both are precise down the to thousands of an inch, a piece of paper is 5 thousands of an inch, and both of these engines are precise to the thousandth of an inch, except the newer ones are more precise.

Back in the day, most people know how to do things, so they weren't "cousin cleetus" as you so arrogantly put it, they actually knew what they were doing, because working on cars was a normal task for Americans. Things were actually fixable, unlike today, where you just replace all the worn out, or broken parts. Hardly anything today is built to be fixed, just replaced.

How does this relate to guitars...well, since more pride was taken in building those cars, and people actually took care of them and such, guitars and things built back then had more care and effort put into them. Now days, a guitar is just another guitar, it's money to the company, back then every guitar was a companies reputation, and it better be good otherwise it'll bring a bad rep to the company. Now, I'm talking back in the 60's and such, as time progressed, and people became less and less dependent on themselves, and more on services, they lost this mindset and became selfish bags of worthless crap that we know of as of today.


With regards to cars, not really relevant here so we'll just let it go, I prefer modern cars they are more reliable in my experience but it's not worth arguing over. With regards to the guitars I don't think the individual worker cared anymore in 1960 about the guitars than they do now. But from a corporate standpoint I can see that maybe the company itself gives less of a shit. Buying cheaper materials, calling for higher tolerances of defects etc.

If we are speaking of American made guitars, I believe that the workers building Strats(for example) probably have a great deal of pride in what they do. Most people in American manufacturing of things like guitars do take a certain pride in it. But if the company mindset is strictly to make money and they don't care about quality then eventually the product is going to reflect that. Maybe that's what's happened to American Guitars. And of course the 15 year olds making the offshore guitars don't care at all.
Last edited by JoeRayClapton at Aug 31, 2011,
#27
Quote by ethan_hanus
Things were actually fixable, unlike today, where you just replace all the worn out, or broken parts. Hardly anything today is built to be fixed, just replaced.

I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm used to working on 50 million dollar jets, but my 99 4Runner doesn't seem very hard to work on, provided I'm smart enough to read the factory service manual over before jumping into it and that I either make or rent the factory service tool I need(provided I do need one) ahead of time. I know that might not sound ideal, but it's not unreasonable. And most any part on it can be rebuilt if needed, and is usually recommended before buying a reman because remans are junk, except for a few sensors here and there, that usually just need to be cleaned. And then there's the OBDII system that not only tells you what part is failing, but transmission, oil, and coolant temps, air intake, fuel mixture, and a ton of other stuff.

I've had a few old vehicles, I never want to go back to that unless it's for something that is not a daily driver.
#28
Quote by JoeRayClapton
With regards to cars, not really relevant here so we'll just let it go, I prefer modern cars they are more reliable in my experience but it's not worth arguing over. With regards to the guitars I don't think the individual worker cared anymore in 1960 about the guitars than they do now. But from a corporate standpoint I can see that maybe the company itself gives less of a shit. Buying cheaper materials, calling for higher tolerances of defects etc.

If we are speaking of American made guitars, I believe that the workers building Strats(for example) probably have a great deal of pride in what they do. Most people in American manufacturing of things like guitars do take a certain pride in it. But if the company mindset is strictly to make money and they don't care about quality then eventually the product is going to reflect that. Maybe that's what's happened to American Guitars. And of course the 15 year olds making the offshore guitars don't care at all.


a good vintage gibson is pretty much comparable to a gibson custom shop historic reissue.

a good vintage fender is pretty much comparable to a fender custom shop, suhr, tom anderson, grosh, etc.

that's all there is too it. they didn't have the methods of making cheaper things or substituting cheaper parts or outsourcing cheaper labor.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#29
i will relate this to a change in philosopy that my company undertook just before i left. I worked at a huge graphic house that churns out millions of ads a year. So, there used to be very strict guidelines and each part was done by people that specialized in that... logos and art was one department, images were another department, design was a department and finally proofreading was the final check. That was the business model for many many years. We churned out very accurate beautiful stuff. Fast forward to about 6 years ago, new mindset was everyone does everything. So rather than have specialists each person was responsible for the art, the layout, the images and the accuracy. What suffered? Quality of course. For the bottom line all mighty dollar quality was sacraficed. Just as it is most every company that is trying to increase profits to prove their viability in the global market.
How does this relate? well, if you want to run a successful guitar company you are chained to the all mighty dollar. Gone are the days of scrapping a guitar because something wasn't perfect. Every worker takes pride in their work but they have the whip cracking across their back to go faster and faster, so guess what is sacraficed. Are there awesome guitars being built today? of course. Are some of the modern guitars complete and utter crap? of couse. The guitars that are so saught after from the 50's adn 60's aren't always better but they were built in a time of better craftsmanship and more attention and care to the end product.
Quote by BlackVoid
Every guitar and bass forum I've visited has some people chasing some magical tone that will shoot jizzing unicorns riding on a rainbow out of their amp.
#30
So what I am getting is it's a combination of factors:

1: Back then the corporate concept of cutbacks and cutting corners hadn't become ingrained in the guitar companies yet so every guitar had to be perfect.

2: Some guitars really do sound better with age(if cared for).

3: Guitars were built to last back then but now are often designed to fail thus forcing a new purchase.

4: Some older guitars were made out of now-illegal materials.

5: In many cases they aren't better at all it's just a perception that persists. But a lot of the time it's completely true.
#31
Quote by JoeRayClapton
So what I am getting is it's a combination of factors:

1: Back then the corporate concept of cutbacks and cutting corners hadn't become ingrained in the guitar companies yet so every guitar had to be perfect.

2: Some guitars really do sound better with age(if cared for).

3: Guitars were built to last back then but now are often designed to fail thus forcing a new purchase.

4: Some older guitars were made out of now-illegal materials.

5: In many cases they aren't better at all it's just a perception that persists. But a lot of the time it's completely true.

Sounds about right, except for maybe number 3. There's no reason to believe that a Les Paul made today won't last 70 years. And I believe I heard somewhere that all of the vintage Gibson Les Pauls that exist today only make up a small percent of the old Les Pauls produced, so while it's generally assumed that some of them are still packed away in a closet somewhere by someone that doesn't know what they have, it's probably safe to say that many didn't make it this long, probably tossed out after the headstock broke or something.

So if half of the Les Pauls from the 50s-60s didn't last this long, then how is that quality craftsmanship? I realize there are lots of other variables to consider, but many people on this forum seem to be talking with no reason or logic behind their words.

I think with the popular use of the polyurethane finish, some guitars may last longer than ever.
#32
Quote by AcousticMirror
a good vintage gibson is pretty much comparable to a gibson custom shop historic reissue.

a good vintage fender is pretty much comparable to a fender custom shop, suhr, tom anderson, grosh, etc.

that's all there is too it. they didn't have the methods of making cheaper things or substituting cheaper parts or outsourcing cheaper labor.



completely wrong imo. no pyramids, sanscript or illuminati.


i have but two questions for you.

how do you age magnets?

where do these mfgs get old growth wood?




(assuming your time machine is borked).


edit: not to min, but to everyone else. there is no such thing as illegal materials. only materials that are illegal to harvest or import.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
Last edited by gregs1020 at Aug 31, 2011,
#33
Not all old ones sound good. I'm not as familiar with guitars but when it comes to say...70s fender basses it's hit or miss. Some sound like unicorn jizz some sound like a troll fart. Gotta find a good one as production was inconsistent then too.

There's tons of other factors too. For example with BC Rich once Rico Jr. took over he wasn't sending flawed guitars back to their builders to be fixed. Rico Sr. would. So less than stellar guitars were getting sold because of his oversight. But say, in the 80s that would never have happened. And you know what they say about 80s BC Riches, they're the bomb.
#34
not all 1959 les pauls sound good, according to many that have played the same one.
I wondered why the frisbee was getting bigger, then it hit me.
#35
LOL, you'll never get the UG crowd to say that old guitars aren't better, just to recognize some known manufacturing problem periods of certain brands (like CBS Fenders). There probably isn't a big difference in the average guitar from then to now, but the old ones that are still around tend to be the better ones from the better manufacturers that people wanted to save, not the crappy ones that people threw away.

And take it from the former owner of a beautiful black and white 1969 Mustang with a 289 V8 -- the only thing really better about an old Mustang is that it's beautiful.
#36
Quote by gregs1020
completely wrong imo. no pyramids, sanscript or illuminati.


i have but two questions for you.

how do you age magnets?

where do these mfgs get old growth wood?




(assuming your time machine is borked).


edit: not to min, but to everyone else. there is no such thing as illegal materials. only materials that are illegal to harvest or import.


i don't think any of those things are necessary for a good guitar, only for a guitar that sounds like it has aged magnets and old growth wood.

There's still enough good quality wood that is available but much more limited then the new growth fast dried wood.

I'll put my 5 pound hb spruce against a vintage guitar any day. But, how many 5 pound hollowbody guitars do you find in the budget range. 0.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#37
The quote in my sig was from a thread where I discussed guitar prices over history and how much they would cost in modern money. People were bitching about how much Gibsons and Fenders cost.

Guitars, and amps especially, were really expensive back then, so 'standard' models from the 60s or whatever can't really be compared to modern 'standard' models as they generally cost more relative to earnings etc.
Last edited by Duv at Aug 31, 2011,
#38
Back when people all had pride in what they did, products with minor defects were disposed of. Gibson used to destroy any guitar with any blemish/defect no mater how miniscule. Now they turn them into B-Stocks and sell them to the public. It is about profits, more than a quality product any more, and Gibson is a prime example of this. There was a time when probably 99% chance if you picked up a USA mad guitar like Gibson it would be of tremendus quality ( fit and finish) now I pick up as many not so great quality as quality. I guess thats inconsistant.

Yes some guitars are still made to the high standards of long ago. But like stated above they didn't have all the cheap parts available, so your bottom of the barrel Fender tele was made with the same high quality parts that the top of the line was.

And the old car thing, yes I agree that they made much better cars 40+ yrs ago. The parts were cheaper, and there was much less that could go wrong with your car. We are a disposable society now, butback then things were made to last, and the average person actualy took care of there posessions.
2002 PRS CE22
2013 G&L ASAT Deluxe
2009 Epiphone G-400 (SH-4)
Marshall JCM2000 DSL100
Krank 1980 Jr 20watt
Krank Rev 4x12 (eminence V12)
GFS Greenie/Digitech Bad Monkey
Morley Bad Horsie 2
MXR Smart Gate
#39
Quote by AcousticMirror
does it involve sanskrit, pyramids, and the illuminati?



yep
-Peavey 6505+
-Bugera 333xl(w/6l6 pt's) -dead
-412 X-pattern loaded w/ WGS veteran30s & HM75s
-Gibson Les Paul, SD Blackouts *being worked on back to stock*
-Jackson DR7, EMGs
-LTD MH417
-Peavey Vyper 75w
#40
Quote by OliOsbourne
some old guitars are made of now-illegal materials

Can anyone give some examples of now-illegal materials used back in the day?
Page 1 of 3