The Last Bass Outpost
Main Forums => The Bass Zone => Topic started by: ack1961 on February 17, 2011, 10:04:57 AM
-
Hey all,
I have a few more questions...I have a feeling that my questions may be annoying, but I'm fairly new to all this and not a spring chicken, so I'd like to get answers before I'm worm food.
I read a lot from this forum and from TB, and one of the often used comparisons is "vintage vs modern". I suspect, in most cases, they're referring to tone.
Plain and simple: I don't know what that means.
Can someone describe what "Vintage Tone" is and maybe give me an example of a song that clearly illustrates that sound (and the bass/gear in the recording)?
Can someone describe what "Modern Tone" is and give me an example of a song & gear as well?
Also, for those of you folks that have been playing bass for many years, I'd be real interested to hear what the differences are between a production bass from the 70's and a current similar model bass. I know that's quite a broad spectrum, and it would easier if I used "Fender P" as the comparison criteria, but I know there's quite a few guys on LBO that have been playing for a while and don't lean towards Fender basses.
I know that actual production techniques/tools have changed over the years, but I'm talking about the end product.
Thanks,
Ack
-
Just talking tone, to me "Vintage Tone" is a passive bass
Modern tone would be an active bass, just my opinion.
-
Agree, a passive bass, especially when strung with flats, is the definition for the vintage tone for me.
But there's also the style of playing that makes something more "vintagey". On the 60s and 70s I think bassists had more freedom on their playing. Modern style is kinda "strict" and ultra-precise.
I'm a sloppy guy, so guess what is my preference! :D
-
Think "The Who" and viciously bright Rotosounds on a Precision - that's "vintage" too...
"Modern" could be anything Rush or Level 42 did in the late eighties...
I prefer vintage - matches the player in me... ;)
-
When you think "vintage", think about not just the recorded sound, but the playback equipment.
I heard a lot of vintage sound via AM radio through a 6" mono speaker in the dash of my '59 Ford. Sounded pretty darn good to me.
Then I got a Muntz 8-track and four speakers in my '66 GTO - that was pretty fancy sound, podner.
So if people are actually old enough to have HEARD vintage sound (like thee and me), chances are that low to medium fidelity reproduction is a factor in their memory.
For me, I think of Jamerson/Motown, Jack Bruce/Cream, Booker T., the Who, the Beatles and similar acts as "vintage". Not all were P's by a long shot, but there sure were a lot of passive basses with flats being played on that stuff. There were P-basses, J-basses, EB-0 and EB-3s, Rics, the famous McCartney Hofner, Entwhistle's T-bird and other toys...but not many active basses.
-
Rule of thumb:
Vintage = not hifi, more mids than highs and lows, some overdrive and distortion, signal not compressed to death, i.e. notes drop in and out, side noises, fret buzz, amp hiss,
Current: Clean signal, presence and bass stronger than mids, ample sublows you only hear over the right speakers, no distortion unless wanted, even, but sometimes lifeless signal due to compression, bass drum and bass battle for the same frequencies and bass drum wins everytime
-
Right on, Uwe!
In a nutshell, the more processed, compressed and corrected the signal is (and therefore, the farther removed from reality) the less "vintage " it is.
-
Jack Bruce plays a fretless active neck-thru Warwick strung with 50-105 stainless rounds and he still sounds just like the 60s Jack Bruce. The same can be said for other older guys who are still alive and playing but have changed gear. Mel Schacher is another who comes to mind.
I don't think there's any common thread. There were huge differences in style and tone back then (Jamerson vs. Entwistle, e.g.) just as there are now.
Amps with enough headroom to produce a clean sound are more common and affordable now, so are speakers with enough power handling capacity.
-
As far as production quality of instruments one must realize that back "then" (I started playing in the late '70's) there was no "middle grade" instruments and inexpensive meant junk, period. The major manufacturers, Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker, Music Man etc. were the source of quality instruments and they were not cheap. Generally speaking the construction of these basses was very good but this was before the advent of CNC technology and so consistancy of fit and finish often varied from instrument to instrument even amongst the top brand makers.
The "Boutique" bass builders such as Alembic were a new thing, few such builders existed and only the famous could afford such instruments.
This began to change in the early 80's as the Japanese seriously stepped up their game and the after-market parts businesses bagan to make a serious impact.
Nowadays, despite the veneration of "vintage" instruments, modern basses and guitars are generally superior and the quality of mid-priced and even budget priced instruments is quite frankly amazing.
-
I think that is true. Any of todays 600 buck Yamaha or Ibanez basses would have been considered the epitome of bass building in 1970.
-
Guys, thanks for all the replies - I think I understand the meaning of the terms a bit better.
Not only did the Vintage/Modern terms confuse me a bit, but I've been trying to better understand two of my basses better: a (2009) G&L L2k and a (1981) T-40 which was adding to my confusion a bit.
- The L2k has a Preamp switch that lets you go from Passive (more Vintage) to Active w/ Treble boost (more Modern) as starting points.
- The T-40 is a Passive bass but it has a Phase Coil switch that really affects the tone of the Bridge pickup. Add in the fact that you can control whether the pickups act as SingleCoil or Humbuckers by rolling the Tone knobs just adds to my curiosity (it used to be "frustration").
I've spent the past week or so lining up my basses and playing one right after the other and comparing tones and range.
As I've been dorking with my basses, and after reading the replies above, I'm aware that I'm really not in love with the Modern Tone too much.
Picking up information like this is going to help me plan my next (2nd) build. I've got a beautiful Walnut slab waiting for me to do something.
I had a favorite bass before I started experimenting, now I've got a new one. I'm sure it'll be different next week.
I also appreciate the info regarding production basses. I read a lot of references regarding current budget basses and I laugh because most younger guys want to buy an SX or something and instantly mod the hell out of it (guilty, as charged), while most guys who've been playing forever pick one up and marvel at what you can get for $100 (compared to the quality of cheap basses back a few years - OK, 30 years). As Basshappi pointed out, there wasn't a middle grade like there is today. $500 today gets you a very playable bass that should last a lifetime.
-
True.
I have a SX Jazz bass, I bought it to see what the hype was all about. I was very skeptical but when I picked it up out of the shipping box I was honestly stunned, the fit, finish and neck profile are superior to my MIM Fender Jazz! After a good setup it was a perfectly gig-worthy instrument, for $100! Such a thing was inconcievable when I first started playing and was so even up to fairly recently.
-
True.
I have a SX Jazz bass, I bought it to see what the hype was all about. I was very skeptical but when I picked it up out of the shipping box I was honestly stunned, the fit, finish and neck profile are superior to my MIM Fender Jazz! After a good setup it was a perfectly gig-worthy instrument, for $100! Such a thing was inconcievable when I first started playing and was so even up to fairly recently.
Ain't this the truth! I started playing around '71. My "first" bass was a rented Kingston Jazz wanna be, what a total POS ! I also bought a SX to see what all the fuss was about. Wood selection, fit and finish are excellent, far better than any 70's Fender I own. The hardware and pickups are perfectly functional but many like to upgrade. Now is a great time to start playing so much good gear for amazing prices. My SX Jazz, the only mod I did was put a Dimarzio Model J in the neck position, hell I did that with my '08 MIA Jazz. This is a great playing and sounding bass.(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/SX75J005.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/SX75J002.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/SX75J003.jpg)
-
That's a nice looking bass...love the black blocked inlays.
I also took the SX plunge and bought a RI '62 Jazz Fretless a while back.
I swapped out the electronics for an Audere Preamp last year - now it has that Modern sound that I dislike so much.
I'll probably put the original electronics back in and learn how to play properly.
-
You Americans are so lucky with your ultra-cheap SX toys.
-
Ack, thanks for posing those questions! I've wondered about the same things but never really THOUGHT about them they way you have.
Everyone's answers are damn informative!
My '75 P-bass is beat up and is not very loud compared to the other basses I have but sounds terrific and with the flats really does fit the "vintage" bill. Funny too is how similar my G&L LB100 sounds to the Fender but still different. I have no doubt if the G&L had flats the two basses could readily swap out for each other and still present the same feeling and sound while still having their own personalities.
This subject is pretty interesting, really!
-
This is a good thread ;D. It's something that is often talked about but seldom actually defined.
My 70 P is sort of a vintage piece but still fairly capable of a more modern sound (pickup is pretty strong for passive and it gets very low). Still, it's not like an active pickup. My 51 P RI is strictly a vintage sound. The pickup is not real strong and loud but it has a nice old school tone that is more akin to an upright than a modern electric sound.
I'm going to a jam tonight where there will likely be an expensive active pickup modern hot rod bass or two. I am always asked to try them out and I do. They are fun to play with, very strong and cut through exremely well, but to me, they have so much presence I feel like I should be in solo mode the whole time I'm playing them. Solo mode is just not the way I play and I can't wait to get my old Fenders back in my hands and play some good old fashioned walking lines.
I like the way the modern active stuff cuts but when I listen to the playback I actually like the sound and the way the vintage passive stuff blends into the mix. Old dog and new tricks don't often mix ;).
Rick
-
You Americans are so lucky with your ultra-cheap SX toys.
It's true that it isn't hard to get an SX in the U.S. But you do have to order them from Rondo Music. In some countries, you can buy an SX bass from a music store. If SX is sold in any music stores in the U.S., I'm not aware of it.
-
vintage tone to me is a fender or similar bass with flats through fifteen inch speakers. fingers or picks accepable. "modern' tones don't interest me enough to have an other than cynical opinion about it. i do notice that modern sound on truck commercials, though. it must sound very manly and aggresive to those madison avenue types. ;)
-
"Agressive" is a good word to describe the modern sound. Like I said, if you're in solo mode that aggressive edge can be a good thing, but that's really not so much my thing. When I get the urge for that aggressive edge my 70P has enough of a treble punch to get what I'm looking for.
A while back I got my hands on an Alembic (may see it tonight) and it was very aggressive , with all kinds of cutting power and I did get a kick out of it. The bottom line is........ it just wasn't me. Outstanding piece of work, just not me. I'm a blues guy with a bit of jazz and rockabilly mixed in, where every line is a walking line and infrequent solos are short breaks or a little stretching out that usually blends with, rather than disrupts the tempo of the song.Ya' know, like the old timers do ;D.
If you're a real solo freak or even if you do a lot of single note stuff that requires a boatload of sustain and real aggressive dominating presence, the modern active pickup sound is probably just what you need.
Rick
-
Although certainly there are some talented people who prefer it, I've always found the modern sound to be pretty boring.
-
Vintage tone to me can mean many things. Jamerson, McCartney, Entwhistle, Dunnaway, Squire, Lea. All using passive basses through mainly tube amps though some great tones were gotten with SS gear. Flat wound, roundwound pick or fingers. Imho the modern sound started around '76 when it seemed the bottom and charecter dropped out of a lot of bass recordings as the trend was for cleaner and cleaner tone, the bass also seemed to shift to the background. This is a generalization of course but I remember clearly back in '76 or so I didn't like where bass was headed.
-
Some examples of my favorite vintage tones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPjDMZiuhbQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyXIVi34sDI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjR6u5QOTKE and JAE Live at Leeds forgive the rock band example but the bass audio is fantastic on this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m84eF0elnVo
-
Oh what the heck one more JAE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doETiUZOkL4
-
Guys, this is awesome - the responses are all so demonstrative that I really think I've got a grip on what was a very puzzling subject for me...and apparently, Denis (must be a Raleigh thing).
Rick's response above regarding the modern/active basses cutting through the mixes so "well" really defined the modern sound for me. I also agree that there is a time and place for that modern sound, but it's almost too clean & clear for me to care for too much.
I have learned a ton from this thread...and I even found a Beatles song I can stand! Thanks to all - the music is great. This thread also reminded me that I need to convert some old Slade LP's to digital to keep on the iPod. Just gotta find 'em.
-
Slade ! God I love 'em! Jim Lea is one of the most underrated bassists of the era!
-
I still say it's the player, not the bass. Paul McCartney's Wal and JAE's Alembics were active and supposedly "modern" as are Jack Bruce's Warwick I mentioned previously. Does Geddy Lee sound less modern with a Rick or a J than a Wal? I don't think so.
Clean, clear sounds were certainly popular back in the day. Joe Osborn and Carol Kaye used flats but their sounds certainly were clear even if you couldn't hear that well on your AM car radio.
Modern sound is aggressive? Compared to what? Plenty of 60s and 70s bass sounds were aggressive (again, JAE for example).
-
I think the "modern" bass sound was birthed with the Music Man Stingray, but it was a long gestation. There are plenty of "vintage sounding" records that used pre-EB Stingrays: Rick James -"Superfreak," most of Stevie Wonder's 70's catalog, etc. When pop music became dominated by keyboard bass in the early 80's, pop bassists began dialing in a lot more upper mids and highs to create bass sounds not easily duplicated by the synths of the day and the most accessible active bass at that time was the Stingray, so a Stingray with dimed highs became the norm.
Also around that time, bassists like Jaco and Stanley Clark began to play the bass as a harmonically lead instrument making round low mids and lows less important than a strong upper-midrange voice. Add Flea's slap funk and RHCP's mega popularity to the mix and music-fan kids came to accept the idea of bass being front and center. As bass playing became more populist and not just the red-headed stepchild refuge of failed guitar players, lots of people began gravitating to more "modern" voiced instruments and amps, and like a lot of things in the 80's, it was well overdone. In general, I find that beginning players like modern voicings and as they "mature" as players, they move more towards "older" sounds.
...of course, this doesn't even begin to address amplification, which figures in very strongly in its own right.
-
I agree, I think that amplification, vast improvement of PA systems and digital recording/playback have more to do with the "modern" bass sound than the instruments themselves.
Furthermore, I do not hold with the idea that vintage tonality and playing only within the traditional role is somehow more "mature" or valid than the "modern" sound and the expansion of the bass guitar into more encompassing roles. Just like the guitar before it, the bass is finally being realized as a complete instrument capable of the full range of musical expression. I for one applaud this evolution and it saddens me to see the on-going divisivness amongst the bass community. There is plenty of room for everyone at the table.
-
My comment was more observation than endorsement. I spent many years working in music stores. The newbies ALWAYS went straight to scooped mid "smilie-face" EQ on the active basses and amps and proceeded to atonally beat the living shit out of whatever poor bass they picked up trying to cop the latest Korn or Limp Bizkit slap lick at earbleed volume for sometimes hours. Those who stuck with playing awhile or had been playing for years would walk in and pick up a bass, they would try it unplugged, and then, if they liked it, it went into an amp at moderate volume. Kids would abuse the Korean active import basses for hours and a serious player would buy a $1K+ bass after about ten minutes, tops.
Just so you understand, while I'm a firm tube amp nut, I like basses that sound good, period. Out of my 19 basses, five are active, including my beloved Stingray bought new in 2000. I sound like me on all them. While I find many active EQ basses bland and nasal, I also find many revered passive basses to be the same. Good sound and tasteful play are not mutually exclusive entities; half the "secret of tone" is knowing what to play when and how.
-
I read through this thread and as I read each members comments I was saying to my self "yes" and "thats right" or "Exactly, he's nailed it". Then I realised that I was agreeing with contradictory comments.
I play a variety of passive, active, single coil and humbucker basses. Mostly, I might as well have them all hard wired and forget about tone and volume pots. I try and get the broadest available sound from each bass during setup. Then I simply change the way I play to get the sounds I need. One song I will flick my right fingers down on the strings above the top frets making it fret bounce and twang in a Geddy Lee type sound. Another song I will play evenly over the middle pup and squeeze the notes out giving me a very warm and round sound. Another variation is to play hard over the back pup in a more staccato manner giving me more bark and attack. Or I can squeeze down in an aggressive way over the middle pup giving a more vintage midrange growl. In this sense I agree with Dave, its how you play that determines your sound to a large degree.
That said!
I still believe after 30 years of playing that wood is the staring point of your sound followed by pups. Then its weather or not you are using a tube preamp stage or SS. I use (mainly) an Ampeg SVP-PRO (sometimes an SWR IOD which gives me output stage type distortion from 2 EL84's) with good quality tubes. I totally believe that tubes have one of the biggest effects on my sound/tone. The tubes allow me to play clean fast notes when I modify my technique to suit, and warm fat notes again by changing my technique and then all the other variations I have already mentioned. Its the tubes that will give me that extra compression and growl when I attack the strings or the warm richness by playing lighter and smoother over the middle pup.
With the exception of a few amps like the SVT and its ilk the rest is just about increasing the volume of a good sound through (in my case) class D digital amplifiers.
I complicate matters a little by running a bi-amp system which allows me to use the crossover as a virtual cab selector by changing the selected crossover frequency.
For me its a mixture of old and new technology that allows me ultimately to change between a modern sound and a vintage sound by using my fingers rather than anything else.
-
Ultimately, Dave and PBG hit it on the head. It's all about the player. When I play a modern active PU bass, the first thing I do is fart around for a few minutes and pretend I'm Stanley Clarke, but when it's time to actually play something, I fumble around with the controls and try to dumb it down as much as I can to make it sound like my 51 or 70 P :P.
It's funny when the guy who owns the bass is giving me a crash course on how to get more of this and more of that by tweeking in the controls and my only question for him when he is done is, "how do I make it go away"?
Dumbing it down is the only way to get what I like, so for my purposes , I see no need to spend a lot of money on a bass with a lot of features that I don't use or want.
A lot of modern bass players are kind of OK with playing my 70 P but my 51 they absolutely hate because it's too "primitive". I'm very understanding of different opinions and I don't knock anyone for what they like or dislike. I'm pretty used to being a minority and just about anything that comes out of my mouth is not going to be the popular opinion ;D.
Rick
-
You are definitely not alone... as I've pointed out before I dump controls to minimise interference with the signal... on the Peter Cook I've even bypassed the volume pots... the RD Artist I'm (sloooowly) rebuilding will just have the neck pup running through a single 500k pot - nothing else...
There appears to be a common agreement that the player makes the style...
-
Ah, Kenny you're my kind of guy ;D.
I flash back to geting ten minutes of instruction on how to use the controls on a guys hot rod active bass, then he wanted to try my 51 P. As he strapped it on , I pointed to the two controls I told him "that one makes it louder and that other one does something else". He looked at me like I was retarded ;D.
Rick
-
Bypassing all controls (active or passive) is fine if that's what gets you your sound and makes you happy. OTOH you do use the controls on your amp. And on-the-bass controls are just different versions of what you can do on your amp's control panel.
-
True, but in my case on my own Hiwatt, guess what - everything set at max, just the volumes getting played with, and the 50/100 watt switch - If I finally run the PC in stereo I could always use the balance control between the two inputs... works for me... ;)
(hmm... that MAG300 has got more controls than you could shake a hat at and I've yet to run the beast in anger, and I've just quit the band I was in, so... :sad: :rolleyes: ;))
-
I find that a passive bass with flats or very old rounds is a good starting point for me. I run it into my Gena-Benz Shuttle and make almost no EQ adjustments. I run the preamp high to get some sound out of the 12AX7 tube, but that's about it.
I think generally I'm oriented to what most wound consider a "vintage" sound. I prefer playing finger-style, but I'm learning to use a pick more proficiently on numbers that require a lot of attack in the notes or have sustained fast passages.
If I think about the "Seinfeld theme" style of slap bass, I consider that a modern style, and one which I really have no desire to play.
-
If I think about the "Seinfeld theme" style of slap bass, I consider that a modern style, and one which I really have no desire to play.
I believe that's a keyboard.
-
Yep, definitely a keyboard. I wouldn't like it if it were played on a real bass.
Maybe on a tuba, though. ;D
-
I'm a Seinfeld fan and have watched probably all the episodes several times. That (keyboard) bass is annoying. I suppose it fits, but a lot of other stuff would have fit better, IMO.
-
I remember back in the late 1990's I'd brought my Steinberger L2 to rehearsal and did some slap stuff to warm up and the guys all said, "Oooh, Seinfeld bass!" :rolleyes: :puke:
-
reasonably sure its a Yamaha DX7
-
Vintage TV bass - "Barney Miller"
-
Vintage TV bass - "Barney Miller"
man i loved that theme even before i started playing bass.
-
From TB
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f28/seinfeld-theme-bassplayer-17234/
"In Bass Player Magazine's 10th Anniversary issue, in the article "Will Lee's 10 Favorite TV Themes That Feature Cool Bass Lines", Jonathan Wolf is credited with the Seinfeld theme. He was the musical director on The Arsenio Hall show.
10. Northern Exposure (David Schwartz)
09. Barretta, "Keep Your Eye on the Sparrow" (Chuck Rainey)
08. S.W.A.T. (Scott Edwards)
07. Fat Albert (Unknown)
06. Seinfeld (Jonathan Wolf)
05. Ironsides (Chuck Rainey)
04. Sanford & Son (Chuck Rainey)
03. Courageous Cat (Unknown)
02. Barney Miller (Jim Hughart)
01. Peter Gunn (Unknown)"
-
From TB
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f28/seinfeld-theme-bassplayer-17234/
"In Bass Player Magazine's 10th Anniversary issue, in the article "Will Lee's 10 Favorite TV Themes That Feature Cool Bass Lines", Jonathan Wolf is credited with the Seinfeld theme. He was the musical director on The Arsenio Hall show.
10. Northern Exposure (David Schwartz)
09. Barretta, "Keep Your Eye on the Sparrow" (Chuck Rainey)
08. S.W.A.T. (Scott Edwards)
07. Fat Albert (Unknown)
06. Seinfeld (Jonathan Wolf)
05. Ironsides (Chuck Rainey)
04. Sanford & Son (Chuck Rainey)
03. Courageous Cat (Unknown)
02. Barney Miller (Jim Hughart)
01. Peter Gunn (Unknown)"
What, no "Night Court"?
Chuck Rainey had his share of TV gigs, huh?
-
I believe that's a keyboard.
I deedent know dat!
I still don' like eet.
-
As it happens ;D I came up with my own TV slap bass theme a few years back.
Its called Slap in da face
http://www.frog-host.net/music/Slap%20in%20da%20face.mp3 (http://www.frog-host.net/music/Slap%20in%20da%20face.mp3)