difference between Vintage & Current basses?

ack1961 · 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

Barklessdog · February 17, 2011, 12:14:44 PM

Just talking tone, to me "Vintage Tone" is a passive bass

Modern tone would be an active bass, just my opinion.

exiledarchangel · February 17, 2011, 12:55:01 PM

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!

Highlander · February 17, 2011, 02:10:00 PM

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...

Pilgrim · February 17, 2011, 04:23:19 PM

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.

uwe · February 17, 2011, 04:46:06 PM

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

Pilgrim · February 17, 2011, 05:09:01 PM

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.

Dave W · February 17, 2011, 06:48:03 PM

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.

Basshappi · February 17, 2011, 07:11:15 PM

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.

uwe · February 18, 2011, 05:33:19 AM

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.

ack1961 · February 18, 2011, 05:41:02 AM

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.

Basshappi · February 18, 2011, 08:12:25 AM

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.

godofthunder · February 18, 2011, 02:51:53 PM

Quote from: Basshappi on February 18, 2011, 08:12:25 AM
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.

ack1961 · February 18, 2011, 03:51:35 PM

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.

exiledarchangel · February 19, 2011, 01:53:05 AM

You Americans are so lucky with your ultra-cheap SX toys.