Idk, I'm Calling BS on This Steve (Rothery of Marillion)

[TSJMajesty]

Whether or not "great wood" still exists, in the context of being able to create a fine guitar tone, that could one day be instantly-recognizable as one's own sound, the possibilities right now to be able to do this are endless. SO much gear to choose from, infinite ways of mixing it together, all the various pickup configurations/magnets/wiring/coil taps/phase, not to mention endless amp tones, pedals to choose from, wood combinations, etc., etc.

If you can't find something out there to create an amazing, signature guitar tone, you are the problem. Sorry Steve, I just don't think it matters, whether it's even true or not. (Which I don't think it is.)

Here's his comment that sparked my reaction:

 

[Jarick]

I guess I'd be curious to hear from really experienced players and get their takes. I haven't really played many high end vintage guitars and certainly not recently to form an opinion. My guitars sound good but maybe 50's and 60's ones sound better?

It is interesting that people like Tom Bukovac basically only play vintage guitars with the exception of a couple high end newer guitars. Dunno how much of that is preference vs mojo vs just plain what he can afford. But that type of player I'd say would know his stuff more than enough to form that opinion.

Would also be interesting to hear from a builder, but I don't think many builders would say modern materials aren't as good.

 

[PLX]

You could hand Tom Bukovac a $100 AliExpress Strat, and he'd make it sound good.

 

[Jarick]

You could hand Tom Bukovac a $100 AliExpress Strat, and he'd make it sound good.

He absolutely would, but he'd also probably scoff at a $5,000 Fender Custom Shop. He had mentioned last week that he picked up a Novo and it was one of the very few new guitars he played and liked.

 

[Sleezy E]

You could hand Tom Bukovac a $100 AliExpress Strat, and he'd make it sound good.

 

[PLX]

 

[la szum]

Some of the most iconic sounds of the past 20-30 years have been guys like Jack White and
Dan Aeurbach using Pawn Shop junk from the 1960s. So there.

Old, British guy is old and British.

 

[la szum]

Where's @Dan Nill when you need him.

 

[PorcinePicker]

Good wood? One of my best sounding guitars is an ESP LTD Les Paul copy....one of the ones that goes used for three-fiddy everywhere you look. I picked it up for a lot less*. Of course, it only stays in tune reluctantly and weighs as much as an anvil....

IMO, good wood is luck of the draw now, just like it was 60-70 years ago.

* (Also the only guitar I've ever bought where the seller texted me later the same day and asked if might sell it back to him. LOL!)

 

[DrewJD82]

I think a lot of this stuff is a case of nostalgia for the younger days heavily influencing belief.


The grass was greener….
The light was brighter…
The taste was sweeter…

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Yeah, I think it's absolutely BS to think that one has to have a vintage instrument to have their own voice. Plenty of folks (myself included) think Chris Thile sounded better on his modern Dudenbostel than on his 20's Loyd Loar mandolin.

Also, its not like these dudes are like "ya know, I'd really love to play a Strat but price on 60's Strats is out of my price range, so instead I settle for a jaguar since I need vintage and that's vintage in my price range". Nah, they'll settle for Custom Shop Strat. Which is to say a Strat is still a Strat, whatever decade it was made. All that said.

- The wood that was being harvested 60-100 years ago was different than that which is harvested today. There's not really any room for debate here.

- Wood matters. Argue about whether it impacts the plugged-in sound of an electric all you want, anyone that's played 1/2 dozen American Professional Strats from same year knows that they all vibrate quite differently in the hand, and sound fairly different played unplugged. That matters regardless of whether two guitars sound the same plugged in.

- So, yeah, I can't see how vintage guitars wouldn't be in a different category from modern stuff on more than just a vibes/feel level. How different are those categories? Dunno. Haven't played a whooooole lot of vintage electric stuff. Vintage acoustic stuff absolutely just sounds different than modern acoustic stuff. I've never played a pre-1960s acoustic that didn't just sound totally different to anything modern I've played.

- Vibe matters, and vintage electrics DO have a vibe. I have't played any "relic" guitar that actually feels like a vintage guitar. Some feel nice and "broken in", but not "old". The handful of Murphy Labs I have played didn't feel anything like my new catch, and definitely didn't SMELL anything like it: https://thegearforum.com/threads/nvintagegd.7328/

- Probably the bigger issue is that with vintage instruments a lot more of the dogs have already been put out to pasture, so the likelihood of a vintage instrument being really good are much higher just because there's been a 1/2 century of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and what's left is mostly good stuff.

 

[DrewJD82]

- Probably the bigger issue is that with vintage instruments a lot more of the dogs have already been put out to pasture, so the likelihood of a vintage instrument being really good are much higher just because there's been a 1/2 century of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and what's left is mostly good stuff.

Actually, a point I meant to raise in my post is that out of all the pre-1980 guitars I’ve played, which includes around 30 or so pre-CBS Fenders, the majority were not amazing sounding guitars, they just sounded like guitars. Like any group of guitars there’s going to be a couple standouts, but I can’t say I experienced more standouts than I’d expect to find in a group of guitars made after 1980.

To be a fair, a large part of that is because many of those guitars needed work, particularly fret and nut work because no one wants to replace the originals, but I also don’t believe it’d turn all of them into the great supposed great sounding guitars they’re claimed to be due to the year they were made.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

To be a fair, a large part of that is because many of those guitars needed work, particularly fret and nut work because no one wants to replace the originals, but I also don’t believe it’d turn all of them into the great supposed great sounding guitars they’re claimed to be due to the year they were made.

Yeah, that's the flip side of the "50 years to sort the good from the bad." "50 years for stuff to go out of whack"

 

[FuzzyAce]

The grass was greener….
The light was brighter…
The taste was sweeter…

I see what you did there.

 

[metropolis_4]

There is something special about the feel of an old guitar. I don’t know if I could even put my finger on it to describe what it is…

Ive had two experiences in my life playing a guitar that was so amazing it will forever be burned into my memory. The first was an early ‘60s Jaguar, the other was a brand new Bob Benedetto 7 string…

I don’t know what either of those has to do with this discussion, but that’s what came to my mind reading and watching this

 

[FuzzyAce]

- The wood that was being harvested 60-100 years ago was different than that which is harvested today. There's not really any room for debate here.

100%. Hardwood trees are harvested a lot sooner now. I see it in my line of work too and use a lot of white oak, walnut and maple, among other species. But wood is wood to a point, it does what it wants anyways. One board from the same species could weigh twice as much as the next one, one might just be twisted the other perfectly straight. With most woodworking you're looking for consistency up to a point so you know what to expect when making something. So it's important to pick good wood that's strong and predictable. That's important for guitar making too, and then you have to add in tonal and weight considerations on top of finding consistent supply. But I do think there is something to older wood that's been aging for decades on a guitar. Doesn't always mean the guitar will be better -- because I think construction, fit and finish matter most. Getting the combination right of all those elements is what keeps people searching for the special ones.

 

[laxu]

Think of the vintage market.

Gibson, Fender, and some other brands = desirable vintage, with mojo, and superior tone.
Similar age guitars from other brands = just an old guitar.

It's all just bullshit based on brand name value more than anything.

Let's not forget you could not give away 1970s Gibsons and Fenders in the 1990s because people considered them to be crap, but a few decades later people are trying to pass those off as good. The reality is that those had good and bad examples, but they certainly didn't have some "good old wood" going for them.

Yes, today you have guitars made of wood that hasn't had as long time to grow etc, but at the same time those guitars can be made with higher precision and more likely drying those woods is a more advanced process as well.

My oldest guitar is now around 44 years old, give or take. It's a great guitar, but it's in no way better or worse than guitars that are "only" 20-35 years old, or even compared to my guitars that are only a few years old.

The oldest guitar is not collectable. It's not something people bring up when they say how good those old vintage guitars are. It's just an old guitar.

Years ago I had a chance to try some real vintage guitars, like acoustics from the 1930s, old Gretsch holllowbody etc. They all had a cool vibe to them, but they all played worse than any of my own guitars and certainly didn't sound better. Keeping them original to retain their value actively hurts their usability as guitars. But I can appreciate the vibe they have, so I totally understand seeking out old guitars for that.

I think people need to be more honest about this and say that they like the vibe of vintage guitars and are willing to pay what it costs to get that, rather than try to hype up their likely overpriced purchase by saying how it's soooo much better than anything made today.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Years ago I had a chance to try some real vintage guitars, like acoustics from the 1930s, old Gretsch holllowbody etc. They all had a cool vibe to them, but they all played worse than any of my own guitars and certainly didn't sound better. Keeping them original to retain their value actively hurts their usability as guitars. But I can appreciate the vibe they have, so I totally understand seeking out old guitars for that.

I think people need to be more honest about this and say that they like the vibe of vintage guitars and are willing to pay what it costs to get that, rather than try to hype up their likely overpriced purchase by saying how it's soooo much better than anything made today.

Vibe goes a long way for sure. But keeping a vintage guitar that doesn't play well is silly in my mind, especially if you're a player. It serves no positive purpose having a vintage Gretsch or Martin in rough playing condition. It should perform as well as any modern guitar if care has been taken to maintain and do the tough work when necessary. It won't devalue the instrument unless something is totally replaced like a fretboard or soundboard, etc.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

Think of the vintage market.

Gibson, Fender, and some other brands = desirable vintage, with mojo, and superior tone.
Similar age guitars from other brands = just an old guitar.


Years ago I had a chance to try some real vintage guitars, like acoustics from the 1930s, old Gretsch holllowbody etc. They all had a cool vibe to them, but they all played worse than any of my own guitars and certainly didn't sound better. Keeping them original to retain their value actively hurts their usability as guitars.

(1). You clearly haven't looked past like TPS or Joe Bonomassa videos in terms of knowing the vintage market. The brands that rock and roll heroes played are the stars and claim the HUGE price tags, but there is loads of interest in all sorts of vintage stuff, not just for nostalgia but for tone. Washburn acoustics in particular come to mind.

(2). I'm sorry you haven't had the pleasure of playing a well set up vintage acoustic guitar. I've played a couple of 30's Martins and from a playability perspective...they were not lacking in the least. There's really no need to de-value an instrument to get it into great playing shape for the most part.

"Vintage is inherently better" is BS, but so too is "Vintage instruments are old, crusty, and hard to play."

 

[laxu]

(2). I'm sorry you haven't had the pleasure of playing a well set up vintage acoustic guitar. I've played a couple of 30's Martins and from a playability perspective...they were not lacking in the least. There's really no need to de-value an instrument to get it into great playing shape for the most part.

"Vintage is inherently better" is BS, but so too is "Vintage instruments are old, crusty, and hard to play."

That was not the point I made though. These particular ones, due to them being old and maybe not in the best condition in the first place, was why they weren't that good as guitars for playing. They might be good guitars for collecting in their original state, with a bit too much neck relief, old strings, fretwear and whatnot.

A lot of the vintage market is built around collectable value, or people trying to position what they have as desirable, hence people peddling 1970s Fenders and Gibsons for big bucks. Whether they sell or not, I don't know.