Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrade?

[Funkfingers]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

You are missing the point...It wasn't the equipment it was genius, talent and hard work that created those revered tones.

A good deal of it was happenstance.

Many of our revered gear combinations were not what those who devised it intended.

Leo made guitars and amps for Country and Western Swing musicians. Les Paul's solid body guitar concept was for amplified Jazz applications. Both designs assumed flatwound Medium gauge strings with a wound G.

Fender tweed amplifiers were never intended to be turned up to 12 and thrashed. The Bassman 4x10 - clue's in the name, folks - was developed with the necessary additional gain to amplify the low output single coil pickup of the original Precision Bass.

Probably of necessity, somebody somewhere chose to plug in a guitar into a Fender Bassman and the rest, as Henry Ford would say, is bunk.

The original Marshall amps were a rip off of the Fender Bassman, just built using European components.

By the time Bloomfield, Clapton and others were plugging into Marshall amplifiers, Gibson had long since discontinued the Les Paul guitar as we know and love it.

Genius!

 

[leevc5]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

there is some validity to what you say. at the same time there was better (old growth) wood being used. there were lots of inconsistencies in the process since there was a lot of hands on work but that isnt necessarily a bad thing but leads to more variation. these guys were serious about their equipment, claptons famous black strat was pieced together from his favorite bits of three vintage strats, but i dont think they focused so much on the minutia like we tend to now. amps are not build the same way they used to be, a vintage deluxe reverb doesnt sound like the new ri and there are a variety of reasons for it. you can have someone build you an amp like they did in the old days but itll cost you a lot of money. im not discounting the artist the huge influence of that person on their tone and recorded/live output but their equipment played its role as well

Clapton's most notable tone IMO came from a stock '64 SG with a fancy paint job played through a stock Marshall. It is rumored that the guitar was given to him by George Harrison. Maybe it was a "magic" guitar where all the variances of "old growth wood" and pickups came together but I don't believe in magic I believe in hard work, dedication, genius and natural talent. If someone wants Clapton's tone of that time the first thing they need are fingers and hands that are trained to play at his level. After that IMO the player could pick a SG and Marshall off the shelf at GC, crank the amp to 11 and find himself playing Crossroads much like "Slow Hand."

 

[PFDarkside]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

The wood is different (old growth vs new) and the electrical components are different. (You can find NOS resistors and tubes, but current production is different)

That being said, from a statistical standpoint, there are only a few thousand bursts out there, but they were searched for and grabbed by so many of the top players of the late 60's and 70's to be put on record, there has to be something to that. I've seen interviews where these artists say "I remember back before anyone realized how good these guitars were and you could get them cheap." That many guitarists wouldn't have searched for them if they were not something special.

I understand your point, me playing a Burst and an original Bluesbreaker Marshall is not going to sound as good as Clapton playing a new Standard and a current production Marshall. His sound is him, cultivated over hours and hours of playing. The real difference that you are looking for is that the mid level and beginner gear is MILES ahead of anything that used to be available, and gear is absolutely not an excuse for poor playing. You used to be able to say "of course I don't sound like Clapton or Hendrix, my gear is nowhere in the ballpark" but now you CAN get gear that is quite close to the level that they played. We all basically play pro level gear whether we are wanking in our bedrooms, playing a bar or touring with a band.

As Jeremy says though, tinkering is easier and more fun than practice.

 

[PFDarkside]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

A good deal of it was happenstance.

Many of our revered gear combinations were not what those who devised it intended.

Leo made guitars and amps for Country and Western Swing musicians. Les Paul's solid body guitar concept was for amplified Jazz applications. Both designs assumed flatwound Medium gauge strings with a wound G.

Fender tweed amplifiers were never intended to be turned up to 12 and thrashed. The Bassman 4x10 - clue's in the name, folks - was developed with the necessary additional gain to amplify the low output single coil pickup of the original Precision Bass.

Probably of necessity, somebody somewhere chose to plug in a guitar into a Fender Bassman and the rest, as Henry Ford would say, is bunk.

The original Marshall amps were a rip off of the Fender Bassman, just built using European components.

By the time Bloomfield, Clapton and others were plugging into Marshall amplifiers, Gibson had long since discontinued the Les Paul guitar as we know and love it.

Genius!

Perfect post.

IMO, there's a reason they weren't all playing Fender Mustangs into Univox amps. A few people stumbled on a combination and everyone rushed to imitate it.

 

[Mincer]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

I also think the guitarists had a lot more time to play back then. Less distractions. Their formative years were spent in an isolated town with a record player. We just have too many distractions to focus on getting better. I will say, I would take any guitar I own today over anything available back then (not price-wise, just as a utilitarian instrument). I don't tend to worship vintage gear, so it doesn't interest me.
You can expand this to any art form, though. There were more creative artists before? Or was the world much bigger? Do people learn to sew anymore? Are there a lot of young oil painters? It is too easy to sit and read about these things, rather than actually go out and do it.

 

[Artie]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

its easier to tinker than to practice and usually more fun

I'm putting that on a T-shirt. If I become a millionaire, I'll cut you in.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

-Amps are amps, you can find the same components today as were used in building the amps of that era.

That isn't necessarily true. It can be very difficult to get true vintage like transformers. People go all bonkers about vintage electronics components, capacitors in particular.

It is even worse for microphones where capacitors also play a big role, as the capsule in condense mics, and that doesn't begin to look at the actual ribbons in ribbon microphones. Oh and the microphone geeks go even more bonkers about their transformers.

Then there is the issue of loose hand-made electronic units. Not using PCBs, creating circuits that can mechanically move (picking up microphonic noises or modulations to the intended signal), keeping line physically more distant from each other (less crosstalk) etc.

Also, wood changes a lot. Many guitars I received sounded a bit different right out of the shipping box and after spending a few weeks in my house.

 

[Silence Kid]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

Back then an attainable non-pro instrument was nowhere near the quality of an entry level Squier. Then again, there weren't "real" Fenders sold with cheap ceramic pickups either, so...

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

I have a Fender AVRI '75 Jazz Bass. My brother has an original 1979 - albeit somewhat modified by a previous owner. The re-issue is vastly better made than the "real thing".

Meanwhile, here is the approved story of the Clapton The Fool SG. http://www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/The-Tale-Of-Eric-Clapton-Fool-Gibson-SG.aspx

 

[AlexR]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

I think there is a little too much nostalgia imbedded above.

As far as the guitars go:
-Wood hasn't changed in the last 50 or 60 years that I have heard;
-It is well documented that the pickups built back then had very loose process control to the point where there are Les Paul's of that era that sound more like Telecasters because of the variation in how the HBs were wound;
-Do you think these guys spent weeks or months searching out the guitar that would have the magic tone? I think that it is also documented that they didn't. What they did was play their guitars until their fingers bled to get the tone out of whatever equipment that happened to be on hand;
-Amps are amps, you can find the same components today as were used in building the amps of that era.

It was the artist that created the tone not the other way round. The equipment was a minor component. Do you believe that fate dropped the perfect guitar and the perfect amp into the hands of these musicians?

Look, you seem to think its only the artist, but there was a degree of equipment happenstance. Read up about Hendrix and Clapton hanging about Jim Marshall's music shop even before he started making his amps as to the notion of fate. And of course one or two tones from that era set the whole industry up for where it is now.


And as to wood....well, you certainly haven't heard, but you've not been listening either - this is another area you'll need a LOT of reading on - the growing of a living thing is a complex area of study and many seem to think a tree grows just the same no matter where it is (wrong)......as well as older amp components in general. Even though they didn't realise it at the time, those guitars and amps were the pinnacle for the music they were making. The subsequent years of guitars and amps after just didn't quite cut it tonally. Whether or not the guitars were exceptional, or just that the later production just didn't come to the same high standard the result is the same - its hard to reproduce the old stuff. And some parts just weren't made anymore. The super $$$ bluesbreaker clone build Marshall did just recently meant they had to get a company to make a transformer that wasn't available any more. EVERY element in an amp matters. There are no tone neutral substitutions.

 

[leevc5]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

Look, you seem to think its only the artist, but there was a degree of equipment happenstance. Read up about Hendrix and Clapton hanging about Jim Marshall's music shop even before he started making his amps as to the notion of fate. And of course one or two tones from that era set the whole industry up for where it is now.


And as to wood....well, you certainly haven't heard, but you've not been listening either - this is another area you'll need a LOT of reading on - the growing of a living thing is a complex area of study and many seem to think a tree grows just the same no matter where it is (wrong)......as well as older amp components in general. Even though they didn't realise it at the time, those guitars and amps were the pinnacle for the music they were making. The subsequent years of guitars and amps after just didn't quite cut it tonally. Whether or not the guitars were exceptional, or just that the later production just didn't come to the same high standard the result is the same - its hard to reproduce the old stuff. And some parts just weren't made anymore. The super $$$ bluesbreaker clone build Marshall did just recently meant they had to get a company to make a transformer that wasn't available any more. EVERY element in an amp matters. There are no tone neutral substitutions.

I guess I have to agree to the point that it was a combination of both artist and equipment. Which component was of primary importance is where we diverge. Peace.

But just one question then I will drop the whole thing. How does a transformer affect the tone of an amp. As I understand it a transformer takes AC voltage and converts it to specified voltages to charge the rectifier and heaters on the tubes. These are specific voltages required to make these components function. Where does tone come into it?

 

[jeremy]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

honestly i think '79 is one of the worst years for fender. it was shortly there after that it was bought and started to turn around

 

[wahwah]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

I've been playing my '68 Strat for 35 years, as its second owner. When I bought it in '81, there was nothing particularly special about it...it was a 13 year old Strat, no big deal. Certainly not something to wonder over like a 50s or even L Series at the time. Sure, it's the same vintage as what Hendrix would have been pulling straight out of the case, restringing and playing that night, or Gilmour's black Strat, but at the time, I bought it as a string breaker spare. However, one thing was for sure. It kicked the crap out of anything that came out post micro-tilt. I guess we could call it part of a transition, between the CBS takeover and the Fender name being reduced to a joke in the 70s. 35 years later, a Fender Australia rep approached me after a gig and offered me one of their half price 'endorsement' deals. The next time I was in Sydney, I went to the warehouse and played maybe a dozen Strats, from Road Worns to Classic reissues and Custom Shop stuff. I walked out without a new guitar and didn't bother signing the deal, there was nothing there of any interest. Some of it was matters of personal taste, because with the consistency of computer cutting, if a particular model had a neck shape I didn't like, that entire model was off the table, because all examples would be the same.

The rest of it was a complete lack of 'life' in the instruments. Every guitar I played there, regardless of price. Overblown pickups and electronics to mask the inherent deadness. Charmless caricatures of a set of sonic cliches. Functional, consistent, reliable and soulless. It would be just as easy to find complete dogs amongst L Series Strats too, if you play enough of them. Usually those with a history of being left under a bed in the case, or vaguely fumbled with by an enthusiast. But due to the inherent inconsistency of the production methods of the times, matched with whatever it is that happens when an instrument is worked and played and dried out and pummelled with resonance, there are examples of wildly alive and responsive Strats from those eras, that will chime and bounce and snarl and growl with the even most passive of low output pickups. Would they have been like that straight out of the case? It's hard to say. But for those of us who still maintain that wood has an effect on a wooden instrument, albeit one with electronics, the notion that 'wood hasn't changed' is too ridiculous to entertain. Everything has changed. The notion that an amp is still an amp, implies that there's no difference between the tubes produced in the US, Britain and Europe during the Golden Era of tube manufacture and those being lovingly crafted (!) in Russia and China today. Also utter nonsense. The differences are deep, and relevant. I remember what old Marshalls sounded like, and I remember the first time I heard one with clipping diodes and the equivalent of a loudness switch so they wouldn't sound like insipid ass at low volume in a musical instrument store. And that was 1980. We all thought it would be the end of Marshall. Apparently not. The brand was strong enough to continue and thrive, long after what made them great to us had become ancient history. I can even recall hearing the first TS9, after a few years of playing an 808, and thinking, "Oh well, that's the end of the Tube Screamer." Yes, things have changed, a lot.

What hasn't changed is that you will get from anything what you put into it. Dabbling, toe-dipping, making excuses, following abundant distractions, et al, will lead to mediocrity, just as obsession, immersion, determination, commitment and perseverance will give you a chance, a chance mind, of rising out of that mediocrity and working your way up the mountain. That, most likely, will never change. Those around him said that Jimi played all day, every day, and we can believe that. The same can probably be said for many of his ilk. The current trend toward a delusional sense of entitlement, the insane hunger for instant gratification and the inability of the ego to be prepared to be crap at something, time and time again, until some improvement is reached, do not bode well for the modern world. Yes, a lot has changed. I don't think we can discount any single element in that assessment.



Cheers..................................... wahwah

 

[leevc5]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

This thread reminds me of that movie The Big Chill...not sure why.

 

[Obsessive Compulsive]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

Does this person even know what he is talking about? 'Tone' is mostly the result of the interaction of the tools to make music, from instrument, to pickup to the recording and mixing process.

If I were to rely on his belief, I would be able to replicate Clapton's tone or any other guitarist using an amplified acoustic guitar plugged into tiny computer speakers. All I need is practicing with dedication for 10 hours a day, correct?

 

[crusty philtrum]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

" its easier to tinker than to practice and usually more fun "

It doesn't have to be black and white ... it is entirely possible to practice and tinker. I did. (but then again, I never did anything else once I decided that doing anything other than music and music-related things was a waste of time).

I was a teenager in the 1970s. One of my early guitars was a s/h 1968 Stratocaster. It was just a second-hand Strat that I was able to afford as a 17-y-o earning AU$32 per week. My first decent, giggable amp was a full 100 watt Marshall stack (top and bottom cabs and the JMP head) that I bought brand new around 1973/4 for AU$1700. In the following few years I owned and played an SG and an L-series Jaguar into a couple of AC30s. Any one of those items would now be considered a vintage classic and worth a small fortune. But not back then.

Apart from the Marshall, all the rest of that stuff was simply decent s/h gear, nothing special or overly-revered, it was just normal quality gear of the day. But it was good, reliable and sounded good.

Over the years I've read comments made by various identities who were involved in the design, manufacture and marketing of early electric guitar gear. Many times it was said "No-one expected the electric beat group craze to last, and that it would all be over in five years, the kids will move on to the next fad". They were largely/ mostly looking to cash in on a new market, grabbing as much disposable income from teenagers before they moved on to the next new trend.

At that time, the big name players were basically using the same stuff, although in the USA and the UK, they would have been exposed to more of everything and may have been able to cherry-pick from a bigger range, and probably pay a little extra for examples that stood out a little more. It wasn't until the second half of the '70s that older stuff started to become considered 'special', and even then, sellers seeking higher prices were considered with some suspicion and derision.

But, by design or simply happenstance, that old gear was capable of sounding good without much effort. Just plug things together and play. The skilled players of the day were able to extract some fabulous tones because they also had the touch to extract more from the simple gear, but even struggling young kids like myself would have good tone, even if our playing skills still had quite a way to progress at the time.

In the times since then, I've had periods where I've explored newer technologies in the gear world, to the point where I've found myself lost and adrift. Eventually I sat myself down and asked myself "When where you actually happy with your gear, your sounds, and were simply able to focus on music and playing ?" The answer came to me quite quickly ... "Back when I was young and used the kind of gear I started with" ... the kind of stuff I mentioned earlier.

So since then, I simply use the kind of stuff I used back then .... of course I can no longer afford a near-mint '68 Strat or a 1970 AC30, but I learnt how work on guitars, build amps, restore old gear or hybridise old designs, sometimes using newer technologies that are simply improved versions of old ideas. My Strat has a 1969 body, my Tele Custom comes from 1974, my humbucker guitars are made from old Honduran mahogany, my amps use a few old paper-in-oil caps in vintage circuits. I still prefer simple, old-school or 'old-school-orientated' stuff, and I take most of the responsibility for my sound by attempting to play well and extract good tones from the guitar's chasis.

 

[greekdude]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

The notion that an amp is still an amp, implies that there's no difference between the tubes produced in the US, Britain and Europe during the Golden Era of tube manufacture and those being lovingly crafted (!) in Russia and China today.

 

[leevc5]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

Does this person even know what he is talking about? 'Tone' is mostly the result of the interaction of the tools to make music, from instrument, to pickup to the recording and mixing process.

If I were to rely on his belief, I would be able to replicate Clapton's tone or any other guitarist using an amplified acoustic guitar plugged into tiny computer speakers. All I need is practicing with dedication for 10 hours a day, correct?

Reductio ad absurdum?

 

[Mincer]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

honestly i think '79 is one of the worst years for fender. it was shortly there after that it was bought and started to turn around

Fender in the late 70s (even into the early 80s) came out with some questionable ideas for their line. Pick up any good book about Fender to see some of these creations, which might be drooled over now, but were terrible ideas then.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Our guitars better than the guitarists of the late 60's and early 70's-why upgrad

I get where Crusty is coming from.

Last week, I tried out a Cornell Vintage Brown 10 amplifier. A relatively simple device. It takes guitarists of a certain age straight back to the sounds and dynamic responses of a mid-Seventies Marshall. Guitar, cable, amp. Nowhere to hide. Now, play something worthwhile.