Technological advancement vs Vintage, and why

[Richard Monroe]

Well yeah, everything we believe is opinion. Facts are just strongly held opinions. For most of us, the Holocaust is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Men landed on the moon- a fact. There are thinking people who disagree with those facts, and will tell you they are just opinions.
Philosophy aside, things are not better just because they are old, and things are not worse because they are new. I'm afraid my vintage gear, what little I own, is vintage, because *I* am vintage. My oldest guitar is over 30 years old- I bought it brand new. I have heard it change and mellow over 30 years. I am sorry I probably won't live to hear my Taylor when it is 30 years old, because I believe it will rock. I've got a POD Pro sitting right next to that old Epiphone, and I use it frequently. I don't believe modelling is bad. I believe it is a technology that has not yet matured. The Fishman Aura is a quantum leap beyond, say a Yamaha AG stomp, which was revolutionary 3 years ago. The use of carbon fiber in guitars is a hell of an idea, but wood still sounds better to me. Am I about to go out and buy a Rain Song? Not yet. The use of acoustic pickups in electric guitars is a hell of an idea. Am I about to go out and buy a Parker Fly? Not until they make frets than can be easily replaced or crowned. Neck-through construction technique is a hell of an idea. Am I about to go out and buy a Carvin custom shop? Probably, because I belive that that technology adds to the instrument and takes nothing away.
I believe I have an open mind, but modern times are full of replacements for things that are inferior to the things they replace. Maple syrup or Aunt Jemima? Butter or Pam? Eggs, or eggbeaters? I'd rather eat real food and die than live on nondairy microwave pizza. This is not a new story. The flintlock replaced the wheelock in the early 18th century. They are inferior, functionally. Why did they replace them? They were cheaper and easier to build. The matchlock musket replaced the longbow in the 16th century. Why? they were cheaper to build, and required less training. They were also less accurate, less lethal, had half the range, and a third of the rate of fire.
I am subject to the same forces. I own a Joemeek twinQ. It's a Chinese preamp with a Burr-Brown chip that works rather well. Why do I own it? Because I can't afford a Pendulum with a distressor, a Manley voxbox, or for that matter, a Neve console. In general, I will continue to use the best gear I can lay my hands on, whether it is old or new.-Richie

 

[astoebe]

i think some people won't like this post, but i feel entitled to my opinion ... I have never been a fan of effects processors...I even tried one with a tube preamp. It was ok, but I can't seem to get a good tone. For more of a comparison, I have been trying to use a POD XT Live for my recordings and have been disappointed. All the many many sounds I try to program and EQ with that thing always seem akward on the recordings. I find I can get much better tones micing a tube amp with a condenser or a 57 (pretty versatile as well using different guitars, different pickups, different EQ's etc.)....it just seems more natural and fits better. I also can't get comfortable with the sound when playing live. Am I doing something wrong? I'd like to think I know a little about adjusting EQ's, effects, etc.....i seem to get them to my liking with my amps.....I just think the processors sound a little like plastic....I guess this is more of a processors vs. amp post, but it seems to be going that way already. I will be happy to embrace the first processor I find that gives me the tone I seek....until then I stick to my amps

 

[famous beagle]

ive read on fenderforum.com where people have done blind tests comapring a deluxe reverb RI with the orginal and the only difference in sound was that of the speakers. Fender Eminance sound different than Jensens...etc. They found this out after they did speaker swaps. The circuits on these amps are exactly the same. A lot of times the amps dont sound "better or "worse" just a little different with the speaker swap. I prefer my fender eminance to the Jensen C12k theyve been using recently.

Great... you read on a forum. Well that's solid enough proof for me. I've read lots of crap on a forum. My point is, I've played a reissue, and I've played the real thing, and in my mind, there is no comparison. Ok, there's a comparison, but the difference is very real.

I just hate all this "it's digital so it's better" crap. (I'm kind of switching gears here to "new vs. old" in general.) Someone made a good point earlier about modeling being an immature technology. I agree with that. It may be good in the future, but right now, it's not cutting it for me. It's the same thing with most digital crap right now.

Phones and TVs are a good example. I never had problems with phone conversations dropping out or sounding like dogshit when it was all landlines. The calls were clear and they worked --- every time. Now we have to listen to that jackass on the spring commercial say "Sprint built the only all-digital network from the ground up ... so your calls are perfectly clear every time." BULLSHIT. Cell phones still suck ass in quality compared to landlines. Obviously they have their purpose because they're portable, but the quality still really sucks. And the same goes with digital landlines. The only time I've ever had reoccuring problems with a land line is when it's been a digital one.

And the same goes for TVs. I get much ... much more dropout or other problems with our digital satellite system now than I ever did with the old cable days. And they say things like "with a TV guide built-in so you're always informed about your favorite shows ... blah blah blah." What they don't tell you is that just about every single day you that you turn on the TV you have to wait a few minutes when you try to use the guide for the "receiver to acquire the signal." Not to mention the fact that the $4000 plasma TV wears out in about 4 years.

I'm not totally anti-digital. Some things work. CDs work .. MOST of the time. But in general, I think digital is a great promise that hasn't been made good on yet in most areas of consumer electronics. People think "digital is better," but in truth, you still get what you pay for. There's good digital, and then there's really crappy digital. Digital is still maturing, and it has a long way to go in my opinion.

 

[mixmkr]

beagle... I am surprised you think the quality of land line phones is good. I think phone fidelity is pretty poor... but I realize that quality wasn't really your point...but rather transmission, it seems. But, I also remember static in the old phone lines, crosstalk, hums...and all kinds of gremlins.

I also remember the old Marshall amps blowing up on a regular basis.
I also remember early stratocasters as being pretty poor in comparision to some nice new American Standards Strats now. Not to mention "latter vintage" junk like Ibanez, and all the other brands that were just plain trash.

To each his own, and THAT is really the beauty of it all. I also have played on a NEW Fender deluxe reverb, and thought it was pretty good for what it was. Certainly no worse than the one I sold in the 60's. Potentially better, actually.

On the modeling subject. I think the flaw is where people try to use the stuff to emulate something else, rather than using it as a starting base to create their own sounds. With that in mind, I think there are a lot of folks who get great sounds out of Spider amps and stuff, but they aren't trying to sound like a Mesa Boogie or a Dual Showman... just themselves.

So... Plasma TVs wear out in 4 years. bummer... That is a good reason not to get one, ....at least looking at my wallet!!

 

[famous beagle]

On the modeling subject. I think the flaw is where people try to use the stuff to emulate something else, rather than using it as a starting base to create their own sounds. With that in mind, I think there are a lot of folks who get great sounds out of Spider amps and stuff, but they aren't trying to sound like a Mesa Boogie or a Dual Showman... just themselves.

This is a really good point. If that's what people are doing, then that's cool by me. But I think a lot of inexperienced people think "why should I blow a grand on an old fender amp, when my POD has them all right here?" I agree that modelers have their place, and for the price and all, you really can't beat them. I have a V-amp2 myself, because for getting quick demos down, they make things really easy. But I'll rarely use it when I go to actually record the song for real. It's one of those things where they sound pretty darn good... UNTIL you hear the real thing. Then you realize that the modeling technology still has a while to go. Another thing is that, although you make a good point regarding the way people use them, these ARE modelers, and that IS the intent of the manufacturers --- to copy the sounds of these classic amps. So, regardless of how players are using them, it's clear that they are intended to be a substitute, if you will, for the real thing.

 

[Middleman]

I have a 1972 tele custom which I bought in 1972. The price was $395. Today I could sell it for over $2000.

I just played a $695 Nashville tele at GC which was probably made in Mexico. It sounds just as nice, probably more versatile than my vintage guitar. Electronics in guitars have not varied all that much from 40 years ago, unless you have active pickups.

The pots in my 72 are not as high a quality as replacement pots today. The replacement jacks they have now are better quality. Wire, same 40 years ago as today. Capacitors, generally better today than 40 years ago. Magnetic pole options are more varied today. Overall components are probably better today than 40 years ago.

Vintage guitars are for people that have money and enjoy art more than music. They don't sound better, play better and in most cases are not built better than most of the under $1000 guitars today. What has changed is the expensive finishes, plating and components in over $1000 guitars. These guitars are made better than many of the vintage guitars of the past.

Regarding wood, do you really think the pine, ash and later alder woods Fender used in the 50s was any different than the same woods today. I doubt it. There may be issues around light weighted ash being in lesser supply but alder is readily available.

My son has an Epiphone Les Paul and other than the pickups, and maybe the lack of shielded wire and cheap pots, its build quality is not that much less than my 73 Les Paul. So for $150 we picked up authentic PAFs and upgraded the wire and pots. The guitar easily sounds as good as the 73 version.

Vintage has been marketed to the generations from the past that are more nostalgic than smart. I predict the whole Vintage thing is going to collapse in a few years. Find an inexpensive axe that plays well, like an Ibanez, Epiphone or Japanese/Mex Fenders and upgrade the components. The sound will rival the past.

Amps however are a different issue. In this case, Vintage sound is more elusive and the jump to Op-amps and transistors that replaced tubes, caps and resistors and most importantly big iron transformers have put many of the older technology sound ahead of today’s emulators. Amplifiers have not been improved upon dramatically in sound although there are a lot of bells and whistles in today’s offerings. I have a 1981 Vibrolux that can stand its own against any of today’s offerings. It sings at moderate volumes, the transformer in action, something many modern amps just don’t offer.

Preamps are another case where Vintage is better. Today you have to spend at least a grand to get the big iron sound and then things start to sound good.

Overall the guitar Vintage craze is for those who are crazy. I predict they will not retain their value for many more years. Hey, the wealthy have to do something with all that money, right. By the way, there is now a guitar rag called Vintage Guitars. These people are like real estate agents, driving up the prices so they can increase their commissions. Now they have their own magazine.

Buyer beware

 

[Ed Dixon]

I doubt there is any chance that vintage thing will go away. In fact, Vintage XXXX, where XXXX is any number of things (guitars, cars, furniture, electronics, coins, etc) will always be a player.

It is not always an issue of value, inventment, or anything else. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

That being said, I own a bunch of vintage stuff and modern stuff. I play the modern stuff at gigs because it works better for me. I have less noise and more tones available with a single foot press. For others, the vintage approach may work best.

Ed

 

[Zed10R]

I'll say that I prefer modern gear to vintage without hesitation. I probably made that clear in the original post. I prefer it because technology goes hand in hand with advancement and evolution. Vintage has it's place, of course. It can add a very nice texture or dynamic to modern music, but overall I believe it is merely a curiosity. Much like a '57 Chevy. It is a classic car, most people LOVE them, but it is just plain obsolete and the best place to keep it is in a museum to remind us of how far we have come.

But, it seems that the popular opinion is in support of vintage gear sounding better than modern gear. "Better" is of course an opinion, but still an opinion held by the majority. I also believe that the nature of our art means that there are no rules. You use what sounds good to you, so use what you like. Of course.

The majority response in favor of vintage gear has confused me further. This brings me to my next point/question/opinion:

What about the advancement and evolution of our art? How can we advance our art if we are still using the same gear we used 30 years ago?? Yes, our playing can evolve and improve, but the actual sound means quite a lot as well. I am not fan of all the electronic beats, re-mixes, and entirely midi created songs that are popular these days, so I'll clarify that I do NOT consider that an advancement of our art. What I mean is, are the vintage gear people (the majority it seems), both musicians and studio engineers, looking forward with a vision of an ever evolving and perfecting sound, or are they looking back to what they percieve as the pinnacle of guitar tone and technology? In my opinion it is almost a crime to not look ahead and strive to take steps up to make guitar tone and sound better and better. I refuse to think that the best guitar sound possible was achieved 30 years ago. That just doesn't make sense.

The guitar is losing it's appeal as pre-recorded sound samples open the door for total novices to create entire albums simply by manipulating data. They no longer have to put in years of practice and discipline to learn how to play an instument. All they have to do is cut and paste samples and POOF - instant song. This saddens me and angers me at the same time. Manupulating data does not make one a musician. But it IS, RIGHT NOW, the most popular form of music. Why? I think that people became tired of hearing the same old guitar sound. I blame most of it on the music industry, though.

This brings up the issue of alternate tunings. Why are so many guitar players so dead set against tuning to anything but standard "E"? To my ears, that tuning is far from optimal, but I also do not like the de-tuning a 7 string guitar even lower than it is sound. There is a common sense limit. But tuning a guitar lower opens up a whole new world of harmonic depth and texture that standard tuning cannot touch. In my opinion, there are only benefits and no drawbaks to lower tunings, within limits. So why the resistance?

I'll end this post by saying that I know most musicians on this board make the music they like to hear. That is a good thing. It keeps guitar music alive. But where are the pioneers that are striving to make advances in guitar sound? I would hardly consider myself a pioneer, but I have created a guitar sound for my music that is not anything like vintage or grossly de-tuned nu-metal, yet to my ears it is very pleasing.

 

[ggunn]

well just thought id chime in. I have an all original even the tubes 1961 peavey classic 50...

From Peavey's website (http://www.peavey.com/support/corporate/hartley.cfm):

"When I graduated from college in 1965, I started Peavey Electronics. I came up with the original Peavey logo "doodling" in my notebook in high school. I put the first versions of this on my amplifiers that I made in my Dad's basement... The year I started my company (1965) was the year that Leo sold out to CBS." - Hartley Peavey

So, you have a 1961 Peavey amp?

 

[boingoman]

Maybe it's a Pre-vey.

 

[Aaron Cheney]

The guitar is losing it's appeal as pre-recorded sound samples open the door for total novices to create entire albums simply by manipulating data. They no longer have to put in years of practice and discipline to learn how to play an instument. All they have to do is cut and paste samples and POOF - instant song. This saddens me and angers me at the same time. Manupulating data does not make one a musician. But it IS, RIGHT NOW, the most popular form of music. Why? I think that people became tired of hearing the same old guitar sound. I blame most of it on the music industry, though.

Nothing changed the face of popular music (and the role of the guitar in it) in the last century as much as electricity. Suddenly the guitar could be made loud enough to compete with "traditional" lead instruments like the trumpet and saxaphone. The guitar moved from a background instrument to a lead instrument and the focus of the band.

Nothing has changed the face of popular music in this century as much as the computer. Suddenly the guitar and all other "traditional" insturments are being relegated to nothing more than sources for samples, afterwich any number-pusher can create music.

Yep... it's sad, but also pretty exciting. When I first started in this biz the thought of owning a full-featured recording studio in your home was unheard of except for the super-rich. Who could have ever dreamed of a time when you could write, record, duplicate, market to the entire world, and sell your music.... all via one little 12" x 12" gray box?

A

 

[Zed10R]

"Interestingly, if you look at both the major American guitar companies, neither has introduced any significantly new guitar designs in the last 35 years. A very interesting contrast when compared to Peavey's introduction of 80 to 100 all new products every year."



HO-LY-CRAP. THAT is what I am talking about. Both major American guitar manufacturers have not had a new idea in THIRTY FIVE YEEEEEEEAARS!!!

We need some innovation! Seriously!

thanks for the post ggun....

 

[Ed Dixon]

PRS also has introduced a number of models over the last 10 years or so.

Ed

 

[Zaphod B]

What a great thread! Warning: long ramble ahead.

I own two old guitars and one that's slightly less old, and an old Brit tube amp.

The oldest is a 1963 Martin D-28 that I've owned since 1969. Its tone did warm up over the years, but to be honest its sound hasn't changed since some time in the 1980's. The rest of the guitar has continued to age, and it definitely shows the signs of wear of an instrument that has been played, as intended by its maker. What does that make it worth as a "collector" guitar? Beats the shit out of me, and it's a moot point except for the insurance replacement value should anything ever happen to it.

I should add that even in 1969 there was argument among Martin owners about whether the newer models were as well-made as some of the older ones. Does anyone care now about the collectability of a 1968 D-28 versus a 1963 D-28? Probably.

My second-oldest guitar is a 1976 Gibson Les Paul 55 - a reissue of the LP Special. It was my #1 gigging guitar for years and has a purely acoustic presence that is astounding for an unplugged electric - it feels alive in my hands. Some of this has to do with the high-mass bridge I installed and a brass nut. Some of it is due to the details of its manufacture. Some may be due to aging, but of this I cannot be sure. Is it special because it's almost 30 years old? Dunno. I suspect that there are brand-new LPs hanging on the wall of my local Guitar Centers that are made as well and that do, or will, sound as sweet.

The 1990 Fender American Strat Plus that I've owned since new is a vastly superior product to any Strat that was available for purchase in the '50s, '60s, or '70s. All you old guys know that if you were shopping for a Fender back in the "old" days, you had better look at each and every one in the store, because 1 in 10 would be pretty damned good and 5 of 10 would be pieces of crap. So I don't understand the fascination with just owning an old Fender, for example, since (in my experience) most of the old ones weren't anything special to begin with.

As far as vintage amps go, my experience is again limited to what I have owned. For years I gigged with a Fender Super Six (a Twin Reverb head integrated into a cabinet with 6 10" speakers). I never could get a sound that I liked out of that amp, regardless of what was plugged into it, and I never regretted the day I stopped using it. Its replacement, a Matamp GT-100 British tube amp, was good for the hard blues and southern rock I was playing at the time, and is still a good sounding rig but it certainly can't do everything and is just too ****ing loud for many venues. (It's also heavy as hell! ) I will keep it because it does sound good, and any modern amp that could to what it does would cost a lot of coin. That said, I wouldn't mind having a look at a modern amp modeler just to get some tonal versatility.

I apologize for rambling. My point is that I own this old (and moderately mature) equipment because it works well - either because of its age or despite it - and I have no reason to replace any of it. Lots of sentimental value attached to all of it, too. But is any of it intrinsically any better - sonically or quality-wise - than what I could buy new, today? I doubt it.

On the subject of amp modelers: I agree that this is a technology that is not mature. But it will improve - and I find this exciting not because I could emulate the sound of any number of existing amp/cab combinations, but because of the experimentation that it would allow me.

Later!

 

[lpdeluxe]

There ya go. "New" vs "Vintage" is marketingspeak, nothing more. Don't let your music be a slave to advertising.

 

[riantide]

Wow, I really can't believe that NOBODY has done this yet:

-WHY VINTAGE AMPS ARE BETTER-

- Early circuits were simpler. Look at a tweed champ. It has a volume knob. That's it. No frills, just an incredibly simple circuit for the signal to travel. Much higher fidelity. It's no wonder why the tweed champ is a studio staple.
Early amps were also single-channel and didn't have FX loops. All that stuff just puts mud in the signal path. It's convenient and less noisy, but it sounds about ten times worse. Almost all vintage amps are Resistance Coupled. That's the most effective way to couple two stages of an amplifier, typically. But older amps just had a couple gain stages, a phase inverter, a recifier, and a power section. Modern amps have to employ sometimes a dozen RC networks to couple every part of the amp and there are coupling losses EVERY TIME. Modern ciruits are not as efficient, basically.

- Early tube amps used LOWER PLATE VOLTAGES. That means the tubes break up sooner and more naturally. Tubes will put out more midrange and less "shrill" highs when operated at lower voltages. If someone has ever told you about the vast difference between blackface and silverface Fenders, that's the main one. Sivlerface (CBS) Fenders were built to be louder and cleaner than blackfaces and as a result sound more anemic and cold (that's why the "distortion" on a JCM 2000 sounds thinner and more brittle than a Vibrolux on 10; the plate voltages on the Marshall are much higher). Now almost all major amp manufacturers use ridiculously high plate voltages coupled with ridiculously huge power transformers because some moron thought that people would actually need a 150-watt amp or something as loud.

- Modern audio transformers are wound onto large plastic bobbins. Older transformers were wound onto a much thinner laminated core with only paper insulating the core from the windings. That proximity affects tone. Also, vintage transfomers were interleaved whereas newer ones are all wound at once. Huge difference in the low end and harmonic response of your amp.

- Capacitors, used generously throughout an amplifier, used to be made using two pieces of foil with a piece of paper sandwiched in between. Now they're made of mylar, polystyrene, polyester, and a few other cheaper, more "efficient" materials that don't sound as good.

- Most amps now have solid-state rectifiers which stay cleaner louder, but sound like piss. They have no natural compression ("sag") and will not respond to your playing like a tube rectifier.

- Early combos (50's and 60's) were made using solid pine cabinets. Now most manufacturers use plywood becuase it's strong and cheap. But it sounds terrible. Early Fender combos were built so that the cabinet, the speakers, and the baffleboard would resonate together and sound musical and good. New combos are typically built with a price point in mind.

- And probably most important of all, early amps were ALL HANDWIRED POINT - TO - POINT!!! This makes an enormous difference in tone and it is why, as much affinity as I have for Mesa/Boogie amps (I played several over the course of about five years) they will never sound as sweet as they could if they were handwired. The electronics on a handwired chassis are multi-planar, meaning that the electrical connections are happening at different heights and different angles to each other. Printed circuit boards are co-planar, meaning that every electrical connection happens on the same plane. This causes unavoidable capacitances throughout the circuit that bleed off high frequencies like overtones and harmonics. Bad, dry tone.

I think that's enough. An advance in technology does not necessarily mean "improvement". In fact, it often means "efficiency" and "economy", which are VERY different. Modern amps break less, their tubes last longer, they are easy to built and easy to maintain, and they are built in a way that makes them very consistent and dependable. But they SOUND WORSE. Now I realize that the tone I'm after as a guitarist might be different than the tone you're after and maybe you can get that tone from a Line 6. Bravo. I've used reissue Fender amps in the studio before and I think they sound amazing. My buddy has a reissue AC-30 that's one of the best sounding amps I've heard in a while. But they don't even hold a candle to their ancestors. You go listen to the vibrato on a brownface Deluxe and tell me that it's the same.

But don't post on this thread that there is no difference or that it's a gimmick because that's stupid and false. And I'm obviously not talking about Dumble, Trainwreck, Kendrick, Victoria, or any of the high-quality boutique manufacturers. They're awesome. But they're awesome because they still build amps "the old way".

As for guitars, I dare anyone who plays rock, blues, or jazz to sit down with a '59 les paul or a similar cornerstone vintage instrument. The level of craftsmanship is just astounding and the tone is even better. Yeah, they're noisier and yeah, some of the components are probably going to be in rough shape. But give me a break, components can be replaced but you can't do anything about how the guitar was BUILT. And guitars were built better back then. They were built in smaller numbers by trained workers in smaller factories. I mean, I don't even own any vintage guitars. And I'm a firm believer in, "if it sounds right, it IS right." But I know why people do buy vintage and I think they're worth every penny (typically). I have an appropriate amount of reverence for them, I should say.

I know that it's all a matter of preference. I would personally rather wax my balls than play an brand new Ibanez through a Vox "valvetronics" (eeesh!) but for some people that's "the tone" and they like the way an Ibanez plays. Just don't knock vintage stuff becuase you can't tell the difference. And sorry for sounding like an asshole, I just got a little frustrated reading some of the previous posts.

 

[famous beagle]

There ya go. "New" vs "Vintage" is marketingspeak, nothing more. Don't let your music be a slave to advertising.

???? This doesn't make sense. How (or why) does a company advertise for their vintage equipment? All of that is bought used, and the companies don't see much money in that at all anymore. If you're saying the opposite---that companies are suggesting that new is better than vintage---then I guess I see you're point, but I don't necessarily agree. I rarely see ads where companies pit their new shiny products against vintage ones. The amp modelers mention classic amps, but it's usually in a reverent "when you can't have the real thing" kind of way.

All of this is opinion, of course. The bottom line is that people are going to use what they feel they need (or would like) to use to get the job done. But to suggest that using vintage equipment is not "looking ahead to the future" (as Zed mentioned) is nonsense to me. Radiohead's OK Computer was recorded with quite a few vintage instruments (synths and guitars), as well as new ones. I would say the sound they achieved on that album was pretty forward-looking.

Looking to the future has nothing to do with the equipment you use; it's only about how you choose to use it. The Strat had been around for almost 15 years when Hendrix hit the scene. Does anyone nowadays think of the standard strat as an instrument capable of blowing people's minds? But Hendrix did just that in 67 when his first album came out.

Michael Hedges used alternate tunings on a standard acoustic (among other things) and created a sound of his own as well. But are alternate tunings new? Hell no. Robert Johnson used dozens of them.

The "evolution" of art or music has never been a linear kind of evolution. Of course there are inventions (like electricity) that are profoundly affecting, but that doesn't mean that you can trace the evolution music along the same lines as technology. The tools we use are simply a means to an end, as they should be.

 

[Zed10R]

riantide and famous beagle have some good points. Thank you both for shaing your opinions. I see and agree with a good bit of riantide's post. Simple IS better in almost everything.

I understand how older amps and guitar were made to a higher standard. Almost EVERYTHING made in this country was made to a higher standard of quality 30 or more years ago. Ease and efficiency of manufacturing has caused quality of materials and workmanship to drop dramatically. If you want a hand made amp or guitar now days you are going to pay out the nose for it. But t will be superior to anything off the Ibanez mass production line.

It is not nonsense to think that if you use primarily vintage gear you are not concerned with the evolution of music, or looking forward, or however you want to put it. In my opinon Radiohead is not exactly a ground braking trend setting musical machine, and their OK Computer album came out almost a decade ago. They have that vintage sound. They do remind one of Pink Floyd. They are another band that, as monumental as they are, depend on that vintage sound. Both bands incorporate modern elements into their music, but only Floyd has contributed to the evolution of modern guitar music. They may still use some vintage gear, but they also use a lot of highly advanced gear as well.

I will admit that HOW you use your gear is far more important that what gear you have. For sure no argument there. You can put vintage gear in the hands of the most modern players and they will still sound like themselves, with that added vintage voice. BUT, I also believe that if you are drawn to vintage gear you are also more likely to be drawn to the sound and style of the vintage era. If you are drawn to modern gear you are more likely to be drawn to the sounds and style of now, and are more likely to influence the sound of future guitar music. This is all opinion and point of view of course. Again I don't mean to upset people.

And I think the ""new" vs "vintage" being a marketingspeak" comment made by ipdeluxe makes perfect sense. If you go to my local guitar shop, if it is old and beat up it is sold as "vintage" and priced accordingly. Meaning WAY overpriced. And a lot of people fall for that.