Lunch Report: 2012-08-17

[Brock]

Lunch:
Brooke Bond tea. Hot and sour egg drop soup.

G&L commentary:
Leo Fender improved the bridges and pickups, amond other things, in his last 10-15 years at G&L/CLF (Music Man R&D) but he ran into a notable problem. Himself. Leo Fender was a victim of the solved problem.

The solved problem is when the existing solution(s) is good enough, and so people don't care as much for improvements. To a fair degree, the Tele, Strat, and Les Paul are solved problem instruments. The second style P-Bass and Jazz Bass are worthy of solved problem status as well. These were the windely available products that largely did what they needed to do.

Amps for guitars didn't come quite as easily, particularily as people went for higher gain over time, but they were solved long before the bass amps side was. Bass ampification needed far more power and became very big and heavy. The 300 watt Ampeg SVT came out in 1969 if I remember correctly, and it certainly had the power but it was HUGE and HEAVY. This would be a battle for decades to come. In contrast, a Nady AX-1000 FM transmitter into one or more carefully selected clock radios turned all the way up sounds reasonably decent as a guitar amp. Not very versitile at all, but better than most cheap practice amps. A guitar amp in typical use isn't reference sound, after all.

A huge competitor for the engineer Leo Fender in the late 70s through early 90s was 1950s and 1960s Leo Fender. That guy was early to the market and had created much of the solved problem level of guitars and amps too. By the time CLF and G&L came around, the improved bridges and pickups were nice, but a harder sell. I think if the MFDs had come out in the 1950s and the 1950s alnico pickups were from 1980s-era, people would say that Leo was losing his hearing and that's why the alnico pickups don't have the good sound of the "original" MFDs from back in the day. Of course, the opposite argument comes up today, but flip the products in the timeline to where the MFD has the market timing of being part of the solved problem, gets the stars, the records, the distribution, etc. and it's what people expect, not the old alnicos.

Question: What do you prefer from 1950s/1960s Leo Fender (and George Fullerton too) over 1970s/1990s Leo Fender? I can't think of anything, personally. I'd notably rather have an MFD loaded Lynx Bass than a Jazz Bass and far prefer an L-1000 over a P-Bass, for example. The pickups are better and the bridges are too. I also like the OMG addidtion to the L-1000.

Lunch reported nomination:
My least favorite part of Lunch Reporting is no more! Darwinohm has signed up for next week. How nice.

Video:
Here's the TV cycle episode with the ground view from the back of the bike instead of under the seat.
[youtube]xuuIlNsgZ_8[/youtube]

That's all:
Tour de Fat is tomorrow. Thanks for a fun week everyone.

[bassman]

The solved problem narrative is an interesting discussion of traditional Fender instruments domination of the marketplace.

I often find my self using one of my old Jazz basses over a G&L when I am playing in a situation that may expose an instrument to inclement weather, or I just want to play a Jazz bass that day. I have a few that are well set up and have very comfortable necks that are different in feel to any of my G&Ls.

[Brock]

Along that end, if you have to go back to just the Jazz Basses, it probably wouldn't be the end of the world, but if you are playing at any notable volume, going back to 1963 bass amplification (with no modern PA to help) is not going to be any fun at all.

I think part of the higher tolerance for new equipment in bass land vs. guitar land is that the problems weren't solved so quickly and easily. Bass is more technically demanding on the equipment end, particularly from an amp standpoint.

[bassman]

Bass amps have progressed light years ahead of what was available in 1963. I don't think bass amps, before the 1980s, were any match to what guitar players had. Older bass amps were either great sounding tube amps that were only good at relatively low volumes or massive SVT or Fender PS400 amps that were extremely heavy and had large speaker cabs that required a truck to haul around.

Nothing helped bass players more than the development of efficient solid state amps, new and better 10" speakers and neodymium magnets for amps and speakers. Its amazing how good a bass amp with 2 10' speakers can sound and how loud it can get with clean headroom.
These amps have also given older instruments with weaker pickups and new lease on life.

[Katefan]

Interesting question and a good point... I too can't think of anything I like better of the old over the newer.

The main reason I'm a fan of Leo-era instruments is the fit and finish of early G&L's match that of his early instruments plus as you point out they have added improvements. IMO, they pick up where Leo left off when he sold Fender to CBS. High quality materials, precision engineering & manufacturing w/ attention to detail... Nitro cellulose lacquer having been used on the necks, early G&L models (at least) have naturally 'aged' the same as vintage Fenders. Well-played instruments have the same look and 'worn in' feel.

I recently picked this 2nd body style SC-3 for $700 NZ including a hard case, an extra set of G&L pickups and a bunch of Leo-era parts. The body has been refin'd natural but the neck looks near identical to the maple cap neck that was on my '66 Telecaster and it feels great. This guitar can get Tele & Strat sounds + it has all the later Leo improvements - MFD pickups, sealed tuners, DF Trem bridge, Tilt neck, enlarged strap buttons, etc... What more could you want??






Speaking of basses - here's an early 80's model that has alot of mojo and is probably is a great player...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-1981-G- ... _500wt_951

Great week, Brock -

Cheers,
KF

[louis cyfer]

Interesting question and a good point... I too can't think of anything I like better of the old over the newer.

The main reason I'm a fan of Leo-era instruments is the fit and finish of early G&L's match that of his early instruments plus as you point out they have added improvements. IMO, they pick up where Leo left off when he sold Fender to CBS. High quality materials, precision engineering & manufacturing w/ attention to detail... Nitro cellulose lacquer having been used on the necks, early G&L models (at least) have naturally 'aged' the same as vintage Fenders. Well-played instruments have the same look and 'worn in' feel.

I recently picked this 2nd body style SC-3 for $700 NZ including a hard case, an extra set of G&L pickups and a bunch of Leo-era parts. The body has been refin'd natural but the neck looks near identical to the maple cap neck that was on my '66 Telecaster and it feels great. This guitar can get Tele & Strat sounds + it has all the later Leo improvements - MFD pickups, sealed tuners, DF Trem bridge, Tilt neck, enlarged strap buttons, etc... What more could you want??






Speaking of basses - here's an early 80's model that has alot of mojo and is probably is a great player...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-1981-G- ... _500wt_951

Great week, Brock -

Cheers,
KF

katefan, if you ever want to sell that guitar, let me know. i love it. that is my favorite g&l to date.

on that base, the seller claims '81 when the neck stamp is clearly '82.

[Katefan]

Hey Louis,

Noted. Yeah, I dig it. I had my eye on late 80's ASAT III that was listed on eBay earlier this year but I didn't have the fund$ at the time. Same mojo as the SC-3 - nicely aged maple neck, possibly maple body, 3 black single coils... Anyway, this is a decent consolation prize

Interesting re the bass.

Cheers,
KF

[KenC]

on that base, the seller claims '81 when the neck stamp is clearly '82.

Can't see a body stamp on that L2KE. The black crinkle parts started showing up right around the beginning of '82, but the first basses during the change often had a mix of crinkle and chrome parts. Also, I've never seen a yellow finish on anything G&L built that early. It might just be the lighting, but this one looks too yellowish to be a faded white finish. I'm not sure whether they were using white that early, either.

The 'hog bodies sound really great with those large bass MFDs, but I think this one is overpriced for the condition it's in.

Ken

[Katefan]

Perhaps. I think folks get hung up too much on price and that if its more 'worn' its not worth as much. The 'collector' paradigm I believe fosters this. Also, too that there's a level playing field (pun intended) with all instruments being equal - they're not . No two are the same. In my experience the beat up looking ones are usually the exceptional playing and sounding ones.

Cheers,
KF

[darwinohm]

Brock, great week. I am late to check in but have had only a couple of weekends off all summer. The gigs have gotten out of hand for a guy who is retired.

Great subject today and Leo had things right a long time ago. Many things today that are hyped as improvements I often view as changes. Some things are improvements but not all that many. I have owned several American Fender Jazz basses and just traded my last one two weeks ago. They do have easy necks to play but are tonally boring in my opinion. I just put new strings on my L-2500 last week and did a thorough setup. It has about 250 hours of gigging and practice since it was new last November. It looks like the day I got it and the frets show no wear. Only the back of the neck has changed from a satin to a gloss which is my preference anyway. I now have the L-2500 and a Stingray 5 for backup.

KF, the neck on that guitar is beautiful, a perfect relic. Thanks for the fun week Brock and I will view you recent videos when I get time.-- Darwin

[louis cyfer]

Perhaps. I think folks get hung up too much on price and that if its more 'worn' its not worth as much. The 'collector' paradigm I believe fosters this. Also, too that there's a level playing field (pun intended) with all instruments being equal - they're not . No two are the same. In my experience the beat up looking ones are usually the exceptional playing and sounding ones.

Cheers,
KF

there is a reason those guitars are really worn. they played and sounded great, so they were played more. i am suspicious of any instrument that looks pristine after 30 years. also ,imnsho, with instruments, aging makes them better, as the molecular structure changes over time. but this only happens when it goes through the constant resonating that comes from being played. a guitar that sits in its case for 30-40-50 years, and stays in mint condition, basically is like a new guitar, not really having player value, just collector. i would love to own a 50's strat or tele, but only if it's a totally beaten up player's guitar.

[Elwood]

Perhaps. I think folks get hung up too much on price and that if its more 'worn' its not worth as much. The 'collector' paradigm I believe fosters this. Also, too that there's a level playing field (pun intended) with all instruments being equal - they're not . No two are the same. In my experience the beat up looking ones are usually the exceptional playing and sounding ones.

Cheers,
KF

there is a reason those guitars are really worn. they played and sounded great, so they were played more. i am suspicious of any instrument that looks pristine after 30 years. also ,imnsho, with instruments, aging makes them better, as the molecular structure changes over time. but this only happens when it goes through the constant resonating that comes from being played. a guitar that sits in its case for 30-40-50 years, and stays in mint condition, basically is like a new guitar, not really having player value, just collector. i would love to own a 50's strat or tele, but only if it's a totally beaten up layer's guitar.

Well said KF and LC !!

[Katefan]

Word. Louis, you bring up an interesting aspect in regards to the results of an instrument resonating by being played over time.... I'm not sure what happens but its seems evident that something does.

I remember the first really worn looking G&L I saw was an early (mustang body style) trem model red SC-1 with a really relic'd maple neck.
It was for sale at the Trading Musician north of Seattle -this was circa 1995. It was one cool guitar - great neck and tons of mojo. I think they had it marked @ $650 or so - seemed a lot of $ at the time but it played great. I remember noticing there was a ~ 1/4" impression in the wood on the treble side of the strings about the size of a dime - whoever owned it must have rested one of their fingers there. It was deep!
That guitar didn't stick around more than a week or two.

Cheers,
KF

[KenC]

Perhaps. I think folks get hung up too much on price and that if its more 'worn' its not worth as much. The 'collector' paradigm I believe fosters this. Also, too that there's a level playing field (pun intended) with all instruments being equal - they're not . No two are the same. In my experience the beat up looking ones are usually the exceptional playing and sounding ones.

My main bass is an '81 L-2000E with a mahogany body, and I'm sure that if this one is intact where it counts it would be worth every penny of the starting bid and more. I would just personally hesitate on a no-return auction on a well worn, 30 year old instrument at this price, especially when the photos suggest it could be a refin. Not that all refinishing jobs are bad, but it would definitely lose attractiveness to collectors at that price when it comes time to resell. Also, I don't remember seeing any statements or photos establishing that the neck is in good order.

I'm at twenty G&Ls right now, so I guess I've crossed the line to being a collector. All but two of them are from the '80s, and with maybe two exceptions they've all been heavily played. As long as there were no destructive mods, I'm more than willing to accept areas of missing finish, dings through the finish, etc. I play all of mine, and just like having the full range of bodies, necks and tones to explore. Can't say that's the case with all collectors, though. I would be afraid to sell one on eBay, for fear of a remorseful buyer claiming that what I consider normal play wear is a major defect in his opinion.

there is a reason those guitars are really worn. they played and sounded great, so they were played more.

+1, but keeping in mind that some are worn due to years of abuse, or early abuse followed by neglect. I've taken in rescues rather than seeing them parted out or further destroyed, but won't pay the price of an intact instrument unless I have full confidence that it works like an intact instrument. I have one '82 L-1000 that will be a phenomenal player again, once I finish mitigating the prior owner's poor choices (i.e., refinishing with a spray can, and putting it back together while it was still wet).

Ken

[Katefan]

Hey Ken,
Yeah - buying an instrument on eBay or anywhere where you can't play it first or check it out is risky - no return policy esp. I've luck out for the most part but have bought a couple that really didn't suit me.

I guess - depends on your definition of collector. I only have 4 but I can see how they can easlly start to pile up - esp the Leo-era ones.

Cheers,
KF