It's funny isn't it..

[steve(UK)]

When you see a photo of Eric, Duane, Paul, Keef, Jeff, Jimmy - and so on - playing a burst back in the late 60s, the age of those guitars was less than many of the Historics that we now own and play! They were around seven to twelve years old, yet you can have an Historic that is 20 years old now! My '98 is 14+ years. Pity the new 'uns don't age and sound like the old ones did. Says a lot for the quality of the wood that must have gone into those instruments. Fine lumber from old, big, tall trees with planks cut from the top (uncompressed by weight) sections of the tree. I have no personal knowledge that that is why such built instruments sound good, but I have read that the cellular structure of 'top' wood is more open than stump wood. The problem being, that as those large, old trees got used up, the younger ones were not wide enough at the top to cut usable guitar planks from, so they tend to come from the lower lengths of the tree where the cellular structure is more compressed. Anyway, I have digressed from my original, whimsical point about our Historics being older than the legends' (in relative time) if you see what I mean.

 

[shred]

I've often thought that about Norlins... A '70 is 43 years old now but it's not considered 'vintage' (at least around here). When Page was playing his burst at Madison Square Garden in '74 it was 15 years old... Pretty funny....

 

[mistersnappy]

One of the big differences in how we think of their (Page, Clapton, Green, etc...) tones is how they were recorded and how we listened (maybe still do?) to them: vinyl. Now, had they been recorded digitally, etc, maybe we wouldn't think Bursts were better? I'm talking about sound reproduction- not being in the room with them. I'm not saying analog or digital is better, just, different.

Plus, part of the mystique is just that they only made appox. 1600 of them. That's like one month of one model at Gibson now...

 

[madformac]

I've often thought about this myself. I have a lovely '62 Strat that sounds very sweet and the wood is so dry that when you scratch the bare wood you get a powdery wood dust off it. Of course the tone will change as the wood dries and the wood structure changes. But maybe there is more to it than just dry wood.

I agree with the "Top Wood" theory but also I think maybe climate change has had an effect too. Even with newer wood that has still been seasoned for quite a while there doesn't seem to be the same "bloom" in the notes that the instruments of the 50's and 60's have.

The recording equipment used in that era must colour the sound as well. I'm not sure many artists today would place a Marshall at full volume in the corridor of the studio and record it.

 

[steve(UK)]

One of the big differences in how we think of their (Page, Clapton, Green, etc...) tones is how they were recorded and how we listened (maybe still do?) to them: vinyl. Now, had they been recorded digitally, etc, maybe we wouldn't think Bursts were better? I'm talking about sound reproduction- not being in the room with them. I'm not saying analog or digital is better, just, different.

Plus, part of the mystique is just that they only made appox. 1600 of them. That's like one month of one model at Gibson now...

Nah. Don't want to get into - or start! - a digital vs analogue debate (vinyl vs CD), but that alone, the recording medium itself, does not make a great deal of difference. The 'raw' (old, low gain) amps, the methods, mics and general hardware did though. Much less in the signal chain meant a purer, less compressed, less processed guitar signal going down to tape. There was more speaker distortion, the use of smaller 'practise' amps that could be cranked easier, early distortion devices, plate studio reverbs, they all played their part.

 

[gypsyseven]

Yeah, very funny.....

 

[PHILBERT]

Did someone say digital vs analogue?:wah

Just kidding! :applaude

Where is Yeti when you need him? :laugh2:

 

[yeti]

 

[Black58]

It's funny that I'm taller, lying down, than standing up!

 

[Texas Blues]

It's funny that I'm taller, lying down, than standing up!

I knew it. You're an octopus.

 

[J.D.]

Don't underestimate the amps and tubes.

Wood back then was good no doubt but trees haven't changed that much in this timespan. I've heard PLENTY of guys get a perfect "vintage" 'Burst tone out of a Historic (especially with a Historic Makeover job) with boutique pickups and a good amp :jim

 

[PHILBERT]

Good one! :applaude

I really like the name Yeti, BTW. eace2

 

[Black58]

I knew it. You're an octopus.

:ha!




I wish! :spabout

 

[The Shifter]

Nah. Don't want to get into - or start! - a digital vs analogue debate (vinyl vs CD), but that alone, the recording medium itself, does not make a great deal of difference. The 'raw' (old, low gain) amps, the methods, mics and general hardware did though. Much less in the signal chain meant a purer, less compressed, less processed guitar signal going down to tape. There was more speaker distortion, the use of smaller 'practise' amps that could be cranked easier, early distortion devices, plate studio reverbs, they all played their part.

You could really argue that so much changed before digital even came into the picture. I'd say the majority of our beloved Burst tones on record were captured on 1" 8 Track tape machines going through tube mixing consoles or simple early solid state desks. Later there was a huge leap to 2" tape, 24 tracks, newer outboard gear etc.

And then...

DUN DUH DUHHHHHHHN!!!

Pro-Tools

AAAARARRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHH!:fc


Just kidding. I use ProTools.

 

[TM1]

My friend Paul Smith (Mr. PRS) told me many times that the Les Pauls built in the `50's sounded that good from Day One. Most of our fave LP's with original Les Pauls played on them were done between 1965-1974(or so..). Most of those guitars were between 7-15 years old then(depending on the year they were recorded). Out of the four Historic Les Paul's I have, two of them would give an original a run for the money as far as tone & playability. Of course they've been to Historic Makeovers..I also own an `05 SG/LP Std. and an ES-339 that have both been to H.M. and both of those are pretty special.

 

[bluesjuke]

Wow, my '98 R8 is 15 years old now.
In 35 years when the '2nd wave' Vintage era (who wants hide glue in their neck joint!?!, that crazy) kicks in I'm going to cash out.

I'll use the funds for my Big Bash 92nd Birthday Party.
I think I hold it down at the Iridium.

 

[yeti]

Good one! :applaude

I really like the name Yeti, BTW. eace2

Glad you like it. It was my nickname in High School and I had totally forgotten about it until I joined the forum and needed a name.

 

[PHILBERT]

Glad you like it. It was my nickname in High School and I had totally forgotten about it until I joined the forum and needed a name.

Cool. Mine was also a nickname that was given to me because some co-workers thought I was a bit nuts (I know...different spelling). But I liked it, so I kept it! :rofl

I never bought into that "wait a few years and it will be more like vintage" theory. Although it is early to know for sure, I have one new guitar done with hot hide glue (ES-335), and it is different than all my Tightbond guitars. It is way more open and LOUD. Almost uncontrollable! The only guitars that gave me that experience were vintage Gibsons. Are the new 2013 guitars going to finally live up to Vintage? TM1 may know the answer to this. With the right wood, they should.

 

[slammintone]

I think if Eric Clapton was playing one of my historics back then, it'd still sound killer. Same for if Jimmy Page was playing my R9 at MSG in 1973, nobody would be complaining it didn't sound like Jimmy Page playing a Les Paul.

 

[Big Al]

I don't believe in solid body sonic aging mojo. Nor do I believe in the sonic superiority of vintage Les Pauls vs Historics. Good be good.