Was the golden era really golden?

Bob-Dubery

George Gruhn says "yes".

Well, he would, wouldn't he? But his justification is well considered.

Read it at http://www.gruhn.com/newsletter/newsltr31.html

IceCreamMan

Golden age is a perception , a romantic notion of a time past. It is wholly subjective.

Malkav

X-rated Bob wrote: George Gruhn says "yes".

Gruhn seems to be more nostalgic than anything else really, his entire argument is just far too subjective.

X-rated Bob wrote: But his justification is well considered.

I believe he has a justification, just not that it should be well considered, he doesn't really bring up a valid argument at all by saying they sound and look good cause there are tons of guitars today that pull that off. Having played a few heralded era instruments I can agree that they can sound nice and play well (That's not really in debate) but there can also be lemons, having played quite a few custom shop instruments from assorted brands I'd have to say I'd rather have a modern custom than any "golden age" instrument. Generally they've sounded better and played better than vintage instruments I've tried, and there's really no logical reason why they wouldn't. Our knowledge of luthiery and the means by which instruments are made has improved, the instruments have improved as well, this is what happens with the advance of technology.

As for the golden age thing, I think there are lots of innovations that are truly big deals happening these days, but thanks to the over exposure the internet grants they would all be considered too niche to be accepted by the entire guitar making industry. This isn't too say that they aren't equally as clever or wouldn't have an equally large impact on construction as things from the "golden age" they however will never have as large a market.

It's much like music in this respect, we will probably never have another big band that the whole world gets behind like say The Beatles because the internet allows us to have very niche tastes and the market isn't as closed off anymore, but that's not to say that there haven't been tons of bands that are as good if not better.

(For the record I don't like The Beatles)

IceCreamMan wrote: Golden age is a perception , a romantic notion of a time past. It is wholly subjective.

I agree ?

Jack-Flash-Jr

I belong to the every era is golden school of thought...

Bob-Dubery

Chad Adam Browne wrote:
X-rated Bob wrote: George Gruhn says "yes".
Gruhn seems to be more nostalgic than anything else really, his entire argument is just far too subjective.

I did say "well he would, wouldn't he?" Gruhn is one of the founders of the vintage guitar business, so he's not likely to turn around and say "it's all just a load of hooey".

So, yes, that article is by someone who has a stake in the game, but I think it's a starting place for a discussion, a glimpse at the reasoning behind that market.

What I'd like to know is what difference "old growth" wood makes.

I do think that in the collectors market they do downplay the scarcity issue, which, for me, is the main justification for the price you pay for anything that is old and scarce. I think there's a need to convince oneself that one is buying something magical, somehow "better".

I do think there WAS a period in time when "old" was better than "new". That was when Norlin had bought Gibson and CBS had bought Fender and QC on both brands (and others, though those are the two best known examples) dropped. So in 1969 a 10 year old Strat was probably a much better instrument than a new Strat. That, I think, was when the idea took seed. Also the period in the 60s when Keef and Slowhand and Mike Bloomfield were known to be playing Les Pauls and Gibson weren't making the things.