Just asking... about RIC

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:39 am

"Beatlesque" models don't even count for 10% of our sales and the two best years of growth in the company history was after we discontinued the Beatles-like V Series instruments and before the C Series. During this time there were NO Beatlesy instruments available from us.

We don't mind being of service to the "wannabes", as it was crudely put, but that's not the reason we're still here after 75 years.

As long as there is a serious gap between production capacity and demand, there is no earthly business reason to bring new products to the market and our efforts are completely directed at solving this discrepancy. Once that is done, we have a wide range of innovative things on the back burner we could produce.

Nevertheless, we're allowed to have fun here and a small digression like the 1996, when it really doesn't impact our production, was something we wanted to offer our old friends.

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:39 am

Um, Jeff, I am a middle-aged Geddy wanna-be, OK?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:47 am

And Converse was bought by Nike back in 2003.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:59 am

"Beatlesy"

I love it.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:16 am

Rickenbacker instruments are as valid now as they have always been. I have said this many times, but Rics are NOT retro sounding & only good for 'that '60's sound' & rythm gtrs. They are totaly up to date, contemporary sounding, versatile & capable of amazing lead gtr tones. Many people just don't use them as such.

This fact only goes to prove how ahead of their time they were in the early years.

steverok · Post by **steverok** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:26 am

I never understood the whole "retro" thing. Strats, Tele's, SGs, etc., all have the same basic look that they had back in the 50s and 60s, but those guitars are not tied to any specific era. Other than the Beatle re-issue guitars, there is nothing about a Rickenbacker that so specifically ties them to the 60s. I am recording my own music, written in the 21st century, with Rickenbacker guitars, they sound so wonderful, and it's not even 60s style music. They are pigeon-holed as such, but unfairly, I think. Besides, the 60s was a long, long, time ago, hearing a 12-string Ric is almost refreshing now, compared to most of the god-awful guitar sounds used in the ugly rock music of today.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:46 am

Jeff Rath is a John Hall wannabe!

(It's just a crudely put joke now, fellers...don't anyone get sore...)

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:59 am

naaa I am a Geddy Lee wannabe ... he plays bass better than me and he sings, writes, plays keys ... and he kicks *** ... and I am a little bit Squire wannbe ... and a little McCartney wannabe ... and I didn't mean it as an insult ... it was more of an observation ... most of the Rickenbacker guitars and basses are based on 50s and 60s designs ... as is Fender and Gibson ...

and I think I would like the dark sound of the 650 ... I might put a neck toaster in there ...

firstbassman · Post by **firstbassman** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:00 am

RE: Tony Carey and Steve Carsello comments: Hear, hear! Quite on the money.

RE: Kent - "maybe even a Rickenbacker 12-string AC/EL"

In my dreams also. Especially since I'll never be able to afford one.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:21 am

most innovations in the guitar industry come from new companies ... once companies have been around awhile then they keep making their bread and butter lines ... look at alembic, musicman, wal, warwick, steinberger, etc ...

and when Rickenbacker did innovations how did they sell? remember the 4002, the 2030, 230???

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:09 am

You forgot Parker and Line 6 in that list of companies, Jeff.

1rr3l3v4n7 · Post by **1rr3l3v4n7** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:13 am

I must agree with you all, it is very true that it may be us, players, who confine the ricks to the 60's. And it's also true that many other players/bands use ricks in a more contemporary way with an interresting sound. Listen to "Clatter" for example. Also, Squire was innovating, but used the same bass as Paul.

I like the comparaison with classical instruments. Violins are still violin shaped (excluding Hofners), but their sound is particular to every makers and rely on wood quality, craftmanship, etc. So, indeed, no need to improve at some point.

I also very much like the fact that Mr. Hall stated about not worrying to much about big innovations while the production is behind the demand. Wich is understandable for a family own buisness, and SO forgivable for RIC. ; )

I also guess (like most of you) that the 4002s were ahead of time. Maybe TOO innovative (and I would sell my grandma to have on of these)... So maybe innovation isn't that much of a good thing...

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:17 pm

The way I see it is that most of the guitars and basses we play are results of 50's and 60's design. Most of the new ones we see make us cringe. (or me, at least). So you get Gibson rolling out 50 variations on the Les Paul, or Fender making 50 of the Strat and the Tele. The others fall by the wayside. The marketplace dictates what is popular and what is not. (in the case of the 4002 as well...)

Also, Karl, you're right when you say the perception of RIC is that is is a 60's instrument, but it doesn't have to be that way. It might seem that way because one is not in the hands of Slash, or Dave Matthews, or shredders like Satriani and Vai., etc. If they played one, would that perception change? Would young buyers want a Ric instead of an Ibanez? Maybe. I know I wanted a Les Paul because Ace Frehley and Jimmy Page played 'em.

If we, as players push the envelope with our Rics, who knows what could happen? We might not be the ones to change that perception, but someone else will come along to innovate on the instrument and inspire others to do the same. Let's just hope "death by sampler" is not right around the corner, in which case, all is lost.

arbiter · Post by **arbiter** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:32 pm

I'm seventeen, play contemporary music and am not a beetle wanna-be. It makes me really mad when people say ricks are confined to a 60's sound, which I was once told in a store in Scotland.
Honestly, i think more of my teenage peers would be more apt to buy a Rick if they had standard humbuckers and could be changed to any Dimarzio, SD, or Gibson pickup. I personally think that that would make the guitar loose its identity and would not advocate doing so. The popular guitars these days amongst people of my age seem to be those made for "shred" like Ibanez's or with serious low-end like Gibsons. I personally believe my Rick is very well rounded. Also, Ric basses seem to be widely accepted and used in all genres by people of all ages. I think the image really only affects the guitars

Sorry for so much, and possibly off topic

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:41 pm

Graham,

Thanks for the very refreshing view from a member of the "younger generation". Your points were very well made in my opinion.