Well said, Paul! People seem to see the word 'Fender' and get all steamed up. I seem to recall that Leo Fender has links with Rickenbacker.
I only used Fender as an example, since that was mentioned at the start of the thread. A beautiful instrument is always a pleasure to play and look at. The guitarist in our band has a '73 Gibson Les Paul. An absolutely stunning piece of art and a lovely sound.
He also owns several Fenders, but prefers to leave them at home. He says that they are a bit 'generic' compared to the Rick-Gibson pairing.
If we all agreed with each other, the world would be a boring place.
Anyway I like being a Rick snob, it's like belonging to an exclusive club, or I should say 'family'.
I agree with all your points. 'Discussion and enlightenment' indeed!!!
FENDER AND THE BARNUM PHILOSOPHY
Moderator: jingle_jangle
-
ted_williams
- Veteran RRF member
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2001 12:58 pm
One way to "prove" the intrinsic value of a guitar is what it brings on the second-hand market versus its price when bought new. While late model Ricks tend to hold their value, it seems like as soon as you walk out of a music store with a new Gibson or Fender it's worth half what you just paid. While there are plenty of excellent Fenders and Gibsons, it would appear half the purchase price of a new one goes towards the brand name on the headstock.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Well, all of the purchase price of each of my Ricks goes toward the Rick on the headstock...and they're worth every penny.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
freshmattyp
- Member
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:51 am
- Contact:
On another board, in another thread I compared Rickenbacker's to coconut. You either like it or you don't. There's not much middle ground. I'm about as big a Ric snob as you'll find. I think Paul made an apt comparison to other "niche" brands. I can only speak for myself as to why I bought a relic Tele. That guitar felt broken in from the minute I picked it up in the store, and it was like meeting an old friend for the first time. The fit, finish and feel of that guitar was unbelieveable. I understand your POV as a craftsman, Paul, but there is artistry in a beautifully aged relic finish. It's not something that Joe Partscasterbuilder can do on his own. I'm not personally interested in the Beck Esquire, but a serious Beck fan and collector might be. To each his own.
All IMHO. YMMV.
All IMHO. YMMV.
No, Mark what steams me are comment like 'sad muso' and how they're just trying to 'look cool'. What I find sad, is how you think you're 'cool' because you play a Rickenbacker.
While you're 'looking cool' with your Rickebacker, I'll be reaching for the bass that best fits the sound I want at the time. I won't be thinking about how 'cool' I am compared to those guys not playing a Rick.
While you're 'looking cool' with your Rickebacker, I'll be reaching for the bass that best fits the sound I want at the time. I won't be thinking about how 'cool' I am compared to those guys not playing a Rick.
-
notviceversa
- RIC
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:06 am
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Tom, while you're still fuming over a "looking cool" comment, (without, incidentally, coming up with another reason to buy relic stuff, as Matt has---and his reason is strong and valid, and I hope he didn't get shafted on price), the long, difficult-to-elucidate posts which I write seem to be making points and drawing conclusions, the debate of which seems to interest you not one whit.
I'm certainly not beyond a little bit of a tingle when I think I'm "looking cool", but I am at a point in my own life where "looking cool" is a good deal less important than other issues, so it's not on top of my priority list. To me, "looking cool" and what it takes to DO it, is an exercise in futility. There's always someone cooler. (In my case, virtually everybody I meet is cooler.)
So, beyond this, do you have a point?
I'm certainly not beyond a little bit of a tingle when I think I'm "looking cool", but I am at a point in my own life where "looking cool" is a good deal less important than other issues, so it's not on top of my priority list. To me, "looking cool" and what it takes to DO it, is an exercise in futility. There's always someone cooler. (In my case, virtually everybody I meet is cooler.)
So, beyond this, do you have a point?
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
Tomq, I don't think I'm cool 'cos I play a Rick, if you had bothered to read my other posts, you'll see that I have also owned other basses. I've been playing bass and recording for close to 25 years. I apologise if the term 'sad muso' struck a raw nerve with you. It's not meant to be personal to anyone, I'm just using the term to single out the few people who buy a bass or guitar based on the 'cool' factor.
I didn't buy a Rick to look cool either, I bought it for the tone and playability. The looks are secondary. It's just a Rick hangs together rather nicely.
Being a bass player has the 'cool factor' built in. I'm sure other bassists would agree.
Anyway back to 'relic' FINISHES, which was I think the point Paul and I were making.. Jeez!! LOL.
I didn't buy a Rick to look cool either, I bought it for the tone and playability. The looks are secondary. It's just a Rick hangs together rather nicely.
Being a bass player has the 'cool factor' built in. I'm sure other bassists would agree.
Anyway back to 'relic' FINISHES, which was I think the point Paul and I were making.. Jeez!! LOL.
What d'ya mean... the bass is TOO loud!
I'm all for the free market and people being able to make a buck. I have owned a number of (undisturbed) Fenders and they have been stunning. I'm fine with somebody else wanting something that looks like Beck's or Hendrix's guitars.
Nevertheless, If it is my job to take 15 different Dremel bits to a fine handcrafted instrument, I would be vomiting so hard that the remains of everything I had eaten in my life would be squirting from my eye sockets. It would be even worse if that was my job with Rickenbacker- to make a Townshend survivor. To me, A guitar is a piece of art. Maybe, like an old painting by a Flemish master, over time the instrument evolves or ages into a different work of art, it doesn't cease being the original piece of art. The act of unnaturally distressing the creative vision of the artist will always make me feel ill. (In the case of a Rickenbacker, it would be like using a pneumatic drill to the murals in the Sistine Chapel.)
I have never been attracted to guitars that didn't look at least close to perfect and I try to keep mine that way. Everything in my personal space can be a flaming disaster, but my guitars always look great. Yeesh, I don't ever put stickers on my cases.
Nevertheless, If it is my job to take 15 different Dremel bits to a fine handcrafted instrument, I would be vomiting so hard that the remains of everything I had eaten in my life would be squirting from my eye sockets. It would be even worse if that was my job with Rickenbacker- to make a Townshend survivor. To me, A guitar is a piece of art. Maybe, like an old painting by a Flemish master, over time the instrument evolves or ages into a different work of art, it doesn't cease being the original piece of art. The act of unnaturally distressing the creative vision of the artist will always make me feel ill. (In the case of a Rickenbacker, it would be like using a pneumatic drill to the murals in the Sistine Chapel.)
I have never been attracted to guitars that didn't look at least close to perfect and I try to keep mine that way. Everything in my personal space can be a flaming disaster, but my guitars always look great. Yeesh, I don't ever put stickers on my cases.
"rubber heads don't dent easily"
In my very first post I made the point that Fender offers people "vintage" without the vintage price tag. You simply glossed over that with some marginally relevant comments about the overblown vintage market and Fender is unethical for charging what they do.
And as I've said several times in this thread, there is nothing fraudulent, immoral, unethical or whatever about ANY company charging what they wish for a musical instrument. It's a free market and if people can afford it and are willing to spend the money, great. The company makes money, and the customer gets a product they want. Everyone is happy.
I get it. You think it's a big sham perpetrated on the buying public by companies like Fender. Okay. But I completely disagree with that. I think it's smart business and makes for happy customers. I also get that you lament that Fender isn't like it was before the CBS buyout.
But even with that I _said_ that the premium for Fender CS guitars is too high. But the biggest reason is that I don't see any reason to spend $3k
for a guitar under any circumstances. I don't see guitars as art. I see them the same way I see a hammer or a screwdriver: something I use as a means to an end. As long as the guitar is easy to play and sounds like what I want, I'm good to go.
However, I respect that some people view relics as a work of art, just as I respect that some folks view Rickenbackers or whatever as art.
Geddeee, the reason it struck me is because I absolutely don't judge people based on what instruments they play. All I care about is the music. So somewhat snide comments about people just wanting to 'look cool' set me on edge. I didn't take it personally, FWIW.
Mark Gloster:
I'm completely opposite, sort of. I'd never intentionally 'relic' an instrument, but I absolutely don't care if it gets dinged or dented or has years of funk on the fingerboard. As long as it's working for me, it's all good.
And as I've said several times in this thread, there is nothing fraudulent, immoral, unethical or whatever about ANY company charging what they wish for a musical instrument. It's a free market and if people can afford it and are willing to spend the money, great. The company makes money, and the customer gets a product they want. Everyone is happy.
I get it. You think it's a big sham perpetrated on the buying public by companies like Fender. Okay. But I completely disagree with that. I think it's smart business and makes for happy customers. I also get that you lament that Fender isn't like it was before the CBS buyout.
But even with that I _said_ that the premium for Fender CS guitars is too high. But the biggest reason is that I don't see any reason to spend $3k
for a guitar under any circumstances. I don't see guitars as art. I see them the same way I see a hammer or a screwdriver: something I use as a means to an end. As long as the guitar is easy to play and sounds like what I want, I'm good to go.
However, I respect that some people view relics as a work of art, just as I respect that some folks view Rickenbackers or whatever as art.
Geddeee, the reason it struck me is because I absolutely don't judge people based on what instruments they play. All I care about is the music. So somewhat snide comments about people just wanting to 'look cool' set me on edge. I didn't take it personally, FWIW.
Mark Gloster:
I'm completely opposite, sort of. I'd never intentionally 'relic' an instrument, but I absolutely don't care if it gets dinged or dented or has years of funk on the fingerboard. As long as it's working for me, it's all good.
Tom, no offence meant and no offence taken. I agree that some customers WILL pay the price for the instrument that they desire. If you want it and can afford it, then go for it.
Some people obviously like that distressed or relic look. If there wasn't a market, then the guitars wouldn't exist. I just feel that the price is a tad high.
BTW, there was an interesting article in Guitarist magazine that had a 10 page in depth look at Fender's Custom Shop and the techniques used for distressing their guitars. It was a good read, but that effect isn't my cup of tea. Not that I'm the kind of person who wants a pristine bass, but I prefer the longer route to get there.
At least we agree on that.
Some people obviously like that distressed or relic look. If there wasn't a market, then the guitars wouldn't exist. I just feel that the price is a tad high.
BTW, there was an interesting article in Guitarist magazine that had a 10 page in depth look at Fender's Custom Shop and the techniques used for distressing their guitars. It was a good read, but that effect isn't my cup of tea. Not that I'm the kind of person who wants a pristine bass, but I prefer the longer route to get there.
At least we agree on that.
What d'ya mean... the bass is TOO loud!
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Vintage without the vintage price tag...here's what I had to say:
"Without the vintage price tag?" You mean the ridiculously inflated monetary "value" of vintage Strats caused Fender to see a way of giving anybody with three to twenty times the price of the actual manufactured stock instrument, the "opportunity to acquire" (love the snake oil terminology) a Relic simply by paying their price? Still, the purchaser wouldn't have to bid at a competitive auction for Beck's Esquire--and end up paying perhaps $250K (insane). Nope. It can be had for a mere $15K. Wow. Everybody comes out ahead! Charging/paying $15K for a $1K guitar becomes a win-win!
Tom, what other reason would any sane person have for plunking down so much cash for a FAKED beat-up old guitar, other than to gain status (at a high price) or look cool or acquire bragging rights? It's not a thing of beauty, nor is it an example of superb craftsmanship.
Two paragraphs. Hardly "glossing over" the topic you raised.
A) Real Vintage '62 Strat: $50K
B) Fake vintage '62 Strat: $3.5K
C) New American-made Fender Strat: $1.2K
What makes (A) worth more than 15X (B) or 40X (C)? Supply and demand. There are not that many real vintage '62s to go around, and everybody wants one, fueled by a bunch of crafty speculators/investors.
What makes (B) worth 3X (C) Tom? Is is 3X the work or materials? Nope. This time, it's a bunch of crafty marketing guys determined to take a chunk of the speculators' pie for themselves.
In either case, it's smoke they're selling. The second case is what I'm addressing--no value added to the intrinsic value of the instrument. Just sdmoke, mirrors, BS and "Certificates of Authenticity" issued by the manufacturer as a marketing tool, not anything with intrinsic value if their own, either.
It's like the cubic zirconium guys issuing certificates saying that each of their manmade gems, was a genuine diamond.
Note the question that I pose to you, Tom, in the second paragraph of that long-ago post.
It's still not answered. And I suspect that I know why.
"Geddeee, the reason it struck me is because I absolutely don't judge people based on what instruments they play."
Good for you. That wasn't where I was coming from, either. Again, this thread is about "Fender and the Barnum Philosophy".
If you see guitars as tools (that's one way of looking at 'em), would you pay more for a set of rusty tools than you would for a new, gleaming set of Snap-On sockets?
I, too, see guitars as tools. I also see 'em as art, and craft, and beauty, and truth and light, with more than one purpose. Don't close your mind to those possibilities.
"Without the vintage price tag?" You mean the ridiculously inflated monetary "value" of vintage Strats caused Fender to see a way of giving anybody with three to twenty times the price of the actual manufactured stock instrument, the "opportunity to acquire" (love the snake oil terminology) a Relic simply by paying their price? Still, the purchaser wouldn't have to bid at a competitive auction for Beck's Esquire--and end up paying perhaps $250K (insane). Nope. It can be had for a mere $15K. Wow. Everybody comes out ahead! Charging/paying $15K for a $1K guitar becomes a win-win!
Tom, what other reason would any sane person have for plunking down so much cash for a FAKED beat-up old guitar, other than to gain status (at a high price) or look cool or acquire bragging rights? It's not a thing of beauty, nor is it an example of superb craftsmanship.
Two paragraphs. Hardly "glossing over" the topic you raised.
A) Real Vintage '62 Strat: $50K
B) Fake vintage '62 Strat: $3.5K
C) New American-made Fender Strat: $1.2K
What makes (A) worth more than 15X (B) or 40X (C)? Supply and demand. There are not that many real vintage '62s to go around, and everybody wants one, fueled by a bunch of crafty speculators/investors.
What makes (B) worth 3X (C) Tom? Is is 3X the work or materials? Nope. This time, it's a bunch of crafty marketing guys determined to take a chunk of the speculators' pie for themselves.
In either case, it's smoke they're selling. The second case is what I'm addressing--no value added to the intrinsic value of the instrument. Just sdmoke, mirrors, BS and "Certificates of Authenticity" issued by the manufacturer as a marketing tool, not anything with intrinsic value if their own, either.
It's like the cubic zirconium guys issuing certificates saying that each of their manmade gems, was a genuine diamond.
Note the question that I pose to you, Tom, in the second paragraph of that long-ago post.
It's still not answered. And I suspect that I know why.
"Geddeee, the reason it struck me is because I absolutely don't judge people based on what instruments they play."
Good for you. That wasn't where I was coming from, either. Again, this thread is about "Fender and the Barnum Philosophy".
If you see guitars as tools (that's one way of looking at 'em), would you pay more for a set of rusty tools than you would for a new, gleaming set of Snap-On sockets?
I, too, see guitars as tools. I also see 'em as art, and craft, and beauty, and truth and light, with more than one purpose. Don't close your mind to those possibilities.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
A few things mostly for you Tom.
First, this is the lair of the Curmudgeon, so with that as an advertisement, I don't know if any of Paul's opinions should really raise the dander of any of us.
Second, whatever floats your boat. I don't think that Paul said that anyone else shouldn't buy Fenders, he only stated why he was down on this marketing effort.
Last, please do mark up your guitars as you see fit, but don't be offended if I attempt to avoid the crazed fan, the falling cymbal or the buzz saw with my guitars or those entrusted to me by others. I don't think of them as investments, but I want to treat them well as long as I get to play them.
First, this is the lair of the Curmudgeon, so with that as an advertisement, I don't know if any of Paul's opinions should really raise the dander of any of us.
Second, whatever floats your boat. I don't think that Paul said that anyone else shouldn't buy Fenders, he only stated why he was down on this marketing effort.
Last, please do mark up your guitars as you see fit, but don't be offended if I attempt to avoid the crazed fan, the falling cymbal or the buzz saw with my guitars or those entrusted to me by others. I don't think of them as investments, but I want to treat them well as long as I get to play them.
"rubber heads don't dent easily"
Fiat money ( paper) money has no intrinsic value. It has the perception of value because gov'ts say so or the Fed says so ie. "This note is Legal Tender, blah, blah blah...." Barnum said " There's a sucker born every minute" Just watch the infomercial channel some night you might agree. The appearance of value doesn't always make it so.