Where would 'they' be if The Fabs never existed?

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:34 am

Certainly the Rickenbacker, Gretsch, Hofner, VOX and the Ludwig companies grew in ways they would not have without the worldwide phenomenon of The Beatles.
Arguably the greatest benefit was seen by RIC.

How would these companies have turned out if The Beatles had never happened?

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:04 am

Conversely, The Beatles might have sounded like **** without great guitars and broken up before we ever heard of them.

Which came first, the chicken, the egg, or Napoleon Bonaparte with a B-52 at Waterloo?

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:22 am

The music would have come through even on bad guitars, but I will admit that their choice of "off" brands like Hofner & Rickenbacker certainly played a part in giving them a different sound. What would the band have sounded like on heir first albums if Paul had picked up a Fender, or if John and George had played Strats? You'll also have to think about what the band would have sounded like if they'd been recording in America in 1962.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:27 am

>>>The Beatles might have sounded like **** without great guitars and broken up before we ever heard of them.

Wow... I couldn't disagree more. The Beatles were an incredibly talented band and not only WOULD have sounded great if they had used other brands, they DID sound great playing other brands.

Besides, this threads question is not about how the Beatles sounded, its about the effect The Beatles had on the various companies.

I would LOVE to hear Mr Hall's thoughts on the matter.

blazer · Post by **blazer** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:41 am

As for how the beatles would sound when using Fenders, Check out tracks like "Ticket to ride" when John plays the rythm droning part on a Stratocaster. And on "Nowhere man" where John and george played their strats in unisone. Then there's "Sgt. Pepper" where Paul played a soaring solo on a Fender Esquire.

Or on the "Let it be" and "Abby Road" albums where Paul used a Jazz bass and John and George used a a Bass VI and then there's also George's Rosewood telecaster.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:48 am

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:28 pm

The Beatles would have been the Beatles no matter what instruments they played. The 325 would have died if John Lennon hadn't picked one up.

Kent, nice ad.

tennis_nick · Post by **tennis_nick** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 2:52 pm

I think if Paul had never played a Hofner, the company would've faded away in the 70's making 100$ basses for beginners.

Rickenbacker would probably enjoy the success it enjoyed in the 50's. shorter backlog for sure! It'd probably be considered a B instrument by many.

alot of companies owed their success to luck. The Les Paul was extinct until Clapton, Beck, Richards all started playing them for their huge sounds, bam... still have Les Pauls!

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:44 pm

I guess what I'm saying is it's all revisionist history...what would RIC be without the Beatles...what would the Beatles be without RIC. All kinda silly...especially if you feel you have a beef with the Rickenbacker Corporation and you idolize The Beatles just a little bit too much...

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:35 pm

>>>All kinda silly...

oh? Sorry you dont like this thread. I guess you need to move on.

>>>especially if you feel you have a beef with the Rickenbacker Corporation

this has nothing to do with the TRC issue. It's a legit academic question and, to me, an interesting one to speculate about. I guess the discussion would be best if broadened to the influence famous musicians had on various companies in general. Nicolas makes a good point about Les Pauls. Sorry, Dane, but your threadkilling efforts wont work on this thread either.

>>>and you idolize The Beatles just a little bit too much...

now THAT is an impossibility.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:50 pm

Didn't say I didn't like it...I said it was silly.

Sales of Ricks and pointy boots up, sales of Brillcreme down...says more about the sheeplike nature of adolescent males than anything else...

I remember, I used to be one too.

gregga41 · Post by **gregga41** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:16 am

Kent, i gotta tell you,...man, i love the vast array of Beatles pics you post here! Simply awesome mate!

revolver323 · Post by **revolver323** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 4:09 am

I have to wonder why Vox teardrop and Framus basses didn't take off after Bill Wyman played them. Maybe because they were terrible?

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 5:40 am

Greg... the best source for early/rare Beatle pix is here:

http://www.beatlesource.com/savage/

yea, I never liked the look of VOX teardrop.
To me it doesn't even look like a guitar.
I guess it just goes to show that adolescent males wont go
for ANYTHING just because a rock star plays it.

And lets not forget that its not just adolescent
males who's purchases are heavily influenced by
their musical idols. Adolescent adults are too!

Now THIS is a guitar!

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:14 am

George Harrison used the Maton Mastersound MS-500 for a few gigs in the summer of 1963 while his Gretsch Country Gent was being worked on. If George had stuck with the Maton as his main guitar throughout worldwide Beatlemania I think we would have seen a lot of them around in the 60's and beyond. Instead the guitar faded away only to be reintroduced in 1998 (witha design not exactly like the original 1958 version) and now sells for about $1100.
http://www.guitar.com.au/guitars/electric/maton/index.htm