Did Rics decline in the 70's....?

[beatlefreak]

I don't know whether Rickenbacker was in a decline in the seventies, but I believe that their guitars were less popular - However the 4001 became more popular. This is probably due to the artists that used Rickenbacker guitars being less popular (The Beatles split up in 1970, CCR split in 1972, the Byrds and the Beach Boys weren't as popular in the seventies as they were in the sixties). Bassists in popular bands of the seventies played 4001s (Paul McCartney and Chris Squire, for example).

To add to that, it wasn't until 1980 when I think Rickenbacker guitars were revived...Tom Petty and Mike Campbell saved the day on that one!

REM in the eighties was a huge push in that direction, also.

[martin halstead]

My own personal experience/opinion is that the decline in the quality of American manufactured instruments after 1970 is a somewhat overrated piece of conventional wisdom. I have had the good fortune to own numerous instruments from both decades, and my own experience is that the variations between individual guitars are greater than any overall shift in quality for the same model . This, of course, does not include the attempts in the 70's by various manufacturers to produce the elusive "budget" instrument that would compete with the increasingly cheap imports that manufacturers were facing in that decade. Many of these were indeed horrible. I am old enough to remember that, when I started buying instruments, any Fender made after December 64, or any Les Paul from the 68 re-introduction onwards were considered to be inferior. Looking at E-bay and various vintage dealers, those magic thresholds now seem to have crept forward to at least 1970, and new seems to be heading towards , say 1974. I don't think these instruments have improved with age somehow, just that the conventional wisdom has shifted.

Looking at Ricks specifically, the loss of the checkered binding and crushed pearl inlays were negative changes, although I understand that supply problems were responsible for the inlay change. Aside these factors, I cannot see any substantive quality difference between my '66 4005 and my '77 4001 basses, or my '67 360 and my '81 330. I am surprised at the number of members citing the introduction of the hi-gain pickup as a negative change. My memory is that they were initially very well received as a solution to the perceived chronically low output of the Rick guitars. This was in a time when most people were relying purely on amp overdrive to get crunch and sustain, and the toasters just didn't make it. Current taste now prefers the sound of the toaster. I have been told by an older friend that when Les Paul's first started to show up in the UK in the 60's, the initial view was that only one's worth having were those with P90's because the humbuckers were too thick sounding and not bright enough! My suspicion is that in another 10 years, 70's instruments will be brining substantial premiums over new production based only upon the perception that the older an instrument is, the higher its quality......

[collin]

Hi Martin- Welcome to the forum!


Great first post, btw. I couldn't agree more (about people's perceptions "magically" changing over time).

[wints]

Welcome Martin, and yes, a very nice first post.

The perception that something older is of a higher quality is always going to be a factor...even when it's not true. Most 70's gear will probably command a premium over contemporary gear simply because of that reason, and in most cases, it won't be true!

A good instrument is a good instrument, regardless of year/vintage, however, this becomes all rather subjective...

[paologregorio]

Hi Martin- Welcome to the forum!


Great first post, btw. I couldn't agree more (about people's perceptions "magically" changing over time).

Ditto that! I've had more than one reputable, local luthier, including one who worked at one of the local guitar factories back in the day, state that the best guitars are being built now.

Welcome Martin!

[8mileshigher]

Hi Martin- Welcome to the forum! Great first post, btw.

Welcome Martin!

+1 on the Welcome and your very insightful first posting !
Regards - Rich F.

[DavyR]

When my 1968 4001 Fireglow was stolen in 1980 I borrowed a 1975 4001 for a few gigs. There was NO comparison to the 1968. The body weight was much lighter, the volume was much lower and the tone just wasn't there. It was SO different that I really couldn't stand to play it. It WAS a differnt bass! I remember tightening the neck pickup so much to attempt to get some sound out of it that I cracked the pickguard! Maybe 1975 was just a very BAD year for the 4001 bass because the 4001 models produced in the years afterwards seemed to be much better.

[cjj]

Or maybe it was just that particular '75 4001. I had a '74, which was great, and now have a '76 which I'd say is every bit as good as my old '74, which actually seems to sound better (and louder), and feel better (to me anyway) than my '84 4003. My '09 4003 has a lot higher output, but feels just like my '84, just not quite as nice as the '76 (or my old '74).

[paologregorio]

Yep, each individual piece of wood is different, and that affects the tone.

I think the Jam helped "revive", if that's the word-I'd say "boost", the poularity of Rickenbacker guitars and basses as well; think how many "Mod" kids, or just plain old Jam fans who played, saved their cash and went out and bought a Rick after finding out and seeing the Jam play them; I'm one, and I can think of a few more back in high school who did the same thing.

[simer4001]

Sorry I haven't read the entire thread, but does decline mean less popular or less sales? I can see where known groups may not have used Rickenbacker's but the general guitar playing population may have. Does that make sense?

[cjj]

I seem to recall that the main gist of the thread was whether the quality of the instruments declined...

[jps]

...correct! And they did not decline.

[doctorno]

Rickenbacker instruments have always had the same high standard of quality. I cannot prove this, but this has been my own experience with all instruments by Rickenbacker that I have tried and/or have owned during the last 25 years. This judgement is very different for other American made guitars. Fender guitars have been very good value for money from time to time, and from time to time they have been just ****. Gibson has offered a few good instruments - but most of the instruments by Gibson that I have seen were overprized and quite a few of the instruments were worse than the Far Eastern copies. PRS guitars are very good, but they are not a very good deal for your money if you compare them to some Fenders, all Rickenbackers and many European and Far Eastern guitars.

[kiramdear]

I don't believe they did. Gibson and Fender certainly dropped in quality in that decade but Rickenbacker did not. I used to check them out in the stores regularly in those days as I do now, and i've found them to be the same as they are today, intensively hand-made, well-built and highly playable and desirable American made instruments. I think the quality of ricks has stayed remarkably, constantly, high over the four decades I've had an acquaintance with the brand.

[deaconblues]

Well, quality sure didn't decline, but Rickenbackers got a little funky in the '70s...shapes were really inconsistent, they let the templates age so the horns became softer, and models were released that left something to be desired.