Why Don't Famous Lead Guitarists Use Rickenbackers?

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 1:59 am

A friend and fellow guitarist posted a question to me just the other day concerning famous lead guitarists and Rickenbackers. "Why haven't renowned lead guitarists typically used Rickenbackers?" I immediately began to speak of Roger McGuinn, George Harrison and Paul Weller, however, the case I made was apparently not a strong one. Many famous guitarists who play lead guitar have used Rickenbackers. But why didn't Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, Jimmy Page, Stevie Ray and countless others use Rickenbackers. Is it the narrow fretboard, the sound, the availability, the need to emulate other guitarists or perhaps the cost of Rickenbackers that has led these artists to use other instruments. So is this a fair statement to make. Is the Rickenbacker the mainstay of the "rhythm guitarist" only? I would like to hear your views on this.

ted_williams · Post by **ted_williams** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 4:04 am

How about John Fogerty, Peter Buck, Marty Willson-Piper, and Dave Gregory? OK, the last two aren't as well-known, but both are excellent 12-string lead players. Why not more? I wonder how many of the big names, as well as the up-and-comers, have considered or tried Ricks. I'm sure there's the perception that you can only get "jangle" out of Ricks, while we know how versatile they really are. The narrow neck and low action feel foreign to Fender players, and aren't conducive to heavy bending, while I'm sure Les Paul players would find them too bright sounding. Maybe they should all try a 650 series.

russmanuel · Post by **russmanuel** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 6:24 am

I use much heavier string guages on my RIC than any of the Fenders,Gibsons etc. With the exception of SRV, most lead players like 9's or 10's , better for an expressive playing style. My experience with lighter strings on RIC's has lead to tuning problems , especially with the shorter scale guitars. You also mentioned availability which is a real issue with this company. People can't play 'em if they can't find 'em.

rkbsound · Post by **rkbsound** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 7:30 am

I always played with light strings on my 335 and always had tuning problems. I attributed the problems to age and the Ac'cent. Switching to a real heavy set made a big difference immediately, although not a 100% fix.

axel · Post by **axel** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 7:41 am

Image - it's just image. Whenever you start to say Rickenb.. people snap at you with 'Ah, Beatles!' (silly)
I think it mainly is image and looks. As far as music goes I don't hear many people making songs but plenty mainly looking for the riff-that-kills.

Rics to me are guitars you spend a lot of time on, searching for chords, looking for harmonies and nice/interesting progressions ; when I still played my tele, I was always immediately drawn to riff/rough stuff with it, not songs.
Funny, most of the time I work with the 360 but almost always end up laying the tracks with the 620...

Also whenever I see Rickies in a shop they are always badly set up with wimpy strings and, at first, it does indeed only sound jingle-jangle-60s-Beatles-whatever... I guess people stop short at that.
Too bad for them - all the better for us.

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 7:46 am

I think when some people see Ricks, they automatically think "Power Pop". (Personally I like "Power Pop"!)

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 8:38 am

These are all great responses to the question. While there are many factors to be considered, my view is that the Rickenbacker Sound and image became most pronounced in the 1960s, first with the Beatles and then with other groups associated with the British Invasion. The instrument almost became synoymous with the "Invasion" and hence was associated with the sound that emerged at that time. Hence the tremendous success of the reissues purchased by folks who want to capture that 1960s sound. I think that many people recognized that vintage sound and may not have seen Rickenbacker as changing from that mould. While those who own them realize the versatility of Rickenbackers, those who are less familiar with them, perhaps adhere to the old stereotype.

axel · Post by **axel** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 9:26 am

Like a time-capsule, sort of.

Also the Beatles came up at the moment when 'image' in general was beginning to be used as a publicity argument ; when bands went from dance-hall to worldwide stars. Plus they were lucky enough to be grrreat musicians and to have met the right people at the right time (ie Epstein).

Without the Beatles, Rickenbacker would most probably have remained unknown to the larger public.

As for 'solo' instrument - kids wanna look/sound like Jimmy Page/Hendrix/Clapton et al (although they're all old enough now to be gran'pa), you know : teenage rage and that kind of stuff, we all went through that.
Beatles were beyond - they were writing for everybody, not against people. Whatever the marketing reasons for that (at the beginning), it still is the feeling you get from their songs - positive.
We all can sing their songs - you have to be Jagger to sing a Stones number properly...

(just tell me if I'm wandering too far apart)
I think it's all marketing anyway - magazines will always say tele=country/blues, les Paul=rock etc
Rickies are delicate instrument and well crafted - these times are neither delicate nor that much positive. So you get a Les Paul and articulate your rage (louder is the word).

russmanuel · Post by **russmanuel** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 10:34 am

You know The Beatles were always great at that...bringing various instrumental sounds from outside the Top 40 and using them to paint a new color in their pictures. Maybe that's how RIC became such a big part of their sound.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 11:25 am

Yes Axel. I agree. Just like a time capsule and along with the sound goes the classic Rickenbacker styling and famous fireglo finish, a finish that is still the most popular today.

Your point is well taken Russ. The fab four certainly added many unique sounds to their music that set the stage for others to experiment in a similar manner. The pure jangle of Lennon's 325 started it all and cut through the other instruments in a way that captured our attention and permanent etched itself on our cerebral cortex.

rkbsound · Post by **rkbsound** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:27 pm

Image is everything today. I saw an interview on MTV yesterday with someone from the Modonna tour. He was talking about the different numbers she's doing, and talked about the part of the show where she plays a Les Paul (unusual for her to play anything at all). He specifically said that a Les Paul was chosen FOR her, because it would be a guitar that the public would generally recognize. None of the factors that any of us would put into guitar selection applied. I actually think she'd look way cool with a blue 620 strapped to her. She wouldn't even have to play it!

webhead · Post by **webhead** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 4:08 pm

I recently saw a book that had a photo of Madonna before she made it big. (Before she started dying her hair) She was in a band called the Breakfast Club, she was on stage playing a Rick 450....

axel · Post by **axel** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 4:17 pm

yuk - sorry to be rude but let's do keep rickies out of ultra-mega bucks show-bi$$ and studied attitudes...

axel · Post by **axel** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 4:24 pm

really, not meaning to be rude but Madonna and the like are and never were about music (emotions at large) but just plain fashion and marketing..
LP this tour, whatever suits the dress the next tour and, no, no LP for the next one - we done it before.
Most irritating, and quite pointless I believe.

rkbsound · Post by **rkbsound** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 4:43 pm

Axel, I totally agree. But can we still strap a blue 620 to her? Maybe then my wife would let me have one!