Why Don't Famous Lead Guitarists Use Rickenbackers?

russmanuel · Post by **russmanuel** » Sat Aug 25, 2001 5:14 pm

She's made a career of stirring people up ,music has just been a backdrop. Wonder why a LP instead of a Strat ? Maybe a little insecurity now that parenthood has set in.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Aug 26, 2001 12:15 am

To keep the topic relevant to Madonna and Rickenbackers she has been seen "playing" a 450 Mapleglo. Good luck on your mission Mr. Phelps.

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 10:29 am

Back to the main idea of the topic, do you suppose that it is the comparatively narrower fretboard that is responsible for most lead players choosing instruments other than Rickenbacker. By that I mean that the "classic" string benders may not be able to use the Rickenbacker fretboard to their advantage.

axel · Post by **axel** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 1:13 pm

...anybody would look good with a 620, that's a fact (btw I know I had a pic of Madonna+Ric, still have I'm sure.. but where?)

Yes, one of the reasons is indeed the narrow board - one really has to get used to it and it's not done in 5 minutes (I am quite a string bender - and I use 12-52s!)

But I think it mainly is image - everybody pictures Lennon with a 325, Clapton with a black Strat, Page and Beck with Les Pauls etc? Although they all played many different instruments, it's this set in image which prevents most people to explore beyond the (beautiful) looks of our cherished instruments.

I'm sure if Harrison had used one of his Ricks for a well known solo (and had been publicized doing so), more people would have considered a Rick as a "lead-capable" guitar...

First guitar I bought was a black imitation of a Strat...why? Because Clapton had one.

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Aug 28, 2001 2:06 pm

Good point Axel, it is hard to get beyond the image of the instrument used by the artist that had the greatest influence on one's introduction to the guitar. Old habits and first learnings die hard if at all.

jblakey · Post by **jblakey** » Sun Sep 02, 2001 6:20 pm

in my earliest band experience (metal) we were decked out in leather and spikes and all had BIG hair... playing the 4001 did not fit. That's like writing hate-mail with a feather-pen. I always had to use the flying-V bass.
I think a Rick player is type-cast as the poetic/thoughtful/really interested in the music type most of the time.. Good/Bad? ..I'd say GOOD!
Can you see Gene Simmons spitting blood amid flames and sparks... playing his AzureGlo 4001?
How about George Harrison with an angry looking BC Rich or Charvel... "We all live in a yellow..."

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 2:58 am

Joel: Interesting point. I am wondering when and where the definitive stereotypical image of the Rickenbacker guitarist developed? Did it begin with the Beatles? Also, there have been some Rickenbacker moments, namely the Pete Townshend era in which "thoughtful" destruction of instruments, including Rickenbacker was the order of the day. Then there was "Born to be Wild" guitarist John Kay, with a somewhat less that "poetic" image. Thanks for your comment, it certainly has me asking more questions about the perception of those artists who play Rickenbackers. Does the artist make the Rickenbacker or the Rickenbacker make the artist?

axel · Post by **axel** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:29 am

Nowadays -for the past 20 years or so- all instruments have had their identity firmly set in (and definitely).
If one owns a Rick, one will not play in a rev'd up Sex Pistols kinda band (unless one is versed in 27th degree humor). It's this image thing again - Joel above has put it very clearly : Kiss or Metallica with a 370 - it doesn't fit.
And that is the proper word : you need a clear image so that people can identify you (to you, also). Marketing-wise, it 'fits' in the same category as hair and wardrobe...

More precisely relevant to this topic, Does the artist make the Rickenbacker or the Rickenbacker make the artist? :
..the MopTops made Rickenbacker - and since then the rest of us are trying to make it to the MopTop way!
Hence the V and C series (and their equivalent in other brands) - just trying to catch up with a period where things were not so carefully calculated (or so it seems with 30+ years of distance).

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 7:20 am

I have a better term for this;"Vanity check".
How many of you guys[come on, admit it; we've All done this...]get your new guitar,go home, put the strap on it and get in front of a mirror to check out the "bossness level"?There are a lot of classic instruments I've owned, that, on their own, are very cool, but after seeing a picture of myself with certain models, which I thought I liked, decided, "This is Not me".Doesn't mean it's still not a good guitar, but if it doesn't "fit" you,it's gotta go.Anyone out there relate??

axel · Post by **axel** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 9:02 am

Ha! yeah, sure - 15 years ago, with my first couple of guitars. They were not Ricks...they went.

Grab a v64 and you (think you-) grab a little of Harrison - quite stimulating I believe.

Image, vanity - same thing : a projection of oneself (getting off topic again).

I still have my old Tele, it's a good instrument - on some points it's better than both my Ricks (just plug in 'n make tha' funky groove).
But, as you say : 'it's not me' - neither the funky or the Tele. Go figure!

Isn't the sound you make mostly made of what you want it to be ? (this is a question, not an assertion)

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:12 pm

Axel: As a very good friend of my has said, in reference to guitars, on many occasions -
How does it look? How does it play? How does it sound? What does it cost?
I tend to lean more toward sound with my Rickenbacker? How about you?

jblakey · Post by **jblakey** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 4:16 pm

I like that, Peter, it is important.
Me, Ricks exclusively.

I think it is important to say that my old 4001 (mentioned above)is JG with white binding/pickguard etc.. standard..classic looking bass and that perhaps is the point.. the new, more modern looking models.. I don't think are as typecast. But, I think that If you say, "I got a Rickenbacker!" to an "electric" musician, they immediately think of that classic-Rick-look..not some of the newer models (in terms of bass) or options even.

I recently got a 4003 JG with black binding, black hardware, black background truss-rod cover.. it's a beautiful thing.. and certainly has a more modern look that would be at home in any kind of band.

As for the width of guitar necks being an issue.. I dont agree. I think a good player can settle in to anything.. look at mandolins..very small but people play fast and precise..or the other extreme.. sitars.. I've got one and I tell ya, I don't see how Ravi Shankar and the like can fly across those things with the precision of Eddie Van Halen.. and on a neck thats 4 or 5 inches wide.

rkbsound · Post by **rkbsound** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 6:07 pm

Rickenbackers are one of the most beautiful guitars on this planet, and it's just an extra bonus that a guitar that sounds so great can have such a unique and special look. I wish they were cheaper, but that's the price of admission to a quality show, right?

axel · Post by **axel** » Sat Sep 15, 2001 10:42 pm

50/50 : sound & feel.
I will never again play any other brand (Feel).
I will never play etc.. but let's not forget these beauties are plugged in very different amps/preamps and with very different strings (Sound).

Looks, we all do agree, even people who wouldn't touch a rick with a 10ft pole...
The looks of a classic Rick is a bonus to me (but I do have to admit I bought the 1st one -white360- mostly for the looks...bear with me, I was 22).

The thin neck, on top of it's 'fast' nature also gives the guitars an 'elegant' look. The old fashioned bridge & R tailpiece also. The 380 modern bridge looks technical, not elegant (and the gold hardware, tacky). No doubt theses ingredients also make a good part of the sound, just as much as the carved maple top.

I think the 'traditional' rick embodies (litterally) the qualities of these instruments, where looks, sound & feel are one.
That may be what leeds many people to see Ricks as "closed" instruments (ie gentle jingle-jangle only).

happydog · Post by **happydog** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 8:05 am

In my big fat opinion, famous lead guitarists don't use Rickenbackers because of the image, not because the guitars are lacking in any way.

The image of the guitar is mired in Beatles-Byrds mythology and most guitarists associate that sound with the guitar.

Another handicap is the image that Ricks are "jangly" and "rhythm guitars," seeing as how many post-60's Rick players (Peter Buck, Paul Weller) are primarily rhythm guitarists.

A third issue is that 1960's Ricks are different from present-day Ricks. This may be heresy to say but I don't really care for the "vintage" pickups, and I'm really happy about the updated post-1984 neck. Most guitar players don't know about the pickup change, and there are still old coots out there griping about Rick necks. Guitarists that play a NEW Rick are invariably surprised at how they sound and play, at least in my experience.

So to me it would be a combination of all these things that contributes to the fact that a lot of "Lead guitarists" haven't caught on to Rickenbackers.

This whole issue is one of my pet peeves. I play lead guitar on my 330 and take extended solos (where it's warranted). My Rick is EASIER to play lead on than any other guitar I've owned. It also has a wide tonal range, interacts well with my floor full of effects pedals, and in short is a terrific guitar for all sorts of music.

I've read reviews on Harmony Central with people saying, "Oh, you can't play lead on the Rickenbacker because of the neck." Wha?? The scale of the neck is the same as a Les Paul, which nobody has any trouble playing lead on, and the lacquered fretboard doesn't seem to bother all those maple-neck Tele/Strat players.

This to me sounds like people reacting more to the image of the guitar rather than the actual feel of the guitar.