Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

That quote is nonsense. The Les Paul and 660 are different guitars built for different purposes. I will say that on an average and from what I've seen, the 600 is probably built better than many LP's being made now.

As an aside, if you want a good LP today, buy a Heritage.

Amen to that.

Reviewers love that sort of "either...or" reasoning. The problem is that it ignores the entire middle ground and makes the reviewer look stupid to people who still have their critical faculties intact.

But it sells magazines and bellybutton guitars to those who won't or can't think for themselves.

Rickenbacker--the guitar for the Thinking Person...

(Cue: Theme from The Magnificent Seven.)

Do any of you guys read that magazine? It is totally focused on nu-metal music. The only reason I bought it was because it had a tab for "Shine on you Crazy Diamond."

Found it at GC (of course!). Picked it up, thumbed it, put it down. A Rick is fine for metal, but those bimbos tend to put it into a tiny box, sound-wise. Small minds.

While a Ric can be used for metal, they are not optimal IMO. There are no (useable) tremolo systems available, and the pickups are not designed for high output. That does not mean a Ric doesn't have a place in someone's arsenal. If I wanted all my guitars to sound the same, there would be no point in owning more than one. I buy a Ric for what a Ric sounds like, which is the same reason I buy Gibsons, Fenders, Gretsches or any other brand.

Jeff, I think you are referring to vibrato systems. There is nothing like a Strat vibrato or a real dive bomber like a properly-set-up Floyd Rose for nasty metal.

I personally find Gibsons to be the least flexible of all the ones you've mentioned. (Except for the old low-impedance ones!) In general, though, most brands have "their" traditional specialty sounds.

Carey - I actually do read that magazine, I am a subscriber. However... I have been a subscriber for years, because I used to be a rhythm guitarist in a band (I am primarily a bassist), and the transcriptions are quite helpful. I keep a library of those things in my basement. I will look for the copy with the Ric 660 review and post something soon.

Paul, yes I am talking about vibrato systems (we call them tremolo here). I use Floyds pretty much exclusively, since they are about the only system that will stay in tune with heavy abuse. They don't sound like the Fender vibrato either, different mechanics.

All my Gibsons are hard tails, and are very good at what they do, but again, they all sound and feel differently, which is why I keep them.

What about the 650 series with the High Performance vibrato system ?

Jeff, there has been lots of confusion between vibrato and tremelo, which unfortunately has been perpetuated by manufacturers themselves at times. Sorry to hear that "over there" you use tremelo to mean vibrato. Vibrato is a pitch change. Tremelo is a volume change.

I know what you mean Paul. I am glad you set the record straight.

The American Heritage dictionary offers the following definition of vibrato.

Vibrato - "A tremulous or pulsating effect produced in an instrumental or vocal tone by minute and rapid variations in pitch."

If we can have a "tremulous vibrato" does a "vibrating tremelo" also exist? Possibly as the American Heritage definition of tremelo is as follows.

Tremelo - "Vocal vibrato especially an excessive or poorly controlled one."

I guess this pretty much sorts things out.

Silence Is Golden, Peter.

The American Heritage definition comes from/refers to classical voice definition and is most often used by opera critics.

Rickenbacker advertises fairly regularly in Guitar World Magazine.

I'm not "over here".

According to the many definitions available, either word is suitable to describe the effect. I have yet to see a definition of tremolo that has anything to do with amplitude.

My tremolo use is hardly minute in its pitch variations.