Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

On the other hand, Andy's book is published and generating revenue.

Exaclty, I'd like some revenue too, hence why we're working on the book. It took Andy 6 years to get his book out the door, I'm hoping to do it in less time, with greater accuracy. 400 plus errors in something like 250 pages isn't exactly what we're shooting for. One thing we have on our side is that we have the funds to self publish and that's a biggy.

Another thing that you have on your side is the greater availability of information. With the advent of the web, you have access to all kinds of resources that he didn't. It doesn't make a wrong right, but it does put it in little different perspective when you tweak him for not having a picture of the correct screw head.

I think it's cool that there are those with a high enough level of OCD to get every detail correct. However, I'm not sure that this level of obsession is shared by most people. A picture of any Fender XII may be good enough for those is just want an idea of what the guitar looks like.

I must admit, though, that I'm a little skeptical of your error count. If he says John played amp X when he played amp Y, that's an error. If he shows an ad for amp X when John played amp Y, then unless he said it's an ad for amp Y, it's not an error. It might be a digression, and you might view it as irrelevant, but it's not wrong. Think of it as establishing the context in which the Beatles played. That is valid information. People tend to look at the Beatles in today's terms. They think that many of their gear decisions were based on a comprehensive search and evaluation and subsequent acquisition. They weren't; the overriding factor seems to be availability. See John's 325, George's 12, etc., etc.

Adam, you've got some valid points there, as long as you're not using the book as a guide to buy up Beatles related equipment, many are. If I were dropping thousands on something like on a Gretsch Country Gent and using the book as a guide, I'd be pretty upset to find that the one in the book that I used as guide was wrong, and don't think it doesn't happen.

BTW, Andy had the net as resource, but chose not to use it, ask him. If he had done a basic search on line, he would have found out that the amp he had listed as a Selmer Zodiac was actually a Thunderbird 50, it was up there on Tim's site for at least two years prior to the publishing of the BG book. However, 99% of our research is based on photographic evidence, interviews that have been properly substantiated and access to a lot of equipment, not what's posted on the internet.

One thing I will agree with you on though is that wrong is wrong.

Just so you understand how we are doing this with the photos.

http://www.beatlesgear.com/chron.JPG


We get a photo, make a hi-res copy of it, put in a book with its date. These photos are then assembled in the order they were taken, by date. Depending on how many photos from that day we have, they will even put back in the exact order they were taken on the roll of film. Depending on available resources, they may also be thumb-nailed as well. It a huge job, but by doing it, we've been able to correctly establish errors in dates concerning materials already published, which helps us norrow down the time line closer than ever before. The photos have come from every Beatle Monthly book, every other published book that we have been able to find, film grabs from live concerts/studio, and most importantly directly from the photographers and their proof sheets.

We take it very seriously because we don't want to see soemthing up for sale in the future that is being represented incorrectly, and quoting us as the source. Meaning, you'll never see something like Vox Defiant on e-bay, using us as the source to back up its importance, the way something like Vox Story book has been in the past.

Whether a book is used as a source by some people to buy certain pieces of equipment they think is authentic as pertaining to a particular artist is irrelevant to some people, but even to peole like that, that stuff stays in the back of your mind. I would probably do much more research if I were to ever try to buy an authentic Vox amp that was the exact type used by The Beatles at such and such a time or in such and such a song, but maybe I see an amp in a store and remember, hey, that's the amp that was used by George on bla bla, and I buy it on impulse only to find that it is not the correct amp at all. The basic problem to me is that if I read a book about Beatles Equipment I want it to be as factual as possible, I want the author to have all the correct pictures and facts in there, how many watts, what type of tubes, etc. Because if I read a book that I think is factual and then find out that a lot of stuff was fudged, I'm not going to believe anything in the book and think that it is just another hack job long on pictures, anecdotes, etc. and short on facts. There are a lot of us who want to really know what was what and when and where to the best of our abilty. And a book that purports to be an authority on The Beatles equipment and has that many mistakes in it will certainly not be an authoritative reference book for me.

You are right, Robert. I love Babiuk´s book, but I didn´t know it has so many errors. I´ll be waiting for Nick´s book.

Nick, if you had one ounce of class..........

Ill tell ya what website Andy didnt go to...........Beatlesgear.com.........

I happen to love that book and the attention that was put into it. Who cares if a picture was flipped the wrong way, I certainly dont!

Oh, and by the way.......I happen to absolutley know That the Gretsch was used on paperback writer. listen to the bootleg Revolving sessions, the sound heard is EXACTLY THE SAME tone as heard on georges guitar solo with his gretsch in All my loving. Certainley not a rick, and DEFINETLEY not a casino

What a tempest in a teapot...

Yes, I am glad that Nick can correct Andy's book. But I have this question. Since Andy made the mistakes, don't you benefit by knowing what is already wrong?

Seems like someone is in a snit because he got beaten to the publishing punch and now has an axe to grind (every pun intended).

And if you are the kind of OCD that HAS to have the EXACT same thing that a Beatle played on any given day, then I'll tell you where to send me a check. I am just satisfied that I could afford my first Rick after 38 years of playing. Who cares if it is an exact replica? I am not and will never be an nth of the musician the Beatles were and if I want to hear a "cover band" trying to duplicate the sound, I'll just go home and put on the CD.

Geez, Nick, maybe you could put this kind of effort into solving the Middle East crisis. I don't think an EXACT history of anything has ever been done before... I am sure you are going to be perfect and not make one mistake.

People who live in glass houses...

Well facinating read through this thread. I'm a Beatle fanatic as well and will eat up any info that can be had. I amazed that new details can still be brought forth.

As a stickler for detail I've been curious as to whether the Fender Twins that the Beatles had have the blackline faceplates. I haven't been able to determine from any of the photos if they were or not.

Also what has become of the many amps the Beatles owned. Many of the guitars are accounted for and a few sit in museums but where are the amps today?

I for one appreciate Nick's work and I'm a scrutinzer of detail (also a fellow VTer) but I don't plan to use anything as a guide to actually buy Beatles correct instruments. Even a replica that has any Beatle attachment fetches high prices. I know there are plenty of guys out there who do collect that stuff and need dependable resources.
I just have an endless curiousity of anything Beatle related.

And funny this thread has popped up again too.
So Paperback Writer was John's Gretsch, eh? And NOT the SG? Hmmm...

and there seem like such nice boys same as they always was when they was ....

You sure get wound up about being correct !

Hows your site doing ?