My Buzz-Kill Reality: Epiphone will Always be regarded as CHEAP

[StewartB]

Who in their right mind gigs $5k gear in bars and colleges where the kegger bashers' date=' sloppy drunks and 5 finger discount artists roam free? Just about every working muso I know plays EPIs and other Asian brands on tour, while their high $$ Rics and Gibbys stay home (or in the studio). [/quote']

 

Spot on comment. I have a muso friend who paid $6000 for a PRS 513 and about $5000 for a Mesa Boogie. Things aren't cheap here in OZ!

 

He's too scared to take them to the pubs & clubs where he plays so does his pub gigs with a '93 US Strat and a Fender Blues Junior. The PRS and Mesa look great in his music room though!!

 

Stewart B

[Notes_Norton]

Here is my two pence: I can't talk for epiphone les pauls and SG's' date=' but for my three "original dedicated epiphone models": Sheraton II, Riviera and Casino. None of them feel, look or sound cheap. <...>.[/quote']

 

The Gibson ES-330 came before the Epiphone. The Casino is an Epi copy of the 335, but IMHO there is nothing wrong with that.

 

I have a 330 and a Casino. The 330 is definitely a better guitar. The wood is better, the inlays are real MOP, nitro finish, it even sounds better as an acoustic guitar. Plug them in and all bets are off. The Casino has Duncan P90s in it, and to my ears it sounds a little better than the Gibson.

 

The guitar is a tool to make music. We don't play the guitar, we play the pickups. Everything else is for looks and comfort.

 

So the Epi is like the Camry and the Gibson is like the Lexus with the same body/engine/transmission.

 

The Lexus has leather seats, electric rear-view mirrors, and other creature-comforts, but it get you to the same destination as the Camry, but without as much "luxury appeal". Not that there is anything wrong with luxury appeal, if that's your thing, it's OK, but please don't deride those who prefer thrift appeal.

 

The feel of my 330 and Casino are just about the same, the neck dimensions are as close as US vs. Metric system allows, the action is for all practical purposes identical, and I actually prefer the poly finish.

 

But the audience doesn't care which one I play. To their ears, they cannot tell the difference. The only difference the average audience member knows is that I'm either playing the dark brown one or the light brown one. If you put a "First Act" in my hands I would play pretty much the way I play on my Gibson. The only difference might be the tone, and tone is subjective. Half the audience might like the First Act tone better.

 

 

As I said before "What I care about is the audience and their reaction to my music. They don't know the difference between a First Act and a Gibson on the headstock. All they know is if the music moves them or not."

 

I wise musician once told me something like this:

 

You can play for the general public, you can play for other musicians, or you can play for yourself. And if you are good enough you will get the audience you asked for.

 

I find playing for the general public most rewarding, YMMV.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ?

[TP]

Great post Notes! I think you hit the nail right on the head with that one.

 

The guitars look great too! I like both the "Dark Brown one" and "The Light Brown one"!!!

[Lord Summerisle]

(A lot of great music has been made on cheap guitars)' date=' Including about half the catalogue from these guys:

 

[img']http://www.getthebigpicture.net/storage/pics/09/abbeyroad.jpg[/img]

 

I'm not convinced by this argument...

 

After all, was something like this ever cheap, even back in the day?

 

 

According to the excellent "Canteen" website, which describes Beatle guitars, that guitar sold for £100 in 1960 (the dispute about whether or not John Lennon ever paid off the higher-purchase agreement being irrelevant).

 

Turning £100 (in the old British pre-decimal currency of pounds, shilling and pence) into modern money is quite a tricky proposition. I guess I could work it out by hand, but luckily in this age of the interweb thingymajig there's a free online tool to help me: http://www.measuringworth.com

 

Using the retail price index and GDP Deflator, we discover that:

£100 0s 0d in 1960 is equal to £1735 in today's money. Or, to apply today's UK£/US$ exchange rate: $2589.00 Scarcely a cheap guitar...

 

Looking at the list of early Beatle guitars (after they'd hit it big)...it strikes me that there are some high-end guitars in that list - most of them, in fact: Rickenbackers; Gretches; an ES-345; even the Stratocasters...(true, the Beatles were given some of those instruments by the various companies concerned - but the point is the retail price of those guitars in the music stores of the time).

 

So, you set me thinking about the Casinos (the "cheap" guitar the Beatles (well, at least John and Paul) seemed to use for an extensive period of time).

 

Well...just to confuse matters, these were sold in Guineas in the UK at the time (a bit like racehorses!)

 

 

The Guinea as a unit of currency is now (mostly) obsolete, but at the time equated to 1 shilling more than £1 (or 21 shillings, to be precise). Today it is (I think) used for the sale of bloodstock only, and equates to £1.05

 

Anyway, as the advertisement shows: in 1964 an Epiphone Casino (as used by "Mr Keith Richard") retailed in the UK for 174 Guineas. That was equal to £182 14s 0d in 1964, and £2770 ($4158) today. That was not a cheap item.

 

If, for the sake of ease, we just look at US figures.

 

As shown below, a 1962 E230-TD Casino retailed in the US for $275.00

 

 

$275.00 in 1962 is equal to $1765 today.

 

Of course the judgement of whether a guitar is "cheap" or "expensive" is only ever relative to the cost of other instruments also available at the time of sale.

 

So how much did the Casino's more pedigreed cousin (the Gibson ES-330) cost in 1962? Answer: the equivalent model cost the same price - $275.

 

 

And how much did a "cheap" guitar (e.g. a Danelectro) cost in the early 1960s? Answer: around $75 upwards.

 

 

OK, so I apologise. I know this has been an exercise in out-and-out pedantry. But your post made me curious and set me thinking.

 

Truth be told, I've never believed this "The Beatles used cheap guitars" myth - and now I believe it even less...

[james_edward]

Well Holy S**t Lord Summerisle, I do believe that's the most impressive rebuttal I've ever read on an interwebthingy forum, the myth has been busted for me...congrats

[animalfarm]

Well Holy S**t Lord Summerisle' date=' I do believe that's the most

impressive rebuttal I've ever read on an interwebthingy forum, the myth has been

busted for me...congrats[/quote']

 

Quite Impressive! You've definitely earned this:

 

[charlie brown]

Well...those of us, who grew up, in that time, "Back Then," have known this, for decades! ;>b

But, it's nice to see the comparisons, laid out, for all to see. Thanks..."My Lord!" ;>)

 

Epiphones only got the "Cheap" rep, after they started to be made in Asia. Funny, how "Cheap" Japanese cars,

TOOK OVER, by offering better value and reliability, than our Detroit friends, were putting out, at the time.

Considering When, Epiphone went to Asia (and why), the Matsumoku Japanese versions (that were true to the

originals, that is) were offering the same thing. With the very early "Bolt on neck" Matsumoku/Aria versions...

maybe less so.

 

 

CB

[taxman]

Excellent work, Lord Summerisle...but flawed.

 

What you should have done was put what guitars The Beatles played up against what they could have been playing.

Examples:

-- Paul could have been playing an expensive Fender Precision Bass...but he played the Hofner, which was cheaper.

-- George and John's Gibson 160 acoustics were cheaper than Gibson's Hummingbird or J-200;

-- Paul's Texan was cheaper than a Martin D-28

-- the Gretsches George played were cheaper than Gretsch's top models, the Falcon or 6120;

See my point?

 

Forget the Rickenbackers in this discussion. Yup, those were pricey, but George and John and Paul never paid for theirs. And, yes, of course The Beatles later on did us some very expensive gear (Martins, a Moog...) but the point about The Beatles playing cheap guitars is clearly seen when you look at what they COULD HAVE BEEN PLAYING. My God, don't you think John Lennon from "Revolver" forward could have played/afforded any guitar he wanted? Yet, he stuck with the CHEAPER Casino. That's the point; for much of their catalogue The Beatles were using cheaper guitars. A Gretsch Duo Jet may seem expensive, but compared to a Gretsch White Falcon it is a cheapie.

[pohatu771]

Paul, for the most part, stopped using the Hofner once they stopped touring. It was a visual thing. He was known for using that violin-shaped guitar. Brian Epstein told them what to wear on stage, he certainly wasn't going to let Paul change what he was playing when it was as famous as he was. When tours stopped, he started using the Rickenbacker (and a Jazz Bass). Post-Beatles, he has said he only uses it because people expect it to be there, "like Charlie Chaplin's cane."

 

Of your list, the Hofner was the only really "cheap" instrument. The other three were only cheap when compared to something else. They were, as far as I can tell, mid-range American-made instruments. It also has to be considered that this was Britain in 1960-whatever. They didn't have the Internet to order whatever they wanted, and they had to find a store stocking American instruments to get those expensive guitars.

 

Also, John and George both bought Rickenbackers. They only received the free ones after becoming famous while using their own.

[taxman]

Also' date=' John and George both bought Rickenbackers.[/quote']

No, no. John "bought" his Ric...but by all accounts he never paid for it; and both of George's 360/12s were given to him (George did buy a Ric 425). As for the other Ric in The Beatles, Paul's 4001 Ric bass was also simply given to him. All these very expensive Rickenbacker guitars were given to The Beatles. The Beatles were cheapskates -- they bought Casinos, were given Rics.

[snookelputz]

I wonder how your friend would feel if you told him his wife wasn't sexy enough, or looked cheap?

[Muskank Sally]

I wonder how your friend would feel if you told him his wife wasn't sexy enough' date=' or looked cheap? [/quote']

or needed a bath?

Nah, just couldn't.

[TP]

I wonder how your friend would feel if you told him his wife wasn't sexy enough' date=' or looked cheap? [/quote']

 

Personally, I always think my wife looks better than any of the other women around me.... If I didn't, I would have traded her years ago! (26 years going strong!)

 

Call me a cork sniffer when it comes to women! (or at least the one I have..... )

[Lord Summerisle]

Excellent work' date=' Lord Summerisle...but flawed.

 

What you should have done was put what guitars The Beatles played up against what they could have been playing.

Examples:

-- Paul could have been playing an expensive Fender Precision Bass...but he played the Hofner, which was cheaper.

-- George and John's Gibson 160 acoustics were cheaper than Gibson's Hummingbird or J-200;

-- Paul's Texan was cheaper than a Martin D-28

-- the Gretsches George played were cheaper than Gretsch's top models, the Falcon or 6120;

See my point?

 

Forget the Rickenbackers in this discussion. Yup, those were pricey, but George and John and Paul never paid for theirs. And, yes, of course The Beatles later on did us some very expensive gear (Martins, a Moog...) but the point about The Beatles playing cheap guitars is clearly seen when you look at what they COULD HAVE BEEN PLAYING. My God, don't you think John Lennon from "Revolver" forward could have played/afforded any guitar he wanted? Yet, he stuck with the CHEAPER Casino. That's the point; for much of their catalogue The Beatles were using cheaper guitars. A Gretsch Duo Jet may seem expensive, but compared to a Gretsch White Falcon it is a cheapie.[/quote']

 

It's an interesting topic BeatleNut (and in answering you, I am treating this as a question for friendly debate amongst like-minded people - not an on-line disagreement!)

 

On the one hand, I do indeed see your point. However, one could take that argument to the nth degree. If I buy a Fender American Standard Telecaster, am I making some sort of compromise if I have sufficient money in the bank to purchase a Fender Custom Shop model? Does this mean that I have bought a "cheap" guitar?

 

The question of what the Beatles "could have bought" is interesting. Remember, Fenders were not commonly available in Britain in the early 1960s - in fact, no American guitars were. Hank Marvin of the Shadows had to order a Stratocaster by mail order when he became bound and determined to have one; George Harrison bought his first Gretsch used from a sailor who picked it up whilst working on the liners on the Liverpool - New York run; and the other Beatles bought their first quality intstruments in Germany - an (American) Rickenbacker and the (German) Hofner bass you mentioned.

 

The "beat boom" of the early 1960s in England, which co-incided with the rise of the Beatles and exploded after they hit the big time, still did not witness the mass importation of American instruments (ask anyone British who was playing around that time). What it did see, however, was an expansion in home-grown products - Vox, Burns, etc.

 

Which may explain why, in 1964, the lead guitarist of the Beatles' main competitors was playing this:

 

 

(which, OK, for a while became his signature guitar, and will always be iconic because of its association with him).

 

But after the Rolling Stones toured the United States, this suddenly appeared in 1965 and the Vox was rarely seen again:

 

 

Of course, it's still a moot point...Keith Richards was playing an Epiphone Casino at the same time that Brian Jones was playing the Vox. American guitars could be obtained...they were just very expensive and hard to find. However, the stories of British guitarists buying their instruments in the US litter the autobiographies and biographies of many of the people involved. Dave Davies bought his Flying V on the Kinks first US tour, George Harrison bought a Rickenbacker 425 in Illinois (apparently being impressed by the "cresting wave" body shape, which he had not seen before)...even as late as 1970 David Gilmour deliberately stopped by Manny's in New York and bought his famous black Stratocaster before heading back to the airport to catch his flight to London. There must have been a reason for this deliberate US-based guitar buying...namely the limited selection (and higher prices) found in the UK at the time.

 

But returning to the Beatles. You asked the question about Lennon's selection of the Casino when he "could have afforded any guitar he wanted." Well, as I mentioned earlier, the Casino retailed for the same price as the Gibson ES-330 in the 1960s, so the choice of the Casino doubtless came down to personal preference (or, as is often stated, he simply saw Paul McCartney's Casino and liked it), or maybe simple availability. My point is that the Casino was not a cheap guitar or budget model back in the day - it was every bit as expensive as its Gibson equivalent. However, you're quite right - more expensive guitars were available. He obviously chose the model because he liked it, and I cannot think of anything really comparable to it at the time. So, in other words, in terms of the model or style of guitar he had selected, he really did buy the best guitar available to him at the time of purchase.

 

Ultimately though, it's all conjecture. It seems that he tired of his Rickenbacker, didn't like his Strat much, and happened upon something he did like. Perhaps when you genuinely can afford anything, the attraction of having the most expensive example of everything you desire begins to pall (if only today's celebrities could subscribe to that viewpoint...) So, ultimately, I guess what we're saying is: why have a Les Paul Custom if what you really want is an LP Jr, (even though one is more expensive than the other and you have the money to buy the pricier model)...which I think was the point you were making.

 

were cheaper than Gretsch's top models' date=' the Falcon or 6120[/quote']

 

One final piece of pedantry...

 

[taxman]

Good stuff.

 

Regarding John and the Gretsch 6120. That guitar was borrowed from a London music store (along with a Burns bass) for the "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" sessions. He never played it. Supposedly it is on "Paperback Writer," no one knows for sure. It didn't belong to John.

 

But that Gretsch 6120 supports the notion that the majority of The Beatles' catalogue was done with cheaper instruments; or expensive ones that they didn't buy (Ric 4001 bass, Stratocasters, Ric 12 strings, a '57 Les Paul, Rosewood Tele, VOX amps....). See the more expensive gear that The Beatles played was actually given to them. Their own cash went to Casinos or Hofner basses. There are exceptions here and there, but as a general rule that statement is accurate. The Beatles went with the (relatively) cheaper gear.

 

It is actually quite perplexing that the most successful group financially did not spring for the pricey gear. George really loved his Lucy '57 Les Paul, he made much use of it once he got his hands on this top flight Gibson. But he didn't buy it, was a gift. This raises another topic: were The Beatles simply cheapskates? I do feel their working class upbringing had much to do with this.

 

But ultimately I feel that the musician's simple desire for a nice playing instrument that sounds good regardless of price tag really led to them to certain instruments. Times are different now...modding, custom guitars, we have a term called "gear-head" -- all of which would have meant little to The Beatles. They had so much at their disposal; they simply picked up a guitar and either played it or tossed it. Thankfully for me and Beatle gear-heads most of their gear they stuck with is relatively affordable. No Parker Fly Signature Series on any Beatle tracks.

[Dave]

It's funny how impressions are induced by the name on the headstock. I had a guy come up to the stage a couple of years ago to tell me how good he thought I sounded. He shook my hand, looked at the EPI LP with surprise on his face and said, "I thought that was a REAL Les Paul!". "It is, the signature's right there", I said, pointing to the headstock. I laughed and asked him, "Did it sound like a real Les Paul?". "Yes, it did!", he answered. "Fooled you then, huh?", I remarked.

 

If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck... It must have been those SD Pearly Gates pickups I installed that fooled him. Naw, it was my fingers and my palm muting technique. Maybe it was my tube amp. Whatever, he took it right in. Maybe, I'll bring the Real Gibson studio next time and mess with his head.

[zombywoof]

Oh cheer up Little Buckaroo.

 

First, Epis are cheap guitars. But the used ones that show up here for sale in the little indie music shops fly off the wall while other similarly priced guitars seem to sit for quite a while waiitng to be bought.

 

But I'm a reverse snob. I have a few guitars that in the years since I bought them magically transformed from used to vintage instruments. But the last time I played out - I brought an old Harmony I paid like $100 for. Folks kept asking me where was this guitar and why didn't I bring that guitar. The way I look at it, if it has six strings and is playable I will have fun with it. And I really like that old Harmony.

[DMC59]

Good point Caramello Koala........

 

I am a newbie guitar player at age 51 and am playing a recent model, used Epi G-400 SG ebony with a professional set up. I did a lot of research before buying my first guitar and learned that (IMHO) Epis still have a bad rep with a few folks based on some issues with older models that are not so prevalent or don't exist on more recently manufactured models. I must say after reading many reviews of the Epi G-400 and the Epi LP I developed the impression that quality control is not quite so consistent as it is with the Gibson counterparts. That said, a good set-up and a pickup upgrade (if you think it necessary) seem to make for a high quality instrument for much less $$ than the Gibson price tag. I am thrilled with my purchase, especially for a 1st guitar!

[dwe82]

Most of the people who "pick on Epiphone" (pun intended, lol) are just running down the brand based on stuff they've heard or read elsewhere.

 

They go on a rant about Gibson great, Epiphone bad and I personally know people like this who have never given either guitar a chance. They base their opinons on stuff they've read in forums or in guitar magazines.

 

I have a friend who can barely play guitar. He barely knows his chords, and he can pick a few solos, but if you mention Epiphone he'll immediately start reciting the same spiel that's on every guitar forum...

 

"Well first you have to change out the stock pickups, then you'll have to straighten the truss rod, then you'll have to" etc. etc. He knows nothing about guitars, he's just quoting the same thing he's read time and again on forums or in magazines.

 

So because of this, he's automatically drawn the conclusion that Epiphone is an inferior brand. I helped him pick out an Epi SG and it was fine the day he bought it, but he's since ruined it by putting in some awful sounding, muddy pickups that someone on the internet recommended. Now his guitar sounds awful, but rather than blaming monkey-see, monkey-do syndrome, he blames Epiphone.

 

Long story short...most the time when I hear someone trashtalking Epiphone, I take the source into consideration and after a few key words, I can tell they're just parroting something they read on the internet, or something a friend of a friend who knows this guys who's a friend of a professional said.

 

My dad was a professional musician for years. All he owned were Gibsons. When he started teaching me how to play, we tried every guitar in the shop. Finally, we saw this guitar that said Epiphone on the headstock, but it said Gibson on teh truss rod cover. I played it and fell in love with it and so did my dad. We couldn't tell any difference between the Epiphone that was $700 and the Gibson that was $2,000 other than the $1300 tag difference.

 

My dad had admitted to me that if he'd known how good Epiphone was back when he was a professional musician, he would have bought one in a heartbeat. Today whenever someone asks him what kidn of guitar to buy, he tells them Epiphone. He won't even mention Gibson anymore.

[zerobox94]

Including about half the catalogue from these guys:

 

 

 

Amen!! They're the reason I bought the Casino

[animalfarm]

Including about half the catalogue from these guys:

 

 

 

May I insert an "Alternate View" of the Classic Abbey Road shot?

Thank Yew.... (now back to the thread).