Menu
> No, Cliff Richard special-ordered the Strat for Hank direct from the
> Fender company, since there was an import ban on US-instruments in the UK
> then (which was to lapse in '60 or '61). This was in '59.
Thanks for the details, I knew there was a 'twist' in there, and it was the
ban thing.
> would be playing the top of the line model! Only later did they find that
> he was actually playing a Tele! (a thought: remember that Gene Vincent's
> Blue Caps also got matching Fenders sometime in '58 or '59, and they
> weren't from SoCal)
You got me there. There were a few 'hitters' that played Fenders around the
country, but by and large SoCal was the hotbed of Fender users. If you think
about it, since there were so few effects and even reverb didnt come along
till '62, the single coil Fenders and bitey amps were probably out of favor
for a reason by the people that played big halls or wanting to fill out the
sound. I cant imagine Scotty Moore vampin' behind Elvis with a razor sharp
Tele and a Bassman!
> Now, I'm pretty sure that a Strat was about the same price as most of the
> Gretsches at the time.
I'm pretty sure my dad told me a new Strat in 1961 was around $130-180, and
the Jazzmaster was closer to $300. I have no idea if those are accurate or
not, but I can say he had a blonde Strat and a black Jazzmaster in those
days.
> Anyway, besides the success of the Ventures pushing the Fenders (and I
> thought we were talking about all Fenders, not just Strats - after all,
> Strats were Fender's top of the line instrument from '54 to '59,
I'm with you on the timeline - James Burton was probably the first 'big
name' Fender player UH, since he was so good and unique, then comes the
Ventures and the Shadows, and then the Surf gods (I'll include the Beach
Boys here) and then Buck Owens. Fenders really did own the world there from
about '59 through '65, and on in the country ranks, '69 and up in rock.
> In Europe on the other hand, once the Hank-mania died down, Fenders were
> still in the public eye with Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck and Jimmy Page all
> playing Teles during their Yardbirds days
amazing isnt it, that the Tele never really 'took off' in rock even with
those stellar names playing them. I wonder why? uncomfortable? not phallic
enough? lol.
>and even George Harrison.... a Rosewood Tele
man, that sucker had to weigh a ton! And talk about oxymoron tone - the
razor tone guitar, dark as hell in rosewood. Pretty, but I wouldnt want to
play it.
>So the Fenders were not exactly
> unknown outside of SoCal until Hendrix came about!
I didnt mean to sound like they were unknown, just that they were never
'the' world-beater guitar until Hendrix made them all conquering, must have
instruments. I mean, remember the Strat WAS scheduled for discontinuation
because it just didnt sell, till Jimi showed up.
I've enjoyed this Ivan, I respect your history lesson even more than your
playing and thats saying something.
Robb
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Robb Lowe wrote:
> You got me there. There were a few 'hitters' that played Fenders around the
> country, but by and large SoCal was the hotbed of Fender users. If you think
> about it, since there were so few effects and even reverb didnt come along
> till '62, the single coil Fenders and bitey amps were probably out of favor
> for a reason by the people that played big halls or wanting to fill out the
> sound. I cant imagine Scotty Moore vampin' behind Elvis with a razor sharp
> Tele and a Bassman!
Hmmm, well, it worked for the guy behind Johnny Cash (can't believe i
forgot his name now!) who played both a Tele and a Jazzmaster (though not
simultanously, to my knowledge!). Remember that in the '50s Cash was more
of a r&r guy than a country guy, being on Sun label and all. And Paul
Burlison of Johnny Burnette and the Rock and Roll Trio (who did the
original Train Kept a-Rollin') also used a Tele exclusively. And to
namedrop him again, James Burton pretty much did that with Ricky Nelson,
also on a Tele - following in the footsteps of Joe Maphis, a committed
hollowbody electric user and a guitarist very much in the vein of Scotty
Moore. So, there were quite a few that in fact DID do that.
> I'm pretty sure my dad told me a new Strat in 1961 was around $130-180, and
> the Jazzmaster was closer to $300. I have no idea if those are accurate or
> not, but I can say he had a blonde Strat and a black Jazzmaster in those
> days.
Brian's great site reference reveals the price difference to be much
smaller, which was my memory as well.
> I'm with you on the timeline - James Burton was probably the first 'big
> name' Fender player UH, since he was so good and unique, then comes the
> Ventures and the Shadows, and then the Surf gods (I'll include the Beach
> Boys here) and then Buck Owens. Fenders really did own the world there from
> about '59 through '65, and on in the country ranks, '69 and up in rock.
OK, I can go along with that - except you forgot to list Buddy Holly (and
to a lesser extent Richie Valens), who was obviously very big and played a
Fender.
> amazing isnt it, that the Tele never really 'took off' in rock even with
> those stellar names playing them. I wonder why? uncomfortable? not phallic
> enough? lol.
I thought about that, and I wouldn't say that a Tele didn't take off in
rock. Keith Richards? Status Quo in Europe? Joe Walsh of the
Eagles? Even Brian May played Crazy Little Thing Called Love on a
Tele! Maybe there weren't a huge number of rock big names using them on
stage, but Teles were commonly used in studios by those same names, and by
MANY lesser known guitarists. But obviously, country music is where it
was for the Teles.
> I didnt mean to sound like they were unknown, just that they were never
> 'the' world-beater guitar until Hendrix made them all conquering, must have
> instruments. I mean, remember the Strat WAS scheduled for discontinuation
> because it just didnt sell, till Jimi showed up.
OK, then we are in agreement! It is true that Fender hit a pretty bad
patch towards the end of the sixties sales wise. But don't forget also
that Gibson actually DID discontinue Les Pauls in the '60s! So, it would
appear than that Strats were more popular than Les Pauls in the '50s and
'60s.
> I've enjoyed this Ivan, I respect your history lesson even more than your
> playing and thats saying something.
Thank you Robb. I enjoyed it too - a nice bit of mental exercise, and
gave me a bit of a different perspective on Fender's history thinking of
it in these terms.
ivan
I agree with Robb and Ivan - this has been an interesting history
lesson and mental exercise! To throw my two cents in there, here's
the economics portion of the course (I know, I know, but bear with me
here . . . ) Brian brings up an excellent point about the relative
costs of things, then vs. now - you really need to "do the math" and
apply the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (at least here in the US) to
take the time value of money into account. There are a lot of good
CPI calculators out there on the Internet that let you plug in the
original year and the amount, and convert to today's dollar. Here's
the web address of one of them:
Using Robb's example, the Strat bought in 1961 for $130 - $180 would
now cost $780 - $1,080 . . . not too far from current pricing, huh?
If the Jazzmaster cost $300 in 1961, it would be the equivalent of
$1,799 today - makes those AV reissues seem like a bargain, doesn't
it? At least that's what I tell myself when I look at the RI Jags!
I remember seeing a '65 Jag (I think that's the year) on ebay, and
the seller had a copy of the original receipt - it was $350 or so.
That would be about $1,992 in 2002 dollars! To me, that's a lot of
money! But it still makes the pricing on the AV's look not too
bad . . .
I guess the point is, Fender never gave these things away. On the
good side, the relative pricing has stayed about the same, and in
somes they are more "affordable" than they used to be. Well, that's
enough for today's econ lesson - another good thing is that there is
no homework this weekend!
I've probably rambled on too long, but then again, $.02 in 1961 would
be about $.11 in 2002 . . . have a great weekend guys!
-Dick
Amazing. You really cant forget how much more real hand work went into a
Jag, and even a JM compared to a Strat. All those circuits and switches, all
hand wired. Lots of labor hours there, plus the chrome plated steel parts on
the Jag. It adds up if you think about it.
Robb
----- Original Message -----
From: "flatwound01" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 5:21 PM
Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: re : the Fender thru history (was : not a great
start..)
> I agree with Robb and Ivan - this has been an interesting history
> lesson and mental exercise! To throw my two cents in there, here's
> the economics portion of the course (I know, I know, but bear with me
> here . . . ) Brian brings up an excellent point about the relative
> costs of things, then vs. now - you really need to "do the math" and
> apply the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (at least here in the US) to
> take the time value of money into account. There are a lot of good
> CPI calculators out there on the Internet that let you plug in the
> original year and the amount, and convert to today's dollar. Here's
> the web address of one of them:
>
>
>
> Using Robb's example, the Strat bought in 1961 for $130 - $180 would
> now cost $780 - $1,080 . . . not too far from current pricing, huh?
> If the Jazzmaster cost $300 in 1961, it would be the equivalent of
> $1,799 today - makes those AV reissues seem like a bargain, doesn't
> it? At least that's what I tell myself when I look at the RI Jags!
>
> I remember seeing a '65 Jag (I think that's the year) on ebay, and
> the seller had a copy of the original receipt - it was $350 or so.
> That would be about $1,992 in 2002 dollars! To me, that's a lot of
> money! But it still makes the pricing on the AV's look not too
> bad . . .
>
> I guess the point is, Fender never gave these things away. On the
> good side, the relative pricing has stayed about the same, and in
> somes they are more "affordable" than they used to be. Well, that's
> enough for today's econ lesson - another good thing is that there is
> no homework this weekend!
>
> I've probably rambled on too long, but then again, $.02 in 1961 would
> be about $.11 in 2002 . . . have a great weekend guys!
>
> -Dick
>
> Hmmm, well, it worked for the guy behind Johnny Cash (can't believe i
> forgot his name now!) who played both a Tele and a Jazzmaster (though not
> simultanously, to my knowledge!). Remember that in the '50s Cash was more
> of a r&r guy than a country guy, being on Sun label and all. And Paul
> Burlison of Johnny Burnette and the Rock and Roll Trio (who did the
> original Train Kept a-Rollin') also used a Tele exclusively. And to
> namedrop him again, James Burton pretty much did that with Ricky Nelson,
> also on a Tele - following in the footsteps of Joe Maphis, a committed
> hollowbody electric user and a guitarist very much in the vein of Scotty
> Moore. So, there were quite a few that in fact DID do that.
The guy that played on "I walk the line", if memory serves, had never even
touched a guitar something like 3 days before the recording. That memory
might be from another song, but it was definitely one of Cash's bigger hits.
I think we are in agreement that James Burton was the original Fender ace,
though. Lots of guys played them, but only a few 'hitters' adopted them as
their main weapon. Maphis was a double neck Mosrite player, but I cant
remember the years he used that guitar. Where's Deke Dickerson when you need
him? LOL.
I never thought about a Tele as a rock instrument till Roy Buchanan did so
much with one. Danny Gatton, the Hellecasters (whew what pickers..), Tom
Principato and others have done a lot as well, but Buchanan was one of the
first to put a Tele out there in every possible format and make it work. (If
liked Hendrix's squeeks and farts, you'd love Buchanan when he's drunk! man
that guy make a guitar make noises it shouldnt..)
It's funny how Buck Owens and Don Rich made them "the" country guitar to
have, yet Don ended his career with a Les Paul. A few years after his death,
Albert Lee came out, and in my opinion, is the best Telecaster player to
ever pick one up. Such a shy and quiet guy, to have changed the face of
country guitar to such a degree, every "hot" country song record since his
work with Emmylou Harris (Luxury Liner, '78 I think?) has been influenced by
him. His only downfall is designing one of the ugliest guitars in history
(The Music Man "Albert Lee" signature series, a star-shaped, Strat layout
model)
A lot of guys played Jazzmasters at least once (the lead in "pretty woman"
comes to mind, that exact guitar now owned by Marty Stuart), but few were
diehard or even associated with Fender.
> > I'm pretty sure my dad told me a new Strat in 1961 was around $130-180,
and
> > the Jazzmaster was closer to $300. I have no idea if those are accurate
or
> > not, but I can say he had a blonde Strat and a black Jazzmaster in those
> > days.
>
> Brian's great site reference reveals the price difference to be much
> smaller, which was my memory as well.
You got me. I'm a '68 model, so those days were long gone before I even got
here. I wish they were a LOT cheaper back then, so there would be a lot more
of them available today.
> OK, I can go along with that - except you forgot to list Buddy Holly (and
> to a lesser extent Richie Valens), who was obviously very big and played a
> Fender.
I noted those two earlier, but still I wouldnt put either of them up as
guitar greats. Buddy wrote a lot of nice songs, and Richie had a nice lick
on 'La Bamba" but I'm not sure that was a Fender. I know very little about
him. All I can remember was how sickening it was to see the "Buddy Holly
Story" in 1978 and see Gary Busey wielding a late 70's, big headstock Strat!
> I thought about that, and I wouldn't say that a Tele didn't take off in
> rock. Keith Richards? Status Quo in Europe? Joe Walsh of the
> Eagles? Even Brian May played Crazy Little Thing Called Love on a
> Tele! Maybe there weren't a huge number of rock big names using them on
> stage, but Teles were commonly used in studios by those same names, and by
> MANY lesser known guitarists. But obviously, country music is where it
> was for the Teles.
Richards and a Tele didnt get together for quite a few years after the
Stones popularity grew, did they? Status Quo, I'm sorry to say, I've never
heard of. Joe Walsh
would be a 70's player so I would disqualify him being post-'69, and Brian
May was forced to play a Tele on that tune, he often remarks at how bad he
hated that thing (even though I agree it was his best tone ever). Another
major "non-Fender-legend" Tele tune would be the lead Jimmy Page played in
Stairway To Heaven. Again, post '69, but notable none the less. I will say I
never liked any of those bands or musicians with the exception of some of
Walsh's stuff, so I have no idea on their guitarology, so you are definitely
the man on anything in that realm.
> OK, then we are in agreement! It is true that Fender hit a pretty bad
> patch towards the end of the sixties sales wise. But don't forget also
> that Gibson actually DID discontinue Les Pauls in the '60s! So, it would
> appear than that Strats were more popular than Les Pauls in the '50s and
> '60s.
You know I forgot about the LP's getting the axe! You're right. Fender took
a hell of a nose dive in the mid-late 60's... I wonder if CBS thought "what
have we got ourselves into?". Damn shame Leo didnt buy it back for pennies
on the dollar, eh? I think Fenders were always more popular with the
average guitar buyer than Gibsons. Cheaper, easier to play (small radius
days at least) and not so fragile. I get physically ill when someone picks
up my Les Paul, for fear of them snapping the headstock off (the '60
reissues have very thin necks, much like a Mosrite). It's amazing how over
the years, the Gibsons and Fenders have traded places on the endangered
species list. I think the 'new' Fender management team that took over in the
buyout (1980-81 era) has really done well to put Fender out front and keep
them there.
> Thank you Robb. I enjoyed it too - a nice bit of mental exercise, and
> gave me a bit of a different perspective on Fender's history thinking of
> it in these terms.
It's truly amazing what tidbits of information are out there, and like most
things, are half truth/half rumor. It's always nice to talk about this stuff
and as you said, get a different perspective on it, or at least compare
thoughts to see which one might be the correct or at least more reasonable
idea. Someday I'd love to own one of each of the 'historic' Fenders, and
just get lost in them.
I wanna be Scott Chinery for a day!
Robb
