What is it about Rickenbackers?

[BassBus]

[quote name='sprocket123' timestamp='1334681586' post='1619700']
@ the end then , is each his own isn t it
[/quote]

Yes it is...

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1334680544' post='1619676']
I don't really get why people worry about it all. If it doesn't work for you, move on.
[/quote]

...and yes I have.

[BassBus]

End of thread.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='BassBus' timestamp='1334678124' post='1619623']
I didn't start this thread to bash Rics but I think I'm now beginning to see what it is people like about them. They are starting to sound like quite a personalized bass. You need to add in your own touches like choice of string, amp and speaker.
[/quote]

But Fenders are infinitely more customiseable than a Rick, because Fender don't threaten legal action against anyone who makes a upgrade part for them. Fender buy the upgrade parts and put them on their basses (like the lines with Badass II on, dimarzio pickups in etc). That's a really big deal.

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1334680544' post='1619676']
FWIW, answering Mr Foxen's point, you [i]can[/i] get a custom built bass for similar money to a Ric, but what if what you ultimately want is a Ric? It's like saying you can buy a new BMW for the cost of an E-Type when you actually want an E-type. Have my Seis been better than my favourite Rics? They've been much better at being Seis, but much worse at being Rics. I don't really get why people worry about it all. If it doesn't work for you, move on.
[/quote]

Do BMW do custom now? Not a comparable thing, BMW is say Warwick, factory standards, to a quality level. Price out a entirely custom made car, not even custom options on a car (like a Fender with a Badass and Dimarzio), a full on "I want it this shape and this engine, and this metal" and then you have a comparison at the price point.

[chrismuzz]

Personally I don't like the 'clean' sounds I've heard from a Rickenbacker bass. But when a bit of grind is added (usually SVT flavoured) there's nothing like it! They look the business aswell! I would love to own one purely because of the look!

[Beedster]

[quote name='chrismuzz' timestamp='1334685725' post='1619798']
Personally I don't like the 'clean' sounds I've heard from a Rickenbacker bass. But when a bit of grind is added (usually SVT flavoured) there's nothing like it! They look the business aswell! I would love to own one purely because of the look!
[/quote]

Both mine have beautiful fat, full and sweet clean tones, no distortion needed (a little USA valvey warmth doesn't do any harm though)

[thodrik]

I like them, but find them to be overly prevalent in the types of music I really like (stoner, doom, classic rock), so I'm not sure I'd buy one. Still, the Rickenbacker being played through a cranked tube amp is something.

I've played a couple of 4003s and thought that they had a nice clean sound as well and had lovely necks (though apparently these can vary a bit). I didn't find them to be a million miles away from my Vigier Excess in terms of overall feel and playability, though the sounds were fairly different!

[Thor]

[quote name='Beedster' timestamp='1334686031' post='1619801']
Both mine have beautiful fat, full and sweet clean tones, no distortion needed (a little USA valvey warmth doesn't do any harm though)
[/quote]

Amen to that! My old 70's 4001 was (at the time) a dream bass for me to own - truth be told I hated the thing so much soon after getting it, it didn't matter what I tried (strings/setup/EQ adjustments) it just sounded horribly clanky and seemed like it was only capable of one sound!? I just had to get rid of it - it took a while for me "to get over it" but 10 or so years later I thought I'd try a 4003 as I was gassing for one for ages, I love the 4003 - completely different to the earlier bass I had - really warm and fat sounding but can still reproduce the typical clanky Ric sound if needed. It's a much better all rounder than my 4001 ever was.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1334649682' post='1618975']
I think what this thread shows is that on the whole sound clips and YouTube demos are mostly meaningless when it comes to auditioning basses. All they show is what the individual players roughly sound like with these instruments after the audio has been mangled through rubbish camcorder microphones, poor quality computer soundcards and then further deteriorated by whatever audio file compression codec has been used (and in the case of YouTube has been compressed twice by their FLV compression too).

The other thing that strikes me from some of the comments you read regarding Rickenbackers is that what a lot of people who try them really want is a Ric-shaped P-Bass.
[/quote]


This is exactly it. And the guy who won't die without having one. I've never had the guts to pay for one, would love to. But when I do (and, like the other chap, we surely will) it would take me ages to get over the shape, me actually playing one and all that stuff before I could start wondering what it is about Rics.

Oh, and Youtube, for all its wonderful worth, is definitely not the place to demo expensive sound equipment. Or cheap for that matter.

[risingson]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1334695877' post='1620012']
Oh, and Youtube, for all its wonderful worth, is definitely not the place to demo expensive sound equipment. Or cheap for that matter.
[/quote]

Absolutely agreed on this, it's so important to actually try an instrument out yourself and yet I see so many people using demos on YT and such as a reason to blind buy. It is nice to see stuff demo'ed to get you a bit inspired to play perhaps, but I find it surprising to see the amount of people who would prefer to watch a demo and then buy as opposed to actually using their own ears.

[Johngh]

<-------------------- Geddy say's " I loved my twin neck back in the day, Zanadoooooooooooooooooo,ooooooooooooooo"




Now that's what you call a Ricky. Anybody on here ever have a Ricky twin neck?

[4000]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334684654' post='1619782']
But Fenders are infinitely more customiseable than a Rick, because Fender don't threaten legal action against anyone who makes a upgrade part for them. Fender buy the upgrade parts and put them on their basses (like the lines with Badass II on, dimarzio pickups in etc). That's a really big deal.



Do BMW do custom now? Not a comparable thing, BMW is say Warwick, factory standards, to a quality level. Price out a entirely custom made car, not even custom options on a car (like a Fender with a Badass and Dimarzio), a full on "I want it this shape and this engine, and this metal" and then you have a comparison at the price point.
[/quote]

My point was (as I'm sure you're aware) that a custom bass, however good it is, is not a Ric, and if you really want a Ric (or insert the name of any other brand you really want) then a custom bass, unless it's an [i]exact[/i] copy (in which case I want checkered binding, toaster, crushed pearl full width inlays, Feb '72 profile neck, and a plexi TRC that says Rickenbacker on it), will not suffice. I know, I've had several boutique customs. I use them for different things. If you really want a Fodera, a Shuker won't do. If you really want a Hondo then a vintage stacknob J won't work! With regards to price, a Ric is what, £1700-ish new? A custom Sei to my spec would be going on £3k. A custom Alembic to my spec would now be upwards of £8k. I haven't liked any Shukers I've tried. I'm not keen on Overwaters, but they're also more expensive. Personally I'd say you're looking at stuff like ACG, Shuker, Rim, if you like what they do. All great basses but simply not the same type of thing at all. Apples and oranges.

John, never had a Ricky twin neck. I believe the guy who bought my 21 fretter has one though.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1334702479' post='1620154']
My point was (as I'm sure you're aware) that a custom bass, however good it is, is not a Ric, and if you really want a Ric (or insert the name of any other brand you really want) then a custom bass, unless it's an [i]exact[/i] copy (in which case I want checkered binding, toaster, crushed pearl full width inlays, Feb '72 profile neck, and a plexi TRC that says Rickenbacker on it), will not suffice. I know, I've had several boutique customs. I use them for different things. If you really want a Fodera, a Shuker won't do. If you really want a Hondo then a vintage stacknob J won't work! With regards to price, a Ric is what, £1700-ish new? A custom Sei to my spec would be going on £3k. A custom Alembic to my spec would now be upwards of £8k. I haven't liked any Shukers I've tried. I'm not keen on Overwaters, but they're also more expensive. Personally I'd say you're looking at stuff like ACG, Shuker, Rim, if you like what they do. All great basses but simply not the same type of thing at all. Apples and oranges.

John, never had a Ricky twin neck. I believe the guy who bought my 21 fretter has one though.
[/quote]

But that is all just brand names. They don't mean more than letters. That's the point. People need to learn about buying quality being buying quality, not buying a name, there isn't a link between the two.

[simon1964]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334706633' post='1620206']
But that is all just brand names. They don't mean more than letters. That's the point. People need to learn about buying quality being buying quality, not buying a name, there isn't a link between the two.
[/quote]

But there's a difference between brand snobbery and not recognising quality of other products. I own a very nice Squier VM Jazz. Its as nice as any Jazz I've owned (including two American Jazzes and two MIM Jazzes in the past). But I readily accept that there is a part of me that would, irrationally, pay a bit extra for a Jazz with the F word on the headstock.

As 4000 says, if you want a Ric, then you want a Ric. That's about aspiring to own a particular brand. It doesn't mean I don't recognise the quality of the cheaper brand.

And in fact, if people didn't aspire to owning Fenders, Gibsons, Rickenbackers etc, other manufacturers would never have bothered to produce copies.

[Mr. Foxen]

That irrational bit is the problem with things. It means that stuff can drop in quality for no return. The main issue is not recognising the lack of quality because brand snobbery masks it. The massively competitive higher low end is what has driven the Squiers to being really very good instruments, pretty comparable to heyday Fenders. Pricing things high just for the sake of it and addressing competition via means outside of the market just shows contempt for your customers. Like that guy selling bags of pebbles for tone on your hifi.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Mr. Foxen

[Cairobill]

It is a well known fact that rickenbackers can be a) dreadful or b ) spectacular on a seemingly random basis. A while back I went to Denmark street to spend a chunk of advance on a new bass. I lined up 10 4003s and rejected them all. They felt bad, looked cheap and sounded worse. Wind on to the present day and I've just recorded the majority of an album with my stock 1978 4001 that is simply an utterly perfect bass.

My point is that any dork knows that quality is variable BUT that doesn't mean that all Rickenbacker basses are useless pieces of junk and their owners are deluded fools. Clearly, when they are good they can be very special basses or they wouldn't be so popular. It's not just a case of brand snobbery.

Its very simple, if you want to own a rickenbacker, try before you buy. This anti rickenbacker pogrom is irritating and comes across to me as the inverse of weird rick fanboys (or for that matter sterling ball lapdogs) who praise their adopted brand without question and attack those who criticise it.

Really, it's not news to anyone that rickenbacker quality control is inconsistent. It just does not mean that all rickenbacker basses are sh*t. Far from it.


[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334709085' post='1620216']
That irrational bit is the problem with things. It means that stuff can drop in quality for no return. The main issue is not recognising the lack of quality because brand snobbery masks it. The massively competitive higher low end is what has driven the Squiers to being really very good instruments, pretty comparable to heyday Fenders. Pricing things high just for the sake of it and addressing competition via means outside of the market just shows contempt for your customers. Like that guy selling bags of pebbles for tone on your hifi.
[/quote]

Edited April 18, 2012 by Cairobill

[Stacker]

Over the years, I've owned ten Rick basses in total. Three were dogs: my first (s/h) 4001, bought on impulse cos I'd always wanted one; a 4001S/8, impossible to intonate properly; a 4003S/8 with rods to the max on a weak neck I wasn't informed about. So that leaves seven. These were all good basses - praticularly the CS - but there were some issues: the BlueBoy's clicking saddles and colour-changing paint job; the 4001CS tailpiece looked like it was on the up and the lacquer on the board starting to rise. Fair enough, the CS was 8 years old by the time those issues arose, but on most of my '70s 4001s, the lacquer was fine.

Then, there's the unacceptable nut on my 660DCM. I don't mind them being cut high, but to have the E string sliding off the fretboard smacks of bad QC. Why wasn't this guitar pulled at QC and the nut redone? But I'll tell you what: if RIC had been even a [i]wee[/i] bit helpful over some of the issues I've had instead of going on the defensive and had extended their 'lifetime warranty' worldwide, I have supported the brand rather than walking away from it.

Here's a real [url="http://bassthatricbuilt.web.officelive.com/default.aspx"]RIC horror story[/url] from the past.

[karlfer]

I've had a few real and some quality fakers (off to the tower with him) over the years.
When I was younger they worked fine, as I played with a pick. Nowadays I just use fingers and any form of Rick just doesn't feel right to me, if not played with a pick. Weird and psycho cobblers but there you have it.
As has been said before horses for courses, good one and bad ones.
Shame some of us just have to keep trading to the Holy Grail

[4000]

[quote name='Cairobill' timestamp='1334725453' post='1620238'] It is a well known fact that rickenbackers can be a) dreadful or b ) spectacular on a seemingly random basis. A while back I went to Denmark street to spend a chunk of advance on a new bass. I lined up 10 4003s and rejected them all. They felt bad, looked cheap and sounded worse. Wind on to the present day and I've just recorded the majority of an album with my stock 1978 4001 that is simply an utterly perfect bass. My point is that any dork knows that quality is variable BUT that doesn't mean that all Rickenbacker basses are useless pieces of junk and their owners are deluded fools. Clearly, when they are good they can be very special basses or they wouldn't be so popular. It's not just a case of brand snobbery. Its very simple, if you want to own a rickenbacker, try before you buy. This anti rickenbacker pogrom is irritating and comes across to me as the inverse of weird rick fanboys (or for that matter sterling ball lapdogs) who praise their adopted brand without question and attack those who criticise it. Really, it's not news to anyone that rickenbacker quality control is inconsistent. It just does not mean that all rickenbacker basses are sh*t. Far from it. [/quote] This. There seems to be an implication that all Rics are crap and badly built. I've owned some expensive basses; Wal, Sei (5), Alembic (2), Status (4), Jaydee (2) along with 2 early Warwicks (both great BTW) and the only one that has been noticeably better built than any of my Rics was my 2nd Alembic. The build quality on the Wal was worse, despite their price; the fretboard hadn't been levelled properly at build ( I bought it used but it hadn't been refretted) and it actually needed the fingerboard levelling and then refretting. Maybe I've been lucky. Or maybe I've just avoided the dogs, as I would try and do with any make of bass (although a few have still snuck through, mainly from Fender and Status). As I've said before, I've never had tail lift. The only truss rod issue I've had was when a luthier who wasn't familiar with Rics knackered a set and I had to replace them. Many of them do work (I've owned quite a few). If people don't like certain aspects of their design or construction, then fine. I don't like certain aspects of the design or construction of many basses. They're not perfect for everything or everyone and they're not perfect in every way. No instrument is. As a case in point, I'm currently using my Sei bass in preference to my Rics in my current band. Why? Because the sound works better in this context. If I went back to my old band I'd go back to the Rics because they work better in that context. If I went to something else I might want a Fender. Or a different custom. Who knows? The arguments for changing them seems to ignore the fact that some people may like Rics exactly as they are (and also always seem to ignore the 4004 which addresses many of the issues people complain about - bridge etc - and yet remain fairly unpopular, which must prove something). What would I change about my 2 favourite Rics? Nothing. There are things I'd change about many other Rics (same as there are things I'd change about pretty much anything out there), but essentially if I want something different I'll buy a different bass. If I don't like what a Ric is in the first place, why would I buy it? More to the point, why would I complain about it? In addition, I don't believe guitars are just about functionality. They are about aesthetic, about sound, about ergonomics, all of which will be different things to different people. They are also, irrationally, about association. However as it's also probably irrational to prefer one colour over another I can live with that. One other thing; do I buy them because of the brand name? No. Do I buy them because I like how they look, sound and feel? Yes, but I'm still selective about which individual instruments I buy; they have to be right for me. Many aren't. Some are. End of.

Edited April 18, 2012 by 4000

[BigRedX]

I think the reason that the 4004 model is unpopular is because it doesn't look like a 4001/3. For most this is the "classic" Ric. By comparison the 4004 looks like a copy made from a photograph of a 4001 and a box of generic bass parts.

Out of interest does the 4004 sound exactly the same as a 4003?

While the 4001/3 might have its faults, Fenders aren't perfect either. What most people forget is that these basses stem from a time when manufacturers were still trying to work out what makes a good bass guitar. Most people start of playing on a Fender-a-like so by the time they graduate to the real thing they've learnt how to cope with its idiosyncrasies.

[charic]

The 4004 is my favourite looking one!

[Mylkinut]

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1334737429' post='1620337']
The 4004 is my favourite looking one!
[/quote]

Same here - I'd take one in Mapleglo with silver hardware over my 4003 in a heartbeat.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1334735805' post='1620306']
Out of interest does the 4004 sound exactly the same as a 4003?
[/quote]

Not exactly - the 4004's a bit fatter and darker. Very similar though.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1334735805' post='1620306']
Out of interest does the 4004 sound exactly the same as a 4003?
[/quote]

Think quite a lot established now that they aren't made consistently enough to say.

What probably should be noted quality wise is that the models that get imported to the UK are going to be last pick of the bunch, the better ones go to US dealers, and the very best are probably cherry picked by staff or very soon after coming off the line, same with Gibson (best go to endorsers there, dunno if RIC do endorsers).

Also once things are grouped by a brand, you stop talking about individual instruments and talk about them generally, so inconsistency reflects badly on the brand. Talk about a bass on its merits, not its brand and you can pick out its individual quality level, talk about a whole brand and the likelihood of getting a rubbish one is absolutely a consideration.

As for the constant Fender comparisons, bear in mind every flaw with a Fender is addressed by another manufacturer who retains the good points and addresses the flaw.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Mr. Foxen

[Beedster]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334748101' post='1620542']
Think quite a lot established now that they aren't made consistently enough to say.
[/quote]

Made me laugh out loud that post

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334748101' post='1620542']
Think quite a lot established now that they aren't made consistently enough to say.

What probably should be noted quality wise is that the models that get imported to the UK are going to be last pick of the bunch, the better ones go to US dealers, and the very best are probably cherry picked by staff or very soon after coming off the line,
[/quote]

Really? These are mass produced by the thousand and the finishing comprises dozens of processes and QA checks to produce the final bass. I'm struggling to believe that anything seen in the factory as poor doesn't go back for another go and even more struggling to believe that there are people waiting at the end of the production line playing all the basses sufficiently long time and in various playing contexts finding the 'good' ones (on what basis will they be 'good'?)

[4 Strings]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEuqgZzKxC4

May be of interest.

(Actually appears to be more hands-on than similar videos of the frightening scale of the Fender factories.)