Sort of disappointed with Ric.

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:31 pm

Don't measure how "pro" an instrument is by who plays it.

Remember, companies actively hunt down and pay artists to use their gear... cause kids like to play the same stuff their hero plays.

**********
Marketing and contracts to musicians does not make the stuff they play more "pro."
**********

Rics are not easily available. Why? Because they sell like hotcakes (huge backlog and wait times) AND because ric refuses to lower the quality and mass produce.

They keep quality high (aka "pro") and don't need to pay $$$ to get famous musicians to use their stuff because they have no troubles selling their instruments at all.

In all honesty, if everyone and their dog had a ric, I would not be so happy. I'm kinda unique with my ric... it is my "thing." I don't want to loose that and be one of the masses.

Many younger bands that I listen to use Rics (Sam roberts, Death from Above 1979...). When I first came to this forum I remember reading that the 4003 was the best selling bass over 1000$ in 2004. I think there will be a new generation of ric players.

I know I ALWAYS get comments on my ric wherever I go to play... and I love the design. I'll be playing with a ric in hand for many years.

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:32 pm

Also, be thankful about the pricing of rics... Rics cost less than a deluxe fender... people always think that my rics are 2000$+ basses when they see them.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:25 pm

Ken, McCartney plays his Hofner. Are you saying that is more "pro" than a Rickenbacker?

I would also argue that a "Professional" is anyone who makes their living as a musician. A professional isn't just a rock icon.

But does it really matter who buys them? I don't think anyone has to send in a resume before buying an instrument. When it comes to sales, my money is just as green. In fact, I would think that John Hall appreciates me more than a number of "professionals" because since 2001 I have purchased 6 RIC's and have 3 on order. And that is since 2001! I have several before then.

Personally I would like to see the rest of my C Series order be delivered before the next great thing comes rolling out.

Stay well all.

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:11 pm

I think the solution here is that Ken needs to make a multi-platnum album or three... you know, become the next Sir Paul. How about it Ken? How are your bass chops?

jojo99 · Post by **jojo99** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:20 pm

I think having to wait over a year to get a new Rick is a big part in preventing players from taking the leap and trying a Rick. Who's going to order a 4004 without trying one out beforehand? Not many people. Buying an instrument is often an impulsive decision....and if you need a bass, you need it now. RIC can sell all they can make to those who've already owned Ricks, are familiar with their quirks, but want to get their dream model. RIC doesn't need to bother with any other market, nor do they need to create a new market, hence the innovation is going to suffer. That's why high-profile uber-players don't play a 4003, and the ones that do mainly do so because it's part and parcel of their overall history and persona.A 4003 bass is pretty much the same beast it was from the get-go...it was state-of-the-art 35 years ago, and hasn't changed much at all. Why does a pro like Geddy Lee need to yank the stock bridge off a brand new 4003 before he'll use it? Why do people have to remove plastic pickup covers and deal with the anchronistic bridge pickup rout/surround? These two things alone will dissuade anyone who hasn't come to appreciate these lovable annoyances. RIC at this point seems to be a boutique nostalgia instrument maker, and that's not a slam, but a perfectly legitimate market to serve. If RIC wanted to have a higher profile with musicians, they'd have to have a lot more guitars in the stores so people could get acquianted with them, impulsively purchase them, and not have to order them. But that's not going to happen unless they change their business model, and that's definately something that'll never happen unless the company gets sold.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:42 pm

"playing it because they love it, not because someone gave it to them for free"

Excepting Macca, of course! Although he did grow to like/love it I guess as he used it for a long time, till age caught up with him.

bob_atherton · Post by **bob_atherton** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:21 pm

“Example: Take the 4004 put a strip of graphite down the neck, slim the neck down a bit balanced w/the body keep all the hardware except the bridge use a Schaller and maybe replace the rods w/ one larger rod, exotic wood optional. There's the ULTIMATE BASS.”

Ken, I think Fender put graphite in the neck, slimmed it down a bit, used their fairly new tuners, new through body bridge, retained a single truss rod and even put in a (rather lame IMHO) tone changing switch. To what effect…? A better Jazz Bass than their previous model? IMHO, yes, but I know the Fender faithful are not satisfied. They still hanker after their pre CBS models.

I think that RIC and JH have it spot on with the product. There is a subtle but important evolution going on, and with JH at the helm I am sure the company is in good hands and good shape.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:13 am

I created the thread to voice my opinions and to ask questions concerning my definition of a pro.

I for one will not buy a new Ric until alot of issues are addressed tailpiece for one neck thickness,long wait time.

Owning and playing Ric basses for 29 years and owning close to thirty Ric basses I think I'm entitled to my opinion.

bob_atherton · Post by **bob_atherton** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:31 am

Ken, if you feel that I have taken a personal shot at you it was, in total honesty, unintentional.

I did have a ‘criticism’ of the product in that I feel it is perceived as a one trick pony, which it is not.

I feel RIC make the best basses that I have ever played, that’s why I play them and have six of them, and have sold my Musicman & FenderJ & FenderP. I love the way they feel, play, sound. I particularly like the slightly shorter scale. I bought my first RIC back in 1974, regrettably sold it, and wandered in the bass wilderness for some years till I rediscovered Rickenbacker. I don’t think that is brown nosing, it’s just enthusiasm about the product.

I don’t know a thing about bass design, but would have thought that graphite in the neck and a single truss rod would almost certainly change the sound of the bass, something that I for one would be very concerned about. Oh yes, may a battery never ever come near the bass. If RIC made an active 4003 bass it would be a very sad day.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:50 am

Bob, I wasn't singling you out at all.

Yes, graphite in the neck of the 4004 would strengthen the neck so it could be made slimmer and more balanced with the body and a single rod probably easier to keep it straight.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 2:26 am

Ken, I was trying to lighten the conversation a little. You have so many nice Ricks, it seems that you'd have found one you really like by now, thats all I meant. I apologize.

But, just for the record. I've been playing Ricks and other basses since '76 or '77. Thats roughly 30 years. I've owned 15 or so Ricks, that includes the 7 I currently own. But I have owned nearly 100 other fine basses, (mostly vintage Fenders), and I am still looking for the "one" bass that can do it all..I really dont think it exist's.

So, I guess you could say I know a little about what I'm talking about.

86kubicki · Post by **86kubicki** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:08 am

I'm not convinced that graphite rods provide any great advantage over RIC's truss rod system. My Ric basses only need very occasional tweaking, whereas my Lakland 4 and 5 string basses (single truss rod, two graphite strips), need adjusting every couple of months.

And for the record - 7 RIC basses, playing since '79. Not that it makes my opinion more valid than anyone elses.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:58 am

I ditto Scott, in that I I don't think there is such a thing as the perfect instrument. Every instrument I've ever played or owned (and I play everything I can get my hands on, boutique or budget) is flawed in some way. That's why I own more than one type of bass, and most likely always will.

Ken, I started playing Ricks 26 years ago, and I've played hundreds, so I guess I know what I'm talking about too. I agree it's a shame there aren't more high profile NEW players using Ricks, but high profile players don't start out as high profile players, and judging by the increase in players using Ricks that I seem to be seeing here in the UK, maybe somebody WILL come through. Plus there are still kids out there buying Ricks 'cause Lemmy or Mani or whoever plays one (and don't underestimate the influence of someone like Mani on UK musicians; the Stone Roses were veritable gods to many here). And so many kids are getting into 70s rock many will grow up being influenced by the same people we were; some of those may grow into the rock stars of tomorrow, although personally I feel we're in a different world now and things will never be the same as they were. But let's see what the future brings.

I do feel that the 4003 is for some tarred by the brush of the 4001 truss rod issue. Paul Gray of the Damned stopped using Ricks partly because the necks didn't stand up too well to touring. So maybe that puts some people off. Guitar techs who have tales of this, or have some experience, may say something to the effect of "oh, you don't want to be playing those...". Who knows?

The 4004...well for me that's much further away from my perfect Rick. IMHO it just falls between 2 stools, in the same way that fancy wood Fenders do. But that's just my opinion. Ultimately everyone probably has a somewhat different "perfect bass". There are several things I would change about the 4001/4003 in terms of practicality, but many mean it wouldn't look/feel the same, which is important to me, so I'd sooner keep it more or less as it is.

As a side issue, I'm personally not a huge fan of graphite reinforcement based on my experience (and one which Wal agree with, which is why they stopped using it). Also, it is deemed that if your ear is good enough, you may hear a difference. I also feel that a single trussrod may change the feel/sound, which may or may not be something you'd want. But I know what you're saying. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view) I just don't think that is what the company is really about. As I said before, there a million basses out there, catering to all tastes, and most are good at some things and not so good at others. In fact I can say that about all my Ricks, as they differ greatly. If I want an aggressive, grinding tone and a fast feel, I use my 4000. If I want something fuller and more modern, I use my CS. A sing-song quality? The 72. I've had 4001s that are heavy and balance poorly and sound poor, and others that are light and fairly well balanced and sound great. Others may have had other experiences. Personally I feel that some of the things that make Ricks what they are are always going to cause some problems. My 2 favourite basses, Alembic and Rick, both use double trussrods and both feel and sound better to me than anything else. Coincidence? Possibly, but I don't think so. But I appreciate that you feel that certain changes could be made to make the instruments better. The problem is, what is better to you or me may be worse to someone else, and their opinion is just as valid. And in this instance I think John Hall's opinion is the most valid...

One other thing Ken, all opinions are equally valid at the end of the day. Just remember you're a highly valued member of this forum, and have shared many great, insightful, funny and interesting things with us, and I hope you continue to in the future. And, as here, there's nothing like a good debate!

green_us90 · Post by **green_us90** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:56 am

"A lot of the new bands get endorsements. They get people tripping over themselves to give them free stuff. RIC doesn't work that way. Neither does Mesa, as far as I know"

Alembic works that way as well.

j_gary · Post by **j_gary** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:10 am

Hi Ken, first let me say thanks to you, this has been one of the more interesting threads seen in a while. Any time one leads the charge, they expose themselves to fire from both directions. It took a "set" to approach this issue.

FWIW, I've seen this exchange, traditional vs. modern, at work as a firefighter and in the Harley faithful. You have old school folks who have been there, done that, and after years of experience have found their utopia. On the other side are "students" so to speak, who are devouring information, which is administered at a fierce pace in our on line world. They are still processing data to arrive at their utopia. I would submit that this is a daunting task as things change rapidly these days.

Who is "right"? Hard to say. It would appear there is enough room for us all. Indeed Harley has chosen to attempt to please both schools at considerable risk and expense.

Anywho my man, I would not take the in your face stuff to heart. Per Rodney," this is a rough crowd". Some of us are a little too involved in our musical passion. I personally feel I have to "step back" on occasion, as I scare myself with the time and money I'm spending.

When we hear criticism, irrespective if it's honest or constructive, the panties get in a bunch. If I'm told that my girlfriend is big, old ,mean and ugly (hmmm...you know, she is my age and big, hell in a bar fight though) I won't be happy, and she will beat you up.

Great stuff this debate is. I'll have you know I feel strongly both ways.