Those of you that don't think Graphite or something similar would help need to consult JH himself,he has stated he's working on a system as good or better then graphite.
I'm trying to get JH to put out basses we all want ,v68's, 4004 with smaller neck 4003 with smaller neck if everybody says the same thing maybe something will happen.
Sort of disappointed with Ric.
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
bob_atherton
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:47 am
Ken, this is a good debate and thanks for starting it.
Regarding necks… I must show my ignorance to relatively recent 4003 profiles, I haven’t played them enough to judge them, also until a bass is set up for ME, they all feel wrong. When a bass is set up for the way I like to play them I can judge the merits or failings of that bass, until then it is really difficult.
An example of this is my ’78 Burgundyglo. I bought this on eBay from a nice guy in The States. It arrived, I opened the case, it looked absolutely stunning and I started playing it… my heart sank, and I was convinced that after a respectable period of mourning it would be up on the bay again.
In the mean time I set it up. Straightened the neck dropped the height of the bridge, and most importantly filed the nut to get the action much lower and faster. It is now one of my two favourite all round gigging basses. Had I just plucked it off the wall of a store and tried it I would have never entertained buying it.
Anyhow… this ramble is heading towards what people like in a bass neck. I can understand why some people may find RIC necks a bit skinny. Aside from my old Fender Jazz that had a quite similar profile to late 70’s RICs all my previous basses had bigger necks, especially my Musicman and Fender P. Both the MM and Fender were ‘pro’ basses and are used by countless pro musicians, so maybe a thinner neck profile than the current 4003 is not a desirable thing to the majority?
Food for thought….
Regarding necks… I must show my ignorance to relatively recent 4003 profiles, I haven’t played them enough to judge them, also until a bass is set up for ME, they all feel wrong. When a bass is set up for the way I like to play them I can judge the merits or failings of that bass, until then it is really difficult.
An example of this is my ’78 Burgundyglo. I bought this on eBay from a nice guy in The States. It arrived, I opened the case, it looked absolutely stunning and I started playing it… my heart sank, and I was convinced that after a respectable period of mourning it would be up on the bay again.
In the mean time I set it up. Straightened the neck dropped the height of the bridge, and most importantly filed the nut to get the action much lower and faster. It is now one of my two favourite all round gigging basses. Had I just plucked it off the wall of a store and tried it I would have never entertained buying it.
Anyhow… this ramble is heading towards what people like in a bass neck. I can understand why some people may find RIC necks a bit skinny. Aside from my old Fender Jazz that had a quite similar profile to late 70’s RICs all my previous basses had bigger necks, especially my Musicman and Fender P. Both the MM and Fender were ‘pro’ basses and are used by countless pro musicians, so maybe a thinner neck profile than the current 4003 is not a desirable thing to the majority?
Food for thought….
-
green_us90
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:23 pm
"I'm trying to get JH to put out basses we all want ,v68's, 4004 with smaller neck 4003 with smaller neck".....
Ken I can understand your frustration. RICs are not what you think they can be.
The thing is, JH still sells every guitar he makes, they are much higher quality than comparable priced Fenders, and as long as sales meet projections I'm sure that means that things are going well. The opinions of the very small minority will not alter the course of the ship, so to speak.
Personally I have not been involved in the RIC world as long as many here (I turned 17 then 12 days later bought my first Epiphone Accubass 14 years ago), having bought my first Rickenbacker, which I still have, on 9/14/04. I have that plus a '97 4003 which to many have a bigger neck. (I agree they are bigger than my 4001 neck but then again what's not bigger that a 4001 neck?) In that time I can only find one glaring problem- bridge lift. That problem will be recitifed with a new bridge this year we all hope. To me it is a minor issue because the bridges on either of my basses is not in imminent danger of failing and the bridges will come out before that happens. That or I get a hipshot for both.
Ken I can understand your frustration. RICs are not what you think they can be.
The thing is, JH still sells every guitar he makes, they are much higher quality than comparable priced Fenders, and as long as sales meet projections I'm sure that means that things are going well. The opinions of the very small minority will not alter the course of the ship, so to speak.
Personally I have not been involved in the RIC world as long as many here (I turned 17 then 12 days later bought my first Epiphone Accubass 14 years ago), having bought my first Rickenbacker, which I still have, on 9/14/04. I have that plus a '97 4003 which to many have a bigger neck. (I agree they are bigger than my 4001 neck but then again what's not bigger that a 4001 neck?) In that time I can only find one glaring problem- bridge lift. That problem will be recitifed with a new bridge this year we all hope. To me it is a minor issue because the bridges on either of my basses is not in imminent danger of failing and the bridges will come out before that happens. That or I get a hipshot for both.
Gitch-Pang, Gitch-Pang- the RIC trademark
Another point to consider is that Ricks are a bit more finicky than, say, a Fender P in terms of string age, type, tension, pickup height, action, etc. when trying to get that good sound you're looking for. When I had a Fender it sounded pretty much the same regardless of setup criteria, but my Ricks' sound changes when you change the setup in any way. This may intimidate newer, less experienced players (as well as some less experienced/amateur guitar techs).
Each individual instrument has a somewhat different sound also: the guys in my band love my 4000 because it cuts through the stage mix like a chainsaw, but the soundguy absolutely HATES it (which sucks for him since I'm gonna play it anyway)
I don't have a 4003 or 4004 as yet to compare, but it did take a little trial & error 'til I as happy with my 4001 sound, since it's a bit darker sounding than I would have expected, but it has come around now.
I was intimidated by the old style truss rods until I found this forum & got advice from you guys, simply because I'd never had to adjust my 4000 EVER! It was set at the factory in '76 & remains that way today. And this baby is no case queen, she's been a player since day one & never looked back. Though not beat by any means, she wasn't babied at all either & still stays almost perfectly in tune all year 'round.
That's what leads me to believe that there's nothing wrong with the 2 rod system.
I took me some time before warming to the 4004 series, since it's the binding that initially caught my eye. I guess that's why I like Les Pauls too.
One of the more interesting endorsement anecdotes posted recently was when REM's Peter Buck was approached he stated that he plays Ricks because he likes 'em, so why bother with an endorsement deal?
Mike Mills also used Ricks, either a 4001 or early 4003 in JG, & it's disappointing to see him with a P bass now. That was part of the definitive early REM sound along with Buck's 12 string jangle.
Geddy's bass changes seemed to mostly be a flavour of the year kind of thing, where he fell in love with the newest thing he tried. First the Steinberger, then the Wal, & he had the J since Permanent Waves, but it just got more prominent after a while. I remember seeing some pics from early concerts where he had a P with a cut down body as a back up, so he's always had some Fender content in there.
Anyway, an interesting debate it certainly is!
Each individual instrument has a somewhat different sound also: the guys in my band love my 4000 because it cuts through the stage mix like a chainsaw, but the soundguy absolutely HATES it (which sucks for him since I'm gonna play it anyway)
I don't have a 4003 or 4004 as yet to compare, but it did take a little trial & error 'til I as happy with my 4001 sound, since it's a bit darker sounding than I would have expected, but it has come around now.
I was intimidated by the old style truss rods until I found this forum & got advice from you guys, simply because I'd never had to adjust my 4000 EVER! It was set at the factory in '76 & remains that way today. And this baby is no case queen, she's been a player since day one & never looked back. Though not beat by any means, she wasn't babied at all either & still stays almost perfectly in tune all year 'round.
That's what leads me to believe that there's nothing wrong with the 2 rod system.
I took me some time before warming to the 4004 series, since it's the binding that initially caught my eye. I guess that's why I like Les Pauls too.
One of the more interesting endorsement anecdotes posted recently was when REM's Peter Buck was approached he stated that he plays Ricks because he likes 'em, so why bother with an endorsement deal?
Mike Mills also used Ricks, either a 4001 or early 4003 in JG, & it's disappointing to see him with a P bass now. That was part of the definitive early REM sound along with Buck's 12 string jangle.
Geddy's bass changes seemed to mostly be a flavour of the year kind of thing, where he fell in love with the newest thing he tried. First the Steinberger, then the Wal, & he had the J since Permanent Waves, but it just got more prominent after a while. I remember seeing some pics from early concerts where he had a P with a cut down body as a back up, so he's always had some Fender content in there.
Anyway, an interesting debate it certainly is!
Plus five minus five!
-
green_us90
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:23 pm
"I'm trying to get JH to put out basses we all want ,v68's, 4004 with smaller neck 4003 with smaller neck if everybody says the same thing maybe something will happen"
Personally Ken, I won't buy a new RIC bass until this happens because that's what I want in a RIC bass. If it never happens, then i'll never buy another new RIC bass and i'll be content to only buy used ones with necks and features that I want to own.
I know of a number of other 4001 owners who feel the same as I do.
Bravo for raising your concerns. You're not alone.
Personally Ken, I won't buy a new RIC bass until this happens because that's what I want in a RIC bass. If it never happens, then i'll never buy another new RIC bass and i'll be content to only buy used ones with necks and features that I want to own.
I know of a number of other 4001 owners who feel the same as I do.
Bravo for raising your concerns. You're not alone.
Ken, I don't think many here would disagree with you about wanting a thinner neck! (on their bass that is...). I think the general consensus is that a thinner neck is preferable. But there are those with different tastes. In a perfect world maybe we should have the option, but I don't think it's likely to happen (although I guess you could say anyone who wants a thin neck can buy a C-series...). Regardless, I'm sure someone stated recently that John Hall suggested that 4003 necks are going to veer towards the thinner end of the spectrum from now on. Maybe if you'd just said "ok, who wants thinner necks? Lighter basses?" etc etc you would have met with a more positive response. A positive opening statement is usually easier to agree with than a negative one; I found that out the hard way with the horseshoe thread I ran......
Quote -"My point if your new to Ric's the magic is still there and Ric can do no wrong after your 15th or more bass and 30 years of playing them your tired of the issues that go non addressed".
Thing is, we all have different feelings about these "issues". Jeff for instance hates the mute. It doesn't bother me at all; I don't use it, but the look of the whole bridge unit is part of the overall vibe for me, one of the reasons why I probably wouldn't entertain a hipshot. Also, I sometimes wrap my finger round the mute adjusters when playing pick-style, so in some ways I find it comfortable. Same with the handrest; some hate them, some love them, either for playability or aesthetic reasons. And the stereo.....and many of us disagree on headstock size, body shape etc. The new cap bypass switch was met with derision by some and joy by others. I think options may be the answer, and I fully appreciate any efforts on your or anyone else's part to get these things done, but there may come a point where some of the options aren't practical for the company. Or are only desirable to the very few....
What we all have to bear in mind is that some of the things we don't like about Ricks may be exactly what other people DO like, and they aren't disagreeing because they don't know anything, or they haven't been playing them for 30 years or so, but simply because they actually don't have a problem with them. I'm aware of various unsatisfactory issues with Ricks which vary from person to person (my personal hate is the screw adjusted intonation rather than using allen keys), but for me there are less unsatisfactory things about Ricks than with most other makes, and I've played most other makes; they may only get 8 out of 10 from me, but pretty much everyone else gets way less than that. But I know people who would disagree, and they're just as right as I am. I may like a ham sandwich, but just because someone else prefers cheese doesn't make them wrong....
One thing I find funny is that if I were asked to address some of the practical issues of a 4001/3 I would likely end up with a 4004. Only as I've already stated, I prefer the 4001/3....go figure.
BTW, the necks on my 4000 and 4001 are more stable than that on my CS......which has the new trussrod system. Easier to adjust it may be, but it needs adjusting more often....
Quote -"My point if your new to Ric's the magic is still there and Ric can do no wrong after your 15th or more bass and 30 years of playing them your tired of the issues that go non addressed".
Thing is, we all have different feelings about these "issues". Jeff for instance hates the mute. It doesn't bother me at all; I don't use it, but the look of the whole bridge unit is part of the overall vibe for me, one of the reasons why I probably wouldn't entertain a hipshot. Also, I sometimes wrap my finger round the mute adjusters when playing pick-style, so in some ways I find it comfortable. Same with the handrest; some hate them, some love them, either for playability or aesthetic reasons. And the stereo.....and many of us disagree on headstock size, body shape etc. The new cap bypass switch was met with derision by some and joy by others. I think options may be the answer, and I fully appreciate any efforts on your or anyone else's part to get these things done, but there may come a point where some of the options aren't practical for the company. Or are only desirable to the very few....
What we all have to bear in mind is that some of the things we don't like about Ricks may be exactly what other people DO like, and they aren't disagreeing because they don't know anything, or they haven't been playing them for 30 years or so, but simply because they actually don't have a problem with them. I'm aware of various unsatisfactory issues with Ricks which vary from person to person (my personal hate is the screw adjusted intonation rather than using allen keys), but for me there are less unsatisfactory things about Ricks than with most other makes, and I've played most other makes; they may only get 8 out of 10 from me, but pretty much everyone else gets way less than that. But I know people who would disagree, and they're just as right as I am. I may like a ham sandwich, but just because someone else prefers cheese doesn't make them wrong....
One thing I find funny is that if I were asked to address some of the practical issues of a 4001/3 I would likely end up with a 4004. Only as I've already stated, I prefer the 4001/3....go figure.
BTW, the necks on my 4000 and 4001 are more stable than that on my CS......which has the new trussrod system. Easier to adjust it may be, but it needs adjusting more often....
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
Quote -"I'm trying to get JH to put out basses we all want ,v68's, 4004 with smaller neck 4003 with smaller neck if everybody says the same thing maybe something will happen".
After saying all of the above, that's your thread right there. All in agreement say "Aye"!
After saying all of the above, that's your thread right there. All in agreement say "Aye"!
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
-
jwr2
the reason we get disappointed with Ric is because we expect them to live up to our expectations ... we all have a different set of expectations ... so they can't please us all ...
I have come to accept that Ric is happy to make those guitars with f-holes which I have no interest in ... I am interested in 5 string basses ... they aren't making any ... so I am disappointed in the product line ...
I have come to accept that Ric is happy to make those guitars with f-holes which I have no interest in ... I am interested in 5 string basses ... they aren't making any ... so I am disappointed in the product line ...
Quote- "the reason we get disappointed with Ric is because we expect them to live up to our expectations ... we all have a different set of expectations ... so they can't please us all ..."
Jeff, that's the problem in a nutshell. Took me how many paragraphs to say something similar?????? I need an editor...
Personally I'd like an easily available 4003 8string with deluxe
appointments.... in azureglo. Seeing as I'm not likely to get one, I may have to "do a Jeff" and make one out of some unsuspecting 4003......
Jeff, that's the problem in a nutshell. Took me how many paragraphs to say something similar?????? I need an editor...
Personally I'd like an easily available 4003 8string with deluxe
appointments.... in azureglo. Seeing as I'm not likely to get one, I may have to "do a Jeff" and make one out of some unsuspecting 4003......
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
-
throw_this_away
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 618
- Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:59 am
- Contact:
I think we will be getting thinner necked 4003's sooner than later.
We were discussing bridge lift... new bridge design this spring. People would show off pictures of their walnut winged headstocks... standard feature now. We were discussing caps... cap selection system. We were discussing how we preferred the "vintage fireglo" look... new color of the year. We have been discussing neck thickness...
I think John and Ben spending time on the forums is a new strategy for the company. Use the internet to find out what the "real" ric players like and dislike, and give it to them.
Aside,
Part of why people like 4003 rics is because they have not changed the design... same goes for fender. Vintage is cool. That is their thing.
The 4004 is what you get when you make the 4003 more practical... . Aside from the neck thickness issue (necks are gettign thicker in modern basses... look at all the 5, 6+ string basses), every feature people have requested is in that bass, and all the features that folks ***** about are gone. To me it is a fender (practical, plain) blended with a ric 4003 (glam). The 4004 is the bass for the modern no BS musician.
But if ric removed the 4003 Pickup cover... took out the extra routing, put in a standard looking bridge, you would get a 4004. Maybe it is a more comfortable design... but I will not buy one cause I love the look of all those features. (on that note... I would be hard pressed to pass on a nice mapleglo 4004 if the opportunity arose...)
We were discussing bridge lift... new bridge design this spring. People would show off pictures of their walnut winged headstocks... standard feature now. We were discussing caps... cap selection system. We were discussing how we preferred the "vintage fireglo" look... new color of the year. We have been discussing neck thickness...
I think John and Ben spending time on the forums is a new strategy for the company. Use the internet to find out what the "real" ric players like and dislike, and give it to them.
Aside,
Part of why people like 4003 rics is because they have not changed the design... same goes for fender. Vintage is cool. That is their thing.
The 4004 is what you get when you make the 4003 more practical... . Aside from the neck thickness issue (necks are gettign thicker in modern basses... look at all the 5, 6+ string basses), every feature people have requested is in that bass, and all the features that folks ***** about are gone. To me it is a fender (practical, plain) blended with a ric 4003 (glam). The 4004 is the bass for the modern no BS musician.
But if ric removed the 4003 Pickup cover... took out the extra routing, put in a standard looking bridge, you would get a 4004. Maybe it is a more comfortable design... but I will not buy one cause I love the look of all those features. (on that note... I would be hard pressed to pass on a nice mapleglo 4004 if the opportunity arose...)
-
clankchris
- Member
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:43 pm
I like the necks the way they are right now.... I like P bass necks, and addmittedly they are a wee bit harder to play thn J bass neck...
Why? ...it feels significant in my hands, and I live in Florida, where necks like to bend to and fro..
My Fender Jazz and Aria Pro's necks move(thin)...a
...this is really funny, but I had a cheap Squier P bass who's neck never ever needed an adjustment(at my cousin's house), I've left this bass in my car for days at a time...in the summer!
Definately a fan of newer 4003 necks....
John, if you make 'em thin again, please make them as strong, or don't make them at all!
Why? ...it feels significant in my hands, and I live in Florida, where necks like to bend to and fro..
My Fender Jazz and Aria Pro's necks move(thin)...a
...this is really funny, but I had a cheap Squier P bass who's neck never ever needed an adjustment(at my cousin's house), I've left this bass in my car for days at a time...in the summer!
Definately a fan of newer 4003 necks....
John, if you make 'em thin again, please make them as strong, or don't make them at all!
-
clankchris
- Member
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:43 pm
I like the necks the way they are right now.... I like P bass necks, and addmittedly they are a wee bit harder to play than a Jazz bass neck (Adam Clayton said he changed to the latter because P basses were a "beast to do battle with")...
Why? ...it feels significant in my hands, and I live in Florida, where necks like to bend to and fro..
My Fender Jazz and Aria Pro's necks move(thin)...a
...this is really funny, but I had a cheap Squier P bass who's neck never ever needed an adjustment(at my cousin's house), I've left this bass in my car for days at a time...in the summer!
Definately a fan of newer 4003 necks....
John, if you make 'em thin again, please make them as strong, or don't make them at all!
Why? ...it feels significant in my hands, and I live in Florida, where necks like to bend to and fro..
My Fender Jazz and Aria Pro's necks move(thin)...a
...this is really funny, but I had a cheap Squier P bass who's neck never ever needed an adjustment(at my cousin's house), I've left this bass in my car for days at a time...in the summer!
Definately a fan of newer 4003 necks....
John, if you make 'em thin again, please make them as strong, or don't make them at all!