Sort of disappointed with Ric.
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Followed the thread from the very beginning... sorry for "barging in", but...
1. The fact that the best Russian bassist plays a RIC is one of the strongest arguments "pro" for me.
2. Being happy and enjoying life is very human. Hoping (wishing, looking and even fighting) for better is also very human. And these two human features are not mutually exclusive, imo. NOTHING PERSONAL!!!!
Good luck to all of you guys and let all your dreams come true!
Cheers - SC.
PS: i concur, one of the most interesting threads here!
1. The fact that the best Russian bassist plays a RIC is one of the strongest arguments "pro" for me.
2. Being happy and enjoying life is very human. Hoping (wishing, looking and even fighting) for better is also very human. And these two human features are not mutually exclusive, imo. NOTHING PERSONAL!!!!
Good luck to all of you guys and let all your dreams come true!
Cheers - SC.
PS: i concur, one of the most interesting threads here!
Nothing will get you dead quicker than being deadly serious about yourself.
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
OK imagine this JH I want to order a 4003 or 4004 with a left handed C64 neck.
If these necks are right there how much longer would this take or cost.
plus you put regular binding on basses how much longer would it take to put checkered binding on instead of plain white?
How many years does it take to come up w/this new rod system in the works, why not now.
How long does it take to develop this pickup for the five strings and put them back into production?
How long does it take to come up w/a re-designed tailpiece[33 years?]
Come on now! pretty simple.
If these necks are right there how much longer would this take or cost.
plus you put regular binding on basses how much longer would it take to put checkered binding on instead of plain white?
How many years does it take to come up w/this new rod system in the works, why not now.
How long does it take to develop this pickup for the five strings and put them back into production?
How long does it take to come up w/a re-designed tailpiece[33 years?]
Come on now! pretty simple.
Why don't most of you have your own opinion,I certainly have mine,and I'm not afraid to voice it.And have I singled anybody out by name.
Ken: you appear to be making no allowance for those whose opinions are positive toward current production models by labelling them "brown nosers". Is that not a little unfair?
Seems to me you invited opinions by starting the thread and in my mind should be able to accept positive ones even if you disagree with them.
Having said that, more power to you for voicing yours!
"Never eat more than you can lift." - Mr. Moon
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
I've praised Rickenbacker's too.
Question: How many of us bassist were disappointed to find out there was no new bass model now whether it be the continuation of the 5 string or a v68.
Being that we have no choice but to wait for what we want if it ever comes about is a little frustrating.
In other words Ric says this is what we offer take it or leave it.
Question: How many of us bassist were disappointed to find out there was no new bass model now whether it be the continuation of the 5 string or a v68.
Being that we have no choice but to wait for what we want if it ever comes about is a little frustrating.
In other words Ric says this is what we offer take it or leave it.
-
bob_atherton
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:47 am
"In other words Ric says this is what we offer take it or leave it."
That's pretty much it. JH runs his business the way he sees fit. We can give him our opinions but he chooses whether to act on them. Hey, I want checkerboard binding, and an 8 string. If he had a current 8 string I'd order one tomorrow. If checkerboard was on the 75th anniversary I'd order a 4003. That's two bass sales he is losing because he dosn't do that. Other than express our concerns's there is nothing else we can do short of having a custom guitar built (by ourselves or another company.) This discussion is great by the way.
That's pretty much it. JH runs his business the way he sees fit. We can give him our opinions but he chooses whether to act on them. Hey, I want checkerboard binding, and an 8 string. If he had a current 8 string I'd order one tomorrow. If checkerboard was on the 75th anniversary I'd order a 4003. That's two bass sales he is losing because he dosn't do that. Other than express our concerns's there is nothing else we can do short of having a custom guitar built (by ourselves or another company.) This discussion is great by the way.
-
jwr2
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
Ken, I'm not sure if you were asking me when I bought my first RIC or Brian Medway, but I bought my first RIC bass in 1981 or 1982. I have several of them. I also own Hofner's and Fender's.
I think my dedication to RIC is that The Beatles played them. That is what got me interested and what has me sticking around. Hmm! Now that I think about it, it was The Beatles that made me love music. If not for them I wouldn't be here.
Are their better instruments than RIC? Probably. Do I own instruments that would be considered more "professional".. .probably. Are they in anyway my favorite. Absolutely not! They will never give me the emotional connection that Rickenbacker gives me. You never forget your first love. You may have others after, but it will never be the first.
I don't necessarily look to RIC to give me the most up to date instrument. I look at them for the nostalgia. It's funny how the people who are hoping for a new bass are hoping for the V68. Not the V08.
You are right about one thing. (OK maybe more than one) This was definitley much needed discussion.
I think my dedication to RIC is that The Beatles played them. That is what got me interested and what has me sticking around. Hmm! Now that I think about it, it was The Beatles that made me love music. If not for them I wouldn't be here.
Are their better instruments than RIC? Probably. Do I own instruments that would be considered more "professional".. .probably. Are they in anyway my favorite. Absolutely not! They will never give me the emotional connection that Rickenbacker gives me. You never forget your first love. You may have others after, but it will never be the first.
I don't necessarily look to RIC to give me the most up to date instrument. I look at them for the nostalgia. It's funny how the people who are hoping for a new bass are hoping for the V68. Not the V08.
You are right about one thing. (OK maybe more than one) This was definitley much needed discussion.
LET THE WORLD KNOW YOU WANT PAUL TO BRING BACK THE 4001. JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=147641915268984
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
Kenneth, I rarely post here in any negative way, but I must say that your posts leave me cold.
It seems that you have little regard for the rules of tact, and feel that in the name of "honesty" you can say whatever comes to mind with little regard for how it impacts others.
If you do not agree with the new introductions by RIC, that's your right. There are better ways to say it than you have.
My advice to you is that you would do much better if you thought about what you type and stopped shooting from the lip. That's all I have to say about it.
It seems that you have little regard for the rules of tact, and feel that in the name of "honesty" you can say whatever comes to mind with little regard for how it impacts others.
If you do not agree with the new introductions by RIC, that's your right. There are better ways to say it than you have.
My advice to you is that you would do much better if you thought about what you type and stopped shooting from the lip. That's all I have to say about it.
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
Bob,its not that that I don't agree with anything Ric has done on the contrary I welcome those changes and more much more if they ever came about.
Why on earth would you feel cold when speaking of how Ric can improve there basses.Apparently there are many who feel the same after several people emailed me I don't even know agreeing with me and a phone call from a certain owner of a guitar company also agreeing.I guess its an emotional topic.Which topic there are a bunch here.
Post like yours Bob, are not understood you need to read through and understand whats being said.
Why on earth would you feel cold when speaking of how Ric can improve there basses.Apparently there are many who feel the same after several people emailed me I don't even know agreeing with me and a phone call from a certain owner of a guitar company also agreeing.I guess its an emotional topic.Which topic there are a bunch here.
Post like yours Bob, are not understood you need to read through and understand whats being said.
I completely agree with the whole thing about a 4004 being a modernized 4003. If you were to take away everything that anyone finds remotely obnoxious about the 4003 (treble pickup surround, bridge and mute, binding, supposedly redundant controls [I don't think they're redundant at all], and so on . . .), you'd get a 4004. Lots of people think, very mistakenly, that 4003's only make one sound, but the 4004, being modernized, is kind of a response to that, in that it has different pickups. I think both the 4003 and the 4004 are gorgeous, and actually, it's for mostly the same reasons: the body shape/headstock shape. I adore that shape. I like it without binding, but with binding is cool too (I own one with binding and I'm not getting rid of it); I like it with a dot neck, but triangular inlays are cool too. I like it with walnut wings, and they both have that now, but mine doesn't, and it still looks great. I love the sound of the 4003, which is the main reason why I own one, and if I'd ever heard a 4004 (someone needs to post the sound of a clean 4004 on the boards), I'm sure I'd like it too.
Being 18, Rics have very little, if any, nostalgia factor for me. I can completely understand people loving them because of the Beatles, especially if you grew up listening to them sometime around the time when they were together. I found out about Rics because I heard a Rush song on the radio and was fascinated by the bass sound (it wasn't "Tom Sawyer), but I've only seen Rush in concert once, and I, by no means, "grew up with Rush". I'm sure a lot of the sales that Ric makes are to people who buy based on "nostalgia factor", but that's not me, and I don't think that any of the younger people who buy them buy for nostalgia either. They buy them because they are a)enamored with the sound, b)enamored with the looks, or c)all of the above (like me).
Rickenbacker may cater to nostalgia, but that's not the sole reason they sell. And frankly, a lot of the "nostalgia" stuff recently isn't really for that. Considering that they haven't been on the basses for a while, walnut headstock wings are almost a "new" feature. I heartily approve, because I think that it looks EVEN BETTER than before. Thinner necks, whether they're happening or not, are not a "nostalgia" thing, but really, just a different neck profile. I like thinner necks, some people like thicker necks. It's not an attempt to get all the people who played early 70s Rics to buy them. The push-pull switch shouldn't be looked at as a step backwards, because it's not like they're just going, "Let's put the cap back in!" It's a way to allow people to get the new Rics to sound like ANY of the Rics, whether it be the new ones or the old ones. It's the same mentality as offering more tonal control with redesigned pickups or something like that: it's a way to make the bass do even more.
I still think theirs nothing wrong with them. I would absolutely LOVE to see the "S" option back, and I'm sure other people would too, but I won't be mad if they don't do it. The basses they make now are awesome whether or not they do.
Being 18, Rics have very little, if any, nostalgia factor for me. I can completely understand people loving them because of the Beatles, especially if you grew up listening to them sometime around the time when they were together. I found out about Rics because I heard a Rush song on the radio and was fascinated by the bass sound (it wasn't "Tom Sawyer), but I've only seen Rush in concert once, and I, by no means, "grew up with Rush". I'm sure a lot of the sales that Ric makes are to people who buy based on "nostalgia factor", but that's not me, and I don't think that any of the younger people who buy them buy for nostalgia either. They buy them because they are a)enamored with the sound, b)enamored with the looks, or c)all of the above (like me).
Rickenbacker may cater to nostalgia, but that's not the sole reason they sell. And frankly, a lot of the "nostalgia" stuff recently isn't really for that. Considering that they haven't been on the basses for a while, walnut headstock wings are almost a "new" feature. I heartily approve, because I think that it looks EVEN BETTER than before. Thinner necks, whether they're happening or not, are not a "nostalgia" thing, but really, just a different neck profile. I like thinner necks, some people like thicker necks. It's not an attempt to get all the people who played early 70s Rics to buy them. The push-pull switch shouldn't be looked at as a step backwards, because it's not like they're just going, "Let's put the cap back in!" It's a way to allow people to get the new Rics to sound like ANY of the Rics, whether it be the new ones or the old ones. It's the same mentality as offering more tonal control with redesigned pickups or something like that: it's a way to make the bass do even more.
I still think theirs nothing wrong with them. I would absolutely LOVE to see the "S" option back, and I'm sure other people would too, but I won't be mad if they don't do it. The basses they make now are awesome whether or not they do.