Sort of disappointed with Ric.

12stringbassist · Post by **12stringbassist** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:11 am

Where I am (Manchester UK), the more intelligent / observant musos who come to my band's gigs always seem to have a gape / gasp at the sight of a brace of 3 Ric 4003's on stage. I get asked questions about them quite a lot.

The train of thought on their side is that they aren't in many shops to try and the price is a bit prohibitive. I always tell them you get what you pay for with a Ric, and they have never compromised on quality - or as mentioned earlier - gone in for overseas production. God forbid!!

The twentysomethings upwards all know Rics from Lemmy, The Beatles, The Stone Roses, The Jam and Chris Squire. They all have comments about the sound of the Ric too.

The Ric name is well respected, but the price puts people off. I think the price is about right. Also, you either love or hate them.

I sometimes wish a couple of the bigger names used them on stage - esp Macca - but am not overly concerned that they aren't that common. I wouldn't like to see them everywhere!!!!

rickon · Post by **rickon** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:14 am

First off, I do think Ric's customer service is weak.

But I love Ricks so I'm just stuck I guess.

Some pros currently playing Ricks includes,
Bob Hardy-Franz Ferdinand, Eric Judy-Modest Mouse, Andy Bell-Oasis(4005 incidentally).

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:35 am

Well, I've owned a bunch of Rickenbackers (still do) through the years, both basses and guitars. I still have my first bass, a 4001, original and unaltered. I also own many other different brands of basses; I feel as a performer it is very hard to have just one instrument to apply to the many different scenarios I can be called upon to be a part of. To be honest I don't know of any one bass that can do that, unless you just play one style of music. I don't. So, I need different instruments.

I currently own 4 different Rickenbacker basses, all of which are slightly different than the other in terms of feel and sound. One is set up for flat-wound strings. They are all un-modified, and do what I expect of them. If I want something different than what they can offer, I go to one of my other non-Rick basses. When I do this I don't feel as though the Rickenbackers have let me down or that they are a bad design, I just need to go in a different direction with my approach. That's the beauty of being able to CHOOSE what you want to use. I know that it's not always gonna be a Rickenbacker, but they ALWAYS get equal consideration.

IMHO Rickenbacker basses are what they are, in the same way a Fender Jazz is what it is, and a Wal is what it is. They all stand on their own for different reasons.

Moral of the story: My ice cream is never too cold.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:49 am

No better way to get attention around here, than to say you're disappointed with RIC. Just post and watch the fun begin.

I've been away since Thursday (at NAMM, with RIC) and I come back to this nonsense.

Who cares which "A" list "stars" play them? I don't.

The quality and sound remain, and RIC as usual is working hard to fill the pipeline.

The rest is about star worship and autograph junk.

studiotwosession · Post by **studiotwosession** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:27 am

I think it's safe to say that no one cares who plays what on a certain level. But sometimes when someone says they do...what they really mean is, "why aren't there good, cool, smart, stylish bands on the radio, getting promotion?" And for that RIC is not to blame. It's congress, for deregulating radio, it's the CD, for allowing too many songs to go on for to long, and it's big labels, for slinging the lowest common denominator, following trends for too long and confining real talent to the college only charts. This is from someone who is speaking for the US only, but for those of us who've been subjected to hair metal, and grunge and Britney almost exclusively for over two decades now, it's getting rather dim. Back in the 60s, Madonna wouldn't have been able to make the charts, let along hang around for two decades. However, at least in underground scenes there are tons of RIC players. Probably more than in the 70-77 era before New Wave kicked in.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:54 am

Yeah, what better way to express your feelings about a product and ask questions then to discuss it.After all thats what we do here.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:01 pm

FACT: if Ric basses had not made it into the hands of our hero's this bass forum for one would not exist and many of us would have never picked up the bass guitar.

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:02 pm

Going far off topic to address Glenn, but I think things are the same as they always were in the music industry.

People write songs for todays pop stars... they market, promote them and give them an image. The same thing was occurring in Tin Pan Ally back in the day. How many frank Sinatra songs were written by Frank? "My Way" was written by a canadian.

The beatles wrote their own music... but early on they were given an image makeover before they entered the american market. The rolling stones were given the opposite makeover to mask the business and economics degrees.

Rockabily, Girl Groups, Motown, Brit rock... all pop trends started by a few innovators and marketed to saturation. "Flower Power" became a cheap pop trend... as was the psychedelic era, disco, punk, new wave, raegge, hair metal, grunge, new metal, hip hop, techno (disco again?), girl groups (Supremes all over?), boy bands (Temptations all over?), emo (rehashed punk and grunge)... . Mind you the earliest days of even rock were just ripoffs of southern blues, jazz... and bluegrass. Nothing is purly original in music from any era.

Mass marketing of an image, of a lifestyle... alway was around... and always will be.

It always strats with a few innovators (Pixies, Jane's addiction for "Grunge") and the next thing you know everyone is on board the next fad (Creed).

In some ways nothing has changed. In 20 years, it is very possible that Bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Coldplay, and especially U2 will be remembered as were bands like The Stones, Zeppelin, etc.

The cream rises to the top... and stays there (Madonna included... she is still selling platnum after 20 years) despite the music industry milking something good for all it is worth. Trends come and go... the Spice Girls will largely be forgotten...

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:12 pm

FACT: if Ric basses had not made it into the hands of our hero's this bass forum for one would not exist and many of us would have never picked up the bass guitar.

deeper · Post by **deeper** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:23 pm

Agreed, Ken!

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:26 pm

Well, when the baby boomers die off (their current nostalgia alone fills Ric's company coffers), and the newest generation has no idea what a ric is, than Ric will probably start courting some big name players.

bobcat · Post by **bobcat** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:27 pm

Wait, "it's the CD"? I don't understand where that came from . . .

The LACK of album-oriented music is killing music right now. A bunch of really awesome and talented bands were coming to light and then suddenly, you have the advent of cheap, downloadable singles from iTunes and Napster and so on, and BAM! Suddenly bands are selling more of their hit single than they are of the album it's on (even including digital album sales, which are incredibly cheap at about $10 each). When you can't make money from album sales because your single is outselling your album (and commission from internet singles is pathetic), what do you do? You try your absolute hardest to write only songs that will sell a gazillion copies as singles, because if you don't, your album sales won't tide you over, and neither will you average single sales.

The CD, or at least, the format of the album, where artists sell a collection of songs, is a PRESERVER of artistic integrity and pushes artists to innovate and make the music they want to make. With individual downloadable singles, the only incentive is to make songs that are designed specifically to be pop-chart hits because you need to sell even more than you would if you were selling albums. THIS is killing music. The LACK of albums, the LACK of CDs. What you look at as too many songs going on for too long is INFINITELY better than hit singles devoid of emotion and life that were written only because there's no other way to make money.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:33 pm

John, throw it away!

RIC will not court any players, big or small name. They don't need to.

At the RIC booth at NAMM, I saw many more younger players than old duffers. Rickenbacker has name ID.

Ken, did you say somewhere that you worked at RIC Customer Service?

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:36 pm

FACT: if Ric basses had not made it into the hands of our hero's this bass forum for one would not exist and many of us would have never picked up the bass guitar.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:36 pm

What's also killing music is the whole attitude of the business itself. Music=product.
IMO music=art. There's no artist development to speak of on the global level. As soon as sales drop, in the trash they go, & on to the next big thing/reality show/shock theatre, etc.
The real development is done on a more or less independent level.
There are many exceptions, of course, this is just a generalization.