Any new models in 2004 ??

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:40 pm

Steinberger designs are definitely user friendly. Anybody who wantonly flames Ned Steinberger is in danger of looking like a fool to anyone who uses and likes his instruments.

I'm not flaming Ned Steinberger at all. I prefaced with "JMHO". My older son has a Spector NS that's residing here while he is remotely deployed in the USAF. The bass is butt-ugly, butt-heavy, poorly balanced and sounds just awful. Every headless design Steinberger bass I've heard sounded awful to me, and the looks...well, even you should be willing to admit they are an acquired taste. For reasons I won't get into here, I also think their design is poor.

You're certainly entitled to differ in your opinion.

Steinberger basses and guitars are among the most recorded in music history...You should not automatically assume what is seen on stage is used in the studio.

They aren't even close to being one of the most recorded. And you should not assume that I'm unaware of what is used in the studio.

You are also more than welcome to want 24-fret graphite reinforced necks and anything else you consider an improvement. But you seem to be stating your preferences as if they are fact and as if they are what everyone else should want. That's simply not the case.

philco · Post by **philco** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 8:08 pm

Well, Dave, John Entwistle wanted those "improvements". Wood necks just were NOT cutting it for HIM. I read a magazine interview where he stated that he thought Rickenbacker necks were too weak for him. So were a lot of other bass necks. My NS copy bass balances quite well. It is LIGHTER than my Rickenbacker 4004L, which is not considered heavy at all. The fact that the body is lightweight basswood means that the neck is not too light in comparison to the body (no butt heaviness here). Basswood capped with maple is also considered the holy grail of tone to a lot of people who place looks second to tone. It is VERY similar to poplar used in those old 60's P-basses used on Live at Leeds, which beats the maple body P-bass I had in the 70's hands down. Basswood is cheap, basswood is light, basswood is good in solid bodies. Basswood dents easily and has hardly any visible grain.....not eye candy at all.....BIG DEAL. So if WOOD TONE is what you are after, you will push for cheap basswood Rickenbackers, not birdseye maple showpieces (well, the cap could be maple). Compare a poplar bodied P-bass to a maple bodied P-bass if you don't believe me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect your son likes his Spector NS much more than you do (might be why he bought it). They seem to be preferred by younger players. Your son could sell his heavy Spector, buy a better balanced OLP copy made from cheap wood that sounds good like mine, and stick the difference in price in his pocket. Even Gene Simmon and Paul Stanley play Silvertones these days (but they stuff their pockets with endorsement cash, of course). As far as headless Steinbergers go, even "old school" bassists like Bill Wyman use them in live concert. He certainly wouldn't be ashamed to walk into a studio with one. I think they sound a bit "sterile". That was my initial impression of my SB4. That's another way of saying clean and clear, which means they are excellent basses to use with effects. Which is what young players want. Which explains why my Marshall amp likes it better than my other basses, I guess. It's just as easy for me to love a $250 bass as a $1250 bass if it cuts the cake. Others will disagree. Fine with me. My point is that the people that want 24 fret necks are not being serviced by RIC, and are forced to look elsewhere. Because thay are FORCED to do so by lack of product from RIC, they should not be looked upon as somebody liking something necessarily lesser in quality. Some of us will find things we like very well at a much lower price along the way, and it will be VERY hard to get us to dig deeper for Rickenbackers when we don't have to any more.

I have Live at Leeds and I have Live at the Royal Albert Hall. Entwistle sounds different on each, but he sounds every bit as good on the later DVD video. He never did a solo on the Live at Leeds album that equaled "5:15" on the DVD. It's all just taste. The OLP SB4 will cop a sound much closer to both the old 60's poplar P-bass (because of the basswood body) and the Buzzard Bass (because of the double humbuckers) than either one of those instruments can, and for a lot less money.

Also, the Ashdown amp setup John uses on the DVD has at least as much to do with sound differences as the change in basses between the two recordings.

Peace

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 9:43 pm

Again, personal opinion. I don't like the tone of basswood at all, and it has nothing to do with looks. I don't believe Fender made any poplar basses during the 60s. They were alder. And they never made maple body basses as a regular production item. Although you do see mahogany and maple ones pop up now and then, your maple body Precision wasn't representative of the typical Fender sound either.

Why on earth would I push for basswood Rickenbackers? I love the maple tone as is. YOU like basswood. I definitely don't. If you believe basswood equals "wood tone", that's fine -- for you. That doesn't make it a fact. It's simply your opinion.

Why make a point about Entwistle? Yes, he experimented with many different woods and then graphite. But you're talking about the preferences of ONE well-known bassist -- not one of my favorites, and IMO certainly not "the world's greatest rock bassist". I could just as well hold up Paul McCartney as an example of why we should all make do with Hofners -- but I'll refrain.

You're making enormous assumptions about what young players want. That's just speculation based on your own preferences.

"There ain't no money above the fifth fret." -- Willie Dixon

ricosound · Post by **ricosound** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 7:10 am

I agree with Dave. Ask 2 bass players and you'll get 3 opinions. First of all I am new to the forum and love Rics for what they are and what they represent, which is a particular period in music evolution. There is no one instrument that will fit all players and types of music. I have large hands and find the neck and spacing of a Fender bass to suit my needs. Phillip is wrong, there is no way that anything is more used in the studio and more copied in design, sound, and endorsement than Fender; just a fact. It's like all the Harley Davidson knockoffs out there. They all are trying to capture a market that caters to a perception. Are they good motorcycles technically? Not really, and I have owned several. Could you road race one? Not competitively without a lot of $$$$. Does everyone want a piece the pie? You bet, including me.

Early on, any Fender bass that had a Butterscotch or Blonde (they are different) finish was made of Swamp Ash due to the graininess. The Sunburst and all the painted bodies were and continue to be on the USA models, Alder. Poplar and later Basswood, were introduced somewhere in the 80's as a cost effective alternative for painted bodies. They sound like **** and were sold to compete in a price conscious import market. But, this is a Rickenbacker forum, so I digress....

The point is Rics do what Rics do, and we all love them for it. I agree with an earlier posting by Mr. Hall that why temp fate. How many strange variants from all manufactures, have died on the vine. I think even the 4004’s were a bold departure that fortunately worked out. Everyone used 4001’s in the 70's to make great period rock because they represented the cutting edge of technology "at that time." Geddy, Squire, Paul, have all moved on. The "Rick" sound just doesn’t fit all genres of music; not too many jazz musicians are using them for instance! The same type argument has raged for years. Initially there was reluctance to the "new fangled" electric bass back in the fifties. Guys like Jamerson changed that. Now the upright is nothing but a novelty.

Kids are going to buy what they see in videos, thus is the power of endorsements. Mr. Hall seems to be a wise businessman, and has stated he is at manufacturing capacity. If the market ever changes, so will Rick basses. Now, I love Rics because they are instantly recognizable, deliver a unique sound, and are collectable and cool. I'd give parts of my anatomy to have my transitional Jetglo '68 back that I sold for college tuition. I will always have a Ric around. I also own 4 Fenders that I use effectively to make great music. So to each his own and lets concentrate on what’s important, the music. Otherwise, you’re just a poser.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:05 am

Rics have a unique sound ... listen to Geddy Lee on the Trees ... either the original CD or the live version "Exit stage left" ... the listen to him play the same song on "different Stages" where he uses the jazz bass ... huge difference ...

ricosound · Post by **ricosound** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:25 am

No question Jeff...I belive that's what I just said. Rics are definitly unique. Keep in mind top musician like Geddy or anyone else of his caliber could make a broomstick and a rubberband sound amazing. Listen to Mark King, Roscoe Beck, Victor Wooten. All phenominal, all different. I love the bass guitar in all its wonderful variations. I happen to have a particular attraction to the 4001 and always will because that's what the Gods played when I started. I love Ricks, I own Ricks, keep 'em coming. I'll park them right next to their equally signifigant cousins.

ricosound · Post by **ricosound** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:01 am

BTW...why reissue anything? Bring back the v63 which was a beautiful guitar, the c64 looks goofy for righthanders. How about a transitional period piece like 1969-72. Checked binding, wide inlays, toaster, green lead pickup, mono. Get the burst colors tinted vintage correct, burgundyglo, autumglo, a deeper fireglo, tinted mapleglo. I'll buy one of each. Every single one would sell to this forum alone! Hey Mr. Hall how about it. The Fender Custom Shop seems to do a booming business.

robj · Post by **robj** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:31 am

I have two basses that utilize graphite in the neck design; Modulus Q5 (graphite neck) and a Trace Elliot T-Bass (reinforced graphite neck and made by Status Graphite in England) both basses are the only ones I own which have no discernable dead spots at any fret. My Fender basses are the worst with my 5 Rickenbackers being much better in general.

As I understand it, graphite is used to add enough stiffness to the neck to raise its resonant frequency high enough so the neck no longer vibrates in sympathy within the range of frequencies playable on the bass. I guess I'm not seeing how this is a bad thing.

In the jazz world, upright bass is hardly a novelty and Squire has not "moved on", he continues to use his Rickenbacker on many if not most of his recent works with Yes and with Billy Sherwood in Conspiracy.

wints · Post by **wints** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:51 am

Given that Ric has made a lot of their basses in the last 20 years based upon their 40 year old 63/64S, and done very well, and with demand still strong, the need for something like a new radical 24 fret bass is obviously not a priority. For most here, and that buy a bass, the beatles/early 70,s connection is still what drives this particular market. That the 4004 has been a success shows that a certain number of Ric buyers are prepared to explore. I would like to think that a double octave bass is, at least, considered a thought of JH, ( just very occasionally maybe!!..) even though at present, one can understand if it is only that....No money beyond the 5th fret....man, am I glad Stanley, Jaco and the like never listened....

robj · Post by **robj** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:09 am

Nor Mr. McCartney who certainly found lots of money above the 5th fret (with all due respect to the late great Willie Dixon of course, who was an incredible songwriter, producer and blues innovator on acoustic bass, and who's lines served as a foundation for the evolution of blues and blues bass).

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:26 am

I'd say that as a songwriter, producer, session player and performer, Willie Dixon was more successful than Stanley, Jaco and the like, and a much bigger influence on popular music as a whole, especially blues-based music. And that's not counting his successful copyright infringement suits against Led Zeppelin.

But I always felt his comment was tongue-in-cheek.

robj · Post by **robj** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 1:48 pm

Yeah I agree Dave, I'm a huge fan and from everything I've read about the man Willie defnitely had a sense of humor. Fortunately Willie was finally able to make some money before he died off all the songs he wrote while at Chess. He and many like him were cheated pretty badly on royalties, for the most part these guys had no idea what they were signing (more than a few couldn't even write their names).

philco · Post by **philco** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:59 pm

I guess Willie Dixon never got to go riding around with John Entwistle in one of his Rolls Royces. He may have learned to play higher on the neck if he had.

Wes, I never said the Steinberger was THE most used brand in recording studios, but one of the most used brands (after 1980 I should have added). I got that from Ed Roman, who was once the largest Steinberger dealer in the entire world. He said it seemed that everybody who was anybody was buying a Steinberger during the 80's. They were mostly buying them for practice and studio instruments while continueing to gig on stage with their endorsed brand. They didn't make it a known public fact they were using Steinbergers away from the stage for obvious reasons. When you consider the number of Steinbergers that were used in studios against the total production numbers, then you will probably end up with the highest PERCENTAGE of professional use in the industry. Almost every Steinberger ever made will probably still be around 100 years from now, as they are almost indestructible. That will raise the percentage of professional use even higher.

Many top bass brands have recently introduced basswood bodied instruments. Basswood will probably become very popular in graphite necked instruments. It may form the core over which graphite or other material is laid. The reason is the very low V.O.S. rating of the wood. It will tend to counteract the graphite neck that has a very high V.O.S. rating. The Status Graphite Buzzard Bass 2 has a basswood body, if I am not mistaken. To think that basswood is not a top tonewood is utter nonsense. However, you must use it correctly because it is very low on the tonewood scale for V.O.S. propagation. It is very important for it's very low V.O.S. rating to counteract materials of an opposite nature (hence the tendency to laminate it to maple), and for its ready availability and low price. It is what counteracts the sterility that is inherent to Spector basses, and is probably why OLP uses it in the SB4, besides the low price. In effect, it adds complex overtones to the crisp and punchy sound of maple. Too much will cause an indistinct sound lacking in fundamental focus. Expect to see a lot of it in entry level instruments in the future. To say that it is not to your personal liking may mean that you haven't heard it properly applied in an instrument. It is a common tree in the upper midwest USA and in no danger of extinction, so you get a low price for a highly select grade. IT IS VERY WELL SUITED FOR FAST CNC MACHINING APPLICATIONS (maple will burn when cutting tools are pushed too fast). That fact is not lost on the high production manufacturers. You old fishermen out there probably used it in those old fishing lures. Maybe it sounded good to the fish?

I used to think it got its name from the fact bass lures were made from it when I was a young kid. I never knew it to be used in anything else back then.

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:49 pm

I guess Willie Dixon never got to go riding around with John Entwistle in one of his Rolls Royces. He may have learned to play higher on the neck if he had.

Philip, it was tongue-in-cheek. But surely you're not imlying that wealth equals talent!

I got that from Ed Roman

Ed Roman a reliable authority?

Surely you jest! You just plain don't have any actual information to support your claims.

To think that basswood is not a top tonewood is utter nonsense.

In your opinion. There are some luthiers who would agree with you, many who would strongly disagree.

To say that it is not to your personal liking may mean that you haven't heard it properly applied in an instrument.

There you go again. If only we would hear it in the same instruments you have, we would agree with your judgment? Not a chance.

I have heard basswood in everything from cheap instruments to $3000 Tom Anderson guitars. I not only dislike it in every case I've heard, but I don't think it adds complex overtones to anything. It's very midrangy. Even Tom Anderson says it's midrangy, the difference is that he thinks it's pleasant and I think it's nasty.

Again, you're entitled to differ. But it's simply your opinion, not fact.

robj · Post by **robj** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:06 pm

When the British blues influenced bands like the Rolling Stones began coming over to tour the U.S., many of them would seek out Willie in Chicago, either at home or the studio. Among them; Keith Richards, Brian Jones, Jeff Beck and others. So it is entirely possible Willie and Entwistle met at some point.

Willie wasn't much for frets and pretty much stopped playing on sessions once the electric bass began its rise in popularity.