Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Rickenbacker has a history of being an innovator, but has not released any major innovations in recent years. I also have suffered the cruel fate of stagnation having reached the pinnacle of physical perfection.

I've tried the forum search and found some really interesting ideas.

What existing typical Ric features would you keep/modify? (cresting wave shape, through neck?)

What new design features would you add? (a torzoid twisty neck, ergonomic body? headless?)

What new technology would you add? (active circuit? wifi connected fibre optic dot inlay with computer added musical score syncronisation, and freakin laser beams?)

Add also how much you would pay for your creation.

(If this has been done to death and there are existing threads that cover this, point me in the right direction)

Welcome Iain!

Most of us here love our Ricks just the way they are. Sometimes it is best to to leave well enough alone, for something that a Rick does not offer, we look to other brands.

....and so endth the shortest forum thread in history

Yeth.

But, you never know. Sometimes these things seem to take on a life of their own and just keep growing...

...like your desire for a Jetglo Rick bass.

Yeah, a Jetglo 4002...

30 " scale 4003 type, maybe name it 4030.

Or 43000

I'm only going to post in this thread once because I know it's a subjective and sticky topic, and I just want to put my two cents out there and be done.

I think RIC is doing the right thing with both the 4003 and 4004, even more so now by unifying the neck profile (I prefer the 4003 so that's just IMO). However I think that RIC is missing the boat a bit--whether they care or not, due to their backlog--on some of their potential customers. The 4004 is kind of a modern update of the 4003 with some of the more drastic changes in the pickup placement and the electronics, and some people say it should be an answer to the "Fender crowd" who have gripes about some things in the 4003 design, like binding and the tailpiece.* The 4004 is really more of a "coffee table bass"--a boutique-looking design, that really doesn't appeal to me visually, nor to a great deal of bass players who would rather have something that has a more classic look... like a 4003, or a Fender P Bass. There needs to be an intermediate model that benefits from HB-1s and streamlined electronics (let's say VVT wiring to mono) but still has elements of the classic Rickenbacker bass visually, to be truly a mainstream instrument. Binding and classic pearloid dot inlays meet with HB-1s in the 4003 positions set against a 4005-esque pickguard (the teardrop shape), as some players have modded their 4004s with, and a modern bridge. THIS would be your answer to the Fender crowd. A classic look with modern appeal. This is really the only thing more RIC could be doing to reach out to new customers who aren't satisfied with a 4003 or 4004, which are for all intents and purposes near-perfect designs as they are. (I also feel this way about the Fender Precision and Jazz Bass. It's succeeded for so many players--there's not a lot we need to mess with to get a good sound out of any of these basses.) Is RIC going to do this? Of course not... they've got a backlog to deal with. For a lot of us, the 4003 and/or 4004 is already all we need. Apparently we're buying enough Rics as it is without RIC needing to appeal to a more mainstream segment.

*(By the way, the potential for tailpiece lift is the ONLY thing I think needs to change about the 4003 at this point. Minor issue? Yes. But it tarnishes RIC's reputation. I hope it gets addressed by a stronger tailpiece or more screws--I have modded my main Ric to have a 7-screw tailpiece. The bridge and intonation setup are perfectly fine, on the other hand.)

cassius987 wrote:(By the way, the potential for tailpiece lift is the ONLY thing I think needs to change about the 4003 at this point. Minor issue? Yes. But it tarnishes RIC's reputation. I hope it gets addressed by a stronger tailpiece or more screws--I have modded my main Ric to have a 7-screw tailpiece. The bridge and intonation setup are perfectly fine, on the other hand.)

Don't forget checkered binding.....

Bring back the 4002!

Hmm... what would I want to see? well how about lose the binding, contour the body, dot fret markers, slim neck, a toaster and a horseshoe pick up... oh wait I am just describing the 4001v63

I have to comment on the 4004. I love mine! Especially since I made it an 8 string. I think it looks GREAT, feels GREAT, sounds GREAT, and plays GREAT! Matter of fact my plan is, after I get kids through college, to buy at least 1 more 4004 to keep as a 4 string. And if the fates are with me, a second one to make into a fretless!!! It is very adaptable and just a plain KA instrument!! As has been said before - one of the best kept secrets in all of Ric-dom! I don't look at it as an answer to anything, it is what it is. Just another line of basses like the 3000 series.

As for 'new' designs... let's face it, if we look across the spectrum of fabricators a sizable majority of basses (no matter who builds them) are a body, neck & head stock with 4 strings and a pickup or two. And that is what sells. 5 strings have a share of the market but not huge - it all goes back to the 4 stringer. So then a company would have a look and a sound. If that is working for them why change (it is thought Rickenbacker has a healthy backlog)? So Ric give us an excellent platform; and from what I have seen we tend to do with them as we please - installing whatever tweak or innovation we might like. It would probably cost Rickenbacker more to build a bass with a wammie bar on it than it would for you or I to put it on . And how many would they sell? It seems that most players zero in on a sound they like and then go from there - there aren't too many players out there without a box that has a pick up or two in it.

watton_earth wrote: (active circuit? wifi connected fibre optic dot inlay with computer added musical score syncronisation, and freakin laser beams?)

Oh, I'll get on this right away . . .

What do you think this is, Gibson?

johnhall wrote:

watton_earth wrote: (active circuit? wifi connected fibre optic dot inlay with computer added musical score syncronisation, and freakin laser beams?)

Oh, I'll get on this right away . . .

What do you think this is, Gibson?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA...... TFF.

Maybe get a cup of coffee first....?