Rickenbacker's "secret"?

[Korladis]

But a RIC sounds like a RIC....unplugged!

That would probably be the all maple construction.

 

[mccartneyman]

When you listen to the isolated bass it may surprise some how much different it is from the guitar line.

Having heard cover bands play "SOTW" probably a thousand times over the last 40 years, I can still count on one hand the number of bassists who play this part correctly. On the signature riff, most climb from G Through Bb to C and back again, just like the guitar. Always refreshing to hear one who doesn't.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Having heard cover bands play "SOTW" probably a thousand times over the last 40 years, I can still count on one hand the number of bassists who play this part correctly. On the signature riff, most climb from G Through Bb to C and back again, just like the guitar. Always refreshing to hear one who doesn't.

I play it correctly. The ones who don't probably learned the song from the guitard.

 

[lovethegrowl]

I dunno what they were teaching you upstairs in the composition department, but in the sub-basement where they kept the electronic music department we learned that homophony (from the Greek homos - the same - and phone - sound - i.e. making the same sound) is when all the voices in a phrase are articulating the same notes - the EXACT same notes (like the earliest examples of Gregorian chant), and polyphony is when the voices play different notes. Note that the terms purely describe characteristics of pitch and tonality - rhythmic emphasis, variation, or lack thereof has NOTHING to do with the classification.

I see little value in ranking polyphonic music in terms of its homophonic-"ness."

You really believe that Gregorian Chant is synonymous with homophony? You are absolutely wrong! You are confusing monophony with homophony. The definition of homophony is melody over chordal accompaniment! Duh!! And a pedal point DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING! For Christ sake's I nearly enrolled at UC Berklee became a freakin' musicologist at one point.

Where was this basement Musicology course? Berklee? A great place to learn Music History let me tell you (& you are a real expert). when I went there all the text books were mimeographed. Beyond shoddy. Berklee College of Music was a great place to go onky for precocious types who were 95% of the way to stardom (Like Al Demiola).

 

[Korladis]

You really believe that Gregorian Chant is synonymous with homophony? You are absolutely wrong! You are confusing monophony with homophony. The definition of homophony is melody over chordal accompaniment! Duh!! And a pedal point DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING! For Christ sake's I nearly enrolled at UC Berklee became a freakin' musicologist at one point.

Where was this basement Musicology course? Berklee? A great place to learn Music History let me tell you (& you are a real expert). when I went there all the text books were mimeographed. Beyond shoddy. Berklee College of Music was a great place to go onky for precocious types who were 95% of the way to stardom (Like Al Demiola).

But you didn't.

The poster you're quoting didn't say that Gregorian Chant was synonymous with homophony, but early polyphony.

Dude, I know that nobody likes their errors pointed out, but it's happened to all of us. The example you used for homophony turned out to actually be polyphonic. It's not that big a deal, especially since it's "Smoke on the Water," which everybody knows the main riff of and hardly anyone knows the bass part of (which is why tons of bassists play it incorrectly when they cover it).

 

[JMacBass65]

The secret of Rickenbacker tone ...

1 - pickup positions
2 - maple construction
3 - single coil pickups
4 - a finished bubinga fretboard

These and other factors give the Ric a distinctive high mid bark.

Can you define "bark" please, because I always thought of it as more of a growl..........

 

[JMacBass65]

For Christ sake's I nearly enrolled at UC Berklee became a freakin' musicologist at one point.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss......I'm glad I don't concern myself with all this polymonohomophobic stuff as it pertains to rock and roll.

I'm gonna drink a beer, grab my Rick, plug into my SVT, turn it up, and do my best Roger Glover impersonation.

C-Ya!

 

[JMacBass65]

Having heard cover bands play "SOTW" probably a thousand times over the last 40 years, I can still count on one hand the number of bassists who play this part correctly. On the signature riff, most climb from G Through Bb to C and back again, just like the guitar. Always refreshing to hear one who doesn't.

I gotta say, this blows my mind. While I have outed myself as a self taught musical ignoramus (see post above), I think anybody playing bass that cannot hear that doubling the guitar riff is the WRONG thing to do, should maybe think about putting the instrument down and trying something else. Like crochet.

SOTW was say.....the third song I ever learned, and I knew immediately what to play during the opening riff, how can someone not hear that?

 

[Ric5]

Sometimes ignorance is bliss......I'm glad I don't concern myself with all this polymonohomophobic stuff as it pertains to rock and roll.

I'm gonna drink a beer, grab my Rick, plug into my SVT, turn it up, and do my best Roger Glover impersonation.

C-Ya!

I love this!

Rock music is not about theory. Too much theory will kill the music.

 

[Korladis]

I love this!

Rock music is not about theory. Too much theory will kill the music.

I disagree. Knowing a lot of theory, and applying it, doesn't mean one necessarily writes complex, inaccessible music. It just means knowing precise language to describe what certain things happening in the music will do to the sound.

I know quite a bit of theory, but I use it to play and write music that, despite one of my bands being more folky, and the other being doom metal, is all basically a subset of rock, not free jazz or anything. Knowing theory just makes my process of figuring out bass lines, and of writing them, more efficient. I am not a technically very good bassist, but the people I play with tend to like my bass lines, and the reason for that is because I know enough theory to have a good ear for what to play and where to play it. Most of the parts I write are not very difficult to play, but they do work well with the songs.

Sometimes, the fact that I know the theory behind things has given me good instincts for telling when to simplify a part to make the song work better.

I think the dichotomy people sometimes draw between theory and performance is a false one. They are merely two aspects of the same thing. If you don't know any theory (such as, you know, what the notes on your instrument are, or the shape of basic chords, arpeggios, scales and such on that instrument), competence at performance is going to be much, much more difficult. By the same token, theory without performance is meaningless.

 

[Korladis]

I gotta say, this blows my mind. While I have outed myself as a self taught musical ignoramus (see post above), I think anybody playing bass that cannot hear that doubling the guitar riff is the WRONG thing to do, should maybe think about putting the instrument down and trying something else. Like crochet.

SOTW was say.....the third song I ever learned, and I knew immediately what to play during the opening riff, how can someone not hear that?

Yeah... it was obvious from when I heard the song, after I had started playing bass, that the bass was doing something very different from what the guitar was doing. Same in Black Sabbath's "War Pigs" (though, in that case, I suspect much of the original started as improvisation).

 

[lovethegrowl]

But you didn't.

The poster you're quoting didn't say that Gregorian Chant was synonymous with homophony, but early polyphony.

Dude, I know that nobody likes their errors pointed out, but it's happened to all of us. The example you used for homophony turned out to actually be polyphonic. It's not that big a deal, especially since it's "Smoke on the Water," which everybody knows the main riff of and hardly anyone knows the bass part of (which is why tons of bassists play it incorrectly when they cover it).

A quick definition of Homophony is melody over chordal accompaniment. (Most popular music fits that description--rock, especially because of it's rigidity.) A quick definition of polyphony is contrapuntal. A pedal point held underneath bar chords isn't counterpoint. The pedal point changes NOTHING! Smoke on the water IS HOMOPHONIC! Look up the definition yourself. Furthermore, as you pointed out most people don't know that the bass isn't in unison with the guitars because it can't easily be heard (on most people's audio systems) because that Rick got buried. (No joking, a Fender might have been heard.)

My original point was: 1) that an earlier Rickenbacker 4001 is going to get a little buried underneath a both E strings of the guitarists bar chords (regardless if they are in unison with the bass line or not, but usually they are.) 2) The problem is far less noticeable in jazz/swing (still often homophonic, but less so--more linear independence in the bass lines. 3) I relunctantly bought a P bass to give a stronger foundation.

Earlier in this post someone challenged me on my use of the terms polyphony & homophony, in a friendly sort of way accused me of making up terms. It took great restraint not to go totally off on him. Instead I clarified the use of those terms, using a very good Mahler/Brahm's analogy that was totally lost.

You say that no one wants to have their mistakes pointed out? What have you been trying to do to me? You're the ones (several of you) making inane apples to oranges comparisons, to try to conjure up a foundation for an internet pissing match over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The truth is all along, several if you have been confusing monody with homophony and still you won't concede that. BTW, Smoke on the Water IS homophony, with or with out pedal point.

 

[Ric5]

Whoa ... there are some people here who really need to chill ...

 

[Korladis]

A quick definition of Homophony is melody over chordal accompaniment. (Most popular music fits that description--rock, especially because of it's rigidity.) A quick definition of polyphony is contrapuntal. A pedal point held underneath bar chords isn't counterpoint. The pedal point changes NOTHING! Smoke on the water IS HOMOPHONIC! Look up the definition yourself. Furthermore, as you pointed out most people don't know that the bass isn't in unison with the guitars because it can't easily be heard (on most people's audio systems) because that Rick got buried. (No joking, a Fender might have been heard.)

My original point was: 1) that an earlier Rickenbacker 4001 is going to get a little buried underneath a both E strings of the guitarists bar chords (regardless if they are in unison with the bass line or not, but usually they are.) 2) The problem is far less noticeable in jazz/swing (still often homophonic, but less so--more linear independence in the bass lines. 3) I relunctantly bought a P bass to give a stronger foundation.

Earlier in this post someone challenged me on my use of the terms polyphony & homophony, in a friendly sort of way accused me of making up terms. It took great restraint not to go totally off on him. Instead I clarified the use of those terms, using a very good Mahler/Brahm's analogy that was totally lost.

You say that no one wants to have their mistakes pointed out? What have you been trying to do to me? You're the ones (several of you) making inane apples to oranges comparisons, to try to conjure up a foundation for an internet pissing match over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The truth is all along, several if you have been confusing monody with homophony and still you won't concede that. BTW, Smoke on the Water IS homophony, with or with out pedal point.

But here's the thing. The guitar part to the main riff of "Smoke on the Water" isn't barre chords. It's not even full chords. It's just a first and fifth interval. There aren't any thirds in there. You're coming at this with the assumption that that part is chordal, when it's not. It's not chords, it's a riff, which, as mentioned, is a melody. That makes it melody, and the pedal line counter point.

You used a bad example to illustrate a point, and people pointed that out. That's all. This is an internet forum. If you make a flawed argument, people are going to call you on it.

And I do have a musical education, thank you very much.

 

[JMacBass65]

I disagree. Knowing a lot of theory, and applying it, doesn't mean one necessarily writes complex, inaccessible music. It just means knowing precise language to describe what certain things happening in the music will do to the sound.

I totally get that. As blissfully ignorant as I am, I do from time to time wish I was able to "speak" the language better. Both in an effort to communicate with other players, write better parts, and just to be able to understand the nuts and bolts - I tend to want to know how things work. So knowing "how" music works is of some interest to me.

But...there are only so many hours in a day, so I revert to beer->Rick->SVT!

 

[Korladis]

I totally get that. As blissfully ignorant as I am, I do from time to time wish I was able to "speak" the language better. Both in an effort to communicate with other players, write better parts, and just to be able to understand the nuts and bolts - I tend to want to know how things work. So knowing "how" music works is of some interest to me.

But...there are only so many hours in a day, so I revert to beer->Rick->SVT!

I generally prefer people I jam with to at least know enough theory to be able to tell me what key they're playing in, and what the chords are. I think it makes it way easier to jump in and figure out what I'm going to do.

 

[JMacBass65]

I generally prefer people I jam with to at least know enough theory to be able to tell me what key they're playing in, and what the chords are. I think it makes it way easier to jump in and figure out what I'm going to do.

Agreed, and that I can do. In fact, I get a more than a bit frustrated with my guitar player at times, because he can't do this.

 

[kcole4001]

But a RIC sounds like a RIC....unplugged!

Playing unplugged lets you hear the results of the design, construction, and material obviously.
That's the main reason why I play a bass or guitar unplugged before trying it amplified.

You have to feel the basic tone, since pickups and electronics can be relatively easily changed or altered.
The base tone of the instrument will essentially be the same for the life of the instrument, and you have to be able to live with what it is.

The Rick's amplified tone can be fairly easily replicated, but the timbre, feel/nuance, and sustain of the notes are what set it apart from a bass of differing construction/materials.
Maybe not enough to be important, but there is a difference.
Heck, each individual Rick bass is different even when produced from the same tree's wood.

 

[4DGeorge]

Definitely a lot of lively conversation on this thread!
Regarding mono-poly-homo-phonic, here's an excellent, and concise, overview I found on it. It's actually a rather interesting read for those less inclined to take a look.
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/misc/homophony.html

As for the Rickenbacker's "secret" to its unique growl and sound, I believe we've covered all the bases. I'm confident the physical construction of the body and orientation of the components is the key to many of it's tonal qualities. I also know the electronics have an influence as well, but not so much as to dominate. Having swapped out the electronics on a Rick with wholly different ones (EMG active .vs. stock passive) I was able to hear the differences that showed up and the foundation that remained. I also tinkered (only for a few days) with connecting the original Rick pickups in an older, half-disassembled, Epiphone bass I was about to toss. It sounded nothing like the Rick. Because I didn't affix the PUPs to the body, just used soft foam to wedge them in, they weren't able to fully absorb the added influence of the body's vibrations. But even so, sounded nothing like the Rick.
The Rick with the upgraded EMG active PUPs was definitely, if not more so, a Rick! It was kind of like swapping out the microphone for a much higher quality one. The singer sounded the same, but even better as you could hear more of the core qualities you liked. Yes, it's also possible for the converse to happen, where you now hear more of the tones you don't like and the upgraded equipment lessens the overall experience. But overall, higher quality PUPs or amplification equipment will let us hear more of the sounds and tonal qualities the instrument naturally produces.

Just my 5 cents.

 

[Snowglo]

Playing unplugged lets you hear the results of the design, construction, and material obviously.
That's the main reason why I play a bass or guitar unplugged before trying it amplified.

You have to feel the basic tone, since pickups and electronics can be relatively easily changed or altered.
The base tone of the instrument will essentially be the same for the life of the instrument, and you have to be able to live with what it is.

So true! I always play 10-15 minutes unplugged to have reference to the natural tone and growl. At home, 99% of the time I play my 4003 unplugged because I can't get enough of the natural RIC tone.