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.
Ugh, yeah, I would get really frustrated with that. I don't expect everyone to have taken years of courses in theory and composition, but I at least expect that an experienced player can say "So the song's in A minor, except for the bridge which is in E" or something like that.
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.
I agree, I usually play a bass unplugged before I plug it in. If I don't at least like the tone unamplified, I probably won't bother playing it any longer.
And it is important to me, since most of the time I practice unplugged.
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.
I think it's mainly, yeah, both how the bass is made, and where they decided to put the pickups. I'm not sure why they used the pickup positions they decided on, but I'm glad they did.
I've heard Rickenbackers with EMGs, and while they sound good, I find I prefer the stock pickups in most cases.
My Ric originally had an odd reverb effect when it was unplugged. Adjusting the neck a little made that reverb effect disappear, which was a shame. It didn't come through amplified, so it doesn't matter, but I liked it because it was odd and different.
My Ric is a 4003 and I would call its plugged in sound more of a snarl than a bark or a growl. It can sound incredibly aggressive, and the harder I play, the more ferocious it gets. Even backed off and with just the neck pickup, it sounds more aggressive than the P, for example. I think it's all kinds of things that create that specific sound, including the way I strike the strings. I find that the sound doesn't vary quite as much up and down the strings as it does with the P. I don't know why, but that's how it works with my fingers.
I've also found that my Rickenbacker is more consistent sounding across the strings, and up and down the fretboard, than many basses I've played. This is one thing that throws me off when I play lots of other basses, because I find I have to vary my technique to get a consistent sound a lot more than I do on my 4001.
I had a random thought while reading through this entire thread. Would I be off if I suggested that the Rick's sound can be described as halfway between a bass guitar and regular guitar? The P bass, for example, I could easily describe as analogous to a bass viol sound (smooth, clean, fat, warm, supporting) and like the bass viol, it is clearly distinct from the middle upper sounds from the smaller instruments. I guess I'm delving into the areas of timbre at this point. But from there comes the question: If I were to design a bass that sounded more like a guitar, what would it sound like?
Well... I imagine it would sound very much like a Rickenbacker! Brighter, punchier, a little more tonal presence or attitude, etc.
Being an ex French Horn player, I would also compare it to the difference of timbre between a French Horn, Trombone, Baritone when all three are playing the exact same note.
Anyway, that's the thought that came to mind.
Eh... I wouldn't say that a P-bass sounds very much like an upright at all. At least not my upright. The most similar sounding bass to my upright is, actually, my Rickenbacker, set to neck pickup only (I use a toaster pickup in the neck position, so it's a bit less aggressive than it would be if I used a high gain there, and more 'pillowy'). It gets that kinda hollow, woody sound a lot more than most other basses I've played. If I used a string mute and my bass was fretless, it would be even closer. Pizzicato, obviously. I've never used a bow on my Ric, ha ha.
Rickenbackers do have a lot of upper midrange bite, but I've actually found them less trebly than Fender Jazz basses. I think part of that is due to the Jazz's bridge pickup being substantially closer to the bridge itself, and so with that, the emphasized frequencies are a bit higher than with the Rickenbacker. While my 4001 certainly has a lot of clang, it doesn't have any "sparkle" like a Jazz does.
Very cool to check out all your custom creations and talk about basses for a while. After the nut adjustments and a good set up, my 4003 plays great and sounds like a proper Ric. Before the nut was too high and the pickup heights were a bit off making it somewhat dull sounding. Now the neck is super fast and the tone is big and grindy.
