Yes, right on and to the point!!!
I have a Gibson Les Paul bass (2003). The shape edges don't bother me because my limbs never come into contact with the surface.
Technique is the key thing here.
Along with set-up, strings, amp, speakers, ...
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Rickenbackers - the bad stuff?
- Thread starter LaXu
- Start date
Yes, right on and to the point!!!
I have a Gibson Les Paul bass (2003). The shape edges don't bother me because my limbs never come into contact with the surface.
Technique is the key thing here.
Along with set-up, strings, amp, speakers, ...
appart from all the negatives that get mentioned regarding rics they're also very uncomfortable to play sitting down imo.
i'll be honest,mine never comes out of its case unless someone wants to looks at it..
i'll be honest,mine never comes out of its case unless someone wants to looks at it..
Hipshot do a good bridge for Rickenbackers.
I dunno why Ricky don't just licence the design from them, and install them from the factory.
A big +1 on the Hipshot. I've got a brass one on my '77 4001.
I think it galls RIC that someone else does have a better design.
If only it could be made 5 string friendly....
The Hipshot looks close enough to fool many, but not enough to engender itself to purists.
It is very easy to adjust and perfectly easy to install, though.
Regarding the original design and tail lift, the original aluminum pieces (1960s) were more solid castings and were not at all prone to lift even with fewer screws holding them down.
The current alloy castings have had added bracing underneath and are now less prone to lift, but still have some of that tendency.
The 7 screw tails from the early 1980s 4003s will never lift. People didn't like the look of the extra screws.
The functionality of the original design is still limited, however.
- Jul 8, 2009
- 1,612
- 11
- Disclosures
- A&R, Soulless Corporation Records
Pretty much. I`m so glad I bought my Rick(I kept bugging my local indy music store,to the point where the manager called me first when a used jetglo came in!) Its awesome and iconic but was kinda uncomfortable when I first started playing it. There are no body curves along the top like a Fender to make laying your arm over it pleasant. But once you work your way around that it is one sweet bass!
Using the Rick-o-sound jack(by using a stereo cable) is really fun and pretty cool. I like having the excuse of using 2 amps in the apartment: "But Honey! I have to play with both amps! One for each pick up....what`s a pick up? Come on! I told you a thousand times...Oh never mind! Hey doesn`t it sound cool though?"
You should get one.
Ric's are sort of an aquired taste. Though I can certainly understand many of the gripes recorded here, some folks don't have much of any problem with a properly set up Ric bass. Also, the "other" Ric bass, the 4004, rarely gets much attention, but it addressed every concern anyone here has brought up. And in many cases, far surpass's the 4001 or 4003. And talk about a sexy looking bass, the 4004Cii is about as sexy as it gets in my eyes. (ok, nobody was talking about a sexy bass, but it's true)
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
What's bad about Rickenbackers?
1960s Rickenbackers have weak necks and weak pickups. A significant amount of these basses had neck failure and horsreshoe pickups that degaussed and went dead. Improper truss rod adjustment could damage the neck.
1970s Rickenbackers featured a stronger neck and improved pickups. But they still had necks that would be damaged by improper adjustment.
In the 1980s they came out with the 4003. The 4003 had modern truss rods and a stronger neck. Also in the 80s the pickups got hotter and the .0047 capacitor went away.
Other bad Rickenbacker features.
Binding ... the binding looks great but it digs into your forearm.
The tailpiece and bridge ... This is very cumbersome to intonate and set up and 25% of Rickenbacker basses show some degree of tailpiece pullup. This is easily fixed with 2 extra screws but most Rickenbacker owners don't like the 2 extra screws.
Also Rickenbacker can't seem to make a good 5 string bass.
Perhaps the worst thing about Rickenbackers is the cult following they have. Some Rickenbacker owners seem to worship John Hall and seem to zealously proclaim they are the best musical instruments on the face of the earth.
I love my Rickenbackers I play a couple of 4004 basses converted from 4 to 5 string basses.
1960s Rickenbackers have weak necks and weak pickups. A significant amount of these basses had neck failure and horsreshoe pickups that degaussed and went dead. Improper truss rod adjustment could damage the neck.
1970s Rickenbackers featured a stronger neck and improved pickups. But they still had necks that would be damaged by improper adjustment.
In the 1980s they came out with the 4003. The 4003 had modern truss rods and a stronger neck. Also in the 80s the pickups got hotter and the .0047 capacitor went away.
Other bad Rickenbacker features.
Binding ... the binding looks great but it digs into your forearm.
The tailpiece and bridge ... This is very cumbersome to intonate and set up and 25% of Rickenbacker basses show some degree of tailpiece pullup. This is easily fixed with 2 extra screws but most Rickenbacker owners don't like the 2 extra screws.
Also Rickenbacker can't seem to make a good 5 string bass.
Perhaps the worst thing about Rickenbackers is the cult following they have. Some Rickenbacker owners seem to worship John Hall and seem to zealously proclaim they are the best musical instruments on the face of the earth.
I love my Rickenbackers I play a couple of 4004 basses converted from 4 to 5 string basses.
I honestly don't like Ricks at all. The maple body, the weird bridge, the 20 fret neck, and the overall tone that sounds really muffled to me all turn me off. Ricks are great for one tone and one tone only.
Bad:
-The continual lines of BS coming from Ric fanboi's as well as from Ric itself.
-Dual truss rods are unnecessary in a 4 string and make setup more time consuming.
-New Ric's don't come with truss rod adjustment tool..wonder why??
-Bridge is horrible
-The finish is thin and soft. It's also less than perfect on many of the new Ric's.
-Poor QC
-Price vs. what you get does not match up
-A 2K bass from the factory without internal shielding is obsurd.
-Once you are out of warranty, good luck getting your bass serviced.
-Overall a very uncomfortable bass to play.
The good:
-Customer service is helpful
-Rick resource forum is helpful
-They sound good IMO, although despite people saying "nothing sounds like a Ric", there are indeed basses that cop the tone that Ric's are known for. They aren't that unique.
My .02
- Jan 28, 2009
- 2,929
- 4,152
- Disclosures
- Owner: Moonshine Custom Guitars
From my experience (a '72 Rick 4001 that I owned a little over a decade ago) the only con in my book was the weight and the neck size, it just wasn't comfortable enough for me to play long sets with. I didn't have any problems playing fingerstyle.
The only reason I sold it was because the laminates on the neck were coming apart, it split about a 1/4 in from the fretboard, big enough to loose a nickel in it. I had it repaired, and then it happened again a year later. I'm not sure if this was due to the strings I was using at the time, and I don't even recall what kind they were other then roundwound mediums, or what. It was heartbreaking to sell it, but I would rather someone fix it up and play it then stay in the case under my bed gathering dust.
The only reason I sold it was because the laminates on the neck were coming apart, it split about a 1/4 in from the fretboard, big enough to loose a nickel in it. I had it repaired, and then it happened again a year later. I'm not sure if this was due to the strings I was using at the time, and I don't even recall what kind they were other then roundwound mediums, or what. It was heartbreaking to sell it, but I would rather someone fix it up and play it then stay in the case under my bed gathering dust.
Honestly guys, I really hope that I am not coming across as a Rick fanboy here. I'm not a fanboy of John Hall either. A Rickenbacker is not perfect (but neither is a Fender, or any other bass), and I've already acknowledged the problems with the bridge. Anyway, here are some of my thoughts in regards to previous posts:
• An E string that is not as loud as the ADG strings.
There are too many threads, both here and at the Rick forums, to deny its existence. Fortunately, this does not effect all Ricks, and I'm happy to say that the volume on mine is consistent from string to string.
On many vintage Ricks, you can see the crack in the pickguard on the bass side, where people have tried to overly raise that side of the pickguard (thus cracking the plastic). You never see a crack on the treble side.
I suspect that there are two reasons for the weak E. I had a friend who collected Ricks and Rick copies. He told me that while he had owned a number of Ricks with weak E strings, none of his single truss rod Rick copies had a weak E. I suspect that the huge truss rod channel that is required for two rods may play a part in the problem.
The second reason is the already mentioned capacitor that cuts bass frequencies. It's hardly surprising that this results in a weak E.
Although Rickenbacker seems resistant to update their designs, they do deserve some credit here. One, they made the capacitor defeatable on their newer basses, and Two, the newer Rick pickups have individually adjustable pole pieces, so one can raise the heights individually to achieve a balanced output on every string.
Of course, Ricks are not perfect. But they are nowhere near as bad as some threads here would make them seem (same goes for Fenders, et al).
None of the Ricks I've owned could be described as heavy. My current 4003 is just under nine pounds. The price is a bit on the high side since the price hike, but not that much higher than an American Fender. And Ricks are finished in nitro, which is a much more labor intensive/time-consuming process than shooting poly. It takes longer, and you pay for that.
Mine is not at all uncomfortable to play sitting down. Again, I think this is more a question of player technique. And if you don't play yours, you might considering selling it – you will get good money out of the sale! Say what you will about Ricks, they do retain their resale value!
Everybody complains that Fender uses an "inch" of rock hard "tone-killing" poly on their instruments, and everybody says that CBS "ruined" Fender when they stopped using nitro. On the other hand, Rickenbacker continues to use nitro, and people complain about that. It seems to be a lose/lose situation, whatever finish a manufacturer uses.
This is true of every instrument, not just Ricks! Improper means just that, improper!
While this is true, they are certainly not alone in this regard. I won't mention the other owners/companies because 1: everybody already knows them and 2: I don't want to start some kind of flame war.
Muffled? Really? The standard knock is that Ricks sound too trebly and clear!
Are you saying that Paul McCartney and Chris Squier have the same sound? Rick James and Geddy? Suffice it to say, I politely disagree!
Here I completely agree. The dual truss rods seem to be one of those "legacy" holdovers (like the bridge) that Rickenbacker just can't seem to let go of. In fact, I strongly suspect that it plays a major role in a Rickenbacker problem that nobody has mentioned so far, that being...
• An E string that is not as loud as the ADG strings.
There are too many threads, both here and at the Rick forums, to deny its existence. Fortunately, this does not effect all Ricks, and I'm happy to say that the volume on mine is consistent from string to string.
On many vintage Ricks, you can see the crack in the pickguard on the bass side, where people have tried to overly raise that side of the pickguard (thus cracking the plastic). You never see a crack on the treble side.
I suspect that there are two reasons for the weak E. I had a friend who collected Ricks and Rick copies. He told me that while he had owned a number of Ricks with weak E strings, none of his single truss rod Rick copies had a weak E. I suspect that the huge truss rod channel that is required for two rods may play a part in the problem.
The second reason is the already mentioned capacitor that cuts bass frequencies. It's hardly surprising that this results in a weak E.
Although Rickenbacker seems resistant to update their designs, they do deserve some credit here. One, they made the capacitor defeatable on their newer basses, and Two, the newer Rick pickups have individually adjustable pole pieces, so one can raise the heights individually to achieve a balanced output on every string.
Of course, Ricks are not perfect. But they are nowhere near as bad as some threads here would make them seem (same goes for Fenders, et al).
Go ahead and give in to the Rickenurge and treat yourself to a Rickenbacker 4003. You'll love the bloody thing to pieces!
thanks for helping my gas
actually, I should received today pics of a jetglo and I might buy it
How prone are they to dead spots?
I dig the design - the 4004 doesn't quite have it IMO. The binding, pickguard, the different size pickups etc are what makes it visually appealing to me. Other than that I like the big neck. I've only had a chance to play an old 4003 without an amp briefly and that felt just fine to me even sitting down. I'm primarily a guitarist so I'm kinda used to playing guitars with binding and no contouring. I could see the Ric having less bass on the low E as a plus too, since I find that with my current bass (Yamaha BB414) I like to turn the lowest lows down a bit on my amp to keep it tighter and clearer. The shorter scale of the Ric should also make it a bit easier to switch between guitar and bass.
I have a hard time spending lots of money on what is kind of a flawed instrument though, especially since finding one over here in Finland would be difficult. I know Rickenbacker are pretty vigilant in protecting their designs but does any other company make essentially a modern 4003ish bass? Sort of like there are lots of variants on Jazz, Precision etc designs that are different enough that they don't infringe on any of the Ric stuff.
I dig the design - the 4004 doesn't quite have it IMO. The binding, pickguard, the different size pickups etc are what makes it visually appealing to me. Other than that I like the big neck. I've only had a chance to play an old 4003 without an amp briefly and that felt just fine to me even sitting down. I'm primarily a guitarist so I'm kinda used to playing guitars with binding and no contouring. I could see the Ric having less bass on the low E as a plus too, since I find that with my current bass (Yamaha BB414) I like to turn the lowest lows down a bit on my amp to keep it tighter and clearer. The shorter scale of the Ric should also make it a bit easier to switch between guitar and bass.
I have a hard time spending lots of money on what is kind of a flawed instrument though, especially since finding one over here in Finland would be difficult. I know Rickenbacker are pretty vigilant in protecting their designs but does any other company make essentially a modern 4003ish bass? Sort of like there are lots of variants on Jazz, Precision etc designs that are different enough that they don't infringe on any of the Ric stuff.
It's my understanding that flatwound vs. roundwound is not tension, but 4001's frets are soft and were built for flats. Roundwounds eat them up. 4003's were made to use rounds. Chris Squire states this when he toured the factory and was expecting praise for everybody wanting one because of him. But he was chastised when they showed all the basses returned for fret jobs. His signature model was built for rounds, but being out of prod. now, the price is OUTRAGEOUS! Glad to say I got one in '93 when it was only $1000.
