SUCH a mess

Ricks have style, sound and a bloody fine history behind them.

Warwicks (particularly those dodgy 70's sideboard coloured ones) just look cabaret.

In my opinion.

Go for the rick!

 

Ricks can handle hard rock and metal, I've seen bands use them.

However, the upper horn of the Rick can be broken if you jump around too much.

I saw Dinasour Jr. and the bassist had to "duct tape" his horn back on.

 

whats good enough for cliff is good enough for me!

i also recommend the ric, warwicks just dont feel right (although i think both look and sound great)

 

i see more metal bands with warwick...if that means anything

personally i like rics better, but warwicks seem to work very good for metal imo

 

Whichever bass you think will scream "play me!" loud enough while sitting on its stand in your house.

 

Warwicks are excellent basses for hard rock/metal.

So are Rics, though.

To me, Rics have a bit more of an "old school" vibe, while the Warwicks seem more modern. Since I'm more of an old school rocker, who mostly enjoys "classic metal," I'd go for the Ric. More character, history, and mojo, for me. If you're younger, though, and want the bass that's currently really popular for metal, get the Warwick.

Either way, you'll rock out.

 

I think that the Rics have a more bad a** tone, but the Warwicks have more variety in tone (from model to model). Did you try playing all the Warwicks you could get your hands on?
Personally I find it difficult to play a Warwick due to the feel. Those necks and I just dont get along.

 

I have liked some warwicks at the venerable GC, esp. with fretless neck, but for some reason the fretted basses seemed hit or miss. Have no idea why that is the case, probably GC setup.

I love geddy, so I love ricks.

 

i had to make the same choice too. i was torn between a rick and a thumb. after playing them both, i went with the rick. it just had more character and everything. maybe its a personal thing but i love rickenbackers.