That’s a fact. My late 70’s 4001 was basically transformed into a fretless bass after a few sets of Rotosounds.
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.
What strings did Paul McCartney use on his Rickenbacker Bass?
- Thread starter blower_bass2321
- Start date
Frankly, I despise Rotosound Monel flats. They have so much tension and so little flexibility that they feel like bridge cables to me. Even the 40's "light" set. I even broke a truss rod on one bass trying to adjust them out. That may have said more about the truss rod, but please don't ask me anything else about them.
OTOH, I have really enjoyed at times over the years gigging with Rotosound Swingbass in custom gauges: 45-60-80-105 on different basses, including recording a PBS special and playing in a blues band where people came up to me and asked what kind of flats I was using, and were shocked when I said Roto 66.
I have no experience with Roto nickel plated strings. The nylon tapes need a new nut cut for the larger diameters including the nylon tape so the strings don't bind.
Probably been said already. I think of him using Rotosound Tru Bass 88 nylon tapewounds on his Ric. At other times, Pyramid Gold flatwounds.
He couldn’t have used piano wire. Piano wire cores are made of spring steel and are extremely difficult to bend. It would snap a guitar neck like velvet.
Rickenbacker gave you a note with your bass that didn't say a thing about fret wear, just tension.
I've always wondered about that if no other reason than how you would attach a piano string to a bass without ball ends. Perhaps the author of that article was embellishing (or imbibing) for snitz n giggles.
In George Martin's book "Making Music", he interviewed Paul and they specifically talked about him using piano strings early on. They didn't say specifically how he got them to physically work, but unless they were just pranking the readers, it sounds like he really did use them.
In the new get back doc it looked like he was trying black tapewounds on it, but didn’t use the Rick much at all. Then for abbey road as many have mentioned, switched to pyramid flats. Also he said he didn’t know what any of the knobs on the bass do, which I found unbelievable.
I've been sucked into the documentary too!
They asked Paul about his Rick and he said that his Hofner was lighter. I just finished episode two and haven't seen the Rick yet. Engrossing show.
Happy holidays,
Brent
Hate to say it, but... the answer to the truss rod, and the flats/tension thing re Rickenbacker 4001/4003 basses is... you guessed it; it depends. So...
-Truss rods. Yes, the dual truss rods in a Rick - both the "Hairpin" rods in a 4001, and the more "normal" one way rods in a 4003 - probably are capable of dealing with any "Normal" flat- or round wound string that you care to use. But, the problem is not with the truss rods. It never has been. It has to do with the necks themselves, and the way 4001's/4003's are built.
- Frets. The frets on my '73 4001 are, indeed, small; narrow; and a good bit softer than modern frets. The only reason that they're still in decent shape is that - as far as I can tell - nobody ever put rounds on it. - until I did. The frets appear never to have been dressed, either (judging from the amount of lacquer that's still on them - and where). It came to me wearing a really nasty looking set of flats, which, in a bout of foolishness, I threw away after I took them off for basic cleaning and maintenance. They were replaced with a set of no-longer-made Rick Light Nickel Rounds. It wasn't until years later that I started to wonder if those old, nasty flats weren't the original factory Maximas. Which would explain other things besides fret wear - or, rather, the lack of it... As for a 4003's frets? Knock yourself out. 4003s have bigger and harder frets (my '01 4003 does, anyway); they also come from the factory with rounds - and have for decades. I'm sure Paul Boyer can tell you exactly when - and probably the serial number of the first bass to wear them, too...
- That tension thing. The reason that RIC said "don't use rounds on a 4001 because of the high tension" is - because it was true. The light gauge German Maxima Flats, did, in fact, have less tension than the (at the time) new-for-bass rounds. Which were pretty much the Rotosound 66s - at first. This may come as a shock, but; YES; some rounds do, in fact, have higher tension, gauge for gauge, than some flats. Try Fender 9050Ls and GHS Bass Boomers back to back sometime - and see for yourself. I use them both... And, until RIC made several structural changes to the last few years of 4001s? You bet your tuchus high tension strings were bad - very bad - for 4001s. Really old 4001s - like Sir Pauls '64 - have very skinny - and thin - necks. Compared to a new 4003, the neck on my '73, while pretty chunky compared to '60s 4001s, is a pencil. But, what high tension strings will do to an older 4001 (besides possibly overwhelming the truss rods in a very thin neck - like they still do on some basses), is mostly caused by the neck pickup's location - and the stupidly large rout it sits in. That ridiculous "bathtub rout" is roughly 2x the size it needs to be. To make things worse, it removed most of the wood right at the point where the neck widens and thickens to become the body. High tension strings - as in "higher than the factory Maximas" can (and do) cause the little tab of wood holding it all together, to become a hinge. Over time, the entire neck starts to pivot up right there - like a drawbridge opening. It's often referred to as "negative neck angle". How do I know? All I have to do is pick my 4001 up - and look at it. It isn't bad - yet. It can be fixed, but; very few people are willing to do it; it's very time consuming; and it's very expensive. Rickenbacker "solved" the problem in the late '70s, by moving the neck pickup to it's current location - and quit making the pickup rout big enough to have a pickup pool party in...
The negative neck angle thing hardly ever happens at all anymore. But, if you put strings with high enough tension on your 4003 - and left them on there long enough? It just might... Which is why RIC would prefer you to stay with factory strings, and why their favorite mantra for years has been "warranty denied; use of unauthorized strings". However... some years ago ago, members on the RickResource Forum got John Hall to concede - reluctantly - to easing up on that stuff - as long as the strings were "similar to the factory strings in gauge and (presumably) tension". So... send your 4003 back to RIC wearing TI Jazz Flats? Should be no problem. Send it back with Roto's Steve Harris Monel Flats? I'd bet you'd hear "Warranty denied..." Which is why you should probably keep those factory strings safe, in a cool dry place. I know I would...
Last edited:
Interesting. Some of this I knew, but not all of it. Thanks for sharing. Hope this doesn't turn into a "TLDR", but I will share some thoughts on this.Hate to say it, but... the answer to the truss rod, and the flats/tension thing re Rickenbacker 4001/4003 basses is... you guessed it; it depends. So...
-Truss rods. Yes, the dual truss rods in a Rick - both the "Hairpin" rods in a 4001, and the more "normal" one way rods in a 4003 - probably are capable of dealing with any "Normal" flat- or round wound string that you care to use. But, the problem is not with the truss rods. It never has been. It has to do with the necks themselves, and the way 4001's/4003's are built.
- Frets. The frets on my '73 4001 are, indeed, small; narrow; and a good bit softer than modern frets. The only reason that they're still in decent shape is that - as far as I can tell - nobody ever put rounds on it. - until I did. The frets appear never to have been dressed, either (judging from the amount of lacquer that's still on them - and where). It came to me wearing a really nasty looking set of flats, which, in a bout of foolishness, I threw away after I took them off for basic cleaning and maintenance. They were replaced with a set of no-longer-made Rick Light Nickel Rounds. It wasn't until years later that I started to wonder if those old, nasty flats weren't the original factory Maximas. Which would explain other things besides fret wear - or, rather, the lack of it... As for a 4003's frets? Knock yourself out. 4003s have bigger and harder frets (my '01 4003 does, anyway); they also come from the factory with rounds - and have for decades. I'm sure Paul Boyer can tell you exactly when - and probably the serial number of the first bass to wear them, too...
- That tension thing. The reason that RIC said "don't use rounds on a 4001 because of the high tension" is - because it was true. The light gauge German Maxima Flats, did, in fact, have less tension than the (at the time) new-for-bass rounds. Which were pretty much the Rotosound 66s - at first. This may come as a shock, but; YES; some rounds do, in fact, have higher tension, gauge for gauge, than some flats. Try Fender 9050Ls and GHS Bass Boomers back to back sometime - and see for yourself. I use them both... And, until RIC made several structural changes to the last few years of 4001s? You bet your tuchus high tension strings were bad - very bad - for 4001s. Really old 4001s - like Sir Pauls '64 - have very skinny - and thin - necks. Compared to a new 4003, the neck on my '73, while pretty chunky compared to '60s 4001s, is a pencil. But, what high tension strings will do to an older 4001 (besides possibly overwhelming the truss rods in a very thin neck - like they still do on some basses), is mostly caused by the neck pickup's location - and the stupidly large rout it sits in. That ridiculous "bathtub rout" is roughly 2x the size it needs to be. To make things worse, it removed most of the wood right at the point where the neck widens and thickens to become the body. High tension strings - as in "higher than the factory Maximas" can (and do) cause the little tab of wood holding it all together, to become a hinge. Over time, the entire neck starts to pivot up right there - like a drawbridge opening. It's often referred to as "negative neck angle". How do I know? All I have to do is pick my 4001 up - and look at it. It isn't bad - yet. It can be fixed, but; very few people are willing to do it; it's very time consuming; and it's very expensive. Rickenbacker "solved" the problem in the late '70s, by moving the neck pickup to it's current location - and quit making the pickup rout big enough to have a pickup pool party in...
The negative neck angle thing hardly ever happens at all anymore. But, if you put strings with high enough tension on your 4003 - and left them on there long enough? It just might... Which is why RIC would prefer you to stay with factory strings, and why their favorite mantra for years has been "warranty denied; use of unauthorized strings". However... some years ago ago, members on the RickResource Forum got John Hall to concede - reluctantly - to easing up on that stuff - as long as the strings were "similar to the factory strings in gauge and (presumably) tension". So... send your 4003 back to RIC wearing TI Jazz Flats? Should be no problem. Send it back with Roto's Steve Harris Monel Flats? I'd bet you'd hear "Warranty denied..." Which is why you should probably keep those factory strings safe, in a cool dry place. I know I would...
If one were to read my previous posts, and there are a few regarding Rics, one might think that I strongly dislike them. The opposite is true - I am not a Ric hater, but rather more of a person who actually likes their basses (love the look and vintage tone) but cannot get past the "annoyances".
I owned a 1983 4003 (purchased new), and immediately after purchase, swapped out the factory strings for Roto 66's. When I sold the bass 5 years later (which I have regretted since), it had deep grooves in the frets. At the time I already owned a 6 year old 1977 Fender Jazz copy, and a year later I purchased an Ibanez RB850. Both of which had Roto 66's. When the fret wear on the Ric was getting bad, my cheap Jazz copy and Ibanez had zero fret wear. This led me to wonder why a company (Ric) would use fret wire soft enough for such a thing to happen on a "high-end" bass, while my cheaper instruments had no issue? Answer: Poor design/choice of materials. And yes, maybe round wounds were not such a big thing when Rics were introduced, but they certainly were by 1983 - so why not use better (harder) fret wire?
I purchased a 4003s new in 2017 and within two years, I sold it. Because no matter how I tried, I could not get true vintage tone out of it. After hours (literally) of reading and searching, I discovered that Ric had changed just about everything with the pickup design over the years. Different bobbin shapes and sizes, over-winding, different magnets and pole pieces. This once again led me to ask a question: Ric became famous and built a rabidly loyal following because of their bass tone, therefore why would they change one of the fundamental reasons for its success? Which led to a follow up question: Why would they change the tone (not flawed) and leave other obvious design flaws untouched? Things such as "tail lift", difficulty intonating, and other well known issues with the bridge, for example.
You mention the original reasons for dual truss rods, and that those reasons have essentially been resolved (e.g. by moving the neck pickup further away etc.). So why still have the dual rods? Especially when those dual rods are the primary reason for the baseball bat sized neck, near the nut - extra wood required because of the crater in the neck/headstock pocket where the adjustments are made, for what is essentially two unnecessary truss rods? Some people feel that having 2 rods allows more fine tuning of the adjustments - I feel it adds unnecessary complexity when making adjustments. In fact, it would seem to me that the removal of extra wood for the two rods creates additional weakness that the rods then have to compensate for. It's like they are creating a stability issue by trying to resolve one that no longer exists.
You mention things such as the unnecessarily large pickup routs, etc. I could go on, but... I recently decided that in the next few years, I will build my own Ric, completely from blank/stock wood. There are stencils and wood/plastic patterns available. This homemade Ric will have a neck profile more like a Fender (P or J) due to one truss rod and graphite stabilizer rods. The result will be just as stable, if not more, but more ergonomic and easier to play. It will have a better bridge, and vintage pickups/electronics. It will have pickup routs that are not too small or too big. Then I will finally have a Ric (copy) with the look and tone that I love, without the things I strongly dislike.
Last edited:
That's the truth!!! Rotosound 66's pretty much chewed up the frets to nothing on my late 70's 4001 as well.
Same here, Roto 66 ate the frets on my 78' 4001 in about 3 years. At the time they claimed it was a string tension issue, which was purest BS, it was clearly the fret material they were worried about. I havent heard about any recent issues with the frets, so.they changed to harder alloy at some point. They still file the fret tops flat, even though they have dropped the fretboard laquer, not sure why. They had to on the laquered boards, the laquer prevented a full crowning, but now its just another bad feature that people "expect" to see that blurs the intonation a little. All in all though, I think the newer Rics are the best they have ever made, and certainly the most consistent. The new V2 bridge is a marginal improvement, and they appear to have largely solved their decade-long peeling finish issues. They are using a single modern DA rod on the Al Cisneros models and some other limited runs, I suspect as a trial baloon to see how it flies with the rabidly loyal customer base. Its pretty hard to argue that there is any real advantage to two SA rods over one DA on a 4 string bass, at this point I think its just a leftover marketing tool that got "baked in" to customer expectation. I used DA rods on my two Ric clone builds, much easier and smoother to adjust, and far less wood hogged out under the TRC.
Do you recommend an optimas flats one for my Rickenbacker 4001c64 ?. I'm trying to find the Macca Rick sound. I currently have TI flats but they are too bright in sound and as much as I try to get a duller sound I can't. I’ve used the mute foam but the high notes are dead with TI flats…
I have the Optima RB 4440 flats on my 4003S and like the way they sound and feel a lot. I'm not specifically after the Macca sound but that's largely what you get with these strings, I think. I have TI flats on three other basses and love them, but prefer the slightly higher tension of the Optimas on the Ric for how and where I play (finger style, in front of the bridge cover), and there's just something about the tone of these strings that just sounds "right" to me with the Ric. I'd imagine they would sound great played with a pick, and they're the smoothest, most polished string I've ever used.
Yes! The TI’s are, to my ears and fingers, unbalanced, loose, and mids-forward.
The Optima RB set is basically designed for use on a Rickenbaker bass, and sound and feel perfect.
(I confess to preferring a somewhat thuddy E string). And also, yes, they sound really great when played with a pick. To me, the Rick mute is not a good tool, I much prefer the better control palm muting provides.
(Which unfortunately, the mute assembly’s “teeth” tends to interfere with.)
I think George Martin is mistaken. As I said above, piano core wires are extremely strong and would demolish a guitar neck.
I wonder if he’s thinking of the Rotosound bass set that have the “piano string design” although they came along later.
Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the book, and it's out of print, but I remember the interview exchange going something like:
--
Paul: I didn't have money for bass strings back then, so would grab strings out of a piano. I'd get some wire cutters and ask, "Is this an A? Yes? Okay, snip it!"
George: Now piano strings are very hard and stiff. Those must have been difficult to use as bass strings!
Paul: It was murder on the fingers!
--
Something like that. Now maybe they were joking, but they were definitely talking -- in truth or in jest -- about actual piano strings.
That they have a big core tells us little, apart from them being inflexible: depending on the diameters used, the tensions proper may have been perfectly within the capabilities of the neck.
