4000

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='1081781' date='Jan 8 2011, 07:42 AM']I'll have to disagree. I've owned both and they share very little in common apart from a basic similarity in the body shape.[/quote] +1. Also, to me a J and a MM sound very different, especially when I'm playing them.

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1082300' date='Jan 8 2011, 04:57 PM']Yes, I recall an interview with Stanley where mentioned the Rickenbacker and how it was swiftly retired after he got into Alembic basses. Mind you, thats only natural.[/quote] I guess that depends on who you are. My main Rick has outlasted - and will continue to outlast - every other bass I've ever owned, including my 2 Alembics (which I also loved BTW). Best bass I've ever owned? My old Rick (not the 4000 BTW, that was 3rd). 2nd best bass I've ever owned? My custom-built Alembic Triple Omega, sadly no longer with me. FWIW Ricks and Alembics are my favourite basses.

Influential: Phil Lynott Lemmy Geddy Lee Stanley Clarke Leigh Gorman Inspirational: Chris Squire Stanley Clarke Leigh Gorman Lemmy John Entwistle

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1080351' date='Jan 6 2011, 08:02 PM']Well, it's been a few years since I've seen that video! The Rick was perhaps unsurprisingly retired in favour of his Alembic basses![/quote] Having had both (my 4000 was a '73), I found the 4000 was every bit a match sonically for my Alembics, although obviously not as well built. In fact my 4000 was incredibly versatile; it was also the most aggressive-sounding bass I've ever played in my life. Oh, and no, it didn't sound the same as just the back pickup on a 4001; no idea why. Set neck, wiring? Strung with light gauge strings through the right amp you could do a Stanley-esque thing no probs. It was actually a great slap bass too.

[quote name='Marvin' post='1073135' date='Dec 30 2010, 08:45 PM']This and this. Both good points A casual reader may be appalled at some of the snobbery and latent jealously of some of the posts on this subject. With regard to the subject of U2 I've never understood the moaning about Clayton's playing. Most of the whinging seems to emanate from people who don't even like U2. It's not bass driven music so it doesn't require 'look at me' lines. Anything more 'colourful' wouldn't fit in, there's no space for it - the focus of U2 are Bono's lyrics/voice and Edge's guitar playing. Arguing that one could play a better line is a mute point, and somewhat irrelevant as only the 0.0000x% of nerdy bass players in the general populous would be listening to it anyway. If the bass fits the song the player is doing their job.[/quote] +1 to all of it, and the points it was +1-ing...

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='1071820' date='Dec 29 2010, 03:17 PM']You subscribe to the same school as thought as me. My necks are pretty much flat radiused and dead straight. The fret job has to be absolutely spot on. One slightly high fret and the whole setup is ruined. Bit of rattle - but nothing you can hear in the mix. Solo playing and my touch is light enough to escape the rattle. Playing a lot of chordal stuff up the neck, the neck has to be flat otherwise the instrument just won't stay in tune properly. Think about it - the frets are spaced on the fretboard perfectly. The second you but relief in the neck, the fret spacing changes. Maybe it's not enough to realise when playing single notes but it certainly is when you are playing multiple notes. The stuff you try in shops rarely have had a fret job- the frets are hammered in and that's it... bass ready to go. You have to be really lucky to find a bass that plays low without doing a fret job first.[/quote] +1 again, although I like my radius (on a 4) around 12" or so.

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='1071744' date='Dec 29 2010, 02:02 PM']Mine is a between a 1mm and 2mm... and I play with a really light touch. Most people can't get notes out of my basses. I could take my basses a smidge lower but a little excitement at gigs would mean excessive fret clank.[/quote] +1. I know when I took my Seis to Moffat one or two people expressed difficulty in playing them as they found the action too low . I can't play with anything higher. My old Rick is currently set up 2mm 12th fret E and 1mm 12th fret G and that really is about as high as I go; I consider that medium high action! It really is all to do with how you pluck the string, how you fret the string (often forgotten; I fret really lightly), your strings themselves and the way the instrument responds. As an example, Chris2112, I believe you have Peter's old ACG? I've played that bass a couple of times and if the action is how Peter had it then it's way too high for me, but then I've only met one person who likes their action lower than I do (although Martin Petersen assures me there is somebody else...).

Jon, hence the wink, which was aimed at you.......I know you're on there quite a bit. So am I!

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1072095' date='Dec 29 2010, 08:14 PM']When you see a guy playing a P bass, you never think "This bloke has the cool".[/quote] Er, J J Burnel, Pino and James Jamerson????

Depends who you talk to. Seriously, like any other bass, you need to try some yourself. Not just one, because it may not be representative. They vary a lot over the years; different weights, different necks, pickup type and placement, pot values etc etc. I've owned roughly 10 (?) and have played probably over a hundred. I've played some I've loved, many I've been indifferent to and some I really haven't liked at all. Of course I'm sure you could say that about any type of bass.

No offence intended BTW! Ricks are an absolute minefield when it comes to the details and people with only a passing interest consistently get things wrong. There have been so many variations over the years but even within the "obvious" features people consistently make errors, like saying (and I've actually seen this) that 4001 basses have single truss rods and 4003 basses have twin rods; this is also completely wrong as they both have twin rods. I know a lot about Rick 4000 series basses, but there are some on Rick Resource who know 100 times what I do; it's always worth partaking of that knowledge if you have a serious interest in the subject, particularly if you're looking at buying a Rick. I've learnt so much from there. They are, however, not keen to talk about fakes.

[quote name='mart' post='1048421' date='Dec 5 2010, 05:06 PM']According to "The Complete History of Rickenbacker Guitars" by Richard R. Smith, the difference between deluxe and standard (S) models is: As for set-neck instruments, the book does describe many Rickenbacker guitars as having glued-in necks, but for basses it says: I don't think anybody would claim a set-neck to be "removable", so this supports the claim that Rickenbacker have never made a set-neck bass - just neck-through or bolt-on.[/quote] Sorry but you're wrong there. As a member of Rick Resource, I can tell you that from around '72 onwards the "s" basses were set necks, as were the single-pickup 4000 models. I know, I've had some and I know many other people who have too! And not all 4000 models were routed for a neck pickup either; mine (a '73) certainly wasn't. Prior to that they were thru-necks. The non-s models (ie the deluxe 4001/4003 with the binding etc) were all thru-necks. V63, C-Series, CS were all thru-necks. The s-models came mono as standard (Chris Squire's was modified), deluxe as stereo, but there were special orders and one-offs and others may have been modded. Despite the so-called "intolerance" of Rick Resource (actually no less tolerant than any other exclusive Forum in my experience) if you want to learn about Ricks you need to go there as there is a lot to learn that will take you years to learn anywhere else. It will also help you avoid all the misinformation you'll get from non-specialist Forums, an example being the "no set-necks" comment above which anyone with any sort of serious interest in Ricks will know is completely incorrect.

[quote name='Soliloquy' post='1071351' date='Dec 28 2010, 10:47 PM']I have to say, it's not light by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe that's where it gets its big sound from.[/quote] Both the Supernaturals I owned were probably over 12lbs. The first one I didn't rate but the second was great, one of the nicest basses I've had. Unfortunately my back problems had set in by then; it proved to be too heavy and it went back to the shop after a week.

[quote name='Soliloquy' post='1064906' date='Dec 20 2010, 06:50 PM']Jaydee ! I recently got my 24 year old Series 3 back from John. It's been totally refinished, and sounds and plays as good as anything else I've played, including Wal, Alembic and Status. I'm going to be ordering a new one, I want a 5 string GA24. This is it a month or so ago, and the finished article.[/quote] BTW, that's gorgeous. Aways wanted a Starchild JD; never got one. Now my back sadly couldn't cope unless it was made of balsa!

As ever, the only thing to do is play as many of each as you can and see what you prefer. Each have their fans and detractors (as does every other bass out there) but it's down to what fits your body and suits your ears. My various Statii have been amongst the most uncomfortable instruments I've ever played but that's because they don't suit me ergonomically; they obviously suit others fine. I have the same problem with Jazz Basses which are generally considered to be extremely comfortable. Until you play these things you'll never know whether they suit you. Someone might tell you size 9 shoes are best but if you've got size 11 feet that's not much use is it?

[quote name='4 Strings' post='1066017' date='Dec 21 2010, 06:46 PM']There's a lovely '70s Fender P for sale within these pages and, despite it being an absolute beauty, much seems to be being made of it being slightly heavier than average. There may be lighter weight Precisions, but surely this isn't a heavy item. Do people find Ps so heavy that they need to find one based on a slight variation in its weight? My old Jaydee is solid mahogany, that's heavier than a P but never a problem unless i'm on the 3rd day of a mega-rehearsal. This seems to be a rather recent phenomena that for almost any bass for sale, especially old Precisions, the first question regards its weight. Why is this? Surely none of them are THAT heavy? I have two '70s Fenders, apparently typically heavy, if you did an A-B test one is lighter than the other, just mean its a little more neck heavy but nothing to stop the enjoyment of using it. Am I the only one who finds this a rather unnecessary obsession or have people genuinely been harmed by one Precision but not another?[/quote] I'm 47 years old. I've got two prolapsed discs, one cervical, one lumbar, with referred pain into arms, legs, groin etc etc. I also have a possible subluxation left shoulder, problems with my clavicle (particularly left side) and supraspinatus tendonitis in both shoulders. If I wear a heavy bass it's very painful and causes me all sorts of problems the like of which I'm not going into here. Wasn't always the case, I used to bench 100kg for a good 8 reps and used a Jaydee that weighed 13lb or so, among other basses. But trust me, if/when it starts to matter, it REALLY starts to matter. These days even an 8.5lb bass is giving me trouble. If it never, ever starts to bother you, you're very lucky. If you're unlucky, one day it might be [i]very[/i] important to you what a bass weighs.

Cracking stuff!

Looks like the fun starts Sunday for me too.....

[quote name='silddx' post='1018806' date='Nov 10 2010, 02:08 PM']I can see that! Good call mate. Amazing looking bass isn't it. Totally not the sort of bass I would ever want, but I sort of wish I did if you know what I mean.[/quote] Glad it's not just me. Those wine gums can do funny things to you you know. Well hopefully mine's next, whenever Robbie's ready. Let me know, Mr. M!

Am I alone in thinking that in the first pic the figuring on the top bout of the bass looks like a dark haired girl sitting on a rock with the already discussed sea/sunset behind her? Regardless, that figuring is amazing.

Awesome; let us know how you get on with it.