Spaz91

If you don't care where your money goes then you are part of the problem.

I have nothing against Lemmy, I like Motorhead. On the other hand, he isn't particularly virtuous or andventurous when it comes to bass so any of his choices should be taken with a pinch of salt.

__________________

Spanner93

Define problem....

Its all about supply and demand. I demand a product like a Rickenbacker, they supply said product. If you feels so bad about the company's ethics, you don't demand their product and therefore they don't supply it.... No transaction and therefore no issue.

Companies like Rickenbacker know they have something unique (whether you like it or not is completely irrelevant) and wish to protect that. How dare they protect their own product???? Companies like fender on the other hand didn't really bother protecting anything, and that is why (pretty much) every cheap chinese bass is based on a Fender. Rick charge that amount for their basses because they feel obliged to protect their idea (and thats really expensive), and also because they have an 'exclusive/unique' product that they know they can charge 2200eur for.

Hate the game (all these other brands ripping off the original) not the player (Rickenbacker).

__________________

Spaz91

John Hall (CEO) threatening legal action against people selling second hand basses that were discontinued thirty years ago.

It's about artificial demand, see above, and famous names.

They know they don't, hence it being so easily reproduced for a tenth of the price.

It isn't their idea, the guy who designed them died nearly 40 years ago.

__________________

Spanner93

Admittedly, this is a bit off, however, technically speaking he is entitled to. As the product was in breach of Rickenbacker's patent then, it is technically speaking still a bit of an issue now (in most european countries at least). Most other companies are also entitled to do this, but choose not to. Essentially Rickenbacker are just being exceedingly mercenary.



People like the product and that's artificial!?!?!?!? Nope.



Easily reproduced does not mean a good quality reproduction. Just look at the millions of Jazz bass ripoffs there are. Each one is relatively crappy compared to the original. Rickenbacker are just ensuring that their concept is made to the highest possible standard.



Leo Fender's dead too, more to the point, pretty much every designer of these classic basses is dead now. That's the whole reason they're classics (because they're old, tried and tested designs). On that basis, not guitar company would have much revenue at all because all their "good" designs would no longer be their intellectual property. Rickenbacker own the patents, not the designer, therefore in a legal sense, it is their idea, moreover they can do whatever the hell they like with it....

If you don't like the company, don't buy their products. That simple.

__________________

Spaz91

Having the right to do something doesn't make you any less scum.

Creating a cheap instrument, giving them to famous people, suing the competetors and then raising the price far beyond its worth to make it seam "boutique". That is artificial.

My Anniversary 4003 was exactly the same as my friend's Rickenbacker 4003 aside from the price, of course.

Legal and moral are not the same thing. Decent guitar companies will make revenue through innovation, good design and keeping with the times. Not constantly selling the same relic and protecting it like they designed it themselves. See: Warwick, Ibanez and genuine boutique brands.

I'm not sure why you keep referencing Fender, I'd sooner buy a Rick than a Fender.

__________________

Spanner93

Cheap instrument?? The market is determined by the price. By the sheer volition that Rickenbacker still exists as a company, they can't be too far off the mark price-wise. You might not pay 2200eur for a Rick, but there are plenty of people who would. Many of the artists who use Ricks aren't endorsed and therefore bought their instrument. These happen to be professionals and know what to look for. The product is therefore pretty damn decent, even if it isn't your personal taste.

Innovation isn't something the bass business does really. Jazz, P, Rick, Höfner Violin et al. have all been around for 40+ years. Innovation has nothing to do with it. Most companies are pedaling the same products they were 15 years ago. Even companies like Warwick and Ibanez do it, they tinker slightly with each model and then re-release it making it out to be the best thing since sliced bread.


Boutique brands are exactly that, boutique and therefore build any concoction their clientele wants. That's not innovation, it's a shrewd business model that panders to the market.

Fender just happens to be the first brand that comes to mind when I think of a stale business model, they've done nothing of any merit for the industry in the last 5-10 years. They've only got as far as some gimmick product lines (Road Worn, Pawn Shop) that are overpriced and offer nothing new.

I personally would always buy a Rick over a Fender, but only because I prefer Rickenbacker's products.

__________________

Spaz91

You're mistunderstanding everything I type. I'm not bothering any more.

__________________

FatalGear41

Rics are Rics. They sound like no other bass. They are a truly unique instrument among the electric bass masses. Many people approach them with an "either/or" mentality: Either they love the shit out of them, or they hate them. There seems to be no opinion in between. If you like the bass sounds of Motorhead, early Rush, Yes and countless similar bands (even Paul McCartney played one from Sergeant Pepper onwards), then you'll love the Ric. A fine, American-Made high quality bass with a sound all of it's own.

__________________

Ziphoblat

Rics never sounded all that unique to me. They just sound like a thin/weak jazz bass usually.

__________________

Save a Cow,
Eat a Vegan.

MaggaraMarine

What's wrong with everybody here? If somebody likes Rickenbacker, he likes it. And if you don't like it, you don't like it. It either is for you or it's not. And if somebody's willing to pay $2000 for his Rickenbacker, let him do it. If somebody thinks it's worth it, why do you argue about it?

__________________
My motto: Play what the song needs you to play!

Gear:

Charvel So Cal (MIJ)
Digitech RP355
MXR Micro Chorus
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48

Spaz91

Because they're funding an unethical company.

__________________

Spanner93

Don't like, don't buy. Just stop complaining.

__________________

Spaz91

No. Stop giving money to John Hall.

__________________

MaggaraMarine

"Unethical"? What's unethical in Rickenbacker? Why are they more unethical than other manufacturers?

I see that you don't like them but some people do and let them like them.

__________________
My motto: Play what the song needs you to play!

Gear:

Charvel So Cal (MIJ)
Digitech RP355
MXR Micro Chorus
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48

Spanner93

Look, it's not your money, nor is it your place to preach. Stop your complaining and let people enjoy Rickenbackers for what they are, a good high quality bass. To be honest, I do not give a damn as to whether you agree with their business practices, as buying a bass is always a personal choice defined by a range of factors, predominantly the instrument (and not the company's ethics).

Frankly sir, you could do with getting off your soapbox.

__________________

Spaz91

It's an industry I care about.
Yes it is.
No.
Debatable.
Evidently you do.
Range of factors =/= speficially one thing, spefically not one thing.
I'll shut up when people stop being complacent about shit which, in turn, affects me.

__________________

MaggaraMarine

Lol what a troll.

__________________
My motto: Play what the song needs you to play!

Gear:

Charvel So Cal (MIJ)
Digitech RP355
MXR Micro Chorus
Laney VC30
Tokai TB48