Author Topic: Oh! Why Stan? (Read 1489 times)

lbpesq · « **Reply #15 on:** February 08, 2009, 09:53:19 AM »

Mr. Lieber, welcome to the club. I looked at your website and have a couple of questions:

1. The opening page shows your American Beauty Classic guitar, along with the text This is the original ornamental guitar design built from drawings and templates circa 1974. The guitar pictured has what appears to be the identical shape of Jerry Garcia's Tiger and Rosebud guitars credited to builder Doug Irwin. Your guitar even has an eagle flying over the earth logo, just like the Irwin guitars. Did Irwin steal the design and logo from you? Are the similarities in design and logo just a coincidence? Were you Irwin's partner? Is the Eagle over the earth really your logo and not Irwin's? I really don't get it.

2. Under the Butternut Guitar section, the text states: we have been involved in designing and producing guitars for some of the music industry's giants, Paul McCartney, Jerry Garcia, Stanley Clarke, Phil Lesh, John Wetten, Chris Stein, Tom Chapin etc... I am a big time Deadhead and have always had an interest in the Dead's gear. Which of Jerry's and Phil's instruments did you help design and produce?

Bill, the guitar one

lbpesq · « **Reply #16 on:** February 08, 2009, 09:59:00 AM »

Mr. Lieber:

I just looked more closely at your site and realized I hadn't noticed the following text at the bottom:

Ornamental body shape and deluxe logo designed by luthier Thomas Lieber for D.Irwin and Co.

So I guess you actually designed Tiger & Rosebud and Irwin's logo. That answers my question #1 above. Did you design Wolf too? And I'm still curious as to which Lesh instrument(s) you designed.

Bill, tgo

zezozeceglutz · « **Reply #17 on:** February 08, 2009, 10:49:52 AM »

Mr. Lieber posted some interesting history and pictures (including Phil's osage orange bass in for detailing, his Garcia-shaped Irwin, and some other guitars including a maple-topped Garcia) over at rukind:

http://www.rukind.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=309&t=4563&hilit=+lieber

David Houck · « **Reply #18 on:** February 08, 2009, 12:56:02 PM »

Hi Thomas; welcome to the board!

Ken; thanks for the link!

pierreyves · « **Reply #19 on:** February 08, 2009, 01:23:48 PM »

sorry, but what you do as battle, where is the truth ??
As european people from Switzerland, I don't understand...
who build original:
who did what?

rami · « **Reply #20 on:** February 08, 2009, 03:16:48 PM »

What is an instrument anyway? It's a tool. It could be the most beautiful $20,000 work of art, or it could be something that you paid $90 for. But remember that in the right hands, such an instrument revolutionized the very Bass itself and how it's played. From what I've read, most people who tried Jaco's Bass were NOT impressed. Victor Bailey stated that the neck was dead, the action was high and the strings were old. But when Jaco played it, it sang like nobody's business!. Plus it looked like something you might find in a dumpster. I think that the main reason the old Jazz Basses are so revered is because of their association with Jaco. I personally don't find anything special in them (lucky to find one with a straight neck and that doesn't buzz and hum). Stanley's a big enough artist that he can sell his name on any product (which is entirely within his right) regardless of what anyone thinks. I don't really care what he plays. He's an artist and a businessman. He can do (and play) what he wishes. It doesn't change who he is.

And beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. Be it an old beat up Jazz Bass, an Alembic Series II or a Spellbinder, we all have a right to our opinions.

Rami

hendixclarke · « **Reply #21 on:** February 08, 2009, 04:36:25 PM »

Nobody expected the original designer to check in.

Yeah, see...

Thomas Lieber built the (original) Spellbinder with Stanley completely in mind... (not us).

Like I said, if Stanley approves, who's going to stand in his way and say the bass sucks....

Thomas, you are cool with me... Thanks for your kind words, which is wisdom to those with ears to listen with respect, and the freedoms, choices provides.

olieoliver · « **Reply #22 on:** February 08, 2009, 04:48:31 PM »

Hello Thomas and welcome.

I understand exactly how Stanley feels. After getting used to something for YEARS of playing it becomes and extension of yourself. I wonder how many of us here have instruments that we like but just seem to not get played for that very reason.

And I for one don't think the bass is ugly at all, different and unique, but definately NOT ugly. It kind of has a nostalgic 70's look to it.

I second Hal, your cool with me!

OO

lieber · « **Reply #23 on:** February 08, 2009, 05:02:55 PM »

I was Doug?s first luthier apprentice.1974 thru the end of 77
The (tiger) Doug and I referred to that design as The Garcia We specifically called it that because our intent was to create our generations Les Paul
That body design was one of a series that I designed for D.Irwin guitars late 74. The deluxe logo I designed for Pete Sears Bass 76.
On the Garcia, Doug speced out all of the inlay's designs and wood choice combinations. Doug did all the re-sawing and dimensioning of the wood components, I later bled the oils out of the Coco Bolo and the Vermilion and then laminated the body wing halves. Yes this design was originally neck through. I had rough carved the neck blank and then the project sat for awhile. It wasn't until the Sears project that we realized Jerry's guitar needed to be a set neck design, not to interrupt the esthetic beauty of the arched Coco Bolo top. A center block was created for the body comprised of the same wood sandwich, when assembled with the body wings an evident seam resulted, hence the 1/16 inch brass that runs parallel to the strings. The instrument was completed years after I had left D.Irwin and Co. Following my departure from Irwin, I spent a year working with Steve Klein, creating the Spider Grinder Bass prototype with an asymmetrical Kasha bracing system.

peace,
Thomas

hendixclarke · « **Reply #24 on:** February 08, 2009, 05:10:27 PM »

My ugly remarks followed my Platypus remarks - is it a duck or a beaver... who cares, it can still swim.

Meaning: What people think about Platypus being ugly... WHO CARES, IT STILL SWIMS. And a Spellbinder is still a bass.

In other words, You can't please everybody, and if you did, it would be only with 2 exact things:

1. Drinking Water, and
2. Breathing Air

...the rest is a complete guess.

Peace.

rami · « **Reply #25 on:** February 08, 2009, 08:48:38 PM »

It's also important to remember that many artists who endorse products do it for financial compensation and are contractually required to display and play it onstage. Who knows if they even believe in the product or not. Who wouldn't want the endorsement of someone of Stanley's stature? Jaco also endorsed many products but always remained loyal to what he liked most. I don't think he officially endorsed Fender, but they certainly owe him alot of credit. I don't know about the Alembic/Stanley Clarke relationship either, but I know that it's what he's most associated with. I find the Spellbinder styling not to my taste, but that's just my opinion. I think a musical genius like Stanley Clarke could make magic with a broomstick and an old bucket. Art is subjective, if everybody felt the same about it what would be the point?

Rami

(Message edited by rami on February 10, 2009)

hendixclarke · « **Reply #26 on:** February 09, 2009, 07:25:17 AM »

Rami, I completely agree with you... Music is big business, and Stanley surely must be aware of his audience and those who are influenced by his personal and business choices.

Stanley is only another human being who tapped in to learning his God given gifts. He was not born with a bass in his hands, the tools he uses, are available for everyone (who has the money). However, having the tools with no technique, is a waste of money unless owning the tool is of a greater value.

This is why I said in my last post, Stanley is at the point of his skills and technique of a legendary proportions. Stanley Clarke is now above all brands, including Alembic.

If Stanley only played with his own concoctions of a bass -- guess what? -- He's still Stanley Clarke and sounds good.

Many of you guys thought I was crazy, when I said Stanley could smash his Alembic on stage, and get away with it because he's above the tool.

Stanley is a Legend of our time (right now), a Bass GURU. Frankly, don't need a brand name regardless of the great electronics. Stanley could go pure acoustics (no electronics at all) and he already proved this...

I would love to see Stanley do what Jimi Hendrix, and Jocco did -- Play a ugly stick, and burn it.

hendixclarke · « **Reply #27 on:** February 09, 2009, 07:29:40 AM »

I am serious man.

hendixclarke · « **Reply #28 on:** February 09, 2009, 07:46:46 AM »

I am serious man. The thesis of this post, is a shame. It's not cool to rag on other guitars man.

adriaan · « **Reply #29 on:** February 09, 2009, 07:55:55 AM »

Hal - please let's not get all fired up again. Pun? Intended!