Author Topic: Oh! Why Stan? (Read 1529 times)

hendixclarke · « **Reply #30 on:** February 09, 2009, 08:39:28 AM »

Yeah, I know -- people are at different points in their lives, and sometimes -- people are not ready for specific kinds of information.

I understand this because it ain't about the fire; the guitar name brand; or the money -- it's about the flickering light in one's heart.

If you could look past (or beyond) the things requiring vision, and focus more on the functions ears... and listen to music with eyes closed,

you will get only a mere taste of what:

Ray Charles, Roy Kelton Orbison, Stevie Wonderand and Jos? Feliciano understood about sound.

I wonder how an Alembic sound on fire?

We know what a Fender sounds like, thanks to Jimi

richbass939 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 09, 2009, 09:57:51 AM »

We probably don't know the full extent of Stanley's motivation. We just know how we interpret the part of it that we can see.
Here is a scenerio to show my point. Let's say you have a friend who is starting a company making something. You are considered an expert in the field and you honestly feel that your friend makes a good product. The product made by the new company competes with a branded product to which you are loyal.
You do not have an endorsement contract with any competing companies, so you do your friend a favor by providing input on the design, letting the company use your name in its promotion, and displaying it next to you.
It doesn't necessarily mean that you are no longer interested in your old favorite. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are selling out your good name to get some endorsement money. I bet most of us would do something like that to help a friend.
I admit that I was a bit surprised to see Stanley endorsing Spellbinder. I didn't immediately think that he was dumping Alembic. I just trust Stanley to do what he feels he needs to do to satisfy his own goals.
Rich

hendixclarke · « **Reply #32 on:** February 09, 2009, 11:52:54 AM »

Only a producers of inferior product(s) are fearful.

Stanley is an eclectic kind of guy, and he's un-afraid of very difficult music (on paper or improvisational works). Therefore, he would had made it anyway (with or without Alembic).

I love Alembic, but I am not blinded to think Alembic is something without a myth. All companies have a mythical slogan and has full of symbolism. Even Stanley, to some degree is sold as something beyond a normal man. It's just for kicks, and it's cool because Stanley is cool like that... (a hero)

If I seen Stanley with a Kramer, Pevy, or even a Sears catalog bass from the 1960's, it will be cool-as-hell...

Better yet, it would be cool-as-hell if he cut an CD with one of those El-chepo Sears Basses. I bet he would create a sound, none had heard, and I bet he would make that sound beautiful too.

For those who only see Stanley strapped with and Alembic, try going back in time, and listen to his playing with a Rickenbacker, Fender Jazz, and Kramer... You will not care of the tools, it would be his techniques.

Also, when it comes to money, people do some dumb things making it, the quality, eventually comes to light in the end (eventually)...

Stay cool!

rami · « **Reply #33 on:** February 09, 2009, 01:25:10 PM »

I remember Stanley playing mainly Basses by Carl Thompson as well as Alembics. He also played the Gibson EB-3 in his early years.
I'd be surprised if Gibson haven't offered him a truckload of money for his endorsement. Perhaps they can make a SC signature EB-3. They can certainly use the legitimacy of his name (as well as that of Jack Bruce) to show their seriousness for making Basses.

Rami

hendixclarke · « **Reply #34 on:** February 09, 2009, 01:54:14 PM »

There are people who are great at making tools, and people who are great using them... In my humble opinion, if Stanley was a maker of basses, it would be a sad day...

Stanley Clarke as a sole bass maker, reminds me of Michael Jordan on a baseball team, or managing a basketball team. Jordan failed with both projects...

I am not trying to be mean-spirited, I am just saying, Stanley should invest on his software (music) and leave the hardware to the great talents therein.

I am not saying you can't be a jack-of-all trades, but people spread themselves too thin, and it shows in the product...

lieber · « **Reply #35 on:** February 09, 2009, 02:39:33 PM »

Let?s answer a few questions here; Spellbinder Corp is Stanley?s company. The Spellbinder II bass was specifically designed as a utility instrument, a long overdue update of the P and J bass. It employs passive electronics, 24 fret /34 inch scale. Sound block design construction. The company?s future plans are to mass produce and have the SB II bass eventually fall into a similar price point as a Fender P or J bass. So primarily it?s positioning in the market place is for Fender lovers.

Stanley?s personal Spellbinders are 32 inch scale active electronics, with the original 1980 size Spellbinder body. The purchase price on Stanley?s Black and White Sibling Spellbinders is $14500.00ea

Yes Carl Thomson and Stanley originally hashed out the piccolo bass concept together. Our new Mando Piccolo Bass bring classic design ( requested by Stan) to this new sonic adventure for bassist.

Truth being told, Stanley?s absolute favorite bass is actually his German flat back upright, no shit!

best to you all,
Thomas

hendixclarke · « **Reply #36 on:** February 09, 2009, 04:25:56 PM »

Hi Lieber, I wish you and Stanley all the best and all the love for the sake of a better bass.

You know -- I would be lying if didn't think Stanley's goals for creating a better bass is completely IRONIC to say the least.

To say, the Spellbinder was created as a frontal attack on Fender passive P or J, without a commanding price, and yet you very cleverly mentioned the price of $14,500 for Stanley's active electronic bass.

So, in the final analysis, you and Stanley are going after high end basses, if I read you correctly; which means basses with active electronics. You're going up against Alembic?

Now this is interesting... (laughable even...)

GOOD LUCK, because you are going to need it, especially in this neighborhood.

A bold comment, like yours is much appreciated.

I wish more people were more open like yourself Lieber. It takes all the guess work out, for you and Stanley want to eventually take Alembic markets.

WOW!

hendixclarke · « **Reply #37 on:** February 09, 2009, 04:43:42 PM »

Lieber, why after all these years you choose now to join The Alembic Club...?

I ask this question because you only have 3 posts and your listed as new.

Why now?

olieoliver · « **Reply #38 on:** February 09, 2009, 05:16:00 PM »

I would like to interject something here.

I personaly think the Spellbinder is a pretty cool bass. Unique in appearance and utilizes some very good design and technology.

And I disagree with the comparison of Stanley making basses and Michael Jackson managing a baseball team. While I have no idea of Michaels knowledge of baseball I do on the other hand bow to Stanleys knowledge of BASS GUITAR. One doesn't play bass guitar for as many years at the level that Stanley does and not acquire vast knowledge about his trade tool.

I wonder how many bassist, including if not especially the ones here, even play Alembic had it not been their (our) respect for Stanleys decision to play Alembic basses.

Here is the big question, is one bass right for all? I think not. We all have our opinions and we all have our taste. We should always respect that.

And Thomas I can honestly believe that is Stanleys favorite bass to play, I've seen him play it.

OO

oujeebass · « **Reply #39 on:** February 09, 2009, 05:51:13 PM »

It could be said that without the Alembic sound Stanley would not be Stanley. That being said I am sure he gets tired of hearing that its due to the Alembic that he sounds like he does. I believe it certainly contributed to his technique and sound. He may be trying to counter those claims with his bass diversions. I sure Hendrix felt that way with Strats. Jimmy Page with Les Pauls. Its one of those things. Artists can be weird.

olieoliver · « **Reply #40 on:** February 09, 2009, 05:57:29 PM »

Didn't Page play an SG too? Hmm maybe not, I may just be seeing double.

OO

hendixclarke · « **Reply #41 on:** February 09, 2009, 06:01:23 PM »

Olieoliver,

I first recommend you read my words before interjecting...

First let me just say: Lovely bass man

Ok, I never used the analogy of Michael Jackson sir.

I used Michael Jordan as my example. Just in case you never heard, he's the greatest basketball player whoever played the game.

Stanley Clarke is the also, the greatest bass player (no arguments). He's won 1# awards across the board -- Downbeat, Playboy, Bassplayer, Musician, Guitar, name-the-magazine -- Stanley claims it.

Michael Jordan parallels this same greatness but in a different profession.

However, for Michael Jordan, to perfect a better (a more perfect) basketball for the marketplace, probably fits the analogy even better.

Just because Jordan can play the game, doesn't mean he could make (manufacture) a better basketball.

Same with Stanley --

Stanley's attribute as a great musician, is not even on the table... competing for future dollars as a bass developer/inventor/designer is another game altogether.

I already commend him, and wish him luck, but it is still IRONIC...

hendixclarke · « **Reply #42 on:** February 09, 2009, 06:08:15 PM »

Lieber, please answer my question when you have some time... Thank you.

olieoliver · « **Reply #43 on:** February 09, 2009, 06:20:52 PM »

My apologies Hal, you did write say Jordan and I meant to type Jordan, I just got distracted.

And while I see you're point about to perfect a better basketball, I also see other side of the coin. He knows what feels good in his hands.

I am not trying to argue, I just see both sides to this discussion. I'm not sure I would want Stanley to actually build my guitar I would certainly respect his input on what HIS ideal axe is.

And again I apologize for mistating what you posted and I meant my post in the utmost respect to all.

OO
And thanks Hal, I Love the bass! It may be my smallest but it has the largest sound.

ajdover · « **Reply #44 on:** February 09, 2009, 06:40:35 PM »

This whole thread makes me think of one thing - if you could only have one bass, what would it be?

I'm torn between my '73 Fender Jazz and my '06 Stanley Clarke Signature Standard. I'd have to have them both. Why?

First, I grew up playing Jazz Basses. Second, the Jazz is the most comfortable bass I've ever owned. Third, the Jazz is infinitely customizable (I have Seymour Duncan pickups, a Badass II Bridge, and Schaller tuners on it, as well as a J-Retro preamp in it). On the other hand, my SC is also comfortable, has tone for days, and plays like a dream. Without mods, I might add. It just ... it fits.

An Alembic moves me like no other bass I've ever owned - tone, playability, sound, build quality, you name it. It remains the finest bass I've ever owned or played, hands down. The fact that I know how it was produced and where it came from only makes an Alembic that much more special to me.

If Stanley wants to play something else, hey, more power to him. He's certainly earned the right.

For me, Alembic will remain my marque of choice. Unless, of course, someone sends me to an island ...

Alan