Author Topic: What is that? (Look inside...) (Read 560 times)

senmen · « **on:** March 05, 2005, 03:19:22 PM »

Well,
you all know that I am a die-hard John Entwistle fan. But what is this? Warwick is announcing the new Cruiser bass. A wanna-be Spyder?
They are saying: ...with the full support of the JE estate.... It has a hollow mahogany body with a quilted maple or ziricote top. But who the hell decided to put such a headstock in it?
OK, this is my personal opinion, but this is really far away from the true spirit. I am glad to own two of the original Spyders......

Oliver (Spyderman)

eastcoastepic · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:22:01 PM »

Once again, it's all about the money. Warwick makes, the estate makes, the dealer makes. This bass does not look like any Alembic or Warwick that John had played in his great career. It looks like a Guitar Center special that would appeal to the budget of the masses, but upon closer inspection, it seems that it is one of the most expensive Warwick basses that you can buy. I am a little surprised that they would go this route, given their history of quality instruments, but business is business, and any new design will generate considerable interest in the industry. Gee whiz, give me an authentic headstock if you're going to charge me all that money.............

Ollie, thanks for keeping the spirit alive....

Chris

dannobasso · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:55:37 PM »

What if they put a Fender bolt on neck on it? That headstock clashes with history. Like other companies will there be a Euro, Korea, Japan and China model? Inquiring minds want to know. Not really when I think about it. I don't want to know.
Stay strong Oliver.
Danno

Bradley Young · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2005, 10:47:33 PM »

It's just pretty much that nasty thing that marketing droids call branding.

The Warwick headstock makes it a dead giveaway that the bass is a Warwick-- authenticity is less important to Warwick than having the bass be immediately recognizable as a Warwick.

I'm not saying you have to like it, but I can understand their motivation (I don't really like the look of it).

Brad

PS- I don't speak for Warwick, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

dannobasso · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2005, 09:55:07 AM »

I took Chris's lead and checked the price of it. Over $5000.00!
I foresee a RockBass version for GC and Ash.
Danno

beelee · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2005, 10:05:52 AM »

Nothing personal against Warwick but, I feel its in poor taste, there is only one Spyder bass and its made by Alembic.......I don't like the look of it either, I wouldn't buy one out of respect to JE and Alembic.

If I wanted a copy of an Alembic, I would have kept my Ibanez Musician basses as well as the Ibanez Destroyer II I had ( looked like a Spyder with a nicer headstock shape than the Warwick), but there's nothing like the real thing......an Alembic

Hey Oliver, I'm curious who originally made the Buzzard bass......Status or Warwick ?

tho I haven't had the chance to try either one I like the Status design.

Bruce

(Message edited by beelee on March 06, 2005)

palembic · « **Reply #6 on:** March 06, 2005, 11:49:40 AM »

Bruce,

I CAN be wrong -and I am a lot of times- but I THINK it was Warwick who made the first Buzzard style bass. Though I don't know if JE ever played one.

Paul TBO

senmen · « **Reply #7 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:44:32 AM »

Bruce, Paul,
Paul is right. Warwick produced the first Buzzards after Johns design. He played them for some years and then had problems with the necks. Then he had some Warwicks fitted with graphite necks resp. thereafter a small couple of Modulus graphite necked Buzzards. And then there came the Status Buzzs.
As for the cruiser, I don?t like the design. It is only a bad copy of the originals including the JE Tribute Spyders from last year.
As for Warwick, I do own a Warwick Buzzard Limited with serial number 3 but I am willing to sell it.
Main reasons: the neck is thick like a hockey stick and there is no possibility to get the strings nearly as low as on my Spyders.....
I would rather stick onto a Dragon Wing.....
(I know guys that I once spoke about a DW Cocobolo at BC. I let this go and rather I am currently investigating with BC and Susan on a DW with Birds Eye Maple top and back.....)

Oliver (Spyderman)

hb3 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2005, 11:28:13 AM »

warwicks blow...at least they have for quite some time.

jacko · « **Reply #9 on:** March 08, 2005, 05:08:23 AM »

In this months (UK) Bass Player magax=zine, they have a tour of the Warwick factory. From an Alembic Players point of view, it's quite a scary article discussing how everything is computer controlled with photos of hundreds of bodys lined up waiting for a computer to fit parts. the funniest thing is that in the article, Warwick claim to be a custom shop. At 600 completed basses a month, even the article's writer has to take issue. I wonder if Alembic manage 600 a year.

graeme

hb3 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2005, 12:50:09 PM »

warwicks -- high action, poorly balanced, overpriced...buy one today!

jacko · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2005, 12:55:41 PM »

N0 thanks!

graeme

hb3 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2005, 01:45:20 PM »

it would be interesting to know how many alembics they were producing when they had the guitar center deal...unfortunately, we probably never will know...

stoney · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2005, 11:32:23 AM »

Well, it kind of resembles John .....in a Jack Bruce sort of way!!!!

bigbadbill · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2005, 12:55:59 PM »

Hmm. Interesting thread. I just recently saw a photo of one of these basses and thought wow, cool! But the photo didn't show the headstock, and there was no mention of the price. After seeing the bass with headstock, I cringed. I understand Warwick wanting to make the bass recognisable, but that really sucks from the point of view of aesthetics. Also the price is ridiculous if that's correct (although maybe over here in Europe they'll be cheaper, relatively speaking). I would buy an Alembic in a heartbeat before that.

However I don't agree with the Warwick bashing comments. I currently own a Dolphin Pro 1 thru-neck, and its a marvellous bass, one of the best I've ever owned. The only thing I would consider selling it for would be another thru-neck Alembic (and even then it would have to be special, for instance another Triple O). I've previously owned another, and also a Dolphin Pro 2 bolt on and a Streamer Stage 1 thru neck. They've all been fabulous basses, in fact the Pro 2 was bought in preference (dare I say it) to an Alembic Epic I tried in a side by side comparison. They are not Alembics, they are different animals; some prefer them, some don't, some like both. For me they do different jobs, and I can't duplicate the sounds of either with the other. I think the problem I have with Warwicks is that many people's experience of them is via large outlet stores where the action hasn't been touched, rendering them unplayable(I have had SO many experiences of picking one up and being completely unable to play it). If shops took more care and got them playing at least in the ballpark then people might be surprised. The action on my Dolphin is around 2/32 on the 12th fret E string, so its pretty low, and it plays great (though not as well as my Triple O). However most Warwicks in stores have the worst set ups (in terms of high action at least) that I've ever seen. Why?

??