Author Topic: What is that? (Look inside...)  (Read 559 times)

ajdover

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1046
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2005, 02:44:31 AM »
As a Spyder owner, I have to agree with the opinion of most here (and especially Ollie) - I too don't like the Warwick Cruiser.  Nor do I like the Gibson Explorer-type basses Gibson made in the 80's.  For me, John Entwistle played Alembic basses, and anything that attempts to copy them is just that - a copy.
 
Does this make the Warwick a bad bass?  Not necessarily.  I wouldn't buy it, but someone else might.  It's all personal taste, anyway.  Speaking for myself, I wouldn't buy a Warwick if I could get one for a dollar.  I've never played one I thought was worth a damn - horrible set ups, lousy tone, and the necks are like tree trunks to me.  I do know that there are those that play them happily.  To each his/her own as they say.  
 
I think the biggest knock on the Warwick will be its price.  5K?  For that?  I don't think so.  My Spyder, Europa, and Dragon's Wing each cost close to that, and they are, IMHO, vastly superior to anything that Warwick makes or could make.  I wouldn't waste my money on one - I'd go buy the real thing if I were going to spend that kind of cash.  
 
Bill notes that he's played Warwicks in large outlet stores that were horribly set up, and I too have experienced the same thing.  This is why I avoid places like Guitar Center and Sam Ash - they're there to make money, and little else.  Want that new Strat set up?  Sure, no problem.  Give it to some young kid who may or may not know anything about set ups.  See him wield the allen wrench.  See him adjust the truss rod, without knowing what it actually does.  See him hand it back to you, playing worse than it was when you handed it to him.
 
If Warwick were truly concerned about the playability of their instruments in stores, they'd do business only with those purveyors who represented them properly.  As it is, they leave their reputation in the hands of sales personnel who may or may not know how to set an instrument up, how to adjust it, etc.  It's no wonder, then, that so many who have commented in this thread had and continue to have negative experiences with Warwick basses, wherever they are sold.
 
Me?  I'm sticking with Alembic.
 
My two cents,
 
Alan
 

88persuader

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 433
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #16 on: March 10, 2005, 02:56:45 AM »
Well I have to agree with Bigbadbill's comments about Warwick bashing. You need to put things into prospective including PRICE. I would NEVER put a Warwick up against an Alembic in regard to sound or build quality ... but then again you can get MOST Warwicks in most stores for around a grand. You can't touch the lowest priced brand new Alembic for that price unless you're very lucky. Before becoming an Alembic nut i played Warwicks and loved them. I had a Corvette 5 string pro and a Corvette 4 string fretless Standard and thought (and still think) for the money they're hard to beat. When you think Warwick you really should compair them to other same priced basses ... Fender, Ibanez, guitar center type basses. If you do that I think most people would agree they are a far cry better than most of the models offered by other mid to low priced guitar companies. In regards to a $5000 Warwick i have to agree it seems real pricy! I'd have to play one for a while before having an honest opinion of it's worth. But then again a few years ago I thought anyone would be crazy to buy a $5000 Alembic ... that was until I played one! I have no idea if the $5000 Warwick is worth the price but I definitely feel the $1000 to $2000 Warwicks are. PLUS .... Alembics are simply the best basses you can get ... but you PAY for what you get. There's no need to bash lower end basses. Not everyone can afford Alembics plus we've all used lower end basses and loved them on our road up the ladder. And I made just as much good music and MONEY playing my Warwicks and other lower end basses as i do with my Alembics. I just SMILE a lot more playing when I play my Alembics! And most people partying in clubs don't know an Alembic from a Dean ... and don't care. But occasionally you'll see a fellow bass player in the crowd with his jaw on the ground drooling ... HE (or she) knows!

palembic

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2186
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #17 on: March 10, 2005, 03:11:32 AM »
Most of the Warwicks I tried sounded ok though I could'nt handle the neck dimensions. Even for a 4 string bass. I KNOW it is a habit but I had base-ballbat reflections.
 
PTBO

bigbadbill

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 556
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #18 on: March 10, 2005, 09:31:59 AM »
I have to agree that the current Warwicks all seem to have large necks; why I don't know. But this wasn't always the case. My Dolphin has one of the largest of the old style necks, but it's still not as big as the current ones (it's a 96). My Streamer (a 92 I think) had quite a slim neck, and my Dolphin bolt-on had possibly the thinnest neck of any bass I've ever owned,much thinner than either of my Alembics, although with more of a Jazz bass style taper. And they're easy enough to set up; also some things about them are obviously Alembic influenced (adjustable nut -formerly brass like on mine - and sustain block). With regards to pricing, my Dolphin cost ?750UK used; a new one (though no longer quite the same spec as mine) would cost about the same as a new Epic in the UK. Bear in mind this is a thru-neck, exotic wood, heavily contoured instrument. I do realis e
 
One thing bothers me though. Although I wholeheartedly condone being passionate about your favourite marque (or favourite anything for that matter), I've always found it strange that people feel the need to criticise other makes almost as a matter of principal (although I'm not saying that's what is happening here). I've never understood the if it isn't (insert make as appropriate) it isn't worth a damn mentality. I love Alembics more than any other bass (although I'm also passionate about Rickenbacker), and my Triple O is the best bass I've ever owned or played, but I really like Mike Pedullas basses too, and Martin Petersen's Sei basses, and Jaydee, and many others. Crucially, I would be VERY reluctant to label something I personally don't like or get on with as not worthwhile (we all know where that can lead). I recently had to defend Alembic basses at some length on another Forum; someone had posted saying that they were inferior instruments (and yes they had played them)which is patently absurd. You'll be pleased to know I put them straight! However if they had just said they were not to their taste, then that's fine, I have no problem with that.
 
In Warwick's case, bear in mind the Ox (one of my all time favourite players) went FROM Alembic TO Warwick, so to imply they are not quality instruments seems rather strange (although it's the reverse of the route I would've taken!); it would certainly appear that John felt they were a quality instrument, as have players like Jack Bruce and Stuart Zender.  Speaking for myself, I have personally never got on with Fender Jazz basses; I have never found one that I liked, could play, or could get a decent sound out of. But to dismiss them as invalid would be preposterous, given that they have been the favourite bass of such legends as Marcus Miller and Jaco, players I couldn't even begin to compare myself to. Personally I think the jump from I don't like it to it is therefore bad or it therefore has no value is a very large and dangerous one. As Alan says, each to their own.  
 
(BTW, soapbox aside, I really do wish they'd set them up properly though!)          

bigbadbill

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 556
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #19 on: March 10, 2005, 09:36:45 AM »
Er, ignore the I do realise bit, that was even more waffle that I thought I'd got rid of ...oh, and I still really don't like that headstock!!!!!

hb3

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 759
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2005, 12:14:07 PM »
I understand earlier -- non-mass-produced -- warwicks are an entirely different animal. I should've clarified that, but I stick by my evaluation, based on the high-end thumb basses currently offered, which aren't cheap: $2700 or so as I recall. You can get a much better instrument for a lot less money, IMO.  
 
Me personally, I LIKE the headstock...I've tried to talk myself into buying a thumb bass on numerous occasions, because I happen to like the way I look. But then I strap the thing on and think, God, you're kidding...
 
The comments about set-ups in GC are right on. I don't think I've ever played a properly set up bass off the rack in GC -- just the opposite. The only time I go into those places is because the guy who smog checks my van is across the street! Denny's, Guitar Center...it's all of a piece.

bigbadbill

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 556
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2005, 01:14:35 PM »
I find that in almost every high street guitar shop in the UK these to be honest. Most of my basses I buy used anyway; obviously with my Alembic I kind of figured it would have a pretty good set-up coming straight from the factory . If I was buying anything else new I would tend to go to a specialist shop such as the Bass Gallery, where Martin will set up to taste (and I very much trust his work).  
 
Got to say based on experience the Thumb is probably my least favourite high-end Warwick anyway, although I have played a couple of very good older ones, including a wonderful 6 string that was unfortunately monumentally heavy. And the newer ovangkol necks aren't to my taste either; I feel the wenge spoke much better, was crisper and more articulate. I should also clarify that I'm happy with the headstock on other Warwicks, just not the one above.
 
Oh,one other thing,it's probably true to say you can get an Alembic thru-neck for a lot less in the US than in the UK, and Warwick may (?) be more expensive in the US than here, so the pricing would therefore be much closer for you guys. But still, my Dolphin is a useful tool with a unique tone, and I like it a great deal (the only thing I'd change is the weight; I wish it was lighter). However if anyone has a Triple O they want to swap...

ajdover

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1046
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2005, 05:52:30 PM »
 
 
(Message edited by ajdover on March 11, 2005)

ajdover

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1046
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2005, 05:54:58 PM »
I don't think folks are Warwick bashing as Shaun notes as much as displaying the passion that most of us here feel for our Alembics.  I own 15 basses of different makes, ranging from a $400 Japanese made Fender Jazz, to my Alembics.  I have three Gibsons (well, two for now - a '77 RD77 Artist is enroute to my house), three Fenders, three Alembics, a Pedulla, a Peavey, a Rickenbacker, a Musicman, an Ovation, and a Godin.  All appeal to me in one fashion or another.  However, I think I can honestly say based on experience that Alembics are the finest instruments I've ever owned or played, bar none.  Each of my basses have their strong and weak points, but I find that the Alembics have far fewer weak points than the others I own.  
 
All of us, I think, like different instruments for different reasons, and this applies to me as well.  However, if I were on a desert island and I could have only one instrument, my choice would unhesitatingly be an Alembic.
 
Expensive doesn't necessarily mean good, nor does inexpensive mean bad.  But I think that generally, one gets what one pays for.  A used Epic or Essence that goes for $1500, say, is, IMHO infinitely superior quality-wise compared to a Fender, Warwick, etc. of the same price.  Tone, playability, comfort, affordability etc. are also factors in one's choice of instrument, but I think the Alembic wins hands down every time quality-wise.
 
If one is fortunate enough to be able to afford an Alembic, Pedulla, Fodera, etc., that's great.  If not, there are other basses while not as finely crafted will fit the bill nicely.  Again, it is all personal preference and financial werewithal.
 
Alan

the_mule

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 784
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #24 on: March 12, 2005, 01:22:51 AM »
There are more opinions about bass guitars than people who play them. It makes this world just a bit more exciting.
 
I happen to like Warwicks, but I don't think I will ever buy one. But many people love Warwicks and have several fine specimens in their collection. IMHO Warwick shouldn't be compared to Alembic in the way that has happened in this thread. Playing in a different league doesn't automatically make you a bad player.
 
We all love our Alembics, but many of us will recognise the frustration of someone bashing Alembics for being too expensive, to sterile sounding, too heavy, too fancy looking, too much knobs etc. etc. on the internet or in real life. We have all thought: They don't know what they're talking about, if only they knew what they are missing. On the other hand few people here would appreciate it if Alembics would pop up on every streetcorner, every shop and every stage around the world! Alembics coming from Indonesia, China, Japan, Mexico and several series from the USA to fit every player and budget you could think of? No thanks!
 
Alembic is a permanent member of the Champions League, but luckily they're not the only player and luckily it's not the only league. And we shouldn't forget that without any competition the constant stream of progression, creativity and top quality instruments coming from Santa Rosa would inevitably dry out.
 
Therefore we must be careful about expressing a strong opinion about other people's (or maker's) instruments. Don't get me wrong, this is the Alembic Club. We are allowed to be a bit  prejudiced & very enthousiastic about our instruments, but we shouldn't consider ourselves members of an elite group of people simply because we love Alembics and are lucky enough to be able to affort them.
 
And believe it or not, there are other, equally great luthiers out there. My Benavente has made that perfectly clear to me. But I'm not yet tempted to state that my Alembic Orion is better than the Benavente or vise versa. Why try to make a comparison that really can't be made at all? I'm very lucky to own two great instruments that couldn't be more different from eachother!
 
Just my $0.02...
 
Regards,
Wilfred
Wilfred

1997 Orion 4 walnut

bigbadbill

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 556
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #25 on: March 12, 2005, 09:08:54 AM »
Wilfred, well said. That, I think, was really the point I was trying to make. Vive le difference! (Just wish I had a few more different Alembics....)

hb3

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 759
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #26 on: March 12, 2005, 05:50:12 PM »
oh, you guys are way, way too reasonable....

bigbadbill

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 556
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2005, 10:18:25 AM »
LOL!!!!Try telling that to my missus!!!

adriaan

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4318
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2005, 06:07:23 AM »
More detailed pictures from Bass Northwest - this is definitely the closest that Warwick have come to plagiarizing Alembic: http://www.bassnw.com/New%20Exotic%20%20Basses/warwick_cruiser_4_st_ziricote.htm

jacko

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4068
What is that? (Look inside...)
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2005, 06:34:58 AM »
even down to the walnut? pinstripes in the neck. and oval MoP fingerboard inlays.
 
graeme