So Alembic didn't create the "Tears for John" Dragon Wing bass....

[bsee]

From what I have read, Gibson made the first Explorer back in the 50's and then shelved it.  In the 70's the shape saw some use from other builders and Gibson then brought it back in their line.  
 
Alembic shares responsibility for putting the shape in JE's hands.  Clearly, the Alembic version is very tightly associated with him.  He took that experience with him when he went to work with Warwick.  
 
In some respects, the Buzzard and DW are both stylized versions of an instrument body that functions similar to the Explorer.  I believe that all three shapes have similarities in playing position and balance.
 
Hey Bill, how would things be different for you if the intro was This is my husband, Bill. He's a heck of a guitar player.  You guys should jam sometime.

[lidon2001]

Rick Derringer with his 1950's prototype  Explorer V-head
 

 
(Message edited by lidon2001 on January 10, 2007)

[trekster]

Keith -- one other!  If I recall, and granted this may have been a product placement, John was playing a Steinberger in one of the videos from the Face Dances era... geez, what song was that...?!?  Brain fart!  What I do remember is that it was one of the very early Steinbergers, because the EMG pickups didn't have the little EMG in white in the corner of the pickup, but huge EMG letters that were molded onto the pickup surface.

[dfung60]

I never saw a video with Entwistle playing the Steinberger, but the picture with his obituary in Rolling Stone showed him playing one on a Who tour jet from the 80's.
 
Modern legal claims aside, it's hard to believe that Entwistle didn't solely own the Buzzard design at the outset.  The body shaping is very Warwick of that period (virtually no flat areas anywhere on the bass).  It's extensively documented that Entwistle played with a super-low action, and had problems maintaining that setup under road conditions, both with his Exploiters and the Warwick Buzzards.  John was a big fan of Modulus Graphite instruments and had a number of Exploiters built with Modulus necks for road use.  Later, after the switch to Warwick, he had Modulus produce a number of through-body Buzzards which carried the Modulus logo.  One of the prototype Buzzards (including a 12th fret inlay with the production number and built for John Entwistle) was sent to Modulus to make patterns and for the Warwick hardware.  The neck buck (used to make the graphite mold) and body were carved by Larry Robinson, the famed inlay artist.  I have the wooden buck now (given to me by Geoff Gould right before he left Modulus), and had an opportunity to buy the first completed Modulus Buzzard.  It had been presented to Entwistle, but rejected because of action problems (the neck angle coming into the body wasn't quite right) and a number of blown LED side markers.  This bass, a transparent emerald green quilted maple instrument, almost got sold to the Hard Rock Cafe, but when that fell through became the equipment giveaway in Bass Player magazine (with the addition of Entwistle's signature on the body).  The action on that bass was insanely low (apparently even Entwistle had commented that it was too low) although they were going to fix that problem with a refret.  I didn't buy it (who's got enough game to ever strap on a Buzzard in front of people?).  I don't know what the production numbers were for the Modulus Buzzards but Entwistle himself had quite a few, documented in his book as well as the Entwistle auction listings.  
 
The fact that Entwistle had Buzzards produced by Warwick, Modulus, and Status all with virtually identical shape really seems to imply that he was the one controlling the usage of the body design.
 
David Fung

[trekster]

Well, 24 hours later I still couldn't think of it, so a look at the Discography for Face Dances, a look at youtube, and..wellla!  John playing a Steinberger for the video Don't let go the Coat..  
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8qtvGtxJ8I
 
Enjoy!
 
--T

[senmen]

Intersting additional facts:
In an old interview mentioned that he sold the Steinberger again shortly because he said that the graphite was sounding like sh..
and that he would only go for wooden basses. Very interesting that
he had chosen Modulus and Status basses after some years.
BTW Johns main green Modulus Buzzard, which was sold at the Sothebys auction, is now in the collection of a german friend of mine.
Oliver (Spyderman)

[dtrice]

I don't know about you, but I would not play a warwick if someone gave it to me.

[the_8_string_king]

Yeah, the few I've picked up... well, half-decent or nothing special would be about the best things I could say about 'em.
 
Opposite end of the scale, or way far down, at least, from Alembic.  But I've picked up and played lots of basses that were further down the scale from them, so there are worse.  Of course, then, there are worse basses (than ours) wouldn't be an inspiring motto or pitch.
 
I'm with you, I wouldn't have any use for one, even for free.
 
But then, unless I'm wrong (and someone PLEASE correct me if I am) aren't they the pr@#*s who basically... I dunno, sorta... plagerized the Exploiter shape?  We're they the ones?  Or do I not have my facts straight?
 
In any event, regardless, I don't like 'em either.  They don't do a thing for me.  But I thought they were the ones that we're peddling some pathetic excuse for an Exploiter as... well, I can't recall enough to attempt a quote, but something along the lines of being some authentic representitive of the ALEMBIC EXPLOITERs he played.
 
So yeah, the more I think about it, this thread makes me want to asks someone who knows -for info on this.  I remember seeing something about this... I think it was possibly or likely on this site.  I think I'll take a quick run through the Miscellaneous after this.
 
 
The truth is out there  do do do do do do do do(in the X-Files theme)

[hifiguy]

The DW is so much more elegant and aesthetically pleasing than the Buzzard that it's no contest.  That Buzzard bolt-on is one motherplucking ug-lee bass guitar.

[dfung60]

In the relatively small circle of premium basses, Warwick has long been a sort of pariah. I guess this is because they like to engage in some level of copying the work of others without appropriate acknowledgement.  When you look at a Warwick Streamer next to a Spector NS bass, it's hard to not see it as an almost direct copy.  The Spector bass was designed by Ned Steinberger (yes, that Steinberger, and this was before he started making his own basses) and features a curved body, so it's would certainly be an odd coincidence that the Streamer came out with the same basic profile and curved body!  Warwicks come with MEC pickups, which are actives with integral preamps, gee, sort of like EMG pickups.  And many Warwicks are fitted with innovative features like a sustain block and adjustable nut!
 
That all said, pre-1991 Warwicks are excellent basses.  They were all handmade in West Germany from exotic African hardwoods, milled from raw logs at the Warwick factory.  I have a bunch of these old Warwicks and a 1990 Thumb 4 (through-body, but there were no bolt-ons in their line at that time) was my main bass for many years.  The woodworking and materials were really excellent, and I liked many of these specific features that had raised so much flak from the bass boutique community.  
 
I'm not quite sure what happened to Warwick in the early 90s.  Part of it was German reunification, I think - product moved to a different factory, quality of materials dropped precipitously (ovangkol was no substitute for bubinga), all the ugly bolt-on models at lower prices became the main part of their product offering.  Their US distribution changed from Kaman/Ovation to Dana B. Goods.  They continued to sell the expensive models, but the quality of handwork was just terrible and the sound suffered as well.  If you've only played the mass produced Warwicks in Guitar Center, you've never played a real Warwick.
 
I've got my Thumb 4, a Thumb 5, Streamer Stage II, and a very rare model called a Corvette (mine is a semi-hollow body with f-holes, not the ugly starfish shaped bass they use that name on now) from 1986-1991 production.  I've also got a 1997 through-body ovangkol Dolphin that's not a horrible bass, but only a shadow of the old boire Dolphins.

[ajdover]

Dave,
 
   I'm sure the pre-1991 models are nice basses, as you say.  Unfortunately, most of us will never get our hands on one.
 
   This being said, I've never played a Warwick I thought was worth a damn.  They're heavy, sound and play horribly, and well, they're designs aren't something I care for personally.  It can't help that they're the bass of choice for metal or modern bands - it plays into the Gutiar Center reference you refer to, e.g., if my bass hero is playing one, I need to get one.  This is nothing new - I bought a Rick 4001 as a teenager because Geddy Lee played one.  
 
Now, most of my bass heroes play other basses (Jazz Bass, Rickenbacker, Gibson, Musicman, etc.), and I have basses from those manufacturers.  I bought those basses in part because my bass heroes played them.  This being said, if it played and sounded bad to me, I wouldn't have bought them.  If Geddy, Stanley, Jaco, Greg Lake, John Paul Jones, Victor, etc. were playing an Ibanez, I probably try, but not buy one for the same reasons I don't play Warwicks.
 
In any event, if someone likes Warwicks, more power to them.  You'll never see one strapped on me, however - my DW blows the doors off of every Warwick I've ever played, IMHO.  To each his own, I guess.
 
Alan

[bsee]

I don't know.  Steinberger was a pretty good designer and most of the neck-thru Streamer basses play pretty well and sound decent to boot.  They aren't Alembics, but they're pretty good.  I wouldn't mind owning a Stage II, but it probably wouldn't be #1 in my stable.  There are just too many better basses out there.
 
The only non-Alembic bass I would like to have right now is a Zon VB-4 Vinny.

[blazer]

From what I have read, Gibson made the first Explorer back in the 50's and then shelved it. In the 70's the shape saw some use from other builders and Gibson then brought it back in their line.
 
Alembic shares responsibility for putting the shape in JE's hands. Clearly, the Alembic version is very tightly associated with him. He took that experience with him when he went to work with Warwick.  
 
NOPE! Entwistle was playing Gibson Thunderbird basses at the time which he preferred for their offset design and powerful sound, the thing he didn't like about them was the fact that they have very skinny necks and often had their headstocks come off.  
http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/images/bass/jae_64tbird-home.jpg
 
So he hooked with a local builder to built him a couple of Thunderbird style basses using surplus Gibson Thunderbird pickups and surplus Fender precision bass necks the Fenderbird was the result.
http://www.ukrockfestivals.com/ent-2-c74.jpg
 
But Entwistle also had bought a fifties Gibson explorer and he loved the way it looked so he had one custom bass made in the shape of that explorer but with Thunderbird pickups and a Fender neck. And that one-off custom bass was the one on which his Alembic exploiter basses were based on.

[bsee]

Kind of why I used the word shares.  It is clearly the Alembic version that people associate with him more than the prototype you are describing.
 
Also, John was bouncing around from bass to bass through the late 60s into the early 70s.  The Alembics must have resonated with him, though.  He played the Exploiters for most of ten years before moving on to the Buzzard shape.

[jsaylor]

Blazer,
Whats that tiny TB that that kid is playing???