Anyone Else Disipointed In Warwick?

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by SubDubMan, May 3, 2002.

  1. SubDubMan


    Apr 26, 2002
    Is anyone else here disipointed in the company's desicision to add the "RockBass" basses to their production line? I just feel like, tons of little kids are going to wanna be just like Dirk Lance, and P-Nut so they are going to run out and buy these new rockbasses. To me it was an insult to the company to have the Streamer Standard series, and these rockbasses are even worse. I dont know how to describe it but it bothers me!!!
  2. tja.. if you look at Yamaha, they are doing it, others's a money thing too bad..

    at one hand I understand, at the other hand, if they can make GOOD low budget basses, they can influence the low-budget market...

    maybe a newbe kid can buy a good bass (rockbass warwick) for less money in stead of a nameless bass for almost the same price ..
  3. I don't really see what the problem is. It does not mean that the pro line of basses will degrade. Anyone who knows anything about basses will know the difference anyway.

    It is a good financial move for the company. More people will be exposed to the name. When the people who get the Rockbasses grow up or get more money, they will be more likely to buy a "real" Warwick.

  4. FalsehoodBass


    Jul 22, 2001
    Denver, CO
    the same complaints came out when OLP started making stingrays. People with expensive instruments feel that they have paid for a look or a brand name, and they're bitter than other peope can have the same look or name for half the cost (or less).

    What you need to realize is that if a cheap imitation bass makes somebody happy... then it's a good bass. If the $1000+ real thing makes you happy, then that's a good bass too. You got what you wanted and so did they.

    I don't suppose you've played the Rockbass line and compared it to the sound/feel of a warwick?
  5. 1964


    Mar 26, 2002
    Too Close To Hell
    Here in New Zealand there isn't going to be enough price difference...if any...between the RockBass line and the entry-level Warwicks.

    Btw, IMNSHO, the Warwick Streamer Standards are simply excellent basses. All the hardware and pickups are very good indeed. They're exactly what you'd expect as the entry-level from Warwick, and I hope they don't drop them.

    And, the RockBass line up are not Warwicks by any stretch, as they don't meet the essential criteria that Warwick themselves established. They only look like Warwicks.
  6. rickbass

    rickbass Supporting Member

    Sub - I can understand the emotions behind - "I spent all this money to buy a (insert brand name here) fine, big time bass and now the jerks come out with this cut glass version of a diamond."

    I think they have to do it to maintain their market share for at least four good business reasons;

    1. The competition by names in the same market niche. Fine names like Spector and Lakland are selling successful models which are lower cost due to offshore labor for some of the processes/parts without damaging their reputations

    2. As some makers have learned the hard way - if you don't make it, someone will make a cheaper knockoff of yours

    3. Bass players are not only more aware of the better brand names at younger ages, but they also have increasing buying power. Of course, as time goes on, you want the "real deal."

    4. Like a "Coke" or a "BMW", the name is a matured cash cow and the incremental sales don't happen like they once did when the name was newer and expanding into new markets. The cash generated by the lower-priced line helps keep the cash flowing to maintain the quality level of their higher end, slower selling, lines.

    After all, the first name in U.S. guitars did it; Martin - Sigma.

    New business enviroment........react or die. :rolleyes:
  7. motherfunker


    Apr 29, 2002
    New York
    WARWICK isn't making a rip-off of the thumb bolt-on are they?!?!?!?!?!?!?:eek: :eek: :eek:
  8. 1964


    Mar 26, 2002
    Too Close To Hell

    I agree with your logic, but the fact is that the Lakland and Spector low end isn't as low end as RockBass, and neither of these two examples had their main line up go down as far as Warwick, with the Streamer Standards. Also, importantly, the RockBass' do not offer the Warwick sound.

    It appeared to me that with the Streamer Stds, Warwick had achieved what the other manufacturers had been unable to...produce an entry-level bass of superior quality at their home facility. They sell the Streamers here in NZ for around US$450, so it seems to me they could offer them in the much bigger US market for the same or less…much cheaper than the likes of the Lakland Skylines.

    Warwick’s focus and motivation for the introduction of RockBass is on much more shaky ground than the others. RockBass’ are not finished to look like Warwicks, as Warwick believe the plainer Warwick finishes don’t appeal to youth. And alder bodies with maple necks and rosewood boards are simply not the Warwick formula. So, other than shape and pups, they have little in common with Warwicks, and much less in common with their parent brand than most “in-house clones”.

    If you want this look then better buy a Spector Performance Series, because at least they more closely emulate their more costly brethren, and they’ve got the Spector logo on the headstock.

    Is RockBass a Warwick clone brand or a Spector clone brand?

    For these reasons, not only do I think RockBass threatens the entry-level Warwicks proper, but I’d be surprised if the RockBass’ – in their current configuration at least – are successful.
  9. look at ROK-AXE basses.. they look like warwicks a lot, but are significantly cheaper.. they play nice tho.. ( tried some of them couple of weeks ago @ shop in Vlaardingen, the Netherlands )
  10. Hategear

    Hategear Workin' hard at hardly workin'.

    Apr 6, 2001
    Appleton, Swissconsin
    First of all, I think the Rockbass is ugly as hell. Second, I think any company that can produce a quality, entry-level bass for the beginning or intermediate bassist (or for someone that can't afford or doesn't need a $1500 bass) deserves a round of applause.

    I know how you feel though, SubDub, but if you don't like it, don't buy it! Diff'rent strokes for poorer folks. ;)

    That's the problem right there: If you're buying a $2000 bass because it's a $2000 bass, then of course you're going to be mad at someone that gets the same name and look for less money. As I've said before (and many of you have said as well): Buy what you like, what you want and what sounds good to you. Don't worry about what someone else buys or why they buy it.

    Damn, people!
  11. 1964


    Mar 26, 2002
    Too Close To Hell
    > "...People with expensive instruments feel that they have paid for a look or a brand name, and they're bitter than other peope can have the same look or name for half the cost (or less)."

    If this is true, how come people pay small fortunes for high-end Fender clones, especially when there are more low-end clones of Fender than anything else?

    To me, this is absolute bunkum!
  12. JayAmel

    JayAmel Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Mar 3, 2002
    Aurillac, France
    I don't want to upset anyone, but... I definitely can't subscribe to that point of view.

    I am a Rickenbacker player, and I claim that I would never buy a "cheap" Rick if there were some. In best cases, a cheap bass is a "decent" bass, not an excellent one. And if you want (or need) THE sound, an excellent bass (as well as an excellent amp and excellent fingers) is required. Looks and names have no sense to me ; only my fingers and ears tell what feels good to me.

    And the most important thing overall is : ENJOY. If RIC were to release cheap 4003's, and if one of my students got one, I definitely wouldn't feel bitter or jealous. I'd just tell my student : "well, you got what you wanted, now enjoy it, and play, play, play...".

    All the best,
  13. dreadhead


    Feb 1, 2002
    I think that everybody should know that Hans Peters receives the bolt-on basses' bodies from Korea for a lot of time! "Rockbass" is only another walk for the dead of the ancient "WOOD SOUNDING" instrument that was Warwick.
    If you want a real Warwick (and not just a W on the headstock), buy an older one.
  14. Wuh oh....
  15. embellisher

    embellisher Holy Ghost filled Bass Player Staff Member Supporting Member

    The Streamer Standards are NOT genuine Warwicks, at least to me. A Genuine Warwick is a Streamer Stage or Thumb. Streamer Standards are to neck through Warwicks what Squiers are to MIA Fenders, IMHO.

    And Warwick is not discontinuing the Streamer Standard, they are just moving production to China, and marketing it as a Rockbass. It will no longer be a Warwick, which IMHO it never was anyway.

    The Warwick marque is already tarnished, partly by the Standard, but mostly by erosion of quality.
  16. I don't mind the new rock bass. I feel it's a great idea. It gives another choice as a second (and for some people, a first) bass. This will allow Warwick to make more money and in turn be able to fund new projects. :) My $.02
  17. im not at all disapointed in my warwicks,........if anything, .......awly inspired!
  18. embellisher

    embellisher Holy Ghost filled Bass Player Staff Member Supporting Member

    Where ya been, Willz?
  19. CS


    Dec 11, 1999
    Companies make a product to sell. Warwick are going for all markets-low volume/high markup and high volume/low markup with everything in between just like Fender and what EBMM are starting to do.

    All of my instruments and I own models from all 3 mentioned and Ovation (another maker doing it) suits me.

    My Warwick Thumb works for me who cares if some kid can buy something similar for £200? Actually its a good idea.

    I remember the cheap stuff going around 20 yrs ago and it makes me shudder, just thinking about it.
  20. Joe Nerve

    Joe Nerve Supporting Member

    Oct 7, 2000
    New York City
    Endorsing artist: Musicman basses, Hipshot products
    I have to admit that the Rockbass line does bug me a bit. At the time I bought my Warwick part of the reason I did was because I knew Warwick was a company with a lot of integrity that still focused on making great basses. It seemed that their interest lied mostly in the desire to build a great product. I feel the motivation has changed now, like it so often does to "how can we make the most money." I don't believe thier new basses were designed so that people with less money could get their hands on a great bass, I think they were designed so that Warwick could make more money. Lots more money. They're increasingly bragging about their famous users also.

    I also used to like the idea that when asked "what kind of a bass do you play", if you said Warwick - not much else had to be said. Call it pride or whatever, but if I owned a Lambourgini - and they started putting out $12,000 budget cars that looked the same I think it would bug me too. Saying you owned a Warwick meant you owned a quality bass - now it could mean anything.

    Lastly, I like what MM did. The bass isn't a MM, and they don't even attempt to call it that. It's an OLP. It's not even on their website. If I tell you I own a MM (which I do) you know I have the greatest bass on earth :) . No further explanation needed.

    My slightly less than humble opinion.