• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Interesting Call with EBMM...

That changed last year, they now all have the StingRay name on the headstock even though they have kept the “Ray” model names. :roflmao:

View attachment 3410347

OK, they licensed the logo. So what? I can license a Ferrari logo and tattoo it on my forehead.

On the website they're never called StingRay, and in any case this does nothing to disprove the FACT that Praxis is not Ernie Ball Music Man and is not owned by Ernie Ball Music Man or distributed by the same distributors, and does not use any parts made my Ernie Ball Music Man.

Again, if you can *prove* otherwise please do.
 
Yeah, I hear this a lot. But Wikipedia does employ editors and their articles are better sourced than 99% of the crap you read about in other areas of the internet. That's what that little section at the bottom of each article with references is all about.

It's an important source, despite what anyone who has a bias against well-cited material might conclude. Any company interested in its reputation will be making sure these entries are accurate.

I checked the references. No mention of EBMM owning Praxis/SBMM or anything similar.

Look us "Wikipedia Fact or Fiction?" on YouTube and have a great laugh.
 
1450F3DC-EAD3-4656-867A-530638371B14.jpeg
Some licensed designs.

SBMM basses are called Ray not StingRay.

There is nothing on them made by Music Man and SBMM is a completely separate company that is not owned by Music Man.
 

Great. Thanks.

That little (r) means it's a registered trademark of Ernie Ball Music Man. Again, I can license a Ferrari logo and tattoo it on my forehead and link to Ferrari.com all day long. Doesn't mean Ferrari spawned me, owns me, or directs me.

The companies obviously have a close business relationship. The link helps avoid confusion ... or so they perhaps thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeswals
I recently bought a Retrovibe by Chowny Volante

Chowny is making 3 different Retrovibe basses on a mass market level. Retrovibe is still making upper level models

They have an agreement

The names and players are quite easy to follow

But this ebmm and sbmm names players models is a real cluster!
 
I checked the references. No mention of EBMM owning Praxis/SBMM or anything similar.

Look us "Wikipedia Fact or Fiction?" on YouTube and have a great laugh.
Actually, there is, but you have to read the Ernie Ball forum that's referenced deeply enough to see that their representative is talking about this. Look, I don't know why you are so adamant that this isn't a possibility but it happens all the time in business for various reasons. You're the kind of person who can't be convinced by a perfectly reasonable argument with citations, so I'm not wasting another minute of my time with you. Have a great day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 92aceshigh
Actually, there is, but you have to read the Ernie Ball forum that's referenced deeply enough to see that their representative is talking about this. Look, I don't know why you are so adamant that this isn't a possibility but it happens all the time in business for various reasons. You're the kind of person who can't be convinced by a perfectly reasonable argument with citations, so I'm not wasting another minute of my time with you. Have a great day!

Great, post a link to the exact post and possibly clear this up instead of cheap-shot attacking the messenger.

What I've posted is absolutely reasonable and common-sense, typical business practice and totally in keeping what the massive amount that's been posted on this topic in the past including from the previous online rep of SBMM. The burden of proof ain't on me.

I've owned both brands for quite awhile, and I've worked at the "E suite" level in national corporations so I'm not clueless about what the brands are, about business in general, nor am I being the slightest bit "unreasonable".

What *is* totally unreasonable is going on pure conjecture, especially when it goes *counter* to standard practice, common-sense and all evidence.

If you can prove that EBMM founded, owns, or directs Praxis then please do so. It should take less time and typing than your wholly unproductive personal attacks.

EDIT: In a post just a few below this, Scott Ball himself proves me completely correct.
 
Last edited:
OLP above or below SUB? Nearly bought an OLP from that Neil Murray guy from Whitesnake

Below. Quality issues were the main reason the OLP line was discontinued. Quality is very much a non-issue for SBMM instruments, especially the Ray34

Some licensed designs.

SBMM basses are called Ray not StingRay.

...

As seen above, the latest incarnation of the Ray34/35 aims to be faithful to the EBMM ethos of top quality materials, hardware, electronics, fit and finish. In my experience of owning and playing a '93 EBMM and a 2012 Ray34, that aim is achieved. If it were any other way I doubt Mr. Ball would sanction (through licensing, ownership, direction or any other means) the use of the "StingRay" moniker.

So, based on everything said in this thread, this advertisement is totally wrong? Correct?

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

0000506_ernie-ball-music-man-sterling-sub-ray4-h-bass-guitar-rosewood-neck-walnut-4-string.jpg

Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B-Mac
If you can prove that EBMM founded, owns, or directs Praxis then please do so. It should take less time and typing that your wholly unproductive personal attacks.
I think the word "directs" adds to the confusion and miscommunication. There would be a contract, or licensing agreement between the 2 companies. EBMM would set the specifications, and frankly, could specify anything and everything they thought important, all the way down to the supplier of the pickguard screws - if they so choose. And since EBMM's corporate name is part of the licensing agreement, I would imagine the agreement to be rather stringent.
Anyway, my point is that the level of specifics required by EBMM could easily be construed as 'directing' Praxis
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrustRod
Oh…let’s not forget about the Music Man EX series that’s made in Japan. :)

Not made in Japan. The individual parts were made in California and shipped over in bulk pieces, and from there the Japanese distributor assembles whatever combination instrument any one of their stores needs in stock. That way they don't have to wait for an entire bass to be built in Cal and then shipped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slater and StayLow
I am wondering who you spoke with since we don't have a female in customer service at the moment. I'm guessing maybe it was our new receptionist? There's a lot to learn for her especially since she is unfamiliar with musical instruments!

I couldn't make it through all 8 pages but we license our designs to Praxis.
 
As seen above, the latest incarnation of the Ray34/35 aims to be faithful to the EBMM ethos of top quality materials, hardware, electronics, fit and finish. In my experience of owning and playing a '93 EBMM and a 2012 Ray34, that aim is achieved. If it were any other way I doubt Mr. Ball would sanction (through licensing, ownership, direction or any other means) the use of the "StingRay" moniker.

I gig both and totally agree. Have stated so many times. Also has absolutely nothing at all to do with questions of whether these are separate companies, or clarifying the obviously very confusing naming conventions, which is what my post that you quoted was about.
 
I think the word "directs" adds to the confusion and miscommunication. There would be a contract, or licensing agreement between the 2 companies. EBMM would set the specifications, and frankly, could specify anything and everything they thought important, all the way down to the supplier of the pickguard screws - if they so choose. And since EBMM's corporate name is part of the licensing agreement, I would imagine the agreement to be rather stringent.
Anyway, my point is that the level of specifics required by EBMM could easily be construed as 'directing' Praxis

Sure it "could be" ... if all of that conjecture were fact.
 
That changed last year, they now all have the StingRay name on the headstock even though they have kept the “Ray” model names. :roflmao:

View attachment 3410347
Yes, and also notice the new Sterling Ray4 SUB series has a very similar headstock to the Ray34, Ray35 etc....EXCEPT for the "SUB series" underneath the brand name. So if one were to take sandpaper and remove the "SUB Series", it'll pretty much look like the headstock of Sterling's more expensive Rays. In other words, be very, very careful when you buy a used Sterling bass with this new headstock - if you see a used Ray24 Classic, make sure it isn't a Ray4 with the "SUB series" removed. You'll have to look at other things like the differences in the bridge.
51F64620-112D-493F-843A-508D048DB192.jpeg.jpg
 
Thank you. EXACTLY what I've stated repeatedly. Those of you with terrible reading comprehension and logic skills, feel free to keep fabricating scenarios and personal attacks.

Well if you make it this inviting...

Scenario: I think it's all a conspiracy with the aim to confuse people, involving massive tax evasion, cooperation in a world wide intelligence program against the secret service of Luxembourg, eventually world domination and having tb-folks talk of nothing else but their side-product (the unexpectedly successful awesome basses and guitars they make as a front, a cover up) is just as much a surprise to them as to us.

Personal:
There's an awful lot of red in you pic... Just saying.

Have a nice day!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 92aceshigh