For some reason, I'd think EB would be semi-happy about this. I mean, if people played this, really liked it, the next logical step would be to move on to a Stingray - I mean, look at the forums here....
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
SX Stingray
- Thread starter Sippy
- Start date
- Dec 5, 2002
- 4,165
- 2,254
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Ernie Ball Music Man/Sterling By Music Man
JoeRules00 said:
Well, I've been accused of many things, but trolling is a first. I think I'll stand by my statements regarding the people having spoken. In fact:
1. "We'll buy this cheap rip-off of a design that someone else sweated over!" Cheap it is. A design rip-off it is. And people are buying them. I think that part of my opinion is completely defendable.
2. "We know that most of the parts are pure crap, but basses should only cost 180 dollars, because they're just parts!" I base this on reading the many posts here by people who buy these basses and then immediately have to upgrade the electronics, file the frets and fret ends, replace the tuners, etc etc etc. Am I wrong about this? The bit about basses being just parts...well, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part in order to make a point, although I've recently seen that exact viewpoint expressed here.
So a BIT of it might have been over the top, but only just.
Of course it violates their trademark. Because Fender fell asleep at the wheel (and stayed asleep) for the latter half of the century doesn't make it right, either. Other instrument builders guard their designs and are right to do so. I'm confident this particular design will grind to a halt.
I don't have to drive a Yugo to know it's not quite a Jaguar, or even a Camry. I've played a million cheap basses in my life and understand what makes the difference in quality. It's not a big mystery or anything, really.
So I have my opinion and they might not dovetail nicely with the overriding opinions here, but I'm willing to talk about it and defend my views, but not quite willing to be told by someone who has been on the board, um, all day, that I am "crying".
Sorry if I came off a bit brusque in my response to that person.
You know what they say about fighting on the internet, I'm guessing!
Jack
- Dec 5, 2002
- 4,165
- 2,254
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Ernie Ball Music Man/Sterling By Music Man
Do I honestly think they're unhappy about cheap, illegal copies?
Pardner, I KNOW they are. I try to limit my participation here to things I know about. This is one of those things I know about.
People weighing in about what they BELIEVE is fine, but you'll forgive me if I correct factual errors and maintain my opinion that people have a right to defend what is lawfully theirs.
Hey, it's an American thing, call me nuts.
Jack
Insulting each other now? Wow.
I've owned an Ernie Ball/MusicMan Sterling for the past... 7 years or so and nothing has ever touched in terms of all-around quality. With that said, I can genuinely say that I was fortunate enough to have the financial capability of affording the bass.
What some of y'all fail to realize though is that SX is not trying to gain turf on Fender, or Ernie Ball with their copies... In fact, I think this quote pretty much sums up my stance...
SX (obviously IMO) caters to the crowd that wants something that is simply not in their current realm of financial possibility. Will it sound, feel, or play like the real deal? Who knows, that's subjective. Generally though, people pick up an SX because they want something else, something more expensive... and with that said, the SX is a good way to tide over GAS.
We can argue the semantics of legality, responsibility and moral opinion until the end of time with no real end, but what's going on here with these clone basses is simply the nature of the market.
I've owned an Ernie Ball/MusicMan Sterling for the past... 7 years or so and nothing has ever touched in terms of all-around quality. With that said, I can genuinely say that I was fortunate enough to have the financial capability of affording the bass.
What some of y'all fail to realize though is that SX is not trying to gain turf on Fender, or Ernie Ball with their copies... In fact, I think this quote pretty much sums up my stance...
g00eY said:
SX (obviously IMO) caters to the crowd that wants something that is simply not in their current realm of financial possibility. Will it sound, feel, or play like the real deal? Who knows, that's subjective. Generally though, people pick up an SX because they want something else, something more expensive... and with that said, the SX is a good way to tide over GAS.
We can argue the semantics of legality, responsibility and moral opinion until the end of time with no real end, but what's going on here with these clone basses is simply the nature of the market.
Hey Bov first off let me digress from my previous statment. Crying is a harsh term no offense intended. You are right is wrong to make knock offs. But to me it just seems trivial to be pissed about it. Im not one of the die hard SX defenders here. I recently got into the MM sound but really dont want justify another big ticket bass purchase (My gig to bass ratio is already off) But I was curious to seewhat that bass would be like. I bought one and I can say it is better than a OLP but NO WHERE near a real MM. There are alot of people out there just like me who dont want to or cant purchase a real MM. dont want an OLP cause they suck. As do the Aslin Dane and other MM copies. So the people with the champage tastes but the pepsi budget get something to play with. Some of your comments seem like you just want to rain on there parade by waiving this "its wrong flag". Its like your taking peoples desire for a cheap version personal. Cmon you never listened to a burned CD or downloaded a song or watched a bootleg movie?
I'm probably unique...
When I want a new bass, I do 1 of 2 things:
1) Build it myself from scratch; or
2) Get an SX and mod the hell out of it to my specs.
I've got no interest in ever owning a real EBMM (unless I was endorsed or something :>). Quite honestly, as I build most of my own instruments, I can't rationalize putting $1-2k (avg EB price) into an instrument - as nice as it may be. For that kind of investment, I'd much rather build it myself to make sure I'm getting absolutely everything I wanted. If I really wanted one.
Basically, my point: if I'm wanting some top end piece of kit (isn't that a brit expression?) I do it myself. If I want something just for fun, or to experiment with, or general purpose bassery, whatever - I'll get an SX. They sell em cheaper than I can make em.
If I wasn't into luthiery I'd probably have a different take on the subject.
ANYHOO...
*edit* nevermind
Stealing designs is wrong. What part of the Stingray design does EBMM take credit for or consider as tradmarked? The pickup? I've seen the same type of pickup in other basses at or near the same place that EBMM places it. Is that a foul? The electronics? The woods?
SX's bass appears to be an infringement of EBMM's design because it looks like a Stingray. If they changed the pickguard or the body and the headstock to the degree at which it wouldn't look like a Stingray, would that be better?
I guess I'm just wondering if the intellectual property of EBMM is the bass' design (woods, construction, electronics) or its aesthetics. To be frank, I'd laugh if someone tried to assert that EBMM owns the rights to maple or humbucking pickups. This fiasco is because of appearances.
It makes quite a difference that the bass looks like EBMM's product. The folks at SX deliberately made it look like a Stingray as opposed to something unique because the product says 'hey, you can have a Stingray for a fraction of the price.' Yes, we know it won't even touch EBMM quality (very few manufacturers do), and of course we know that it's not a real Stingray. However, it does pique the interest of those who can't afford the real thing, compelling them to buy the SX as a 'starter' Stingray or to find out if they'd like a Musicman. In a strange way, high-end Fender knockoffs do something like this. Making a $3000 bass that looks exactly like a Jazz Bass sends the message 'I'm a Fender, so you get all the benefits of a Fender bass, but I'm even better!' It's never said, but these are the kinds of messages that lookalikes send, capitalizing on the resemblance in order to make a statement/sales pitch about the instrument.
Basically, SX's bass is riding on the fame of the Stingray in order to sell itself as an alternative. [edit] - Scratch that, it's using the resemblance as a marketing tool; SX's certainly have their own merit and a reputation, so it's not fair to imply that emulation is the only thing SX relies on.
SX's bass appears to be an infringement of EBMM's design because it looks like a Stingray. If they changed the pickguard or the body and the headstock to the degree at which it wouldn't look like a Stingray, would that be better?
I guess I'm just wondering if the intellectual property of EBMM is the bass' design (woods, construction, electronics) or its aesthetics. To be frank, I'd laugh if someone tried to assert that EBMM owns the rights to maple or humbucking pickups. This fiasco is because of appearances.
It makes quite a difference that the bass looks like EBMM's product. The folks at SX deliberately made it look like a Stingray as opposed to something unique because the product says 'hey, you can have a Stingray for a fraction of the price.' Yes, we know it won't even touch EBMM quality (very few manufacturers do), and of course we know that it's not a real Stingray. However, it does pique the interest of those who can't afford the real thing, compelling them to buy the SX as a 'starter' Stingray or to find out if they'd like a Musicman. In a strange way, high-end Fender knockoffs do something like this. Making a $3000 bass that looks exactly like a Jazz Bass sends the message 'I'm a Fender, so you get all the benefits of a Fender bass, but I'm even better!' It's never said, but these are the kinds of messages that lookalikes send, capitalizing on the resemblance in order to make a statement/sales pitch about the instrument.
Basically, SX's bass is riding on the fame of the Stingray in order to sell itself as an alternative. [edit] - Scratch that, it's using the resemblance as a marketing tool; SX's certainly have their own merit and a reputation, so it's not fair to imply that emulation is the only thing SX relies on.
If you read the whole thread you'd find out that MusicMan has the "3+1" headstock tuner configuration trademarked.Tom said:
Searching the USPTO, I could only find the 4+2 headstock config trademarked. While my searches may not be perfect, I went through probably 3 dozen search iterations and didn't find anything relating to a bass headstock.
4+2:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
4+2:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
- Dec 5, 2002
- 4,165
- 2,254
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Ernie Ball Music Man/Sterling By Music Man
Then of course the logical assumption is that SX didn't actually mean to make a bass that looked an awful lot like a Stingray, did they? Just a coincidence.
Listen, some of you guys seem to think that I'm unable to sleep over this. Not the case at all.
I just happen to think it's wrong to steal a design - ANY design. So you either see my point or you don't.
I guess it's my southern upbringing.
Jack
You missed it then. The 3+1 is there. The number may be a few pages back in this thread--look in the area where mheintz and I were posting.patrickj said:
It is a pictorial trademark of the headstock, with no verbal description. So it may or may not be debatable exactly what aspects of the pictured design are protected--unlike the 4+2 trademark.
I have no dog in this hunt, but here's some food for thought...
The legal and licensed OLP basses(I have one) are pretty weak, perhaps bad enough to turn a player off to EBMM since they are "endorsed" by them...is this good for EBMM?
The possibly illegal and definitely unlicensed SX models get better reviews(never played one), perhaps a good experience with one of them would lead a player to want to move up to a real Stingray? Is this good for EBMM?
The legal and licensed OLP basses(I have one) are pretty weak, perhaps bad enough to turn a player off to EBMM since they are "endorsed" by them...is this good for EBMM?
The possibly illegal and definitely unlicensed SX models get better reviews(never played one), perhaps a good experience with one of them would lead a player to want to move up to a real Stingray? Is this good for EBMM?
barkatozz said:
I did, thanks. I hope you didn't intend to be rude; it's hard to tell on an online forum.
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that the issue goes beyond just stealing a peghead configuration, but I concede that I should have mentioned it. The headstock may well be the crux of the argument if we're only talking about legality. I wasn't really talking about law.
bovinehost, you speak as if only southerners are allowed to have scruples.
Got it - thanks!pilotjones said:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
I don't know. Different strokes for different folks. Other than 3 tuners on one side, 1 on the other, the SX looks pretty much nothing like a Musicman headstock - as least as much as any other bass. There's only so much you can do with the mass of wood up there and retain an appealing and functional look.
*shrug*
bovinehost said:
Yes, this is incorrect. Nothing *needs* to be replaced on an SX. People mod them because they want to, it's fun. All basses need setups, after that these ones are fine stock. There was an SX fret sprout/filing problem 2 or 3 years ago, it was solved back then. There is a reason why the SX megathread is the biggest one on TB, and it is not complaints.
With regard to appearance, the 5 string SX does not look like the MM, the pickguard is based on the oval 4 string design.
I'm not sure why people (MM?) are getting upset about the copies now. Turser has been making unlicensed MM copies for several years. Is it because Turser and OLP suck but SX is actually very good for the price?
jondog said:
+1
Bone stock SX basses are pretty comparable to MIM Fenders (as well as most other $300-$400 basses out there) whether people want to admit it or not. The ONLY thing that was better on my MIM Fender I used to have vs my SX basses has been smoother tuners. Fretwork is questionable as its never perfect on the Fenders either.
People make a big deal about electronics in SX's being crap, but they're just as good as what you find on other basses in the 4x the SX price category most of the time. The Washburn Taurus I had was a $450 bass and it had the small-nearly-useless pots in it also, with 'ok' sounding pickups, as did my Fender, as does my friend's Yamaha and Ibanez, etc etc. People replace them in SX's mostly because the initial cost is so low that you usually have extra money, whereas if you spend $400 on a bass you're less likely to want to dump more money into it. That and people are less scared to destroy a $100 bass by ripping it apart as they are a Fender that might lose significant resale value by doing that.
Rondo doesnt expect to see them again. Im glad I got mine when I did. I should have bought the 5 stringer also.
- Dec 5, 2002
- 4,165
- 2,254
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Ernie Ball Music Man/Sterling By Music Man
