the arguments you're using for the fender clones just don't hold water. head stock shape has little to do with design, overall. the clones are direct ripoffs of Leo's original designs. P & J basses are considered a "standard design" or classic body shape. There are few other designs in bass history that can claim those designations. Other than T-birds & Ric, I'd say the NS is the only other one. It certainly has a long enough history to be considered a classic. and as such, it's going to have it's copies. remember, it's not Stuart's design either. It's Ned Steinberger's. The streamer is just someone else's take on the original design. I like Warwicks tweaks, and nothing feels like that old school wenge neck in my hands. winner, hands down. ymmv
The headstock thing isn't me. That's the US Federal Courts that came up with that one. Fender doesn't seem to think it makes much sense either.
It is a tricky line to walk. And I'd agree, paying homage to a "classic design" is something different. Spector's Rex is a Thunderbird-ish looking guitar, but obviously not a direct T-Bird shape, it's the general style. But it also has what I consider classic Spector features such as no pick guards, the classic Spector headstock, the wood finishes and the Spector sound ala their tone control setups, etc...
I've stated numerous times during this thread that it's Ned's design... thus the name, "NS". Ned made the design FOR Stuart.
To me it's like walking into Yankee Stadium having never played baseball before, and knocking one out of the part on your first swing at bat. Ned was a cabinet maker. The NS was the first instrument design he ever did. I think he found his calling.
I think I've stated my argument for why a lot of the Spector players I've met get a little upset about the Streamer. Not Streamer players... not Corvettes or any other WW model.
To me one of the great American virtues is our sense of "Fair Play" The whole cheaters never win and winners never cheat thing.
And when it comes down to it... how many of you plagerized something in school? Every school I've been to it is instant grounds for dismissal.
So I think the WW/Spector rift plugs into that ingrained, cultural programming and depending on which side of the fence you stand on is how you're going to feel about it.
My last thing, playing Jr. Freud, is that we also have a culturally ingrained desposition regarding "the underdog". When Kramer went under, Stuart was back to square one. He was making basses out of a friend's garage for a while. He built the company up from nothing to something, lost it through no fault of his own, and started over. It's the American Dream.
So the issues between WW and Spector/Steinberger punch two buttons with me. My sense of Fair Play... and moreso than I would feel about a monster conglomerate like Fender or Gibson, because Spector and Ned have been and still are "the little guys" who through adversity fought to live their American Dream. And to have some foreign company who honestly is and always has been better financed take the one thing Spector really does, the one model that represents 90% of their income, and copy it, backing out of the license agreement, etc... as already has been discussed...
It's sickening. I don't know... but sincerely. What I've stated in this post is how/why I've been willing to take this argument up. If we don't stick up for the small guys, the the Walmarts of the corporate world will destroy them... and when that happens, quality and innovation die as well.
To recap: The Streamer bothers me because I feel the circumstances under which WW copied, then agreed to pay, then didn't, goes against what I feel can be considered "Fair Play". In the world of corporate profits, cheaters should never win. If more companies acted with integrity our economy wouldn't be in shambles right now.
