1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Why the hate on for Warwick?

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by Big Thump, Sep 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Big Thump

    Big Thump

    Jun 29, 2005
    North of 49
    I've been visiting this site for a couple of years now and Warwick has really fallin' out of favour, a couple of years ago everyone wanted one. I have a '95 Thumb B.O. not to bad of balance, a THIN neck yes not as thin as my Geddy, but way thinner than any P, and a great sound both live and recording, I've had the P's ,Ricks,etc. and have the Geddy so I can appreciate Quality. Obviously Sads, Lulls and Lakies are in a different bracket. Just wonderin'
  2. pointbass

    pointbass Jersey to Georgia Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Nov 4, 2004
    Acworth, GA
    Endorsing Artist: FBB Bass Works
    I don't know that you can call it hate, but you're right .... two years ago when I first started lurking here TB was overflowing with joy for both Warwick and Spector.

    Basses go through phases of interest and this isn't prime time for Warwick. But, both Warwick and Spector make very good basses and they'll always be around.
  3. Daywalker


    Apr 13, 2005
    I've always loved Warwick, no hatin coming from me...
  4. lamarjones

    lamarjones Supporting Member

    Aug 27, 2002
    Raleigh, NC
    So you know, there is a lot of hatin going on on TB for this bass and that bass. Further to the point, some people get real nasty about they way they go about verbalizing things, some simply state their points about why they don't like things.

    By all means, people should be allowed to express their disapproval or whatever, but don't think that it means the bass is no good. There are waves on interest in things up here, and they come and go. The hate comes and goes to, so might need to get used to it.

    As for warwicks, obviously they are more mass produced than they used to be. that said, some of them still sound really good. But some actually don't sound all that great, they probably are not meant to sound REAL nice due to the budget factor. But there was a time where the only basses coming from Warwick were of the highest quality available, whether you liked that recipe or not.

    That in itself is enough for bashers to have a field day with. Whether it is warranted or not, up for debate. The pros that come out of it is that sometimes you can snag a used warwick for a ridiculous price, and that can make more than your day!
  5. Brendan


    Jun 18, 2000
    Austin, TX
    Why? Because a couple years ago, Warwicks could be had on the cheap. eBay was filthy with them; couldn't beat off Thumb Bolt On's with a stick. In 2000-2002, you had a huge influx of bands (nu-metal, rock, pop, and pretty much everything under the sun) using Warwick, and a lot of people were jumping on the bandwagon. When they realized Warwicks either weren't for them, or Default wasn't that cool, or they just up and saw something else shiny, they dropped them like rocks.

    Suddenly, basses that sold for $1500-1800 new could be had for like, $850-900 on average. I'm not sure what the Warwick market is like now, but I can almost guarantee it's not like it was beteen 2001-02.

    Now that not everyone and their dog is using one, or is selling them for cheap, everyone isn't gushing over their new Thumb of SSII. Flavor of the month; nothing wrong with them, just passing fads. I keep waiting for Spector to explode, so I can start seeing Euro neck throughs on eBay for like, $500-600.

    The Warwick Thumb is still one of my absolute favorite sounding basses; it's largely a function of the terrible balance that's kept me from owning one. I still wonder about picking one up, anyway.
  6. Bongolation


    Nov 9, 2001
    No Bogus Endorsements
    Never liked them. Too ugly and geeky. Never played one because it didn't matter. I couldn't go the look.

    Geeky gear follows a really steep trajectory: All the bass geeks love it for a while and then it typically falls from favor when something geekier comes along. Bass players are miles worse about this than guitarists for some genetic reason.

    The bread-and-butter brands are for me: Fender, Ampeg, SWR, maybe Music Man, instantly recognizable stuff. I don't want to have to have people distracted wondering what weird equipment I'm using. I'm the show. It's just bass; it's good enough or it's not, and there's no point garring up your presentation with obscure gear.
  7. Ryman


    Mar 25, 2004
    Lansing, MI
    I've always had a love-hate relationship with the Warwicks in my life. I had an early Fortress that I liked ok, but the sound wasn't quite what I was looking for. I just dumped a 98 Corvette because I couldn't live with it. It looked amazing, felt amazing, I love the bridge, the nut, the wenge neck and fingerboard, it played flawlessly, and sounded very very good. However, it wieghed a metric ton, balanced horribly on a strap and had extremely loud electronics. Those are important qualities to me, so I had to let her go. I did get nearly $800 for it, so I was happy about that. Then I went out and got a used Peavey G-Bass for $240. I'm tons more happy with this one. It has none of the bad qualities of the Warwick, (although it doesn't look so nice). Just a matter of opinion, I guess. And it goes to show that you don't have to spend a lot to get a great bass.
  8. Juneau


    Jul 15, 2004
    Dallas, TX.
    I think they look and sound great, but that neck profile just doesnt fit me personally. First time I picked one up, it felt really awkward and goofy to me. If they had a flatter profile, Id prolly be interested.
  9. My uncle lent me his 1987 Warwick Thumb 5, neck thru, EMG electronics for months...
    It's really heavy, not much versatile, neck balance of the bass is horrible for my own taste and the neck is hard to play for me...
    I never felt home!

    So I passed and made my own statement on Warwick!
    No hate, just absolutely not my thing...

  10. Bongolation


    Nov 9, 2001
    No Bogus Endorsements
    OK, I'll come clean:

    The main thing I have against Warwick is that they have the most outrageously penile top horn in the world. If you want to be upstaged by a dildo every time you play, be my guest. Aside from the singer, I mean.

    It freakin' gives me the creeps (of course, there are probably thousands more strangely attracted to it) :p :

    I mean, just look at this thing! "Schwingggggg!"

  11. gruuv


    Jan 23, 2004
    Do you suppose that in 2 years TB'ers will turn on Sadowsky as they have on Warwick? :eek:

    By the way, let me disclaimer this by saying that I own an MS-5 and I think it's a fantastic bass. Just wanted to avoid anyone thinking that I'm intending this to in any way disparage Roger's work.
  12. Big Thump

    Big Thump

    Jun 29, 2005
    North of 49
    Funny ,I have seen a few threads creeping into the mix lately about Sadowskys not being so swell, (note: I think they're magic)... I think as humans we tend to build 'em up and tear 'em down ,whether it's an artist or an instrument.
  13. cheezewiz

    cheezewiz Supporting Member

    Mar 27, 2002

    YES!!!!!! I've been searching for a new sig since Nick disappared, and mine became irrelevant, and now...thanks to
    Mr Bongolation, my prayers have been answered!
  14. bassman314

    bassman314 I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process...

    Mar 13, 2005
    Bay Area, CA
    I tried them a few times in shops...

    Never liked the feel. didn't like the sound I was getting..

    I've heard that with Warwicks, you either love them.. or it's *meh*...

    For me it was *meh*, especially given the price tag.
  15. pointbass

    pointbass Jersey to Georgia Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Nov 4, 2004
    Acworth, GA
    Endorsing Artist: FBB Bass Works
    Yeah, that's a good possibility :meh: There are already enough people here that disparage Sadowsky as little more than a parts bass (obviously not the case), so I can see a time where the resale value of the Sad's really tanks and that will be the fuel to feed the anti-Sadowsky fires even further. But that doesn't mean the quality won't be there .......

    As Sadowsky ventures in with lower pricing points in an attempt to get his product into as many hands as possible, it's inevitable that some owners will be dissatisfied with the bass, and the snowball will start, just like it did with Warwick .... lower price point = somewhat lesser quality = dissatisfied owners.

    Really, these are all very good to great basses that will sooner or later hit market saturation. But that doesn't diminish that very fine workmanship of Roger Sadowsky ... :cool:
  16. cheezewiz

    cheezewiz Supporting Member

    Mar 27, 2002
    Oh, and as far as hatin on Warwicks. My observations are as follows:

    1. heavy
    3. sound like doo doo
    4. Cheaply constructed
    5. Giant Louisville slugger necks
    6. Finished in "grapevine"
    7. Ugly
    8. Did I mention, ugly?
    9. Neck divers

    OK OK OK..I KNOW not all of these are true on every Warwick bass ever made, but the majority seem to share these characteristics.
  17. The Hammer

    The Hammer

    Jul 13, 2004
    Penis envy for a bass. Now I have heard everything
  18. ElMon

    ElMon Supporting Member

    May 30, 2004
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Have you had a chance to compare a NYC to a Metro? IMO they are identical in every way, excepting the beautiful quilt top on the NYC I played. Those Japanese cats really know what they're doing here, and I suspect that Rogers creation of the Metro line serves multiple purposes: 1) It obviously makes these basses more affordable for the average player, which might entice future NYC sales. 2) Maybe by taking the production burden oversees, Roger and crew have more time to dedicate towards the quality of their NYC line, as well as too repairs and having a little free time with the wife and kids.
    As to the warwick question, I've owned both pre 98 wicks and newer wicks, and I have to say that the older ones are far superior IMO. That being said, every once and a while I'll pick up a newer Warwick that has all the mojo of the older ones. The problem is in the consistency. If it was me, I would pick up a used older warwick with a wenge neck and save a whole lot of mullah.
  19. Bongolation


    Nov 9, 2001
    No Bogus Endorsements
    Dude, it's just blatantly, grotesquely phallic. :D

    OK, OK...so now I've wrecked it for everyone and now they're going to squirm every time they see a Warwick and experience involuntary sphincter pucker. Wartwick's gonna go broke and it's all my fault...

    Maybe I shouldda stayed in bed this morning.
  20. Big Thump

    Big Thump

    Jun 29, 2005
    North of 49
    I've found a few duds, But over all prob. more duds with Fenders, Most sound great, look good are very well put together, 8-9 lbs. the only constant seems to be the new ones all seem to have big fat necks,like most of the Rick 4003 and Fender P's.Funny how the best tone I've ever heard was my guitar players pawn shop find a $150 El Degas ,sounded just like John Wetton thru anything, I used it in the studio many times and engineers could'nt believe it, goes to show you what a racket this game is. Cheerio

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.