Josh

[quote name='jakesbass' post='206301' date='May 26 2008, 01:16 AM']Classical players are the business when it comes to that discipline and being an ear player who came to reading in my 20s I have never been a top flight sight reader, that said what I trade on is my feel, I have just got in from a gig (2nd of the day) in Barnes I was depping (therefore reading) in an old style R&B band doing bluesy rock n roll there was quite an accurate pad, I missed maybe 10% of the figures but all the chord changes and notation (walking bass) I got 100% and I don't consider myself to be a good reader. Every member of the band came up to me afterwards and said "great feel" and more importantly asked for my number.[/quote] Would you say that that is where some sight reading players fall short? By that I mean, they are almost too "Robotic", they can play whats in front of them exactly, but lack a great amount of feeling which we all well know is crucial in being an established player and can be the selling point for most music-related employers.

[quote name='carlosfandango' post='205976' date='May 25 2008, 02:29 PM']LOL...it takes a bit of effort to learn to sight read...AND you need to keep it up once you learnt it to be fluid. I learnt to play the piano before picking up bass so I "only" had to learn bass clef properly.....that said.......I know plenty of really good players who don't read and they have plenty of work. Sight reading doens't really make up for being musical and having a good ear, but it makes things easier when you are looking for paid work, that's all.[/quote] I'd love to be able to find plenty of work and not have to worry about sight reading, but I guess luck dictates that, whereas, being competent in reading means you'll be more accessible to more people. I can read, but rather slowly and can't read rhythm for the life of me, and alot of the theory behind it still chokes me up. And at college I was one of the few that always struggled in Theory, always, yet for some reason, the ones who could read fluently had a tough time in composing and performing, in which I got the highest marks for. I Guess I see it as a form of Math, and unfortunatley for me, I'm no Mathematician either, I just hope that eventually it'll click and all fall into place.

Well one things for sure, this thread has confirmed my worst fear, and that is Sight Reading is more than essential if I ever want to call myself a Pro. But please say you all struggled like buggery in finally coming to grips with all the Sight Reading and theory lark?

I pretty sure both Warwickhunt and Cetera would be able to give you the full back story and all the little details in between as well. But in short Warwick did "Borrow" the design of the Spector for a few years (In the very early days of Warwick) before it became a law suit and Warwick made some little changes to make it their own. But as BSR said, having owned both a Streamer and a Spector I can happily say they are both different basses but are just as good, just some prefer Warwicks more over Spectors, I'd be happy with both:-)

A great insightful thread thus far, I know making a living in Music is hard but the contributions have made it seem more feasable to me.

[quote name='Clarky' post='202412' date='May 19 2008, 08:42 PM']I guess my point is that a Warwick is not a Warwick is not a Warwick ...[/quote] Soooo any Warwick is in fact, not a Warwick??

I've owned one, which was modded with Bartolinis as opposed to the standard MEC humbuckers. Unfortunatley for me my experience with the bass wasn't the best, after the initial reaction of it being my first Warwick I soon found that it didn't have that trademark Warwick Growl which was what I was hoping for, I also couldn't get on with the pick up placement, I play prodominantly on the bridge pick up and on the $$ the bridge P'up is actually a considerable distance away from the bridge as opposed to my Thumb, which is also essential to the tone. I changed the action many times but couldn't get it anywhere near comfortable. And in the end I just found the all the tones available were pretty bland and really didn't stand out well in a mix and I was left puzzled to why they are seen as such an amazing bass. But hey thats just me, I might of just been expecting too much, for what it's worth it was a solid and well built bass and even though had seen some rough gigging it still did it's job...though in retrospect I'd most definetly like to try it again through my new rig and also my technique is more focused as opposed to when I had the $$.

[quote name='benwhiteuk' post='196421' date='May 11 2008, 11:11 AM']is this where i sign up to the Warwick clique? what's the initiation like?[/quote] "It's a Secret...."

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='196361' date='May 11 2008, 09:57 AM']TBH the various models sound different but in many ways share characteristics that as good a starting point as any is to select your price bracket (NT/BO etc) then try out the model that pleases you aesthetically, then go from there. Shallow I know but I've got to like what a bass looks like to get the best from it [/quote] I'm with you John, it's partially the reason I dislike my Thumb BO, yes in all essence it's a Thumb bass and I get that Growl, but the looks are only slightly different to that of the NT's and I originally fell in love with the looks of the NT's, so until I actually have a NT Thumb I think I'll always dismiss my Thumb as a true Thumb.

Doug Johns, I've been getting shed loads of inspiration from this guy for a good while now, also I'm starting to get a strange liking for Pedullas.

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='196064' date='May 10 2008, 04:36 PM']SNAP [/quote] You sank my Battleship!

[quote name='Viajero' post='196034' date='May 10 2008, 03:56 PM']I've been trying to figure this out, but haven't got a definite answer anywhere because it's all shrouded in Warwick advertising guff. Is there a kind of ranking of the various Warwick models? The Rockbass versions of everything seem to be like entry-level versions, but is a Corvette superior to a Thumb, and what of a Streamer? How do these relate to each other? What're the differences?[/quote] There is to an extent, but thats purely price based, so in answer to that, the highest ranking Warwick is a Streamer Stage II and then the cheapest being the Rock-Bass range which is as you've said Warwicks entry level series. It's 100% personal preferences when it comes to which one is better, as mentioned some will go strictly for which is the more expensive with the mind set of "Ohhhh it's expensive, therefore it must be amazing" and in a good amount of cases they're right And then there are the guys who prefer to buy the mid-range and second hand stuff and usually alot of guys prefer Corvettes (Prolines, $$'s, Jazzman's) and Streamers(LX, Jazzmans, $$'s, Standards) over the top of the range W's, like: Buzzards, Dolphins, Vampyres, Strykers and then the NT Streamers and Thumbs. I'm part of the Warwick forum and there are countless members on there who even prefer Rock-Bass models over the higher models. On paper you could say a SS II is better than a Corvette standard, due to much better woods, NT construction, 3-Way MEC electronics, Nifty Inlays, JAN 3, All Gold Hardware, but really if you can pick up the Corvette and get the tone you want and also feel comfortable then why worry about saving another £1500 instead of paying between £250-£450 on a secondhand Corvette. Another example base don my experiences on the Warwick forum, the Thumb NT is the highest in the series, and is one of the most popular basses within bassists around the world, yet some guys will get a Bolt-On version and will prefer it over a NT, and there is a good £500 or more difference between the 2 and a good amount of different attributes (As in different body woods, which do significantly change the tone), some guys just prefer the feel of a Bolt-On and are happy with the tones they can get and I respect that because I spite my own Thumb because it's not a NT, but that's just me. You'd really have to sit down with a whole bunch of Warwicks to find the individual differences, but that famouns Warwick growl is a signature on most of the basses, it's just some of the basses do it better. And some guys love the basses that provide variety as well, like the $$, I personally can't see what the fuss is all about and thats from having one, but I can respect that some players prefer a greater tonal pallet than opposed to a Thumb which is more ideal for growly mids. But for me, I'll be 100% happy when I've got a NT Thumb and a SSII, because their the most expensive

[quote name='Galilee' post='194438' date='May 8 2008, 09:04 AM']Ryan Martinie, LD50 - that's my ideal bass sound. Unfortunately, I haven't got access to the million pounds that it would cost me to achieve it, so I set my Zoom B21.u to mimic an Ampeg and then just hit my bass really hard around the bottom of the neck.[/quote] Huge fan of Ryan, but I'm more for his tone on Lost & Found, its just perfect, the epitome of how a Thumb NT should sound, whereas on TEOATTC it's not as prominent in the mix and for me, L.D.50 the tone is nice but a bit too honky but it really adds to what makes that album so great. Dirk Lance (Incubus) on Science, the perfect example of how a Streamer Stage II does sound. Sam Rivers (Limp Bizkit) on Hot Dog Flavoured Water, just pure Warwick growl. Tye Zamora (AAF) on Anthology, a lovely growly tone and topped off with great melodic playing. Stu Zender (Jamiroquai) on Emergency on Planet Earth + Return of The Space Cowboy, pure growly funk, simple. Marcus Miller, just about any album he's released, his tone knocks me dead. Now this one might seem odd, but I really do think Mike Kroeger's tone on Nickleback's Silver Side up is just amazing, deep dark and growly and some nice playing. Back on topic, I have almost all of my treble cut due to the fact if I hear the tiniest bit of treble in my tone I can't play with that tone at all, I have my bridge pick up soloed and all my mids boosted and a add a layer of bass and voila!

[quote name='Sarah5string' post='193076' date='May 6 2008, 04:57 PM']Flea. I appreciate what he does but he's very arrogant with it and that puts me off totally.[/quote] I wouldn't say he's arrogant, if anything it comes across more like he's just having a good time doing what he does, I'm just not the biggest fan of what he does IMO John Entwistle always came across pretty arrogant.

[quote name='carlosfandango' post='192530' date='May 5 2008, 10:37 PM']oohhhh...are those Nordstrands? I'm thinking of getting them for my 'wick SSI...what do they sound like? Does it take away the "typical" SSI sound?[/quote] They were indeed, well I'll be honest, even with my new Eden rig I struggled to get a satisfactory growl each time I played it and was one of the main reasons for moving it on so soon. It's a great source for debate, but I'd MEC's are whats right for Warwicks, EMG'S maybe, John(Warwickhunt) can prove me wrong no doubt, but for me the SS1 I had wasn't what I was hoping for and I'd say the characteristics I was expecting were not there, but hey that's just me, the new owner loves the Nords I for one still can't hear waht the fus is about,so really I now know I'm definetly suited towards a SSII.

[quote name='NJE' post='192209' date='May 5 2008, 01:31 PM']hello hello, Yes it was the warwick on ebay at £375, its the Pro-M streamer, and I just bought it. Had a good chat with the owner and it seems like a bargain, live dangerously I say. I took a risk ordering a stingray without playing and that turned out great so here is hoping it will be the same again. I am hoping to pick it up tomorrow so expect a review and pictures very soon, plus a possible mini build/modifying diary not far off. The hardware is gold and slightly tarnished (its about 10 years old) and im not a gold fan, so I am thinking about ordering some black stuff from warwick to go on the flamed natural body (if we fall in love that is). Thank you all ver very much again guys, would'nt have even considered buying if it wasnt for the advice I have had. Cheers Nathan[/quote] Maple and black goes together beautifully IMO:

[quote name='NJE' post='191924' date='May 4 2008, 11:24 PM']Hello all, Again I have to say a big thanks for the time people are taking to give me some great info. I should have been clearer, I am looking at a streamer pro-m 5. Its the dicontinued model with the single humbucker at the bridge. The info I have is that it is all wenge laminate neck and a flame maple body. I am liking what I am hearing and if the neck is jazzy then thats great. I want something different and everything people have said about the tone and the sound sounds just what I am after. Well I am going to think about it over night and I may be a convert by the morning. Big thanks so far. Nathan[/quote] Dang it! Completey forgot about the Pro-M, though I have read good things about them, MikeH on here has experience with a 4 string version and spoke highly of it at the time, if anything they sound like a Stingray with much more growl due to the pick up and the posisitioning, and seeing as it is an all wenge neck expect a nice bright undertone as well

[quote name='NJE' post='191868' date='May 4 2008, 09:47 PM']I am really not having a huge amount of luck looking for a five string. I just got beaten to a G&L on the bay because windows decided to have a fit. I have another thread going enquiring about laklands, musicman etc but wanted to know about these german bad boys im seing around. Anyway, I have been slightly turned on by a Streamer 5 and was just wondering what the 5 string warwicks are like having only played a 4. Are the B-strings any good and what are the necks like on them? are they beefy affairs or quite slick. It is a bolt on and wenge neck so just interested to know what they are like. Looking to try one on tuesday but thought I would get a heads up first. What are peoples thoughts on Warwicks in general? Im looking for something different from my musicman. I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks. Cheers Nathan.[/quote] Hey Nathan, Well straight away there is a signifcant difference between Musicman basses and Warwicks, tone wise the Stingrays are more ballsy and can punch when pushed or played right, whereas Warwicks are widley known for their warmth and punch and is one of the main reasons people go in their direction. They are both great for soloing and for holding a groove whilst not getting lost in the mix, whereas the experiences I've had with Stingrays haven't been the best so I may be a bit biased. What kind of Streamer is it exactly man? Because there are a good few different versions: RockBass, Standard, LX(Bolt-On), JazzMan, $$, Stage 1(NT), and the head of the family, Stage II(Tonal Nirvana). I've had experience with a Streamer Stage 1 5 string (Pre 2000) and though it was a great bass I couldn't get on with it, though the B string is very strong tonally and consitent,and the spacing was comfortable also. My Thumb has an all Wenge neck and really adds to the feel and tone of it, but I'm thinking you might be trying either a Standard or LX so the neck will more likely be ovangkol and the finger board is wenge, or maybe I'm just reading it wrong and it may be an all Wenge neck, either way the tone and feel maybe different. Streamer necks are more inclined to be Jazz-like, very smooth and fast, as opposed to chunky Stingray necks so there is something you would have to get use to but it wouldn't take long. It really depends what you want from a Warwick, to some they are regarded as overpriced furniture and to the rest they are fantastic basses. Can't go wrong with a good 'Wick! Josh

Nice simple set up man, straight up punch!!