Rockbass to lose the cheesy logo?

[Zoe_BillySheehan]

Im actually after a Rockbass, but yeah i totaly agree with the logo.

but i guess it only does say 'rock bass' and people dont complain if it says 'jazz bass'

Z
x

[maxrossell]

[quote name='Zoe_BillySheehan' post='481917' date='May 7 2009, 01:18 PM']Im actually after a Rockbass, but yeah i totaly agree with the logo.

but i guess it only does say 'rock bass' and people dont complain if it says 'jazz bass'

Z
x[/quote]

It's not to do with what it says, it's more the layout and lettering. I think the design looks cheap.

[RayFW]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481929' date='May 7 2009, 01:23 PM']It's not to do with what it says, it's more the layout and lettering. I think the design looks cheap.[/quote]
Exactly.
Another thing Warwick do which drives me mad is use Comic Sans MS as the font on their amps.

I hate that font with a passion.

[mathewsanchez]

Couln't they just put an 'R' on the headstock instead of the standard 'W'?

[Eight]

[quote name='mathewsanchez' post='482198' date='May 7 2009, 05:25 PM']Couln't they just put an 'R' on the headstock instead of the standard 'W'?[/quote]
Maybe they're doing it on purpose - i.e. using the Warwick label to boost sales of Rockbasses at that competitive end of the market?

For the money of a new Rockbass, there are a hell of a lot of options in terms of new basses and higher end stuff on the used market.

[maxrossell]

[quote name='Eight' post='482329' date='May 7 2009, 07:20 PM']Maybe they're doing it on purpose - i.e. using the Warwick label to boost sales of Rockbasses at that competitive end of the market?

For the money of a new Rockbass, there are a hell of a lot of options in terms of new basses and higher end stuff on the used market.[/quote]

To be honest the way I see it is they're trying to increase the value of the Rockbass brand by basically saying that although it's not MIG and it's not made of tonewoods, they still reckon it's made to a high enough standard that it deserves to wear the Warwick logo.

I can understand how that might piss off some current 'wick owners who up until this summer will have had to shell out a lot of bank for something with a "W" on the headstock, just as I'd imagine Gibson owners would be just a tad miffed if Epiphone started putting out Gibsons with the Gibson logo and headstock.

But on the other hand to my mind it'll actually make the MIG 'wicks even more choice. Every Tom, Dick and Harry will have a MIC 'wick, but they'll have a REAL 'wick with the fancy woods and everything.

[12stringbassist]

[quote name='bumfrog' post='481811' date='May 7 2009, 12:06 PM']sounds like he cares more about what's on the headstock then what's actually in his hands....

Happens in all walks of life for all things. Some people like to wear the money they spend on their sleeve and want everybody to know they've spent a lot.[/quote]

It's not all about what I've spent. I don't keep the price tags hanging off them.
And I DO care about what is in my hands which is why I've bought the particular basses I own.

It's all about Warwick branding their budget range the same way as their better basses.
It doesn't distinguish very well between the two and is surely an attempt to boost their
cheapo bass sales.

I'm sure that all the Fender USA owners would love it if the Squier brand was rebadged as
Fender, or Gibson buyers if Epiphones suddenly came out with Gibson logos.

I wonder what Bumfrog plays?
Or if it matters...

[Eight]

[quote name='gafbass02' post='481446' date='May 6 2009, 09:40 PM']I do understand that perhaps that sharing a logo with the branded wicks may debatably devalue the german wicks in the eyes of more gear obsessed types as us, but hey ho, it'll shift more units I'm sure![/quote]
You know, I don't think that the devaluing problem would be with the gear-obsessed or bass heads. If the Rockbasses devalue the perception of the main Warwick brand, it'll be in the eyes of less interested/knowledgeable/experienced musicians who currently think of Warwick as only producing expensive, exotic, high-end growlers (can I say growlers? ) which is not the worst reputation to have if you're hoping to nab £1400+ of someone's beer money for a bass.

Will they keep that reputation or will people start to think of them like many other manufacturers i.e. some of the instruments are great, some are pretty good.

Edit: But then again, maybe by the time someone is ready to spend that kind of dosh on a bass, they'll understand the ins and outs and see the exotic/tone wood Warwicks in the light they are currently in.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Eight

[Stan_da_man]

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 07:01 PM']I'm sure that all the Fender USA owners would love it if the Squier brand was rebadged as
Fender[/quote]
To be fair, some of the modern day Squiers are just as good (if not better) than most MIA Fenders. And that's the sound, build quality, everything. Brand snobs are why they don't sell more.

[Kongo]

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']I'm sure that all the Fender USA owners would love it if the Squier brand was rebadged as
Fender, or Gibson buyers if Epiphones suddenly came out with Gibson logos.

I wonder what Bumfrog plays?
Or if it matters...[/quote]

Who's bumfrog? Every working class man that cannot affor £3000 for a 4-string bass that does nothing better than his Squier?
The people that are happy playing and make stuff happen?

And a history lesson...Squiers WERE Fender once.
Used to have a BIG FAT FENDER on them...And on the end of the headstock tiny tiny writing saying "Squier series".


[quote name='Stan_da_man' post='482477' date='May 7 2009, 09:31 PM']To be fair, some of the modern day Squiers are just as good (if not better) than most MIA Fenders. And that's the sound, build quality, everything. Brand snobs are why they don't sell more.[/quote]

+1 and Squier are getting better and better.

I have, and still do, own some high end basses.
I have admited here somewhere selling a MIA Peavey Cirrus 6 in favour of my Ibanez BTB556MP...Yes I did...because it felt better!

Edited May 7, 2009 by Kongo

[josh3184]

[quote name='Kongo' post='482572' date='May 7 2009, 11:11 PM']Who's bumfrog? Every working class man that cannot affor £3000 for a 4-string bass that does nothing better than his Squier?
The people that are happy playing and make stuff happen?[/quote]

Nope! This guy: [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showuser=5117"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showuser=5117[/url]

He was replying to something bumfrog said earlier

[Kongo]

[quote name='josh3184' post='482583' date='May 7 2009, 11:31 PM']Nope! This guy: [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showuser=5117"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showuser=5117[/url]

He was replying to something bumfrog said earlier [/quote]

LOL Ok miss terminology.
Bumfrog is a term I've heard used for "Mister everybody" where I live.

Still. I do stand by my Squier quote lol!
I can see Warwick upsetting people maybe...not there there SHOULD be but...Well Money talks and with sales I doubt they'll U-turn.

Fender have had cheaper ranges bearing the same name no problemo...WHy should any other company?

[Zoe_BillySheehan]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='481929' date='May 7 2009, 01:23 PM']It's not to do with what it says, it's more the layout and lettering. I think the design looks cheap.[/quote]

Very true!


Z
x

[Kongo]

Does anyone know yet if the $$ comes in 5-string?
I can't find any info and I'm GASsing here!!!!!!!!!

[bumfrog]

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']
It's not all about what I've spent. I don't keep the price tags hanging off them.
And I DO care about what is in my hands which is why I've bought the particular basses I own.[/quote]

Cool, that's good, so when then follow it up with all the rest? Surely you're point above should mean that the following bits don't matter?

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']It's all about Warwick branding their budget range the same way as their better basses.
It doesn't distinguish very well between the two and is surely an attempt to boost their
cheapo bass sales.[/quote]

What about spector? They all have the same logo do they not? Seems to me like Warwick are just copying spector again... (iirc warwick licensed the body shape from spector didn't they? Please correct me if I'm wrong) Never hear about Spector owners whinging that they have the same logo...


[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']I'm sure that all the Fender USA owners would love it if the Squier brand was rebadged as
Fender, or Gibson buyers if Epiphones suddenly came out with Gibson logos.[/quote]

If you're happy with what you have then what does it matter what it says on the headstock? So long as you know what you have got and you are happy with it, then that should be it shouldn't it? Unless I'm missing some kind of secret point nobody has told me about yet?

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482364' date='May 7 2009, 08:01 PM']I wonder what Bumfrog plays?
Or if it matters...[/quote]

do you really want to know???

Edited May 8, 2009 by bumfrog

[bumfrog]

[quote name='Kongo' post='482594' date='May 7 2009, 11:45 PM']Bumfrog is a term I've heard used for "Mister everybody" where I live.[/quote]

really??????

[12stringbassist]

If a company brings out a budget range bass, it should perhaps be badged 'slightly' differently.
I suggested the idea of putting the W in a circle to very subtly point out the difference.

As to the Warwick / Spector issue... licensing a body shape possibly shows a lack of imagination
on Warwick's part, but they have made a good job of the bass and you know which you're getting
if you have the choice of either in a shop, as they are badged properly. It's hard to mix them up.

I was just saying Warwick shouldn't really just use the plain W logo on a Rockbass... but it's their
decision in the end and the punters will probably flock to buy a Rockbass that doesn't clearly say
it's a Rockbass anymore. Sales will go up - +1 to Warwick.

It just irritates me in the very same way that 'Rockinbetter' copies of Rickenbackers do!

My first Squier P was badged 'Fender' - and it was a good bass that was simply sold due to underuse.

[neepheid]

My Epiphone Les Paul Standard bass has a prettier headstock inlay than the Gibson. Actually, the Gibson doesn't have one! Go figure, I just find that amusing.

Edited May 8, 2009 by neepheid

[bumfrog]

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482735' date='May 8 2009, 09:49 AM']If a company brings out a budget range bass, it should perhaps be badged 'slightly' differently.
I suggested the idea of putting the W in a circle to very subtly point out the difference.

As to the Warwick / Spector issue... licensing a body shape possibly shows a lack of imagination
on Warwick's part, but they have made a good job of the bass and you know which you're getting
if you have the choice of either in a shop, as they are badged properly. It's hard to mix them up.

I was just saying Warwick shouldn't really just use the plain W logo on a Rockbass... but it's their
decision in the end and the punters will probably flock to buy a Rockbass that doesn't clearly say
it's a Rockbass anymore. Sales will go up - +1 to Warwick.

It just irritates me in the very same way that 'Rockinbetter' copies of Rickenbackers do!

My first Squier P was badged 'Fender' - and it was a good bass that was simply sold due to underuse.[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I'm with everybody else in the fact that I think the rockbass logo looks awful (hell I own one amongst the many other things )

I think it's just the way that a lot of companies are going with corporate branding on a lot of walks of life at the moment.

Even musicman are doing it now with the new sterling range looking the same as the us ones.

One plus point for bass geeks though, is it makes you more of a geek being able to spot the expensive one from a cheaper one at a distance

[mcc]

Its obvious that Warwick have to try to make Rockbasses look like they are real Warwicks. Making to much of a difference breaks the imaginary difference between the cheaper instrument of an established brand and just a warwick copy. Without any research to confirm, I would believe that a Rockbass doesn't ever come near to anything related to a "real" Warwick until it sits beside one in a showroom.

If you need to flag out which of the two basses is the cheap copy.... there might be something very good about the copy, but most probably there is something incredibly wrong with the original, otherwise why pay six times the amount of the cheap one.

Having said that, IMHO if you have a pricey Warwick (or any other pricey instrument) and run in to a Rockbass, that feels the same, plays the same and doesn't make any difference to you or anyone else, you have just discovered you have an extremely overpriced bass,so sell it at a premium price and get a bigger amp, new bike, or whatever.





[quote name='bumfrog' post='482754' date='May 8 2009, 10:13 AM']Don't get me wrong, I'm with everybody else in the fact that I think the rockbass logo looks awful (hell I own one amongst the many other things )

I think it's just the way that a lot of companies are going with corporate branding on a lot of walks of life at the moment.

Even musicman are doing it now with the new sterling range looking the same as the us ones.

One plus point for bass geeks though, is it makes you more of a geek being able to spot the expensive one from a cheaper one at a distance [/quote]

[Kongo]

[quote name='12stringbassist' post='482735' date='May 8 2009, 09:49 AM']It just irritates me in the very same way that 'Rockinbetter' copies of Rickenbackers do![/quote]

LOL they are ultimately shoving it in their faces with that one!
I thought law suit for sure but country laws won't allow it.

[Fraktal]

[quote name='maxrossell' post='480664' date='May 6 2009, 10:11 AM']The fact that they're also upgrading to a two-piece bridge is a bonus.[/quote]

Based on my humble experience setting up string heigth and intonation on Warwick basses, plus considering the mechanics of sustain and vibration and the role both those bridges play on it, I would think Warwick's 2 piece bridge is actually a huge drawback from the former bridge.

[dlloyd]

[quote name='bumfrog' post='482754' date='May 8 2009, 10:13 AM']Even musicman are doing it now with the new sterling range looking the same as the us ones.[/quote]

Musicman have 'always' done that with their budget ranges. The Japanese EX series (if you can find one) and SUBs both had fairly standard logos.

OLP was the property of a different company that paid a licence fee for the headstock shape.

[Kongo]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='483605' date='May 9 2009, 10:35 AM']Musicman have 'always' done that with their budget ranges. The Japanese EX series (if you can find one) and SUBs both had fairly standard logos.

OLP was the property of a different company that paid a licence fee for the headstock shape.[/quote]

+1 like Squier.
Although blank headstocks are also Fender shape...why doesn't this break patent laws?

[dlloyd]

[quote name='Kongo' post='483680' date='May 9 2009, 01:30 PM']+1 like Squier.[/quote]

Not as such... Fender own Squier.

[quote]Although blank headstocks are also Fender shape...why doesn't this break patent laws?[/quote]

Because Fender didn't actively pursue copyright infringement when they should have.