Page 5 of 5
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:27 pm
by bobcat
It's definitely about eight trillion times prettier than a Warwick.
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 4:52 am
by david_schwab
I don't get all the fuss about Warwicks. I have played a few and don't care for them at all. The necks are like 2x4's! Blech!
I guess since my first good bass was a 4001, I gauge all necks to that bass!
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:01 am
by jwr2
my first good bass was a 1968 4001 ... now that's a tough act to follow!
Warwicks don't growl ... and they don't have a real bite either ... they are clean and smooth and I really like the adjustable nut ...
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:06 am
by david_schwab
I was always surprised that they got away with that nut, since I believe that Alembic did it first, and I thought had a patent on it.
I like zero frets myself.
Jack Bruce plays a Warwick, so I have to respect that. I don't care for them though.
Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:36 am
by 80stingray
Try playing a Warwick from the late 80's to the early 90's, completely different feel and sound, 1000 times better than any of the new ones. I've owned a couple dozen of them.