• Ernie Ball
  • MusicMan
  • Sterling by MusicMan

Big Poppa

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
18,598
Location
Coachella & SLO, California
Hello Kids
Dargin sent me a link of Wikipedias segment on Music Man. It is obvious a loyal forumite contributed but there are several errors and issues I have with this.

1. Grover Jackson never tormented us. In the eighties we made so few and were so backordered this wasn't even close to a valid point. I have known Grover jackson since he was an Anvil Case rep in the 70's, before he ended up with Wayne Charvel and later jackson. Grover was not a luthier to begin with but was a quick learner.

Earthwood was shut down the first time due to conflicts with George Fullerton and my father. Music Man and George Fullerton went on to have conflicts with George and so we weerne't in rare air there. We could sell the Earthwoods, George and crew had a hard time making them and then when they were made they had quite a few durability issues. The original factory was in Newport Beach California, not San Luis Obispo. In the early eighties Dan Norton and Ron Saul started making a redesigned Earthwood Bass and half scale soprano acoustic guitars in a space adjacent to our string making factory in San Luis Obispo. We couldn't build Music Man and Earthwood so we put Earthwood on the shelf in favor of Muisc Man.

The comment that I was a long term employee of Music Man is incorrect. I was never on the payroll of Music Man, but was involved in securing Eric Clapton along with other artist relations hookups, Beta testing the Sting Ray and Sabre, and Cutlass basses, betaing all of the amps, and being a helpful godson to my godfather Tommy Walker. Music Man in turn assisted Ernie Ball in their international marketing by introducing them too many of the best foriegn distributors.

Regarding Ernie Ball's participation in the Music Man venture it was purely passive and in a supporting role financially and maintianing general procedures. He was not involved in any design duties whatsoever. All design was handled by a combination of Me and Dudlley .

In the recent years section is says that we produced our own knockoff's, (OLP) We licensed our desins to HHI/Davitt & Hanser to create these products and give us market coverage in this price point. We did it not because of some cashing in scenario but we were creating an opportunity for others to knock us off by ignoring this price point. Also in this day and age if you dont leverage your assets wisely, you may not have a long future.

THe SUB was to prove that you could make a quality instrument without the bells and whistles in the USA. It was a big success and helped us when our main price point was in a slump. Currently the fastest segment of the Guitar biz is over $1,000.00 guitars. The trend is so strong that we make fewer and fewer SUBS each year.

I didn't sponsor the Battle of the Bands, I created it. It is now the largest and longest running live music promotion in the industry.

on Opinions I think that most players prefer post EBMM instruments.

If whoever posted the original is still here would you consider some editng?

thanks
 

Spudmurphy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
12,037
Location
Cardiff, United Kingdom
Just got back from a 7.5 hour drive from beautiful Scotland and I'm catching up on all the gossip here.

Great story BP - ever contemplated getting a book produced stating the definative l history of EB ?

If so put me down for a couple !
 

lenny

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,415
Location
Nova Scotia Canada
wowsers The boys are right BP, you gots ta get this stuff done up in a memoir,i could read about our industry all day!!!!
 

nad

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
185
Location
Leeds, UK
The beauty of wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. I don't have enough time over the next couple of days so I won't be able to amend the facts properly, but if it isn't done by a few days time then I'll probably delve into it. :cool:
 

pack-rat

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
440
Location
vancouver BC
(sitting on the floor at the hearth after Big Poppa's story)


Thanks for the story.

The good (and bad) thing about Wikipedia is that it is "organic" and evolving over time due and is subject to peer review. What I like about it is the "Open Source" spirit.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned in Wikipedia is when EBMM switched to open source (2000?) because of the Business Software Alliance (?).

add : I found this regarding the EBMM & BSA that readers may find interesting

http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
 
Last edited:

Mick

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
1,405
Location
Germany
Where´s the book with all the pictures we want to see and the story to read BP?
Write it down, please.
 

fbecir

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
2,964
Location
Paris, FRANCE
Hello

Wikipedia is a great source of knowledge. Of course, the quality of the articles is not always perfect (it is the same with every encyclopedia).
But everybody can edit and correct the articles.
The french article on Music Man is very short. I will have to update it.
Just give me some time ...
 

John C

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Kansas City
Great story BP - I love this stuff; I've spent some time gathering info on the Schecter family tree (directly to Tom Anderson and James Tyler; indirectly to John Suhr and Don Grosh among others), and had a pretty good handle on the Leo-era Music Man. It appears that some parts of your post are incorporated in the Wikipedia article, particularly your statement about the growth in the $1,000 + price segment. Also, I never knew that George Fullerton was ever involved in the original Earthwood project.

A couple of other issues I have with the Wikipedia post - Leo-era Music Man did use the 3+1 bass headstock, but used a 6 in-line headstock on the guitars. The author claims he has a catalog with guitars using the 4+2; if so, they should post it because every catalog I ever saw (including the ones I picked up from 1979-81) clearly show guitars with 6 in-line headstocks. Further, the 4+2 headstock is well known to be an EBMM design, and should be credited as such. The author has evidently never seen a 70s transparent-finish Music Man since he credits those to Grover Jackson - he should have been visiting Durlauf Music here in Louisville in 1979 (the year I got my first good guitar, a Fender, from them) and seen plenty of natural finish and sunburst Music Man guitars and basses - - I know I saw them lined up behind the counter.

BP - I had always heard that EB purchased the Music Man name and intellectual property during bankruptcy proceedings; if that is indeed the case, then the Wikipedia article should be updated. It definitely should not read like it was an employee buy-out.

The only employee buy-out was Bill Shultz (sp?) and his management team buying Fender (again, intellectual property only, not production facilities) from CBS. Gibson was sold by Norlin to Henry J. (I'm not going to attempt to spell his last name :p ) and his group; prior to the sale Henry and team had not been involved with Gibson.

Oh well, history geek mode off and again thanks some really cool info.
 

fbecir

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
2,964
Location
Paris, FRANCE
John C said:
Oh well, history geek mode off and again thanks some really cool info.

:eek: :eek:
You seem to know a lot of things on the history of the guitar makers !
Perhaps, it is time to write a book (with an enormous chapter on MM ;) )
Thanks again for the information
 

John C

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Kansas City
fbecir said:
:eek: :eek:
You seem to know a lot of things on the history of the guitar makers !
Perhaps, it is time to write a book (with an enormous chapter on MM ;) )
Thanks again for the information

Thanks! It's a lot of internet research, some heasay, and some good input found on a handful of forums: BP has been a great resource here; Tom Anderson has always been forthcoming on his forum (and corrected some mis-information I had from a retailer who had been a Schecter dealer back in the days of the original company); John Suhr is also very forthcoming on his forum - while John mostly focuses on his current activities he is also willing to discuss some of the more famous guitars that came from the Pensa-Suhr days (like Knopfler's carve top, some of Reb Beach's originals, etc.). Great people all.

I actually did have some typed out notes that were lost when my laptop took a dump last year, and I discovered my back up was corrupted (I had never transferred the backup from floppy to CD-ROM :( - a mistake I'll not make again).
 

Big Poppa

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
18,598
Location
Coachella & SLO, California
forrest White did the original 4+2 and music man trademarked it but never used it. Dudley refined the shape while adhereing to the trademark and we were the ones to use it with music mans first.
 

lenny

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,415
Location
Nova Scotia Canada
Big Poppa said:
forrest White did the original 4+2 and music man trademarked it but never used it. Dudley refined the shape while adhereing to the trademark and we were the ones to use it with music mans first.

When u say Dudley refined the shape while adhering to the trade mark does that mean the headstock shape?....it was trademarked? because when i was young thats what turned me off the originals was the headstock ......................so dudley shrunk it down and made the headstock look nicer , but kept the original Shape of the headstock and then put the 4+2 patend to use?
 
Last edited:

lenny

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,415
Location
Nova Scotia Canada
Big Poppa said:
lenny the one you hated growing up is the one you own theyare the same
But BP
This is Ugly and now they are 4+2 which i never have seen before they said EBMM
sabre1.jpg
 

lenny

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
2,415
Location
Nova Scotia Canada
GWDavis28 said:
Lenny the 4+2 headstock configuration is what is trademarked.

Glenn |B)
Yes i realize that the 4+2 is trademarked i guess the simple version is i thought thay used the 6 in line and adapted the 4+2 onto it thus shrinking the overall size and making it look better ,because like i said when i thought of music man i thought of those big ugly 6 in a line and that is definately not what i own now hahahaha i have very elegant and tasteful 4+2 's hahahahha
 

candid_x

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
3,272
Now I understand why EBMM guitars are fondly called “Balls”.

It’s nice to have respect for the builders of your axe.

Thanks for sharing this.

Bruce
 

John C

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
973
Location
Kansas City
Big Poppa said:
forrest White did the original 4+2 and music man trademarked it but never used it. Dudley refined the shape while adhereing to the trademark and we were the ones to use it with music mans first.

Sterling - I didn't know that; I had always assumed the 4+2 was entirely Dudley's design.

That's why I think it's great that you are willing to spend time here and share information with us so openly.
 
Top Bottom