Your opinion on this statement?

My opinion is only Stu Hamm's opinon counts when it comes to his personal instrument choices.

If money is involved, ignore what is said.

Having never played either Kubiki or Steinberger basses I can't comment on how they play, though I've heard many players that use them and sound great. My issue is with the interview itself. I don't think that interviewing an endorser will give anything close to an objective response because, at least in the case of Fender, these guys are getting paid some serious cash to say that these instruments are awesome and make them sound awesome onstage. There may be some truth to what he says but it's probably been greatly exaggerated to make Fender sound like the hero here.

This isn't to knock Fender because I own an American Deluxe Jazz FMT V and it sounds great, but if Fender paid me any kind of money to say that it was the best bass I've ever laid hands on you can bet your house that I'd be smiling and lying through my teeth to get that money.

Concerning tone, It's interesting that Geddy would claim that his Steinberger lacked low end because compared to my Sandberg and many of the other basses I've owned, my FMT V actually has significantly less low end. Luckily, it works for the bass and if I ever feel that I'm lacking low end my LMII can handle it.

I think his last statement says it all: "I also tried to design a bass that would (have) a place in the marketplace."

He played Kubicki for a number of years and seemed perfectly happy with them until they were bought by Fender. A Fender bass will sell more units than a Kubicki bass, and Stu Hamm endorsing Fender would make more money than Stu Hamm endorsing Kubicki.

IIRC, his signature Fender had Kubicki-designed electronics, so he could get his basic Kubicki sounds, but from a bass with Fender's name on the headstock.

*EDIT*
I can see where he's coming from with his comments on needing or being requested to play a Fender bass (vs the Kubicki) on a session, as that is (or least used to be) a common situation; but at the same time, I have a hard time picturing Stu Hamm having that issue. Since when have Steve Vai or Joe Satriani shied away from "new-fangled, weird, gimicky stuff?"

mongo2 said:

My opinion is only Stu Hamm's opinon counts when it comes to his personal instrument choices.

Click to expand...

Money influences and tastes may change. If Geddy wanted to hand me one of those "sterile" Steinbergers or Wals, I'd be more than happy to take them off his hands.

these guys are getting paid some serious cash

I have always heard and seen people chase endorsements and have signature instruments. Just what amount is "Serious Cash"? Does Fender offer a Million Dollars for a signature bass? Is it $100K, $10K, or maybe a free bass and a hookup cable? Just curious as to what an endorsement is worth. Really can't imagine a bass endorsement being worth that much money. Obviously we aren't going to retire on it, eh?

Anyone know?

I dunno, maybe there's a grain of truth in what he said and the people he recorded with complained that the Kubiki was too modern-sounding? The fact that he ended up playing with Joe Satriani suggests that he probably did a lot of rock sessions to me and it's no news that modern bass tones aren't exactly well-liked in this style. I'm pretty sure his session work is what pays the bills and not his solo recordings so maybe he eventually gave in and ditched the Kubiki for a bass that could pull off traditional tones more convincingly?

with all factors being equal or close to equal we still have to pay our bills to support our lifestyles, dreams and visions.

with that being said..... if they like it ,i love it as long as it isn't criminal

i'm just glad they are both making great music

Tonally there is no "best" or even "better" IMO. I think tone is like taste in foods; everybody has their favorites. That's why there aren't just Fenders.
I'm not famous, but I've been playing for money since the early 70's and still do to this day, and in that time I've used/owned a whole bunch of basses and rigs. At one point or another I've absolutely loved every one of them, thought that they were the "last word" in bass.
I'm certainly not in a league with Geddy or Stu, but I'm very fortunate to be able to pretty much get what I want gear wise. I've never owned a Kubiki, and haven't had a Steinberger since they were "fashionable", but have had most of the "trendy" basses, when they were still trendy, and would still have them if I still thought they sounded good.
I'm currently down to 8 basses total. I have a 4003 that hasn't been played out in over 3 yrs, a MM StingRay that I brought out to a job 2 weeks ago and just sat on a stand all night, before that it hadn't even been played in 3-4 years.
The only ones I gig with regularly are a MIA J and a MIA P.
I still personally like all of them, and plan to keep them to have their particular tonal tools available to me. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Mr. Lee still has a Steinberger and Mr. Hamm still has a Kubiki or two also.

I guess my point is that maybe it's money, but maybe the world famous bassists in this thread just like the Fenders best.

Just like all the rest of us, he has his own personal preferences when it comes to bass guitars. It could be that he was just tired of the Kubiki and wanted a change, which I have done that myself on more than one occasion.
Think of this: wouldn't you like to have a bass you helped design that really had the tone you have always wanted? And make some money as well off of it? I cannot fault him for that. He was even taking a risk to his name if the design tanked it in and became a disaster.
That being said, I owned the original Medium scale version of his signiture bass. It felt really good to hold and play due to it's smaller size, but the tone, to me, was too modern and lacked low end, despite what I did to EQ it or make adjustments to the knobs or trim pots in the back. I have never heard the new version of the bass or tried it out, but some day I would like to.
If he had a Kubiki to pass along to someone else, I would gladly take one from him as well to try and experience.

What one guy plays is his own personal choice and has very little influence on what I play, but may entice me to try one out when provided an opportunity at a local store.
That doesn't necessarily mean I'll ever buy one, but I might be tempted to check out what the fuss is about.
Or not.

In the old days (and the days of those who would want to bring them back), the Fender P-bass was ubiquitous in the studio because engineers could EQ it quickly in the mix.
Eventually, only a P-bass became 'the standard' - Even the Jazz model was looked upon with some question for a time.
In spite of 30+ years of pickup and preamp innovations that meant the external compensations used to record an 'acceptable' bass guitar tone were no longer necessary, the bias continues.

That said, an artist's voice should always be their own. In that interview, Hamm sound surprisingly conservative regarding instruments given his personal tone and approach...But that's passing irrelevant, because in the end it's his choice to live with.
I don't agree with Lee's perception of the Steinberger ("unsatisfying in the bottom end" ), but IMO as it was one of the first basses to give an balanced response in all bandwidths that it was capable of reproducing (as opposed to more 'traditional' instruments) the lack of 'weight' in certain frequencies over others may have led to that conclusion. I found the neck profile unworkable for me personally, much like the Big Al - but the sonics were great. So it goes.

In the end, the endorsement game is a rough one. An endorsee has to walk a fine line with the politics of it all - it helps if you actually like the instrument you're endorsing. Hell is when you don't.

When an artist/builder/consumer is stoked with a transaction, then I'm glad for their sake, even though it has almost zero effect over what I crave.

(Most "signature" models are strangely unappealing to me, regardless of the artist or manufacturer.)