Adam Clayton Jazz

[dStar]

Pretty bass. Overpriced.

But, don't hate on Adam. Some of you might be better players than he, but I know your not as successful. So get over it.

Gene inspired me to play, Geddy and Chris made me want to give it up. Adam gave me hope.

Rock and Roll isn't about being the best musician (that's what jazz is for, LOL), it's about connecting with the common man. U2 connects. IMHO

 

[Honkycat]

Judging by the specs, I would say it's almost like a American Deluxe Jazz, except with passive pickups and a custom color.

Bingo....!!

 

[48thStreetCustom]

Man, I wouldn't mind getting one of these. I don't really care for U2 but this thing is spec'd pretty nice!!

That's my feeling. Looks like a cool bass but I wouldn't pay extra for his signature. But I have no problem with him or anyone who would.

 

[depalm]

I prefer the Adam Clayton signature p-bass of the Fender custom shop:

http://www.themusiczoo.com/product/...n-Adam-Clayton-Signature-P-Bass-Gold-Sparkle/

Nice!!

 

[Midak]

I would like it more if Fender had made it that way:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[danosix]

Can you believe how much Fender wants for that Dusty Hill slab of beat up wood? (love to have one but...) So I made one myself....

Agreed, the price is offensive.

 

[danosix]

I'm not following your logic here. If you're inferring that Clayton, who receives royalties as co-writer on a large body of U2's recorded work (and which Dusty Hill, who is co-credited as writer on an overwhelming portion of ZZ Top's work no doubt shares a similar status with) and as a result of this personal fortune therefore discounts his percentage of endorsement royalties on an instrument that bears his name manufactured by a large multinational corporation...I'm afraid that dog doesn't hunt.
I certainly don't begrudge either artist the slice that they make from sales of their endorsements (whatever that may be), but for various subjective reasons I will not be a contributor to the pile. Again, YMMV.

No, I don't think he discounts it - he just has so much money it won't make a difference to him at all. AND regardless of which band may or may not be "better/more influential/more original/better musicians", U2 makes about 10 times as much money as ZZ. The sales of Joshua Tree alone would match the sales of all of ZZ's records combined and their tours are among the largest grossing every year. Again - not a measure of "awesome-ness" just about how much money they/he has and thus how much he needs it.
Also, to the guy I originally responded to re: who's greedier Adam or Dusty, Dusty also actually "designed" his (ie chose the ridiculous backwards headstock, etc) whereas Adam picked the colour.
Here's a great piece of irony - getting the custom shop to build you a guitar that deliberately looks like it's made of badly chosen spare parts - I mean really, backwards headstocks are so 1991. Before I saw that, I thought paying extra for a guitar that was already beaten up was silly!

 

[Polfuste]

Just another jazzbass.. i much prefer his warwick one.

 

[darkblack99]

No, I don't think he discounts it - he just has so much money it won't make a difference to him at all. AND regardless of which band may or may not be "better/more influential/more original/better musicians", U2 makes about 10 times as much money as ZZ. The sales of Joshua Tree alone would match the sales of all of ZZ's records combined and their tours are among the largest grossing every year. Again - not a measure of "awesome-ness" just about how much money they/he has and thus how much he needs it.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from. Forgive me for parsing your quote, but I'll attempt to be brief. I'm not in a position to assume how Adam Clayton feels about his money, but in his position as a long time co-principal of a world wide entertainment consortium I would think that he is very aware of his relative worth and what he must do to maintain it. Whether one is a musician in a local top 40 act or a large scale touring attraction, money is always a prime factor and ones time and reputation are not given out in de facto discounted ways to third parties. 'It won't make a difference' is a non-starter of a reason in this matter.
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/u2s-adam-clayton-seeking-millions-in-misappropriated-funds-lawsuit/
As for U2 making 'about 10 times as much money' than ZZ Top? Debatable, although I'm not informed enough to indulge such a dialog. Suffice to say that your statement regarding The Joshua Tree is inaccurate, and this can be verified by comparing publicly available sales figures for Eliminator to U2's album. In such a comparison, a case of relative equality in terms of units sold becomes apparent.

I care not at all who is 'better' or 'more influential' in a comparison between these artists. That's a subjective matter for the public to decide. In this particular debate, my sole comment regarding worth had to do with the MSRP of a signature model, and as influential as a band might be, their financial requirements for endorsement are but one component and not the final determining factor of what a manufacturer might sell its products for.

 

[danosix]

As far as Joshua Tree to Eliminator, I Stand corrected. While I knew ZZ was a top selling act, I didn't think they were in the same sales league. Ultimately, all this discussion has proven is they're both equally greedy as they both equally don't need the cash. And what I mean by this is that if you are ridiculously rich (like at least the one and apparently the other is too) you don't need to go scrounging for endorsement dollars at the expense of your fans. If you got something other than a sticker of his sig (like he'd put any effort into designing it, or special features) than they're getting something.
As for maintaining his reputation - cheap endorsements sully your rep - he could have just gotten a nice fat cheque for doing some Fender Ads holding basses he actually plays and not embarrassed himself. Same with Dusty.

 

[gragravar]

A friend of mine works at a Fender distributor here in Ontario and and told me over the weekend that the real life pricing of the bass will be more in the $1100 US range. He's usually quite well informed on these things FWIW.

 

[darkblack99]

And what I mean by this is that if you are ridiculously rich (like at least the one and apparently the other is too) you don't need to go scrounging for endorsement dollars at the expense of your fans. If you got something other than a sticker of his sig (like he'd put any effort into designing it, or special features) than they're getting something.

Agreed. The sad reality of the current music business as it pertains to recording artists (as I'm sure we're all aware) is that the pittance most of them made from sales of recorded product is even more of a pittance now. This forces those artists whose primary income came from record sales into seeking other revenue streams to make up what has been lost...e.g., Sammy Hagar's tequila business or (so I've been told) Dusty Hill's cologne brand. Anything that one can attach their name to as a purported expression of quality is fair game for exploitation - same as it ever was.
That said, I think we also agree that players who would buy an instrument solely on the endorser's name value are in the vast minority - what matters most is if the instrument fits the player. My primary show instrument at the moment is a GL Jazz - but without the sig decal on the headstock it's just a 70's jazz bass with a tweaked neck profile and a Badass II, basic mods I would have done anyway on such an instrument but FMIC was kind enough to save me the trouble.

 

[danosix]

Agreed. The sad reality of the current music business as it pertains to recording artists (as I'm sure we're all aware) is that the pittance most of them made from sales of recorded product is even more of a pittance now. This forces those artists whose primary income came from record sales into seeking other revenue streams to make up what has been lost...e.g., Sammy Hagar's tequila business or (so I've been told) Dusty Hill's cologne brand. Anything that one can attach their name to as a purported expression of quality is fair game for exploitation - same as it ever was.
That said, I think we also agree that players who would buy an instrument solely on the endorser's name value are in the vast minority - what matters most is if the instrument fits the player. My primary show instrument at the moment is a GL Jazz - but without the sig decal on the headstock it's just a 70's jazz bass with a tweaked neck profile and a Badass II, basic mods I would have done anyway on such an instrument but FMIC was kind enough to save me the trouble.

Haha! My wife had to buy the Sammy Hagar Rum (I knew it had to be bad, but happy spouse, happy err... house) and it was BAD, probably the worst rum I've ever tasted on its own (though it mixes okay... not as good as any decent rum).

 

[danosix]

Nice!!

Well that actually looks like something I've seen him playing - though I don't want to know the price of a customshop and while I love matched headstocks on RW fingerboards, I never cared for them on Maple - it's just kinda weird - it looks like they "forgot" to paint the neck, if you know what I mean.
EDIT: Love that colour. Second thingy - (I love abalone, buut does it seem a little "posh" on a fender, particularly a maple neck to anyone else?)
NOTE: My objections here are strictly taste and do not consider either of these things "flaws" just not what I want. But if I could have a straight up 70s style P neck (maple, dots not blocks and maple headstock) I'd KILL for that EVEN IF I had to pay Adam a royalty.