Even though I am interested in learning which artist uses which product (you rarely hear precisely "why" unless it's the usual "because they give me my sound" type of stuff), I've noticed in the last few years the following:
Certain products and brands totally dominate certain musical styles and instruments, artist-endorsement-wise. Yet, if you read the product reviews, these products don't always measure up. This goes for sound quality and reliability.
I truly believe (and have even seen interviews attesting to this at least in a couple of cases) that musicians, like anyone else, will usually take something if it's free or if they get compensated a bit. It is, after all, a business. If someone gave you free food that was decent, you just cut your overhead by a lot. Same idea here. They're cutting their overhead, and they're smart to do it.
So, I'm convinced that there are bassists using brand "a" of a product because it is free, for example, whereas they used to use "b" when they actually had to pay for it themselves.
Also, I'm convinced that there are some very strong marketing campaigns out there in the musical equipment business. If you really analyze on a product-by-product basis, you'll see that some brands have no endorsements and another brand has everyone, even though the products are just as bad or good as one another. You can also see every few years a mass migration of these people to another brand.....not because of quality disparities, but because the other brand has now "come alive" with better endorsement deals. It's the same thing in many other professions: people go from company to company, to whichever one gets "hot" at the time, "hot" meaning "with more $ to give [me]".
This goes for strings, too, I'm sure.
LouLoomis
Certain products and brands totally dominate certain musical styles and instruments, artist-endorsement-wise. Yet, if you read the product reviews, these products don't always measure up. This goes for sound quality and reliability.
I truly believe (and have even seen interviews attesting to this at least in a couple of cases) that musicians, like anyone else, will usually take something if it's free or if they get compensated a bit. It is, after all, a business. If someone gave you free food that was decent, you just cut your overhead by a lot. Same idea here. They're cutting their overhead, and they're smart to do it.
So, I'm convinced that there are bassists using brand "a" of a product because it is free, for example, whereas they used to use "b" when they actually had to pay for it themselves.
Also, I'm convinced that there are some very strong marketing campaigns out there in the musical equipment business. If you really analyze on a product-by-product basis, you'll see that some brands have no endorsements and another brand has everyone, even though the products are just as bad or good as one another. You can also see every few years a mass migration of these people to another brand.....not because of quality disparities, but because the other brand has now "come alive" with better endorsement deals. It's the same thing in many other professions: people go from company to company, to whichever one gets "hot" at the time, "hot" meaning "with more $ to give [me]".
This goes for strings, too, I'm sure.
LouLoomis