I played a lovely Doug Wimbish Spector the other day that I would love to own, but I’ve never really loved the idea of buying someone else’s signature instrument to play on stage. It’s probably totally irrational. I’m curious how people feel about buying signature models? How many own them? (les paul not included)
Not at all. If the bass plays well, and sounds good, I'm all for it. Lucky for me, I'm lefty, so sig basses aren't really an option anyway.
I can’t recall ever even seeing one in person, much less thinking about buying it. And I’ve been to NAMM five times. Edit: on further review, I actually have played at least two Jack Casady Epiphones, and if I ever saw a fretless one with no neck dive having his name associated with it wouldn't bother me in the least, although I probably still wouldn't buy it.
I don't mind at all owning a signiture bass. But buying? I ain't got that kinda money lol. But I'll own one
If the bass has the specs I'm looking for I don't care. I'm not really a Nikki Sixx fan but I have a Schecter J4 Sixx signature. I was looking for a Jbass that was not a Fender and this one met all the check marks. It sounds great, build quality is perfect and has one of the best necks I've ever played. All that beats someone's signature on it.
I’ve got two, Tony Franklin fretless and Flea active Jazz. Both unique instruments. I think of it like focusing on American made instruments. It moves focus from what is really important to something easily marketed. if it plays well and looks good to a person they should buy it.
I’ve had no problem owning many Geddys, a Dede Ramone P bass, a Flea roadworn etc etc Still have a Geddy…2012 MIM with Brantley’s and rotosounds!!! Despite all the Geddyness It doesn’t really occur to me that it’s a Geddy when I’m playing it. It’s just a great jazz bass.
There are less than a handful of bassists, living or passed, whose signature on an instrument would convey any credibility or "imprimatur" to me and they are so lacking in pubic notoriety that their name could never support the marketing effort that goes with the typical signature bass. So, I will never have to resolve the question for myself
I can pretty much guarantee you that except for another bass dweeb, no club-goer or audience member will notice it is a signature model and will probably have never even heard the name of the "artist". 1/2 of them don't even know what a bass guitar is. All they see is a guitar-shaped object. If it meets your needs and wants, go for it.
Mostly, I feel like a signature model is just a way to add some extra dollars to the price tag. I likely don't want everything that makes that particular model unique (particularly if it's distressed/aged artificially, that's just not my jam.) There are a few though that I'd be happy to own. The Yamaha Peter Hook BB, the Rickenbacker Al Cisneros (the green inlays are way cool) and way back in the day, I remember trying out a Fender Duck Dunn signature P bass that was beautiful and played great, but was well out of my price range at the time. So if I were in the market for a new bass, I wouldn't immediately dismiss a signature model outright, but I'd want to make sure it really checked all my boxes and wasn't outrageously priced. Just like any other bass I'd buy, I guess.
How about Sire Marcus Miller basses (The guitars are Larry Carlton ). Do you consider them signature basses?
I have no problem with them in general if I like the look and the other features. The only one that kind of bothered me was the Sting signature. It would've been fine if it didn't have that "Stinglay". For some reason, having that at the 12th fret was a turn-off for me. I don't really feel like a Les Paul counts because it's been such a major player in music history for so long. It's almost like it's as synonymous with "fine guitar" as brand names like Fender, Rickenbacker and others. Also, the Jack Casady Epiphone never bothered me either. And the old Noel Redding Jazz was fine as well. So I guess all-in-all I'm fine with them.