• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

How do you feel about signature models?

The title pretty much says it all. No matter how nice a bass is, its always a HUGE turn off (and sometimes a deal breaker) when its a signature model. Im not entirely sure why, but i guess i feel weird playing something that isnt meant for me. Its weird i know, but im curious to see if im the only one. Anyone else feel the same way?
 
Absolutely love them. The only basses I've loved from first touched and the only basses I've held onto for more than a few months are signature models. My two main basses and the last two basses I will ever need are my geddy lee sig and my jaco custom shop relic sig
 
Overall, they are a turn-off. I've seen a few that I like, but two things have been a deal breaker for me. First, the artist's name being prominently displayed on the bass, sometimes on the headstock or the worst case example, inlaid on the fretboard (Sting). The second is the artist themselves. I really like the looks of the Fender Mike Dirnt basses, but I'm not going to buy any instrument named after a member of Green Day. I'd feel like a jackass.
 
I will never buy one. My feeling on it is that they paid an artist for the rights to use their name in hopes of gaining market share. I'm sure that they are adding the cost of obtaining the rights to the cost of the bass which makes me believe that they could build the same bass and sell it for less if it wasn't a signature model. In my opinion, it's nothing more than a gimmick used to try to trick naïve buyers into thinking that the bass they buy will be exactly like the one used by their favorite artist.
 
I will never buy one. My feeling on it is that they paid an artist for the rights to use their name in hopes of gaining market share. I'm sure that they are adding the cost of obtaining the rights to the cost of the bass which makes me believe that they could build the same bass and sell it for less if it wasn't a signature model. In my opinion, it's nothing more than a gimmick used to try to trick naïve buyers into thinking that the bass they buy will be exactly like the one used by their favorite artist.

that wouldn't stop me. as was mentioned,... "a good bass is...." :ninja:
 
They are a turn off. I don't think I've ever seen a great musician playing one.
With the exception of Les Pauls, but that's a substantially different case -- he actually designed them from scratch.

They deeply offend me as wannabee kid-stuff fanboy nonsense, plus -- supporting this premise -- they're just gimmicks about 95% of the time with little that's really technically distinctive. The worst case I can think of offhand was the "Sting," which was nothing but a FJ '54RI they effed-up with that moronic inlay that everyone rightfully despises so much.

Considering they're aiming this stuff at immature players, it's always struck me that having an artist's name appended to it is more of a sales negative than a positive, as fannish young people tend to like one or two groups and hate everything else with a political-grade passion. Note the hate these things get here from all the more juvenile users who don't hate the bass, but the putative signatories, and have to point out they hate the celeb and his band before they continue on with saying that in spite of that, the bass is kind of cool. :rollno:

It's a mistake to assume that this concept is successful marketing beyond a certain low price point aimed at kids -- if it even works there. The big makers are foundering, and lots of their models introduced simply to give the illusion of constant change and novelty fail to be profitable.

I can't imagine anyone over seventeen buying a bass because some bozo's name is on it.