• 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 free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

How do you feel about signature models?

#81
I've been thinking about this some more.

So, you all ignore or hate "signess."

I've explained why that's OK, because it's not about the buyer anyway.

But why it grates on me personally is also because it's dumb.

The artist is actually the least interesting part of the whole story. He's merely a consequence. He's merely the punchline to an incredibly complex and unlikely accidental chain of events involving hundreds of others that resulted in him having some fame while innumerable guys starting with the same basic ability didn't. A lot of people and weird flukes made that guy. He's as much of an end product as the instrument he plays. He's an artifact of mythmaking, not a god. He's a guy who bought a bunch of tickets and actually won the lottery through blind chance. If it wouldn't have been him it would have been someone else just as good working just as hard, and the contribution to music would have been a little different and maybe better. So, I can't get excited about some guy. To focus on him is to miss the big picture.

The music to which he contributes may be significant. His story may be interesting (though it's probably one you've heard a thousand times before). But musical celebrities themselves are just boring to me beyond the point they help produce effective musical product. It's not about them anyway.
 
#85
I think it's karma, I had always hated them. For any and all reasons you can come up with, I hated them. But, my ears were saying that I needed a J bass with a maple board, and my sense of what people on the other side of the mic deserved seeing, not student-ey looking dots, but "professional looking nothing or blocks and binding". Well, at my price point in '07, the Geddy Lee was the best seeming tool for the job. What a piece of crap. But it's good enough for live rocking.
 
#86
If it's an instrument that fills a "need" as I perceive it, then I don't care if it's a signature model, or not. I do own a few, too.
IMO, several of the signature basses AND guitars available out there, from various companies, offer something very unique that may not be available in their standard series.
 
#87
I think there are two kinds of signature basses. The first kind is essentially a color scheme with possibly an aftermarket pickup. I don't like or dislike those - I just don't care about them. The second kind can be special because it is soething not otherwise in the marketplace. I own a Peavey Sarzo. That bass and the Tim Landers signature series took Peavey to a new level. I also used to own an Urge I, and there aren't too any basses out there with a 32" inch scale and a JPJ pickup configuration. I don't care so much which artist has their name on the headstock, but I do appreciate the artists that help bring something a little different to the table.
 
#88
Bongolation said:
No, I have an intense hatred of being a corporate marketing victim, if only obliquely.
Click to expand...

You do realize that your only a victim if you buy into the whole marketing thing and are let down by it right? I realize that companies use marketing to sell instruments but I don't feel victimized by it. I recognize that businesses try and sell products. That's just what they do. For example. I don't think there are alot of guys who already have p-basses with maple necks and then go buy a Matt Freeman bass just to be like Matt Freeman. Maybe they want a P bass to begin with and the Matt Freeman fits the bill. If you are a kid that loves Rancid or Freeman's other stuff and you buy the bass just for his name then your probably upgrading from a lesser instrument (squiers are killing it for quality lately) or switching over from a different style of bass. What's wrong with either of those scenarios?

With the amount of information available nowadays consumers are only victims if they don't do their homework or choose to buy into marketing hype.
 
#90
Bongolation said:
I've been thinking about this some more.

So, you all ignore or hate "signess."

I've explained why that's OK, because it's not about the buyer anyway.

But why it grates on me personally is also because it's dumb.

The artist is actually the least interesting part of the whole story. He's merely a consequence. He's merely the punchline to an incredibly complex and unlikely accidental chain of events involving hundreds of others that resulted in him having some fame while innumerable guys starting with the same basic ability didn't. A lot of people and weird flukes made that guy. He's as much of an end product as the instrument he plays. He's an artifact of mythmaking, not a god. He's a guy who bought a bunch of tickets and actually won the lottery through blind chance. If it wouldn't have been him it would have been someone else just as good working just as hard, and the contribution to music would have been a little different and maybe better. So, I can't get excited about some guy. To focus on him is to miss the big picture.

The music to which he contributes may be significant. His story may be interesting (though it's probably one you've heard a thousand times before). But musical celebrities themselves are just boring to me beyond the point they help produce effective musical product. It's not about them anyway.
Click to expand...

So what? It's just marketing, nothing more. It sells basses. Who cares to whom?
 
#91
I prefer to get something custom to my specs or take a stock instrument and make it my own. Company branding is cool, but I prefer that another player's signature & swag is not on my instrument if possible. I'm not attempting to model myself completely after one other player, I have many influences and I have my own style.

The one I really don't get is how everyone keeps calling any 70's jazz bass with black blocks & binding a "Geddy". It's especially strange to me when they refer to the original vintage ones as a "Geddy" that aren't a signature model.

Fender made a lot of these jazz basses in the early 70's and Fender came up with the design of this bass. Geddy is just one of the people that plays one & it's essentially the stock instrument with a Badass bolted on. There was also a long time when he didn't play a Fender bass, maybe he'll choose to play a different brand bass in the next few years. Then what will we call it when he's playing something else. Uhm, a "Fender '72 jazz bass"? :smug:

I have a '72 jazz bass with black blocks and it's my favorite bass. Geddy is great and all but I don't think of him or him being associated to my bass when I play it. It's my bass and it's a Fender bass that Fender came up with before Geddy decided to play one.

You would think that a signature instrument should at least be different than the stock model. The Sting P bass is kind of the same way. He just plays the stock original instrument, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it just doesn't make sense to call a stock instrument a signature model. It's kind of contradictory, like calling it custom and stock at the same time if you know what I mean...
 
#94
In the case of "let's slap a different bridge and pickups on it and ding it up a little " which Fender seems so good at, I think it's cheezy as hell. But in certain instances (like the Tony Franklin sig Precisions), you get a unique yet functional instrument for considerably less than a custom build, which seems like a win-win.

To sum it up, I would only consider getting such an instrument for its specs, not the name on the back of the headstock.
 
#95
Sartori said:
Then there is no reason to have any basses with different features whatsoever.
Click to expand...
What matters is more an issue of a great individual example of an instrument rather than catalogue features, but nobody needs Geddy Lee's permission to use a Jazz with a high-inertia bridge and a whippy neck anyway.

I guess "Geddy Lee" is easier to remember than "7702," the FMIC designation for that configuration.

But you're right: In the real world, even in a real band and in a real venue with a real sound crew working for the promoter...or in a real session in a real studio with a real producer who's working for a real label, the plain truth is that you're not going to have executive control over "Your Holy Tone" anyway. You're just the bass player. What you want is a bass that is a rare example of personal fit, perfect setup and consistent output without hot strings and too many dead spots. And decent presentation if there's anyone looking. Anything else happens somewhere else up the food chain, no matter what canned flattery they give you about "your awesome tone" to your face. They'll change it. Be obstructive about "your tone" in the studio and they'll redo "your" track (better) with a standby session guy after you leave and tell you how great you sound when they play it back in the next session. Happens every day.

And if you're not even operating as a real musician at that level, what are you sweating about anyway? Your problem isn't which pickup to use, your problem is that you have no gig and no musical significance. As the saying goes, "you're not good enough to be that picky."

Perspective, people, perspective.
 
#98
Bongolation said:
The interesting thing with you people is that nobody here actually seems to think it's a good idea. :D

It's just a continuum of how bad you ignore it or hate it. Nobody seems to want to admit to buying some rough MexiFender because it's gonna make Bubba play just like Bubba's hero, Mark Hoppus and give him a spiritual union with his man-crush. And if they have a woody for the concept of some bastardized P-necked J in pastel colors they just live with the Hoppus stigma in order to get it.

So, obviously, this must be a failed marketing plan from the buyer's standpoint.

Though I've discussed signature models with the parties responsible for them at FMIC some years back, we only talked about the deal, not FMIC's motivation, assuming they had one of any coherence in the first place.

As time goes on, I'm beginning to realize that signature instruments are in fact not about buyers at all (seeing as we all either hate or at best ignore the concept), but a strategy to, by way of an appeal to vanity, brand celebrity players and keep them playing FMIC gear. FMIC sucks up to them hard. I know, because I've discussed it with the guys who do it.

So, if by appealing to some jerk's vanity by issuing a notional sig model that might break even and keeping him in a few specially tweaked instruments because he's such a god among men, then contributing a few royalty bucks to the NPO of his choice if some mook actually buys one of the sig models (that's FMIC's deal the last I heard), then FMIC can still create the public illusion that sixty years on, they still have predominating brand equity among pros. THAT is effective marketing.

It's not really that important if you're impressed by having some guy's name on your bass, and apparently none of you are.
Click to expand...

You're clearly over-emotional about the issue. Corporations like Fender, on the other hand, are rarely emotional about such things. The goal is profit, pure and simple, and marketing is one of the tools that they use to increase those profits. The signature instrument is clearly an effective marketing tool since almost every major manufacturer utilizes it as part of their marketing strategy.

And, to those capable of maintaining a level head about such a topic, it is clear that there are different levels of "signature models." In some cases, like the Pete Wentz model, they are clearly going after a younger market. Because the bass is unique largely because of the graphic applied, it's not targeted to the adult or professional player, but rather a kid who might want to emulate Wentz' "playing" style. On the other hand, you have the Roscoe Beck model. In that case, you have a very unique set of features that make that bass marketable. Beck is a monster player, but let's be honest......he's relatively unknown except to a few bassists. That bass, to me, is more like the Les Paul; named after him in tribute to his contribution to the instrument, rather than a ploy to sell basses. Overall, the concept is more layered and complex than you care to admit. In some cases, they are selling to the buyer that is concerned about nothing more than the name on the headstock. On the other, they are selling an instrument that is the sum of unique features that fills a niche in the market. The end goal never changes......make profits.

Artist relations IS marketing. You clearly state that above, even though you don't seem to understand the concept. Simply put, it's product placement. Put your stuff in the hands of people likely to be seen by the largest subset of your potential buyers. It creates name recognition and puts the product front-of-brain to those potential buyers. Buyers associate your product with an artist or even a tone they prefer. It's not about the vanity of the artist, or some corporate ego primping.....it's about selling product and making profits.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back