Who Thinks Signature Basses Are Lame

[plangentmusic]

It's not the basses themselves -- it's the concept.

If some celebrity wants some specifics that are a good idea, I get it, but what's the point of wanting what somebody else wants? It seems to be geared to people who have an idol worship of a particular artist and want to emulate their sound and style as much as possible.

The funny thing is, the basses used that made most of these people famous were stock instruments. And the ones with special pre-amps et al , are never quite sound the same, do they?

But most of all, I ate having that guys name on the headstock. I stopped collecting bubble gum cards long ago. The only name I want on my headstock is "Fender."

 

[Rimshot]

How do you feel about Les Pauls?

 

[JimmyThunder]

That's not the same thing. Les designed a totally new instrument and Gibson put it into production.

 

[Mayers]

Well I do have a signature bass. It is a Carvin Bunny Brunel signature. With Carvin, only the shape and the signature is identical to his, I choose what I wanted.

I choose is signature shape because it has perfect balance for someone who want the bass almost upright.

 

[jpTron]

Yeah I kinda agree. Especially if they have stupid inlays or designs on it

 

[Meddle]

Gibson did not put Les Paul's design into production, they modded it first. Les Paul did not want a carved top on his instruments.

As for signatures, I think they are a bit too obviously a marketting ploy. The basic concept is usually a bit suspect as you are either taking a standard instrument or a minimally modified instrument and copying it, putting a sig on it, and charging extra money for the same stuff.

For example is is a shame that you would have to buy the Sting sig to get a '53 style with a contoured body. Nicer body (to some people) but you have to get that sig blatted on the neck.

I don't think it is too bad to emulate your heroes, artists and composers have done it for centuries. However a line has been crossed with signature instruments. A cursory look on youtube reveals scores of teenage boys with the Fieldy signature Soundgear bass, on a long strap down by their knees. Fieldy created his own sound, look and style, and utilised a pretty cheap instrument in doing so. Now you can copy that whole schtick verbatim. I know that not everybody can be a pioneer, but bland copying does not get you very far.

 

[Phalex]

I was going to build a parts bass, but the prices were ridiculous for the various pieces I wanted. I found a bass on E-bay that was almost exactly what I was planning on putting together myself, at a fraction of the cost.

I had never heard of Mark Hoppus at the time, but you know what? His signature bass was just what I was looking for (Minus the precision neck). I swapped the neck out, and it's my main player. Maybe the Hoppus with an SB-4000 neck on it is the Phalex Von Porklipps signature axe? I'll have to see about getting some decals made up.......

 

[Yerf Dog]

Definitely not in the plus column when I'm gear shopping.

 

[Tampabass]

Yeah, it IS a marketing ploy, and there's something I don't particularly like about being a walking billboard for any player.

That said, all that matters to me is that it plays well, sounds great and doesn't look terrible. Having someone's name on the headstock wouldn't bother me enough to feel a need to stay away from a good instrument just BECAUSE it came with a sig name.

Anyone who decides to unload their Jaco sig fretless - "regular" or reliced version - for a ridiculously low price or free, please PM me.

 

[lyency]

plangentmusic made the point! signature basses have nothing to do with quality, they are just like michael jordan's signature underwares :/)

 

[Tommygunn]

Plenty of artists have the same tastes as me. Take Mike Dirnt, sure I'm a Green Day fan but I wouldn't keep a bass that I didn't like (lol ha well one I can't fix). And Reggie Hamilton and Roscoe Beck, I don't even know who either of them are but their signature basses are fantastic. Play it like its any other bass, and judge it the same way.

Thats my take on it.

 

[Febs]

That's not the same thing. Les designed a totally new instrument and Gibson put it into production.

Ted McCarty designed the guitar. Les Paul endorsed it. Pretty much exactly the same thing.

 

[sarcastro83]

The concept, though a little bit lame is still understandable to me. Perhaps some people buy those instruments because they idolize their namesakes, but then, as Phalex has mentioned, some of them just have very specific specs that would otherwise be too costly to build/assemble from brand new.

That being said, I think there are far too many signature series Strats that just look like the same friggin' thing over and over again, but I'm also not a Strat afficionado. So if someone could clarify what the deal with those is, that'd be cool.

Also, the J Mascis Jazzmaster and John 5 Telecaster look really, really cool.

 

[BluesWalker]

Artists are generally given a decent budget to work with the R&D department to design their ideal bass. As an example, check out youtube videos on Gary Willis's description of the work that went into the development and design of his Ibanez fretless bass. What is wrong with the artist and guitar company selling this uniquely designed bass, if they deem it to be commercially viable, to recoup their investment and make some profit? I am sure that in addition to the artist basses you see for sale, there are an equal or greater amount of one-off custom designed instruments played by our favorite artists; one example are the guitars that Doug Irwin made for Jerry Garcia.

I believe the result has been some great basses. I have not played every custom bass that is out there, but I can attest the Fender Roscoe Beck 5-string and Gary Willis's fretless Ibanez basses are two great examples that I have experience with.

 

[KwinS]

I own a few signature basses...because:

1) They all have something about them that I like that is not really available on stock basses; and

2) I don't put much stock in what other people consider lame; I stopped caring about that a long time ago

I think this thread started out as lame trolling.

 

[plangentmusic]

I own a few signature basses...because:

1) They all have something about them that I like that is not really available on stock basses; and

2) I don't put much stock in what other people consider lame; I stopped caring about that a long time ago

I think this thread started out as lame trolling.

Relax pal. Nobody is attacking your preferences or telling you to change. It's sharing opinions on a concept. Personally, I don't wear T shirts that have brand names on them. That's me. But you can walk around with a Warwick tattoo for all I care. It's all good.

 

[Strebs27]

A signature bass is a big minus for me. I'd really have to like the way one plays to buy one, but even then, I'd probably look for the exact same specs on a non-signature model. A signature bass would really have to talk to me before I'd pull the trigger and, in that case, it would be because of the way it felt/played rather than the signature.

 

[Spinal Tapper]

I think some of Fenders signature basses are some of the coolest looking basses off their production line.

I had a Geddy Lee, it was a great jazz bass. I just sold it because I'm more of a Precision guy. I loved the vintage look and BAII bridge. Also the thin neck profile.

Plus, it only had a signature on the back of the headstock, so it's not like it said GEDDY LEE across the front of the body or something.

 

[cetera]

I own a few signature basses...because:

1) They all have something about them that I like that is not really available on stock basses; and

2) I don't put much stock in what other people consider lame; I stopped caring about that a long time ago

I think this thread started out as lame trolling.

Huge +1 to this....

 

[PSPookie]

For me, it depends on the instrument. Some of the signature models are unique instruments like the Epiphone Jack Cassady and Allen Woody basses.