onewilyfool Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 A lot of controversy and strong opinions about ARTIST guitars....I'm not a big fan, but if I found a good one, i wouldn't mind it. Here is my question......by the time an artist gets a guitar named after him.......he or she (very few female artist guitars....) must be pretty wealthy....why do they need endorsement money??? Do they KEEP the money, donate it to charity???? How much money do you think they make per guitar???? What do you think??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayfingers Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I think they are OK, except for the ones that have the signature emnbedded in the dusty end of the fret board - I'd be right onto that Robert Johnson signature guitar if it didn't have the sig inlay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilpanda Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I think theyre all ok except for the jonas brothers one. but the prices are too high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 A lot of controversy and strong opinions about ARTIST guitars....I'm not a big fan, but if I found a good one, i wouldn't mind it. Here is my question......by the time an artist gets a guitar named after him.......he or she (very few female artist guitars....) must be pretty wealthy....why do they need endorsement money??? Do they KEEP the money, donate it to charity???? How much money do you think they make per guitar???? What do you think??? They don't need the endorsement money, but if a company is gonna pay you to use your name, who wouldn't. Charity? No way. They keep the money and laugh all the way to the bank. Profit - Easy - take a look at the price of the standard model vs the sig model for an idea. Oh, and if they actually take a pin and physically sign the guitar somewhere, that's another boat load of money. I wouldn't buy one (well, honestly, that might depend on the artist and the cost). But, there's obviously a market for sig guitars and there's no reason why a guitar company shouldn't cater to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 To the company it is MARKETING, charging ridiculously inflated prices for a guitar with some famous persons name on it, which in many cases is a model that was modified by some roadie in the back of a U-Haul, and hardly resembles any guitar that Gibson actually built. To the artist it is VANITY, they really don't make much money off it, usually a few buck and a couple of free guitars. If you like I can call a mutual friend of Johnny Winter and myself and tell you exactly what they gave Johnny for the "Johnny Winter Firebird". And by the way, Johnny's Firebird (as recreated) is nothing like any Firebird V that left the Gibson factory during the "reverse" years, it was completely hacked up with at least three headstock replacements, removed Maestro, and many other alterations. I've previously posted a complete history of this guitar somewhere here on this website. As with many of their "Artist Series", they are recreating guitars that someone else built, rebuilt, repaired, and/or modified. In my opinion it's Roadie Bob with the wire cutters and soldering iron that should be making some money off these guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 ... As with many of their "Artist Series", they are recreating guitars that someone else built, rebuilt, repaired, and/or modified. In my opinion it's Roadie Bob with the wire cutters and soldering iron that should be making some money off these guitars. . . . . . . . . . . . . Great post Larry ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 As a rule I don't like signature gear for a variety of reasons. The biggest reason is I that I just don't see the point in spending time, chasing someone else's sound, when you already have your own! but... I do also think though that the guitar as an instrument comes above everything; the colour, the bling, the brand, it's country of manufacture...I really mean everything So if I played a guitar in a shop that was a signature guitar and it played fantastically, then I would (and have in the past) pulled the trigger! Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 They've been around since the 20s. And anyone vigorously opposed the the concept best put down their Les Pauls. Why a sig? 1.To pitch a new product line: Loar, Nick Lucas, Les Paul, Gretsch Chet Atkins 2.To honor an artist ID'd with a special instrument: Monroe-F5 , Scruggs-Granada, Bromberg M42* 3.To re-introduce /re-invigorate a model line. Martin's 00028 Clappers, Bromberg M42 *subsections to 2 2a.To identify the brand with a 'hot' artist: Martin 0028 Clappers 2b.To identify the brand with a dead artist of note: Woody, Jimi etc (I'm sure they asked, first). Im reconciled more or less to the idea that in the world we live in, you cant run a standard line and be done with it. (need those new product announcement to be noticed). I think most of the ire is over subsection 2A, which may be more about said artist not being on somebody's hit parade than anything else. Rave on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneS Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 A lot of controversy and strong opinions about ARTIST guitars....I'm not a big fan, but if I found a good one, i wouldn't mind it. Here is my question......by the time an artist gets a guitar named after him.......he or she (very few female artist guitars....) must be pretty wealthy....why do they need endorsement money??? Do they KEEP the money, donate it to charity???? How much money do you think they make per guitar???? What do you think??? Although I also happen to like the artist very much, the L-200 Emmylou Harris model is pretty dang perfect. (Designed in '02, Gibson says it was the inspiration for the CJ-165 line?) Played one or two, and would love to have one someday. Specs No clue about the financial arrangements, but Ms. Harris is known to be quite the philanthropist anyway. Regardless, that is one nicely-appointed, beautiful sounding guitar...and if any artist, male or female, is more deserving of a signature guitar, I'd be hard-pressed to name 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 As somebody who runs an Advertising agency and have to deal with this on a daily basis i can wholeheartedly concur with Larry here. Thats why I play Gibsons, to bring me back to earth ..:-) To the company it is MARKETING, charging ridiculously inflated prices for a guitar with some famous persons name on it, which in many cases is a model that was modified by some roadie in the back of a U-Haul, and hardly resembles any guitar that Gibson actually built. To the artist it is VANITY, they really don't make much money off it, usually a few buck and a couple of free guitars. If you like I can call a mutual friend of Johnny Winter and myself and tell you exactly what they gave Johnny for the "Johnny Winter Firebird". And by the way, Johnny's Firebird (as recreated) is nothing like any Firebird V that left the Gibson factory during the "reverse" years, it was completely hacked up with at least three headstock replacements, removed Maestro, and many other alterations. I've previously posted a complete history of this guitar somewhere here on this website. As with many of their "Artist Series", they are recreating guitars that someone else built, rebuilt, repaired, and/or modified. In my opinion it's Roadie Bob with the wire cutters and soldering iron that should be making some money off these guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 As far as I see, it seems that most artists guitars are reproductions of vintage guitars that they own and play on stage....OR....guitars that the artist "designed" (Meaning chose the tone woods) I don't think it gets much deeper than that.......most artists are not luthiers who can tell the manufacturer how to build a guitar......So for me, if it is a reproduction of a vintage.....why not just buy the vintage??? If it is the artist "design", why not have it reproduced as a custom guitar with the same choices, or HEAVEN FORBID.....your OWN choices????......lol.......I thinks the "mystic" side of artist guitars, is that somehow the buyer will actually be able to PLAY like the artist who signs the guitar....lol.......well, I guess you could also wish upon a star....lol I guess for some artists......it is an ego trip....who knows.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartanbeastie Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Oh can of worms... folk on the forums know my opinion on this and just to restate, I'm tired of the overpriced "signatures" and reissues. Yes theres a market for them, as was pointed out rather frequently on a recent thread but that doesnt change the fact that most of them (in my mind) dont sound or play better just because they are endorsed by a famous person. Nor in my opinion worth the extra $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltonwce Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I know Paul Mccartney has designated a Landmine clearing charity for proceeds from the sale his signature guitars.I am pretty sure The John Lennon guitars are for charity also. I know Martin Signature Guitars artists have designated Charities,mabe not all. Don't know about Elvis. The Robert Johnson family I believe has control of his estate, they may receive some proceeds. I don't think that a lot of money is to be made as a lot of artist models are limited editions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisA83 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I think they are OK, except for the ones that have the signature emnbedded in the dusty end of the fret board - I'd be right onto that Robert Johnson signature guitar if it didn't have the sig inlay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'm not sure what the "controversy" is. If you've got the dough and like the looks of the guitar (or the artist endorsing it) then you're free to buy the guitar. And Gibson and the other manufacturers must feel there is a market for these guitars because they keep making them. I've seen very few "artist" guitars that moved me. And, frankly, the extra cost that comes with the artist's name is usually off-putting. Not to name-drop, but I was chatting with Steve Earle a few years back, talking about guitars, and he said he had been working with Gibson in an attempt to come up with a bare-bones slope-shoulder that would be a quality guitar and very affordable. I never heard or saw anything more about it, but I was kind of amused when I saw that Martin started offering a Steve Earle M-21 -- with a list price of $4,300, which does not fall in my definition of "very affordable." Plus, how many times have we seen an ad for an artist endorsing an instrument, then we see in-concert photos of the artist playing something completely different? Artist guitars are merely an attempt by the artist and guitar manufacturer to make more money, and that money comes from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamgreg Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I agree with Anne as far as the Emmylou Harris L-200 goes; dang near perfect. It is an original design which led to the J-165 line. The L-200 is indeed a scaled down J-200 and the price is about $1,000 less then a new J-200. Maybe it is an exception to the rule for artist models? I just purchased a used 2002 L-200 which was from the first batch and it is just beautiful. It is truly a keeper; I was considering trading it for a natural J-200 but it sounds just as good with better bass to treble balance then a J-200 when picked and beats the J-200 when it comes to fingerpicking. I live about 60 miles from Kalamazoo and there are a lot of seasoned pickers around here who know their Gibson's. They all say that this is the best design that Gibson has done since leaving Kalamazoo so now I'm not so sure about trading or selling it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponty Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I think they are OK, except for the ones that have the signature emnbedded in the dusty end of the fret board - I'd be right onto that Robert Johnson signature guitar if it didn't have the sig inlay. I very much agree with this.Thats why 11 years ago I had a 000-28EC made, minus the EC bits! Thats a Martin guitar you know!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Gibson goes a ways back with signature guitars - think Nick Lucas and Roy Smeck. And I ain't got nuttin' against having Les Paul's name on an electric. I agree with others that if the guitar is a unique design like the Emmy Lou or Everly Bros. model and their signatrure model is all that is available then it makes sense. But digging deeper into your pockets for the extra scratch to buy some guitar which is a stock model with maybe some different coesmetics and some artist's name slathered on it just don't make no sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMELEYE Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Re. the L-200. Recently caught Emmylou Harris in concert locally. She alternated between a blond/natural J-200 and a black J-200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnneS Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Re. the L-200. Recently caught Emmylou Harris in concert locally. She alternated between a blond/natural J-200 and a black J-200. Anyone remember her old black J-200, with the Rose on it? I heard she retired that one. I saw her in November, but she alternated between the J-200 Montana Gold and what looked to be a rosewood J-200. Didn't see a black one then. I understand writes on the L-200. I saw Robert Plant and the Band of Joy the other day; Patty Griffin alternated between her late 50s/early 60's Country and Western and what looked to be either the L-200 or a J-200 jr...it definitely wasn't her full-sized J-200. Even more off-topic, Buddy Miller--bless him--picked up a 12-string J-185 a time or two that sounded awful sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjl200 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 The more guitars that are available the better. No one is 'forced' to buy one new OR used. Guitar manufacturing is a business and marketing is what drives these types decisions. (why are there convertible /coupe/4DR./signature cars?) just saying Guitars are like cookies many flavors some liked some not but more cookies is a good thing. Artist are no different then any other person. endorsements are pitched TO them. Easy money. Keep in mind that the 'older' LP artists whose catalogs 10+ years ago was worth millions that same down loadable catalog is now pennies on the dollar. Thats why we see so many old bands touring as this money goes into there pocket and not a label for distribution. Income is income why spend yours when someone else will let you add more.... jmho fwiw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eltonwce Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I heard that EmmyLou's Black J-200with The Rose is in the Smithsonian. Don't know if that is true. I would hate to think of it never being played again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-1854Me Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I guess I fail to see how there is any controversy about Signature guitars. Does the artist 'need the money'? I seriously doubt it. Does the guitar manufacturer need the money? Perhaps this is a way for them to spur some sales, so this may be as close to an answer as you get. Probably the most wildly successful Sig guitar EVER is the Martin 000-28 Eric Clapton model which has gone into the 5-figure range for production numbers. In the overall scheme of things, Gibson acoustics with signatures on them are few few in number compared to the number of signature guitars that Martin has trotted out. (Or Fender, for that matter, but that's all electric stuff....) For folks who don't want the signature-version of the guitar, the solution is simple: Don't buy it!! Or, see about ordering something similar but without the signature. If Gibson or Martin or Fender or Rickenbacker or whoever wants to promote their sales with a sig edition, let 'em have at it. Think I'll go play my Sheryl Crow now...... Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack6849 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I bought the Gibson Custom Shop Limited Edition "Eric Clapton 1960 Les Paul" that was released on December 21, 2010. Mine is the "VOS finished" version (unsigned by Clapton and not aged by Tom Murphy). It came from Dave's Guitar Shop in La Crosse, Wisconsin and has Gibson Serial # "EC 020". It's a great Custom Shop Les Paul with a cool "Antiquity Burst" finish on its "lightly figured" Maple top, lightweight Mahogany for its body and neck, and the best sounding "specially wound" PAF-type Humbuckers I've heard on a modern Les Paul. I wouldn't pay extra for the Tom Murphy "aging" or for Eric Clapton's signature, (even if he worked to improve his penmanship), but I was interested in what Gibson had to say about Clapton's input in the development process for this Custom Shop Limited Edition Model. I usually play rock on stage with a Fender Stratocaster and the Fender Custom Shop Eric Clapton "Signature" Strats, with their "Noiseless" pickups and mid-boost "active electronics", are my all-time favorites for live gigs. Buying a guitar so you can sound or play like someone else is not where it's at for me, but I do believe that Fender and Gibson's "Custom Shop" guitars are among the best they produce, and it seems that the guitars I've owned which were said to be created partially using Clapton's input (including Martin's 000-42 EC and 000-28 EC) all seem to have been built with specifications which are close to ones I prefer and have asked for on my own Custom Shop ordered-instruments. That's why I buy 'em, and I've never been sorry. I'm happy to thank Clapton for years of inspiration, and my new Limited Edition "Eric Clapton 1960 Les Paul" is truly a special guitar, by any measure. Thanks, Jack6849 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Good interview on this subject from Richard Boak [auto censor doesnt like ****) at Martin (not all about the money). The first two they offered (Gene Autry/Clappers) were charity efforts--then they began to run with it... http://guitarinternational.com/wpmu/2010/11/05/****-boak-the-martin-guitar-interview-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.