Artists hiding their real rig while promoting another--your thoughts?

[dohootowl]

I've read quite a few stories about pro players with endorsement deals that don't actually play through the gear that they're endorsing. Isn't that the ultimate selling out? "Momma said it was just a little white lie and it wouldn't hurt anyone". I know this occurred in the past, but is it still happening? I know I've seen players cover their amps with a black sheet or cover the brand--same with drummers--black tape over the brand.

Nothing makes me scoff quicker than to see an artist promote gear that it's obvious he doesn't use. The best example is that I remember a very famous player (household name at the time) that did print ads for Electra guitars and I've never seen him with one outside of that ad!

[stuco]

Sell outs

[GCDEF]

Doesn't bother me.

[thornie]

I remember when putting a piece of black tape over the Marshall logo was popular. I haven't seen people do that in a while. Most of the "bigger" guitarists I've met love to talk about what they are using. Often times they have to rent gear, so I can see how that could be a problem if they have endorsements or whatever.

I'm not a fan of endorsements period. I hate the idea of being someones salesman, even if I do swear by the brand. It would bother me knowing that I couldn't publicly play brand x or brand y for whatever reason, because of some BS exclusive contract. Most these guys have lots of money, so the whole thing strikes me as greedy to begin with.

[ecvMatt]

We all gotta get paid.

[pickaguitar]

Doesn't bother me much


Kind of like ZZ Top and their crate amps

[dohootowl]

I don't see anything at all wrong with endorsing a product you believe in and being compensated for it, but endorsing it just for the bucks seems wrong. Like Tiger Woods driving a Buick Enclave rather than the Escalade that he really drove (or wrecked).

[Butterfly]

I see a difference in endorsing something but not using it exclusively, and actually deceiving the audience/cameras, etc into making it appear you are playing one thing when the reality is different. Is this the fall of the republic kind of stuff? Of course not, but IMO not on the up and up. (if this actually happens--I've only heard of it on TGP)

[AirKuhl]

I wish I could be a sell out.

[ripoffriffs]

We all gotta get paid.

Exactly my thought. So easy for people to type in here and yell: sell out! Sell Out! But to actually earn enough money to raise a family, pay bills, maybe mortgage, while doing what you love to do, i.e., play guitar/music.

Here's my opinion: unless you are unemployed and living off your mom, you are endorsing a business, product, or service. It may not be related to the music industry, it may even be your own business, or you work for an employer. By collecting a paycheck you are participating/cooperating in the selling of a product or service, which means you are directly or indirectly endorsing something.

[marcoaml78]

vox and satriani... :roll :hide2

i wish i got paid to use gear instead of having to buy it :D

[B_of_H]

how about when they use custom made top notch equipment that is made to look like mass produced stuff you can buy in stores?

I always thought that might go on. Like what looks like a crate amp is actually a really nice PTP circuit inside and the cab is made of higher quality wood etc...

[Bantha]

If PRS endorsed me, you would never see me with anything but a PRS...just sayin'...Paul are you hearing...my number is...

[iaresee]

vox and satriani... :roll :hide2

Uhh...have you seen his pedalboard for the Chickenfoot gig?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/3534717578_a632f07a02_b.jpg

Edit: Also, no problem here with it. I have more to say about how the head of Goldman-Sachs makes a living than a guitar player right now. :)

[Zem]

I wish I could be a sell out.
This:crazyguy

[germs]

in the case of some (like you might see on a TV performance): if the artist has to rent backline or use the studio equipment available, but is required to be "seen" using another brand, they need to cover up the logo of the "offending" equipment. can't have the Mesa guys being seen with the Marshall cabs, etc. lots of guys travel on the bus with a personal/special head and pedal setup - BUT there's not a lot of extra room for dragging around cabs. only the very small and very large guys are doing that.

sometimes, you have an artist who just wants to be "anti-" and will cover logos as a statement of independence. see: Tom Morello for a good example of this on stage.

some companies are just plain FUNNY about a non-roster artist using their gear in a broadcast. Marshall is REALLY funny about this.

insofar as an artist endorsing a product and then turning around and using another...look. these guys AIN'T standing in front of the wall o' doom as much anymore. most of these guys MIGHT be standing behing 4-6 4x12's these days, but they're not hauling around the heads to power them anymore. and it's not a far leap from putting a mic'd amp behind a dummy wall to putting a better sounding, different brand amp behind that wall.

honestly, what looks better on a huge stage? is it the mic'd single amp or the HUMONGOUS DEATH WALL OF BROOTALZ!!!!11!!11

[cram]

Why would anyone be upset with this? It's advertisement - not a command to purchase gear.
An artist should be able to do whatever the hell they want with whatever gear tickles them at any given moment. Including a statement or ad about a piece of gear or instrument that sounds good.
How does this bother anyone? Are you wronged at all? I'd think not.

[Jon C]

a lie is a lie... if you endorse a product with the clear idea being influencing me to buy it in part because You/X uses it, and in fact you/X do not use it, you're a liar and a fraud, and you're inducing me to purchase based on false pretenses. And that sucks.

OTOH, if you aren't endorsing one line while using another and you just do it for optics (I like the look of that wall of Marshalls & 4x12s, but I really only need to play through a tweed Champ to get my tone), that's a little different.

[taez555]

Everytime I hear an artist say about their signature model "I can go into any guitar shop and pull it right off the shelf and it plays just like my #1" I laugh.

From ghost built guitars that HAVE the companies names on them but never saw the factory floor, to pedals with name brand names but someone elses guts or mods, or amps that have been rewired to the point of being nowhere near the originall, well...

it's all just part of the game.

At least with the internet we're more aware now than ever before. I bet guys like Analogman or Robert Keeley love the fact that we know that "super famous musician" isn't using that stock Boss pedal, but one with their guts in it.

[dohootowl]

a lie is a lie... if you endorse a product with the clear idea being influencing me to buy it in part because You/X uses it, and in fact you/X do not use it, you're a liar and a fraud, and you're inducing me to purchase based on false pretenses. And that sucks.

OTOH, if you aren't endorsing one line while using another and you just do it for optics (I like the look of that wall of Marshalls & 4x12s, but I really only need to play through a tweed Champ to get my tone), that's a little different.

Thanks Jon. It seems we're in the minority. I for sure don't mind artists making money and pedaling products--it makes the world go round. But my specific point was the deceit involved in some cases.

I certainly wouldn't use Satriani as an example--I think his integrity is beyond reproach.

[cram]

a lie is a lie... if you endorse a product with the clear idea being influencing me to buy it in part because You/X uses it, and in fact you/X do not use it, you're a liar and a fraud, and you're inducing me to purchase based on false pretenses. And that sucks.


Timeline -
How does this work as a rule if you've used it in the past for performance or recording? - some facet of your work/music, but at another time, say at a show you use something in its place because it is simpler or has an added benefit that gets you what you want.

Commitment? Are you pigeonholed into using that guitar or gear and for how long?

Level of contract -
What if your arrangement with the product was very light and hands off "- yeah, it sounds great: you should try it" as opposed to "this is the only gear I use and will ever use again in my life because it is next to God!" - notice the distinction?

In fact - I believe you'd find that nearly none of this is a lie: at some point that artist has used that product and (subjective) may have even enjoyed the result. They are communicating that message.

[Jon C]

Timeline -
How does this work as a rule if you've used it in the past for performance or recording? - some facet of your work/music, but at another time, say at a show you use something in its place because it is simpler or has an added benefit that gets you what you want.

Commitment? Are you pigeonholed into using that guitar or gear and for how long?

Level of contract -
What if your arrangement with the product was very light and hands off "- yeah, it sounds great: you should try it" as opposed to "this is the only gear I use and will ever use again in my life because it is next to God!" - notice the distinction?

Those are all fair questions and while I don't have a lot of time to think about this, my initial reaction is that if you are not currently endorsing them (say, now or within the past year (?)), then I think that's different. I agree that just because i did an ad for X Amps in 2006, that doesn't mean I can't use something else now.

I don't have any particular individuals in mind one way or the other. I remember, for ex., Pete Townshend endorsing early Mesa Boogies (a major reason I bought my Super 60 in 1977)... I don't hold him to using them in the 80s, 90s, etc.

jc

[cram]

Jon - I only asked for clarification because you replied with the word "Lie" and that's something that can be linked to slander and I'd be willing to bet that most every advertisement case would be proven true for some parameters - like the questions I ask.

[HHB]

it's just business

[buddaman71]

in the case of some (like you might see on a TV performance) some companies are just plain FUNNY about a non-roster artist using their gear in a broadcast. Marshall is REALLY funny about this.


Some guys may do it for cool points, but I think the bigger issue is broadcast rules regarding free advertising. In the same way cola and beer cans are often turned sideways so no logo shows, amps and gear and clothing with prominent logos are often required to be covered.

It's kinda silly sometimes, but totally understand that. Revenue for broadcasters is generated by advertising; it's their only real product.
Hard to sell advertising for a brand if you're giving it away for free....

[germs]

Some guys may do it for cool points, but I think the bigger issue is broadcast rules regarding free advertising. In the same way cola and beer cans are often turned sideways so no logo shows, amps and gear and clothing with prominent logos are often required to be covered.

It's kinda silly sometimes, but totally understand that. Revenue for broadcasters is generated by advertising; it's their only real product.
Hard to sell advertising for a brand if you're giving it away for free....

excluding musical equipment, i couldn't TELL you the last time i saw a logo obstruction of some sort on network TV. in fact, i'm getting sort of sick of being sold stuff ALL THE DAMN TIME when i try to watch a show.

[Washburnmemphis]

excluding musical equipment, i couldn't TELL you the last time i saw a logo obstruction of some sort on network TV. in fact, i'm getting sort of sick of being sold stuff ALL THE DAMN TIME when i try to watch a show.

Really? Turn on a reality show and you will see things blurred out or with tape over the logo all the time. Half the time it's quite obvious what's being covered up and you only really notice it because they've tried to hide it.

[cram]

excluding musical equipment, i couldn't TELL you the last time i saw a logo obstruction of some sort on network TV. in fact, i'm getting sort of sick of being sold stuff ALL THE DAMN TIME when i try to watch a show.

What do you expect them to do. The % of people using DVR right now to view tv is growing which means they can omit commercials and putting a bug in the bottom or across the screen at some point likely contributes a substantial amount of ad interest in shows you may enjoy - enjoy precisely because they have a quality budget... fed via advertising.

Overall - I think the complaint of advertising intruding into our lives is without merit because the tools are available to not have to sit through commercials in broadcast media. Actually in all media, there are advances that can filter out advertising so one can imagine the revenue predicament.

[jjboogie]

First of all who is doing this? Who is currently endorsing a product saying "YOU GO AN USE THIS TOO BECAUSE I DO AND IT'S GREAT" and then not doing it using something else?

[freedom's door]

Dishonesty- it's what america runs on. From Wall Street to the concert stage to the schoolyard, it's all okay as long as someone's getting paid, right?

Spare me the bullshit excuses.

[Bobby D]

i had a good friend back in the 80s, and his band was signed to CBS, and the entire band got a Peavey endorsement.

he had WALLS of peavey 4x12 cabs, and a bunch of those VTM heads, which arent too bad, really....

however.....hidden on the side of the stage was his trusty marshall 100 watt JMP head, which was his main sound.

the band DID use a lot of Peavey stuff onstage....

but he wasn't using those VTM heads :roll

here he is in a video, you can see all the peaveys behind him.

cCQJAKafeiQ

[Route234]

Dishonesty- it's what america runs on. From Wall Street to the concert stage to the schoolyard, it's all okay as long as someone's getting paid, right?

Spare me the bullshit excuses.


Exactly. :drink

We have become WAY too complacent about dishonesty.

[Shiny McShine]

Shilling. I don't like it.

[cubado]

This:crazyguy

Exactly. :drink

We have become WAY too complacent about dishonesty.

Ain't that the truth!

[mojocaster.com]

It's one thing if you accept money from a brand and play their stuff live, even though it's not what you would normally play.

It's another if you put their stuff on the stage for all to see and play something else entirely. That bugs me to no end.

[iaresee]

Dishonesty- it's what america runs on. From Wall Street to the concert stage to the schoolyard, it's all okay as long as someone's getting paid, right?

Spare me the bullshit excuses.
Hmm...you know, when you put it that way maybe I do care?

[mtlin]

I think it's lame.

[Tiny Montgomery]

Everytime I hear an artist say about their signature model "I can go into any guitar shop and pull it right off the shelf and it plays just like my #1" I laugh.

From ghost built guitars that HAVE the companies names on them but never saw the factory floor, to pedals with name brand names but someone elses guts or mods, or amps that have been rewired to the point of being nowhere near the originall, well...

it's all just part of the game.

At least with the internet we're more aware now than ever before. I bet guys like Analogman or Robert Keeley love the fact that we know that "super famous musician" isn't using that stock Boss pedal, but one with their guts in it.

Do you have any specific examples of what you're claiming? i.e. Who is using an Analogman or Keeley pedal in a Boss housing?

[Stratobuc]

Doesn't bother me much


Kind of like ZZ Top and their crate amps

Hows that?

[Strat]

Been this way in Pro tennis for 25 years, even to the point of paint jobs to mimic a completely different maker. I think it's called making a living.

I've read quite a few stories about pro players with endorsement deals that don't actually play through the gear that they're endorsing. Isn't that the ultimate selling out? "Momma said it was just a little white lie and it wouldn't hurt anyone". I know this occurred in the past, but is it still happening? I know I've seen players cover their amps with a black sheet or cover the brand--same with drummers--black tape over the brand.

Nothing makes me scoff quicker than to see an artist promote gear that it's obvious he doesn't use. The best example is that I remember a very famous player (household name at the time) that did print ads for Electra guitars and I've never seen him with one outside of that ad!

[Gretsch1972]

John Mayer plays Peaveys.

[FenderBigot]

It happens all the time... the PGA Tour pros play almost NOTHING from the companies they endorse that can be bought off the shelf at Golfsmith or Golf Galaxy. I see nothing wrong with it at all myself. I wish I could be that lucky in life!

Side note to Bobby D - man looking back at that Stranger stuff... CHEESEFEST!!! LOL

[TravisE]

I think it's lame but...who cares? Would I do it if I were in that position? I'd like to think not but, hell, it might be hard to turn down the dough. You don't find people like Neil Young or Tom Petty doing stuff like that.

[cram]

yeah ma'an...

[TomK]

I may be off base here, but In my experience artist endorsers are not "paid" in the way that Nike would pay a pro athlete. Depending on their status they may get anything from a discount (most likely) to free instruments and special access and support. Combined sales from the top 100 instrument / amp manufacturers combined probably don't equal 1 quarter annual sales of a company like Nike.

[lord preset]

What?

Do you mean that Smiling Bob doesn't really use Enzyte?

http://www.jazz.com/assets/2009/1/7/TVad-Enzyte-SmilingBob.jpg

[yucatown]

Should the Sonic guys be expected to eat only Sonic burgers and milkshakes?

[_Brandon]

vox and satriani... :roll :hide2



I'm not sure exactly what that meant but...

When Satriani was at the Philly GC last year he commented that he originally connected with Ibanez because they wouldn't freak out if he picked up some other brand of guitar... or words to that effect. So I don't think he's seriously pretending to use only this gear or that gear.

With that said, I certainly believe the Vox deal was inspired by a business opportunity and not by any real need to develop a new distortion pedal. After all these years, he needs new pedals? I don't think so. I think the truth is Satch got tired of being constantly asked how he gets his tone and at some point realized that saying "tone is in your fingers" wasn't puting any money in the bank. And frankly, I don't blame him one bit. It's not like an instrumental musician is going to sell a bazillion CDs these days. He can endorse Vox Scalp Tonic if it makes him money, for all I care.:)

So I guess what I'm saying is, he's a complete sell-out whose a really nice guy and deserves every penny!:rimshot

[dohootowl]

it's just business

You work on Wall Street, no?

[dohootowl]

John Mayer plays Peaveys.

Yes, I know this for a fact, because I owned a Dumble and it sucked so bad that I sold it and went back to my Classic 30.

Seriously, I f'ing love my Peavey Classic tweed amps. Best value there is IMO.

[Shiny_Beast]

Part of me can laugh like some big rock amp using a behringer amp behind a wall of Marshalls, but pretty much I think it sucks. Show the audience the amp your using. I understand you might lsoe some fans if you don't play through a Marshall stack, well the solution then is., Marshall stacks don't sound too bad :)

[jackbart1960]

Dishonesty- it's what america runs on. From Wall Street to the concert stage to the schoolyard, it's all okay as long as someone's getting paid, right?

Spare me the bullshit excuses.
Sums it up.:bitch

[Luke]

Well since someone mentioned Satriani, back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, all of the Ibanez guys were playing guitars made by Performance (made to look like Ibanezs).

There are very few artists that actually use off the rack guitars, and of course the ones that do, receive product that has been gone over with a much finer tooth comb than the ones being shipped to Guitar Center.

There was a rumor floating around Boston in the late 1980s Vai was being paid $250,000 a year to endorse Ibanez.

Most endorsement deals however are for either free or reduced cost merchandise, at which using a different brand makes no sense.

FWIW, Marshall claims to sell merchandise at cost. Hamer always did the same while owned by Kaman. Gibson use to have a big lending program in the early 1990s.

[John C]

Do you have any specific examples of what you're claiming? i.e. Who is using an Analogman or Keeley pedal in a Boss housing?

Not the person you were asking but Keeley has both his own designs and modded pedals. Right off his website here's a modded Boss DS-1:

EDIT: Sorry, can't link to the photos on Keeley's site; you just get the photo frame. Here's the webpage link; you can click on any pedal you want to see:

http://www.robertkeeley.com/product.php?id=10

At any rate, the modded pedals look like a stock pedal from a distance; up close you can see the added toggle switchs, LEDs, etc.

[germs]

so...what if the artist in question is standing in front of a wall of said amps, but has a different amp of the same manufacturer mic'd offstage? is that dishonest?

does a mod count? lots of guys using early Soldanos still had the Marshall look to them. same with Keeley.

i don't see where it matters.

a wall of speakers as a prop in a staged event is not a big deal.

[Caribou]

Should the Sonic guys be expected to eat only Sonic burgers and milkshakes?

Big difference between playing only one kind of amp and pretending to play only one kind of amp. Is it disingenuous if the "Sonic guy" eats a McDonald's hamburger but covers it in a Sonic wrapper? I sure think so.

[zztomato]

Why should anybody be surprised that musicians would endorse something that they don't use? Sports stars have been doing this for years and they get more kudos with each new endorsement they score.
For those of you who think these artists are sell-outs, it's called 'making a living'.

[HHB]

You work on Wall Street, no?
far far far from it, I may be the poorest guy on the board, but I can recognize business when I see it, at least theyre not crashing the economy via dummy cabs

[yucatown]

Do you have some specific examples of famous players pretending to be playing something when in reality something is hidden inside, using your wrapping example? Excluding the wall of Marshalls thing. That is something that I don't think is being done purely as a Marshall endorsement. It simply looks cool and it's part of the show.

Big difference between playing only one kind of amp and pretending to play only one kind of amp. Is it disingenuous if the "Sonic guy" eats a McDonald's hamburger but covers it in a Sonic wrapper? I sure think so.

[Tiny Montgomery]

Not the person you were asking but Keeley has both his own designs and modded pedals. Right off his website here's a modded Boss DS-1:

EDIT: Sorry, can't link to the photos on Keeley's site; you just get the photo frame. Here's the webpage link; you can click on any pedal you want to see:

http://www.robertkeeley.com/product.php?id=10

At any rate, the modded pedals look like a stock pedal from a distance; up close you can see the added toggle switchs, LEDs, etc.

Yes, I'm aware that Keeley (and analogman) modify Boss pedals.

What I was asking for was an example of someone claiming to use a stock Boss pedal (or any other given product) while using one of the Keeley/etc. versions. "In the know" posturing and speculation don't count...;)

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that I'm not sure exactly what the accusations are being based on, or even who exactly is being accused.

What I've learned from this thread is that it's ok to be dishonest as long as it's making you money (a.k.a. "a living.")

[amc]

how many of these endorsement ads say that "xyz is the only (guitar/amp/pedal) i ever use and will ever use from this point on without any exceptions".

none.

realistically, the only ones' having any an issue with this would be gearheads like us.
the backline's of most endorsed artists live in concert are not designed for our consumption, but rather for the general public who frankly couldn't care less what the name is on the headstock.

they are there to hear the music, and if the artist uses something "hidden" to achieve
the expected tones, that's really what it's all about.

just my 2 cents, ymmv.................

[hcole]

If someone is buying gear because they think they're gonna sound like a particular artist... well, you know what they say about a fool and his money.

[Tonefish]

I think it is comical. Modern marketing has always pushed limits anyway (beware if this is news). In the long run I can understand that an artist can't compromise their tone. Besides, today's internet prevents any true scam related to music gear from going un-noticed. And if you pick your gear by who's playing it versus what it sounds like to your ears, then ... see the post above^^^.

[Jon C]

Jon - I only asked for clarification because you replied with the word "Lie" and that's something that can be linked to slander and I'd be willing to bet that most every advertisement case would be proven true for some parameters - like the questions I ask.

well, I don't really see the connection between lie and "slander" really, in this context (slander has little to do with the endorsement biz unless you make defamatory statements (false statements that cause actual harm or damage to another company/party)) about another brand (Brand B) in your ad endorsing Brand A...

but on some level, whether material or not, there is an element of less than complete truth in a lot of this... legally speaking, the standard in advertising is whether the statement is what's known as "puffing" (exaggeration for salesmanship effect), which is allowed; or whether it's materially false and misleading and may be fraudulent. I think that range also applies to the stuff we're talking about here.

[John C]

Yes, I'm aware that Keeley (and analogman) modify Boss pedals.

What I was asking for was an example of someone claiming to use a stock Boss pedal (or any other given product) while using one of the Keeley/etc. versions. "In the know" posturing and speculation don't count...;)

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that I'm not sure exactly what the accusations are being based on, or even who exactly is being accused.

What I've learned from this thread is that it's ok to be dishonest as long as it's making you money (a.k.a. "a living.")

Sorry - I misunderstood both your post and the post you were quoting. I thought the original poster was just invoking the "in a smokey bar from a distance" rational that someone couldn't tell if the player was using a stock Boss or a Keeley mod.

By the way - I agree that if someone is a Boss or Ibanez pedal endorser then they shouldn't be using an Analogman or Keeley modded pedal and passing it off as stock. I also have issues with ghost-built endorsement guitars, particularly if the endorser is one of those "I like that I can go in any store, grab one off the rack and use it because it's just like my guiitar" endorsers.

[RedTiger]

With that said, I certainly believe the Vox deal was inspired by a business opportunity and not by any real need to develop a new distortion pedal. After all these years, he needs new pedals? I don't think so.

He has said that from a very early point in his career, he decided to invest in distortion pedals for a lot of his sound because he couldn't depend on his amps 100%. They'd crap out, need to be fixed, or sometimes just be stolen. He liked the idea of having a pedal like the DS-1, a cheap box he could buy anywhere for $40 and rely on, but could also be easily replaced.

Satriani still feels that way, but having to rely on those older MIJ DS-1s which are superior but no longer widely available wasn't something he wanted to consider. So, per Satriani himself, he set out to find someone who could produce a distortion pedal he likes, one that is RoHS compliant, one that he can readily buy in a store. Not surprising, many of the reviews I've read about the Satchurator say it sounds like an old DS-1 or a modded DS-1.

The type of thing that OP is talking about -- well Satriani is probably a little guilty with concerning Peavey. His feelings about having such a distortion pedal are well known. The word is that he never really used the high-gain settings on the his JSX amps. He was using only the clean channel + distortion pedal. Why you'd go to the trouble of endorsing an amp with 3 channels when you only use one is beyond me.

[The Kid]

a lie is a lie... if you endorse a product with the clear idea being influencing me to buy it in part because You/X uses it, and in fact you/X do not use it, you're a liar and a fraud, and you're inducing me to purchase based on false pretenses. And that sucks.

OTOH, if you aren't endorsing one line while using another and you just do it for optics (I like the look of that wall of Marshalls & 4x12s, but I really only need to play through a tweed Champ to get my tone), that's a little different.

I think it's worse to buy stuff based on who's playing what. Buy what you like. The same rig that your heroes play will sound far different in your hands anyway.

I'm not saying that a player shouldn't spark your interest in trying something out, but if you buy something that you don't dig then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I like nice stuff... but I'll make just about anything work. Give me a tennis raquet, a boot lace, and an alarm clock... I'll make it funky.

I'll endorse some stuff... ;)

Shoot, if it's free... gimme three!

[Bobby D]

Well since someone mentioned Satriani, back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, all of the Ibanez guys were playing guitars made by Performance (made to look like Ibanezs).

There are very few artists that actually use off the rack guitars, and of course the ones that do, receive product that has been gone over with a much finer tooth comb than the ones being shipped to Guitar Center.

There was a rumor floating around Boston in the late 1980s Vai was being paid $250,000 a year to endorse Ibanez.

Most endorsement deals however are for either free or reduced cost merchandise, at which using a different brand makes no sense.

FWIW, Marshall claims to sell merchandise at cost. Hamer always did the same while owned by Kaman. Gibson use to have a big lending program in the early 1990s.


when i had my endorsement with Fernandes during the 90s, i did indeed play Fernandes LE-2 model guitars -- they were basically strats, and were quite nice.

However, my personal guitars had been brought to the USA from Japan, and were basically reworked to my specs and "massaged" to be much nicer guitars than the off the rack models. I had all the electronics replaced with EMG stuff, since i was using and endorsing EMG at the time......so they WERE Fernandes LE-2 guitars.....but had some substantial time and money put into them to make them as good as possible.

not that i'm any kinda famous player or anything.....i'm just a working class gig dog who had 15 minutes of fame :rockin

[Brian D]

I really don't think much about it. Maybe they use the equipment in the studio but not the road, or maybe they use it for a different gig than the one I'm seeing them at. Yeah, if they were endorsing a product they never used, I suppose I'd call that kind of weenie. But even then, it really isn't something that affects me one way or another.

[teleman55]

Used to be a phrase "Take it with a grain of salt" Like when you were a kid and saw an ad where Joe Blow athelete said use this protein powder drink and you'd be just like him.
Saying you use something and never using it is bad. Saying you use it all the time and never using it is worse.
I don't think its BS if someone endorses something as long as they like it and use it, even if they use a competing product, even if more often. Nothing wrong with having different tools in your box.
I've never been so lucky to get that kinda deal. Closest I ever got was when I was in an up-and-coming band years ago and an up-and-coming guitar maker gave us guitars to use for an extended time period. We could buy them for real cheap if we wanted to at end time. He was new. People got to see us playing them and he got feedback from us. There was nothing about me not using my Tele and I used it a lot. I used his a lot too and bought it. It was a great guitar and was my #1 for a few years after that. He got big and then sold to some Corp. and then down it went. It's back now, to a degree.
The wall with the little amp behind is a different thing, A lot of times the wall ain't needed anymore but in certain genres, at big shows, needed as stage prop so to speak (think theatre). The audience will be upset if it's not there. Maybe the company that makes the big amp doesn't make the best little one for the same application.
Or maybe what Keef said, something about unused Mesa cabs putting his Twins at the perfect height.

[Polynitro]

I wish more would do this

[jms6668]

He has said that from a very early point in his career, he decided to invest in distortion pedals for a lot of his sound because he couldn't depend on his amps 100%. They'd crap out, need to be fixed, or sometimes just be stolen. He liked the idea of having a pedal like the DS-1, a cheap box he could buy anywhere for $40 and rely on, but could also be easily replaced.

Satriani still feels that way, but having to rely on those older MIJ DS-1s which are superior but no longer widely available wasn't something he wanted to consider. So, per Satriani himself, he set out to find someone who could produce a distortion pedal he likes, one that is RoHS compliant, one that he can readily buy in a store. Not surprising, many of the reviews I've read about the Satchurator say it sounds like an old DS-1 or a modded DS-1.

The type of thing that OP is talking about -- well Satriani is probably a little guilty with concerning Peavey. His feelings about having such a distortion pedal are well known. The word is that he never really used the high-gain settings on the his JSX amps. He was using only the clean channel + distortion pedal. Why you'd go to the trouble of endorsing an amp with 3 channels when you only use one is beyond me.

My take on the Satriani/Peavey 3 channel thing is that they designed it that way for the folks that do not like to use pedals for distortion. I think the lead channel was designed to get close to the sound that he would use. I always felt it was meant to be Joe Satriani's take on a multi-channel amplifier.

In a weird way, I give him kudos for jumping ship recently. If the amp stopped working for him, then so be it. He could have duped everyone and appeared to be using his JSX but he openly displayed his old Marshall 30th anniversary on his recent tours.

Plus you never know what goes on behind the scenes. Sometimes the artist is dissatisfied with the product that is in production but they are contractually obligated to use it in public. I know of some of my friends with endorsements that get unreliable gear that falls apart on the road but they have to continue the charade until the contract runs out. This happens ALOT. I myself have never been at that level; but I have gotten gear with an "artist" hand-shake agreement only to make it a week or two on the road, with the gear falling apart and leaving me in a bind. Happens on the big time level as well.

[Jon Silberman]

I'm not horrified by it. Nor do I particularly respect it.

[PAF]

Bnt2adtIjpo

[ecvMatt]

So, who has refused to buy a piece of gear or an album because of less than honest advertising?

[Julia343]

So the endorsed artist goes to NAMM, and is seen in videos promoting a particular brand of snake oil. Goes on stage with this particular brand of snake oil and a wall of this behind him. Since most pro players have "the rack" or at least a pedal board from hell, you notice this thing in the rack called a GSP1101 that's supposedly used for the effects. Then you find out later the artist is getting the guitar tone from THAT instead of the wall of snake oil behind him -- using teh amp models instead of the amps. But how many of their fans who play guitar went out and got the amp because they wanted that tone, only to find out that it's almost impossible to dial in that tone.

So don't believe everything you hear or see.

[leftyvic]

You mean I can't get the exact same Princeton Reverb that Ryan Adams plays through?

http://media.tumblr.com/BrzA0vXGWfpp98hiLCfCxfBjo1_400.jpg

[Vibrolucky]

Wait a minute....Are you telling me that Estaban doesn't actually use those 'hand-crafted' guitars from QVC (China)? I am shocked....

[germs]

i've played as a support band for many, many national acts who use rented backline. those huge walls are nothing but empty cabs for the most part.

most artists are painting logos on a grouping of empty cabs so you can't see through the grille cloth to the empty holes behind. usually just a single 4x12 is real, or is racked up with a head and placed behind the stage props.

and that's all they are: stage props.

i don't get what the big deal is. some guys saying they feel cheated somehow? do you buy AirJordans and expect to slam dunk from the freethrow line too? :huh

[FFTT]

This is why I encourage people to try all kinds of amp and guitar combinations
and to hopefully find their own personal best tone.

You don't go to a Nascar event thinking you can get the same car at your
favorite local Chevy dealer and the same applies to touring gear.

If they are playing through stock amps, they have back ups or their tech has
gone through every solder joint to make certain they won't be standing there
in front of thousands of fans with no signal.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3768/mikecampbelltourgear.jpg

Mike Campbell's live tour rig shows us what is seen and unseen and you still
don't see the meticulously maintained vintage AC30 in the isolation box or the pair
of Avalon pre-amps sending it all to the console or know how much work Pete Cornish
has put into his rack and pedal system.

Look at Rusty Anderson's rig and tell me all of those sounds are just coming from
his Divided By 13's

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/5896/mccartneyrusty.jpg

[Schafrocks]

Like any person in this thread wouldn't take free stuff. Or, use stuff someone gives them. I say walk a mile in their shoes before you judge them.

Schaf

[medrawt]

i've played as a support band for many, many national acts who use rented backline. those huge walls are nothing but empty cabs for the most part.

most artists are painting logos on a grouping of empty cabs so you can't see through the grille cloth to the empty holes behind. usually just a single 4x12 is real, or is racked up with a head and placed behind the stage props.

and that's all they are: stage props.

i don't get what the big deal is. some guys saying they feel cheated somehow? do you buy AirJordans and expect to slam dunk from the freethrow line too? :huh

I think it's more like finding out that Jordan was wearing disguised Reeboks all those years. I thought the issue was less about artists being coy about what they use, or throwing up a big wall of empty cabs, than about artists going in magazines and saying "I love my new Marshall / Mesa / whatever," next to an ad where you see them standing in front of that amp, when what you hear on record and on tour is actually something else.

[big jilm]

It doesn't bother me much. I expect it, frankly. I have never bought a piece of gear based on what other folks used, or pretended to.

[germs]

I think it's more like finding out that Jordan was wearing disguised Reeboks all those years. I thought the issue was less about artists being coy about what they use, or throwing up a big wall of empty cabs, than about artists going in magazines and saying "I love my new Marshall / Mesa / whatever," next to an ad where you see them standing in front of that amp, when what you hear on record and on tour is actually something else.

but that's where it stems from. musician fans going to the concert and seeing the walls of doom of one brand, then reading in the mag the next day how they just LURVE their new "lightweight and compact, yet powerful" new combo...then they buy the whatever product and it invariably doesn't do much to make them like their idol.

very much exactly like the Michael Jordan Syndrome.

[Deacon]

It doesn't bother me for an artist to endorse something he/she thinks is a good product, even if they don't use it themselves.

Pretending you're playing through it while actually using another rig is flat-out misleading, IMO.

[medrawt]

then they buy the whatever product and it invariably doesn't do much to make them like their idol.


Well, yes and no. In the case of shoes, this is pretty clear, which is why Charles Barkley had one of the great basketball shoe ads of all time. (Actually, he had several of them.) In the case of gear, you get into the situation that happens all the time here, which is people talking past each other.

"How do I get that Robben Ford sound?" Well, maybe the person asking is naive, and might actually be helped by the answer "You can't unless you're Robben Ford." Or, better yet, the answer "study video of him, his picking hand, etc."

But maybe the person who asked knows perfectly well that he's not going to sound like Robben Ford. He just knows that what Ford is using doesn't sound like a Marshall or a Vox, and he wants to know what amps get that sound. "Sound" isn't a one-dimensional phenomenon, and people mean all sorts of things when they say one thing sounds like another.

SO if Steve Vai (as I think I read alleged somewhere, but maybe I'm wrong) was really using Bogners inside Carvin head-shells (I think now his amps are designed by Ben Fargen, right? so presumably he's happy with them), then that's a disservice not to the people who thought buying a Carvin would make them sound like Vai, but to people who thought the sounds they were hearing were Carvin sounds, and they wanted to sound like themselves, but through a Carvin (when they should've checked out a Bogner).

[germs]

it really gets tricky when an artist signs a contract without reading it.

then, they're stuck shilling for a product because they signed their likeness away. and so long as the ad doens't directly attribute a quote to the artist...too bad, so sad.

in printed media, a lot of it is pretty well behind the times. so the ads you're reading are very likely 6-8 months previous. if a falling out or separation occurs...well...the ads are still going to run.

in this day and age of instant getification, it's a lot easier to figure out what's going on.

[ABKB]

I go case by case. Most artists do not make as much as most would think. To them it's a brutal business and any little advantage they can get is a good thing. And it works out to help the company trying to stay in business as well. So if they endorse X but hide a Y behind the X amps, i can handle that. But to those artists making scary big time money and doing that, then I can't respect that. There's no need to endorse anything unless they really do like the gear.

[Roadeye]

keith used to hide his rig behind his amps in the 70s!

[Tiny Montgomery]

keith used to hide his rig behind his amps in the 70s!

He had to, so Gram Parsons wouldn't cop his gear.