Famous musician's autographing guitars. Is it lame?

[67Strat]

Personaly I think it's lame, epsecially if the autograph seeker's intent is have a famous person or band signing some cheap undesirable guitar so they can attempt to sell it for 10x what it's worth.

[coryallen2]

Don't knock the hustle.


I think it's perfectly fine. I mean whats the diffrence in paper and guitar?

[67Strat]

The difference to me is signing a cheap guitar is more about making a buck than collecting a sig as a genuine fan. You'd think the musicians wouldn't want to be part of that.

[coryallen2]

If I was famous I would be more than willing to sign an autograph anywhere... It shows how much people love you and what you do. They could careless if you want to make money off it. They have more than 1,000 people that love them. Plus what about when the sign on peoples faces and ass and stuff like that. That's what i'd be more concerned about.

[Antonio]

Originally Posted by coryallen2

If I was famous I would be more than willing to sign an autograph anywhere... It shows how much people love you and what you do. They could careless if you want to make money off it. They have more than 1,000 people that love them. Plus what about when the sign on peoples faces and ass and stuff like that. That's what i'd be more concerned about.

i actually agree. i mean there are people who'd sell it for a profit, but more people who'd have it as a keepsake and truly value it. plus if it is sold, at least it'd be to someone who'd treasure it more than someone who'd just make a quick buck

[67Strat]

Hmm it appears I am the minority. I don't know, I tend to be pretty passionate about music and my tastes are confined to artists who eschew the commercialism of the music biz, even if they've sold enough to be considered mainstream. If I was sincere about getting some ink on a guitar I'd slap my Les Paul and Sharpie in front of someone.

[Antonio]

Originally Posted by 67Strat

Hmm it appears I am the minority. I don't know, I tend to be pretty passionate about music and my tastes are confined to artists who eschew the commercialism of the music biz, even if they've sold enough to be considered mainstream. If I was sincere about getting some ink on a guitar I'd slap my Les Paul and Sharpie in front of someone.

i can understand not wanting to do something as, dare i say it, cheesy as getting your guitar signed, but saying you only listen to artists because they scoof commercialism is a little frivilous, don't you think?

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by 67Strat

Hmm it appears I am the minority. I don't know, I tend to be pretty passionate about music and my tastes are confined to artists who eschew the commercialism of the music biz, even if they've sold enough to be considered mainstream. If I was sincere about getting some ink on a guitar I'd slap my Les Paul and Sharpie in front of someone.

Then frankly, you're missing the point of a whole lot of music.

Not to mention, not everyone owns an expensive guitar, nor can those people justify bringing an expensive guitar to an event like that in some cases.

In fact, you've said it yourself. Your tastes are confined. And its likely that most of the artists you like can in some way be linked directly to the commercial interests side of the music business, same with most musicians.

Interestingly, I find the most independent musicians, are actually the ones who don't make a big deal about it, and get on with making the music they love, A la Ozric tentacles, who are their own cottage industry and record label.

----------------
Now playing on Winamp: A Perfect Circle - The Hollow
via FoxyTunes

[67Strat]

Maybe confined wasn't the right word and I'm not some snobby indie music elitist. I don't tend to not like music and musicians that are overtly commercial because typically their music lacks something. I think it's possible to be immensely successful without cowing to the machine, huge bands like Zeppelin wrote the book on playing by their own rules. My tastes are varied and usually not dictated by how an artist approaches music but usually those that eschew commercialism have more substance.

[GuitarBizarre]

Thats not true in my experience. Danny Elfman exists because of commercialism, and he makes fantastic music. Yoko Kanno makes much of her living composing music for soundtracks and the Japanese Pop artist Maaya Sakamoto. Michael Jackson holds the world record for the largest concert audience, having played the superbowl concert to not only the stadium but a televised audience of over 1.5 billion people. Utada Hikaru and Ayumi Hamasaki practically own the airwaves in Japan, and there are almost as many remix albums of Ayu's music as there are official releases, including orchestral, acoustic, and piano albums amidst more standard trance remixes.

Nobuo Eumatsu's music is beautiful and exists only because of commercial interests in the Squaresoft videogame company.

Not to mention those artists who simply don't CARE about how commercial or non-commercial they are. Yngwie Malmsteen, The Mars Volta, Metallica, Steve Vai, Paula Cole, Charmian Callon, Phil Keaggy, Incubus etc etc etc etc.


In fact, I think applying any kind of value musically to a non-commercial easthetic is COMPLETELY undermining the reason music exists. Its a sound. A vibration in the air. In the same way a hitler speech is still incredibly powerful and well spoken despite its horrific connotations, music can still be beautiful, uplifitng, melancholy, or anything else you care to describe, no matter who makes it.

For example. Panic! At the disco have that song about a wedding. Frankly, thats a good song. The band ****ing suck, but its a good song, and thats all I'm interested in.