The aesthetics of a guitar

the blunder years

How important is the look of a guitar to you, for me it's important. I want something that looks good and sounds good. I love the look of a Fender Jaguar, Les Paul Juniors and Hagstrom guitars. I hate the look of a PRS. I've never played any of these guitars, so I was wondering how much value guitar players put into the appearance vs the sound.

Quillo

Playability, then sound, then price...then aesthetics

Passenger

I would imagine that the aesthetics of a guitar are extremely important to most musicians and would be congruous on the particular style of music that they play. To many guitarists their relationship to a guitar is somewhat similar to a relationship with a woman, you wouldn't get into a relationship with somebody who you didn't find attractive and you're not going to play a guitar that you didn't like the aesthetics of.

I suppose any guitar regardless of aesthetic "attractiveness" will endear itself more to the player if it sounds absolutely spectacular and has sensational tone and playability.

topcatcbr

For me a well made guitar will look good. That's all it needs. I'm not a lover of lots of inlays and mother of pearl.

the quality of build should ensure playability and tone.

MagicMarker

We all go by looks first, none of us walk into a shop and pick up the ugliest guitar. So it stands to reason people buy guitars that look good to them.

However, if I were handed the ugliest guitar ever made, and it played better than anything else I've ever played, then what it looks like becomes redundant.

martinedwards

It's NICE to have a pretty guitar, but for me, ergonomics mean more than aesthetics.

a mate lent me a drop dead gorgeous lowden for a few weeks while he was away on holiday.

I just couldn't get on with it as the neck wasn't right for me.

My main acoustic has scrapes and dings all over it, but it's custom made to fit ME and it plays and sounds great.

Leftyflip

For me it's mostly price, playability and then sound.

Les Pauls, PRS style guitars and Teles are my favourite, hate SGs and Strats. Usually if I find a guitar I like, that I know will sound pretty shíte with the stock pickups or hardware, I've no bothers spending the extra few quid on some Seymour Duncan or EMG pickups.

The next big one for me is how it sounds through my pedalboard, I play a lot of different types of music, some of which are pretty effects heavy, so if a guitar I really like doesn't work with my set-up, I (annoyingly) discount it.

So I'll probably stick with my Les Pauls and PRS style guitars.

slavetothegrind

to buy a guitar i hated the look of it would have to feel and sound amazing.

how many of you would buy for instance this esp custom shop ( cost aside)

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/22/5e/8e/225e8e0761f56f66f32ecd7908f0e9c8.jpg

i'm sure it plays wonderfully but not something i would wear on a stage!

Leftyflip

slavetothegrind wrote: »

to buy a guitar i hated the look of it would have to feel and sound amazing.

how many of you would buy for instance this esp custom shop ( cost aside)

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/22/5e/8e/225e8e0761f56f66f32ecd7908f0e9c8.jpg

i'm sure it plays wonderfully but not something i would wear on a stage!

Maybe if I was in some sort of black metal, deathcore, ultra deathband. That has to be one of the ugliest guitars I've seen. Although, I'd take that over a Strandberg any day.

Kettleson

With acoustics....SOUND every time...I might have a look at the body after that!!

I don't give a hoot about fancy stuff, inlays and all that, the fancy look doesn't add to the sound. Although other folk, usually non-players always tend to say "that's a lovely looking guitar"...when in reality its a pile of rubbish and sounds terrible.

For rockers in rock bands, in fairness the look of the guitar adds to the overall image of the band...Telecasters and Jaguars look cool, although Tele's are very Quo and Springsteen.......Flying V's are cool in the right "theatrical" setting, they remind me of Monty Python and Spinal Tap...never could get my head around the look of the Gibson SG, to me it looks like a plastic pretend guitar,...yeah, i know folk love them, but they never did anything for me.

I love plain old 6 string dreadnought acoustics with not fussy inlays and stuff and that look like they have lived a bit and could tell a story or two.. ..(The inlays on Paul Brady's Lowden look naff to me, although the sound is superb).

And finally I'm always wary of guitars that look like they have never been played. Guitars need to look like they are on a journey and have lived a bit and have been loved and cared for along the way.

the blunder years

Kettleson wrote: »

For rockers in rock bands, in fairness the look of the guitar adds to the overall image of the band...Telecasters and Jaguars look cool, although Tele's are very Quo and Springsteen.......Flying V's are cool in the right "theatrical" setting, they remind me of Monty Python and Spinal Tap...never could get my head around the look of the Gibson SG, to me it looks like a plastic pretend guitar,...yeah, i know folk love them, but they never did anything for me.

I could be reading this wrong, but I think Tele's are great, Richards comes to mind, also Page on the first few Zeppelin albums. A very versatile guitar. I get yeah with the Flying V, Jim James and Brent Hinds (he has a cool Lucite V) made them cool for me, also Lonnie Mack and Albert King two blues artists rockin' the V. But yeah the V's had a rep.
Just a note on the SG, it's funny how you describe cause when I show that guitar to people who don't play, they think it's tacky and gaudy, I love it though. There is a guitar player called Sister Rosetta Tharpe who plays the most beautiful Gibson SG.

slavetothegrind

Kettleson wrote: »

And finally I'm always wary of guitars that look like they have never been played. Guitars need to look like they are on a journey and have lived a bit and have been loved and cared for along the way.

this true for me, luckily not caring about dings and scratches that don't affect the guitar sound and feel has landed me a few cheap quality instruments!

I find the current trend of "distressing" new guitars funny. I know it's only a paint job but a lot of people who buy them wouldn't buy a really genuinely distressed guitar!

the blunder years

slavetothegrind wrote: »

I find the current trend of "distressing" new guitars funny. I know it's only a paint job but a lot of people who buy them wouldn't buy a really genuinely distressed guitar!

I agree with this totally, I mean what's the point in having a guitar that's looks like its seen a lot action against actually buying a new one doing the damage yourself

topcatcbr

I only like a distressed guitar if its done by me and i know no real damage was done. Id never buy a battle weary guitar.

i will disregard a guitar that sounds great if it has too much bling going on. Especially when its acoustic. There is no advantage to floral inlays and rosettes.

Kettleson

the blunder years wrote: »

I could be reading this wrong, but I think Tele's are great, Richards comes to mind, also Page on the first few Zeppelin albums. A very versatile guitar. I get yeah with the Flying V, Jim James and Brent Hinds (he has a cool Lucite V) made them cool for me, also Lonnie Mack and Albert King two blues artists rockin' the V. But yeah the V's had a rep.
Just a note on the SG, it's funny how you describe cause when I show that guitar to people who don't play, they think it's tacky and gaudy, I love it though. There is a guitar player called Sister Rosetta Tharpe who plays the most beautiful Gibson SG.

Yeah I love teles'..for me Teles suggest anarchy...whereas strats suggest conformity...and of course, I've always owned strats and not teles....doh!

Kettleson

topcatcbr wrote: »

I only like a distressed guitar if its done by me and i know no real damage was done. Id never buy a battle weary guitar.

i will disregard a guitar that sounds great if it has too much bling going on. Especially when its acoustic. There is no advantage to floral inlays and rosettes.

But you must see the beauty in a road weary 60's Gibson 6 string? There's no way you can pick up quality like that without it having some baggage attached.

topcatcbr

Kettleson wrote: »

But you must see the beauty in a road weary 60's Gibson 6 string? There's no way you can pick up quality like that without it having some baggage attached.

Not really. Id much prefer a newish Michael Sanden guitar.

any really well made guitar where all the effort went into playability and build than looks. Quality woods and bindings well put together. That's all i want really.

locum-motion

the blunder years wrote: »

...There is a guitar player called Sister Rosetta Tharpe who plays the most beautiful Gibson SG.

Is that it? (Skip to 1:00)

the blunder years

locum-motion wrote: »

Is that it? (Skip to 1:00)

Yea that's the one.