new transposer      circle of 5ths    wap


Do you think looks are everything ? Or even important ?

Instruments and Gear
1 2
GuitarBoy666  
22 Jan 2008 19:22 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
Of course I mean on a guitar,
Do you think that if a guitar can shred really awesomely, that it has to look mean and nasty and black metal or something ? I don't, as long as it sounds good. but I wouldn't go using a pink butterfly guitar.

This is my guitar, it is not shred-looking at all. it is more of a jazzy bluesy look but it can shred.

http://www.godinguitars.com/godinexit22p.htm
JustJeff  
22 Jan 2008 20:52 | Quote
Joined: way back
United States
Lessons: 2
Karma: 21
I have a Larrivee 0M-03 Acoustic Guitar. It's a solid wood guitar: it looks like every other guitar that's out there. The difference is is that it sounds amazing.

Looks are nothing.

However, human instinct on guitars is the same as that with clothes.
GuitarBoy666  
23 Jan 2008 15:27 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
And the fact that in pics I just looked at, the top part is a bit bigger then other acoustics I've seen
Notim  
23 Jan 2008 16:47 | Quote
Joined: 08 Dec 2007
United States
Karma: 9
NO!looks do not mean anything if I like the guitar and of course I'm playing it I bought it why the hell would i care if someone else liked it?
GuitarBoy666  
23 Jan 2008 17:42 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
Yeah your guitar, your opinion, only your opinion matters. I love the look of my guitar though its an amazing guitar
tAUG  
24 Jan 2008 06:06 | Quote
Sweden
Posts: 137
Of course the looks matters, not as much as the sound though. Not even close.

1, Guitar - bad looking nice sounding.
2, Guitar - nice looking nice sounding.

Which one do you pick?
Doz  
24 Jan 2008 07:01 | Quote
Joined: way back
United Kingdom
Karma: 10
Yeah, I agree with tAUG... if you get to equal guitars i nsound then obviously the better looking one will win out. But which is better looking is up to you.
deefa  
24 Jan 2008 09:31 | Quote
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
United Kingdom
Karma: 8
You're all talking aesthetics. What about value for money?
Notim  
24 Jan 2008 12:54 | Quote
Joined: 08 Dec 2007
United States
Karma: 9
why would ya buy a bad sounding guitar because it looks good?sorry dude that doesnt make sence to me.
Doz  
24 Jan 2008 13:06 | Quote
Joined: way back
United Kingdom
Karma: 10
Well, deefa, if they were evenly priced then you'd get the better looking one in your opinion. If not, then the sound comes first I rate... but not if it's too ugly... like it's a bright orange rectangular shapre with two blue horns on it pictures of old mens faces as inlays and black and white hardware.

Then you should just try find something else.
GuitarBoy666  
24 Jan 2008 13:52 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
I wouldn't buy a ugly guitar, I'd pick guitar 2 because I do want a nice guitar that sounds good, but not a crappy sound but nice guitar. If there was only 2 choices to pick; Crappy guitar with good sound, or good with crappy sound, I'd go with the good sound, cause you'd probably have a lot more variety.

Doz, that sounds like a freakin' SEXY guitar ! Where can I get my hands on one ?! =D
Doz  
24 Jan 2008 19:04 | Quote
Joined: way back
United Kingdom
Karma: 10
Haha, I suppose you'll have to go custom made... or hope that a guitar manufacturer stumbles across this website whilst on the hunt for design ideas.

>_>

GuitarBoy666  
24 Jan 2008 19:36 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
Awww I wanna buy one :'(
Now I am disappointed :(

Lmao,
Nah, Ill stick with my Godin thank you very much
deefa  
25 Jan 2008 04:35 | Quote
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
United Kingdom
Karma: 8
Regarding the point I was making about value for money, I bought an Epi Les Paul a few years back, it was (to me) the most beautiful guitar I'd ever seen, 3 tone sunburst, chrome hardware,the works. No expense spared on its appearance.Cost, 550 ($1000 aprox). It played quite well, but it was the looks that sold it to me! About a year later I bought a G&L tribute ASAT (Tele copy) for 50 quid less and it played like a guitar of twice its price. The moral of the story, don't be fooled by looks!
GuitarBoy666  
25 Jan 2008 11:18 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
Hm, I'll have to remember that next time I buy a guitar, deefa
league  
26 Jan 2008 00:23 | Quote
Joined: way back
United States
Lessons: 2
Karma: 10
Theres not that many guitars that are bad looking.I'd have to say that the Les Paul or any Gibson is plain looking but with exellent tone. A Strat with humbuckers or super distortion is the best combo. The strat may not look fast but just look at EVH's Charvel, it's pretty much a Strat. Looks do matter though.They kind of inspire you.Just like a girl.Good looks;good personality.
blackholesun  
26 Jan 2008 09:06 | Quote
Joined: 04 Jan 2007
United Kingdom
Licks: 1
Karma: 11
Moderator
Looks are quite important I think, although not as much as tone. As league said, there are very few guitars which are bad looking, although if your only guitar was a really pointy metal guitar then it would be less aesthetically compatible than a regular looking guitar, because you couldn't play it in, say, a ska band without it looking out of place. My guitar, a PRS Singlecut SE handles pretty much every style of music perfectly, but because it is whale blue and has a regular Les Paul-style shape, it has the right looks to play metal, rock, punk, ska, blues, whatever.
deefa  
27 Jan 2008 07:34 | Quote
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
United Kingdom
Karma: 8
I used to have one of the 'humbucker' strats league. It was the HH with the S pot switching system (best of both worlds in theory). I chose it 'cause it didn't have that middle pickup (always seems to get in the way!). I swapped it in the end for my Les Paul studio. Nothing against the strat, it just had a 'funny' feel to it. Nothing I can explain, just didn't feel right!
GuitarBoy666  
27 Jan 2008 11:41 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
Well you have a good point, a guitar that looks versatile (like Les Pauls because you see them in freakin' every genre out there today) probably is versatile. Whereas a guitar that looks metal, might only be meant for metal..
league  
27 Jan 2008 21:48 | Quote
Joined: way back
United States
Lessons: 2
Karma: 10
Thats funny because I feel exactly the same way as deefa, except about Les Pauls. I mean a Les Paul feels weird to me when I play. I have nothing else against it because the tone is enough to make you want to own one.A bit pricey though.
tAUG  
28 Jan 2008 02:12 | Quote
Sweden
Posts: 137
league says:
A bit pricey though.


Totally worth it xD
GuitarBoy666  
31 Jan 2008 18:14 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
Damn right, tAUG. My cheap les paul (175 CDN) is really wicked in my opinion. It just depends on what I am gonna play. And I agree with league, it kinda does feel a bit different... could be because you're used to playing what you play like every day.. me plays the godin all the time :)
telecrater  
31 Jan 2008 18:47 | Quote
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
United States
Lessons: 8
Karma: 13
i thinks part of it depends on your music, and the peers. i'm pretty sure if i showed up to a metal jam with a hollowbody ES-335 guitar and an old fender twin, i might get some crap. but hell maybe i could make it work.

Play what you got and tell every one else F off
Doz  
1 Feb 2008 10:25 | Quote
Joined: way back
United Kingdom
Karma: 10
Telecrater, I agree. I'm going to go play in my punk band with quite a sleek Ibanez S. :D
Guitarslinger124  
1 Feb 2008 10:31 | Quote
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
United States
Lessons: 12
Licks: 42
Karma: 38
Moderator
tAUG says:
Totally worth it xD


Ug...if there is any guitar i really don't like, its a Les Paul. They sound great, mostly look great-sometimes you come across a really ugly one that makes you want to puke-but not only are the guitar extremely overpriced (you can spend 2/3 the cost and buy a better guitar), but when you buy an LP you are paying a lot for the name, something i cant condone...the reason i havent bought a marshall yet, and also, the necks are too thick and chunky, strings are often too far apart, and there are more knobs on those guitars than i can count up to.
deefa  
1 Feb 2008 11:05 | Quote
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
United Kingdom
Karma: 8
Sadly, I have to agree with G.Slinger on that one. Compared to the 'modern' guitars like say, the Viper which I've just recently had a go on, it's obvious that Gibson are just relying on past glories to keep them going. Anyone want to buy my Studio?
telecrater  
1 Feb 2008 18:05 | Quote
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
United States
Lessons: 8
Karma: 13
Guitarslinger123 I think the your problems with the Les Pauls are felt by many but the some people really enjoy the chunkiness of Gibson's. if your used to playing a chunky neck when you pick up a start or anything else if feels like a toy, with the skinny neck ad all.

Really learning to play and start and learning to play on a Paul are about as different as playing an acoustic to playing a Electric.

I don't play a guitar, i play a Strat!

I have always longed for a real Gibson Les Paul, then i played an Epiphone copy and decided against it.
Doz  
1 Feb 2008 22:13 | Quote
Joined: way back
United Kingdom
Karma: 10
I do agree with the necks being chunky on a Les Paul *but* everyone should be allowed their own preferance so you can't really hold that against it. I agree though with GS that often, the lower to mid range Gibsons are overpriced for their price range due to the name.
telecrater  
1 Feb 2008 22:28 | Quote
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
United States
Lessons: 8
Karma: 13
yeah Gibsons are over priced but then again if they were not over priced they would have epiphone printed on the head stock.


deefa  
2 Feb 2008 03:50 | Quote
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
United Kingdom
Karma: 8
Fair comment TC. I had a 'top of the range' Epi LP before my studio. For the difference I noticed I might as well have saved my money!
telecrater  
2 Feb 2008 09:40 | Quote
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
United States
Lessons: 8
Karma: 13
my brother has epi lp custom, and he paid something like $700 and there are several cosmetic error on it. I think i would of held out for a gibson studio or something like that. don't get me wrong it is a great guitar but i just don't that it's $700 dollars great.
deefa  
2 Feb 2008 12:50 | Quote
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
United Kingdom
Karma: 8
The only improvement I found on my 750 Studio over my 550 Epi was a slightly 'faster' fret board. But I do mean slightly.The build quality may or may not have been better on the Gibson, I'm not 'techie' enough to tell.Maybe a better guitarist than me would be able to find other improvements in the comparison,but I think they'd be very subtle.
Nothing 'subtle' about the price difference though!
GuitarBoy666  
2 Feb 2008 12:50 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
Guitarslinger124 says:
and there are more knobs on those guitars than i can count up to.


my lp special has 2 knobs. volume and tone, and i tihnk my neck is only slightly thicker than my Godin.
a lot of guitars you are only paying for the name, not the guitar, BC Rich is a big name, but they suck, and they are very expensive.
I like les pauls but Epiphone is like, just the poor man's version of Gibson, as megadeth is known by some as the poor man's metallica (I disagree with the megadeth thing) but Gibson's are better, but with them, you are paying for the name with some guitars, not so much the guitar.

PS, have any of you seen the new Gibson Reverse Flying V ?
Goddamn they are ugly! People would beat you up if they saw you playing one of them on stage
Doz  
2 Feb 2008 14:46 | Quote
Joined: way back
United Kingdom
Karma: 10
That Reverse V is disgusting. I would beat myself up if I realised I was playing one of them on stage.
GuitarBoy666  
2 Feb 2008 15:00 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
I know eh. Gibson musta been runnin outta ideas so some idiot said "Ooh I know, lets reverse the flying v it will be cool !
telecrater  
2 Feb 2008 16:06 | Quote
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
United States
Lessons: 8
Karma: 13
oh, but what about the robot guitar, that is the brilliance of Gibson.
Doz  
2 Feb 2008 16:15 | Quote
Joined: way back
United Kingdom
Karma: 10
Lol, it sounds good but I want to hear one being played.
Guitarslinger124  
2 Feb 2008 20:26 | Quote
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
United States
Lessons: 12
Licks: 42
Karma: 38
Moderator
GuitarBoy666 says:
as megadeth is known by some as the poor man's metallica (I disagree with the megadeth thing)


Megadeth destroy metallica. Even old school metallica isnt close to being as good as megadeth, although tunes like "Harvester of Sorrow" and "The Frayed Ends of Sanity" are incredible...now that i think of it "...and Justice for All" is prolly metallica's best album. But Megadeth just destroys metallica through and through...and kirk hammett is terrible and needs to give up his whole "blues" thing.
GuitarBoy666  
2 Feb 2008 20:36 | Quote
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Canada
Karma: 2
Damn right Guitarslinger ! Megadeth kick metallica's arse all the way !
Metallica is crap now esp. st anger.. ew.. And lars ulrich is a crybaby about the whole napster thing.... EVERYONE DOWNLOADS.... get over it. butthole.

I hate those robotic guitars, if you ask me, I think they suck. It is just for lazy people who don't wanna tune a guitar themselves... It's easy to tune a guitar, Gibson is basically just like getting guitarists of today to rely on robotics and technology to do the work for them when they play guitar. I will stick to being old school and tune it myself...
Doz  
2 Feb 2008 20:50 | Quote
Joined: way back
United Kingdom
Karma: 10
I can tune a guitar... but why should guitar playing not be as efficiant as possible? I mean, I just think it's fine if somebody wants a self tuning guitar, I wouldn't want to pay a shit load more money for it... but some guitarists might want to cut that tuning time completely and get straight into it.

Some rich guitarists, anyway.
1 2


Copyright © 2004-2017 All-Guitar-Chords.com. All rights reserved.