Do you think looks are everything ? Or even important ?

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

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.

And the fact that in pics I just looked at, the top part is a bit bigger then other acoustics I've seen

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?

Yeah your guitar, your opinion, only your opinion matters. I love the look of my guitar though its an amazing guitar

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?

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.

You're all talking aesthetics. What about value for money?

why would ya buy a bad sounding guitar because it looks good?sorry dude that doesnt make sence to me.

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.

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

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.

>_>

Awww I wanna buy one :'(
Now I am disappointed :(

Lmao,
Nah, Ill stick with my Godin thank you very much

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!

Hm, I'll have to remember that next time I buy a guitar, deefa

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.

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.

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!

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..

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.

Totally worth it xD

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 :)

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

Telecrater, I agree. I'm going to go play in my punk band with quite a sleek Ibanez S. :D

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.

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?

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.

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.

yeah Gibsons are over priced but then again if they were not over priced they would have epiphone printed on the head stock.

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!

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.

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!

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

That Reverse V is disgusting. I would beat myself up if I realised I was playing one of them on stage.

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 !

oh, but what about the robot guitar, that is the brilliance of Gibson.

Lol, it sounds good but I want to hear one being played.

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.

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...

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.