Tone, playability, Aesthetics, value-How do you rank them?

[JTFoote]

For me -- basically, if the guitar is in good condition structurally, and has a neck profile depth that I can live with, that's all I need to know about playability. I know that everything else past that point can be set to my satisfaction -- which satisfies that aspect.

Aesthetics are negligible to me. While I might appreciate and enjoy looking at guitars that are the extension of an artist's vision; the completed concept as a whole -- rarely does this draw me in when selecting a musical instrument. In some cases, I am more likely to attempt to ignore what I might consider aesthetic overkill, if the sound is worth it.

Everything that truly matters to me when looking for a guitar is centered around tone.

I've played guitars that had such superb playability that I was literally in awe. I recall a Gibson that came out of the Custom Shop back in the early 90's that I had an opportunity to play. The set-up, right from the factory, was the closest thing to perfect I had ever felt. Incredibly low action, but you simply could NOT make it buzz. Aesthetically, a beautiful guitar, great fit and finish, gorgeous woods.

Unfortunately, the sound was not anything to write home about.

On the same day, I played an old Gibson that was about as ugly as a guitar can get. Numerous repairs ... too many to mention. But it actually in good shape, and had been repaired and certified to be structurally sound by an excellent luthier. Good playability, although I knew it could be made better, or in other words, set-up so that it would please me.

If I hadn't been a little short of funds that day, I would have, beyond a doubt, run -- not walked out, with that guitar in hand. The sound was out of this world, and as far as I'm concerned, that tone far-and-away eclipsed any other lesser considerations like appearance or decorations, or if the nut slots and saddle could be lowered.

.................................................. ......................................

My two guitars are much different in appearance. One has more bling that I prefer. The other is rather plain by comparison.

One has a virtually perfect neck profile, for my tastes. The other, not so much, more meat, less of a "V". But both have been very carefully set-up, and as a result, the difference in profiles is not an issue. I don't use much thumb to support the left hand when fretting, and instead, try to always be very aware of the pressure. Thinking in this manner negates the differences, and makes playing each a pleasure.

But I'd have neither, based on the above, unless the sound from each was on a fairly rare high plateau, and that's precisely what I went looking for. Tone is King.

... JT

[riorider]

At least two stages for me - probably more if I analyzed them over a longer period of time. Visual aesthetics catch my eye first, and really, that's not a bad thing. If I don't enjoy seeing it, I'll not likely keep picking it up to play. Then the tone - chord, simple progression, how does that hit my ear? And then trying a few changes or scales or patterns - smooth, jerky, hard to reach, etc.

Then the second stage sets in. I think tone and playability both trump the visual.

Value for me is price based on how highly the tone & playability & visual score. And there are some other variables - fit for purpose assessments. I didn't buy my Rainsong for it's looks - although it looks fine for a carbon fiber guitar - but its tone and playability are very good and its resistance to humidity and heat changes makes it a winner.

I don't equate visual aesthetics with bling, by the way. My two Baraniks are quite "blingy" and don't have a touch of shell on them other than microdots on the side of the fretboards. But I love great colors and textures in woods on bindings, purflings, headstocks, etc. Wood bling, if you will.

Phil

[HudsDad]

For me it's playability. Not every guitar can be setup to fit every player, so I check for comfort first. If it's not comfortable in my hands, I couldn't care less how good it sounds.

I don't put much thought into aesthetics. Like any other tool, it's made to be used, not gawked at. If it's comfortable to play and sounds good, the looks don't matter much to me. The only exception is the finish. I can't stand a glossy finish on wood, so I have all my gloss guitars refinished in satin. The design and wood grain is irrelevant to me.

[Andromeda]

Originally Posted by HudsDad

For me it's playability. Not every guitar can be setup to fit every player, so I check for comfort first. If it's not comfortable in my hands, I couldn't care less how good it sounds.

I don't put much thought into aesthetics. Like any other tool, it's made to be used, not gawked at. If it's comfortable to play and sounds good, the looks don't matter much to me. The only exception is the finish. I can't stand a glossy finish on wood, so I have all my gloss guitars refinished in satin. The design and wood grain is irrelevant to me.

I like how different we all are in our guitar preferences. I dislike the feel of the majority of satin finished guitars. It is not a deal breaker for me but I would rather have a gloss finish.

[TokyoNeko]

Playability is #1 for me, followed by tone. As mentioned before, not every guitar can be set up for every player. I traded/sold two fantastic guitars that I wasn't just too comfortable playing with, even after setup (to remove buzzes).

Value/Aesthetics are toss-ups at the bottom of the list.

[lt131]

1. Playability-The greatest setup in the world won't help a guitar whose neck and fretboard don't match the physical requirements of the player.

2. Tone-Got to be ther from the get-go.

3. Cost/Value-I have to know I'm getting Maximum Bang/Buck Ratio!

4. Bling don't mean a thing to me. Love a beautiful guitar but all of the above come first. Beauty is skindeep and doesn't always last.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by IndianaGeo

Hi to All,
I'm curious to know what balance you assign to the following when choosing a guitar?: Tone; Playability; Aesthetics; and Value.

I've often tried out guitars that sound fantastic, but somehow the playability isn't there and I discard it. After all, there's a very tactile "relationship" with a guitar, and indeed all the senses (to a lesser degree smell I suppose). So I'm curious as to the balance among these factors that you assign when buying a guitar?

For me, for example, as I think about it I guess it might be something like:

30% Playability, 35% tone, 20% aesthetics, 15% value.

I don't compare one aspect against the other. If the guitar is not stellar in all areas, I usually won't purchase it. I find value by either buying used or new at a deep discount.

[Fliss]

There is so much choice out there that I don't see any reason to compromise. I like my guitars to please my hands, ears and eyes as well as be within my budget!

Fliss