Beautiful Guitars Sound Better than Ugly Guitars

[dneal]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Mark, perhaps I am an outlier, but I cannot begin to count the number of guitars that I have auditioned at luthier exhibitions because I thought they were aesthetically exquisite. Their visual aesthetics attracted me enough to audition them, but once played, I knew that they were just not for me. Perhaps this is not inconsistent with your proposition. If I wasn't visually attracted to them in the first place, I might have liked them less after auditioning them?

This is my experience as well. I've played plenty of guitars that I loved the looks of, but found the sound lacking. My favorite sounding guitar does little for me visually.

[printer2]

And then there is the other side. Commenting in Tim's walnut thread I was brought back to the day I brought my walnut guitar to work for others to play. As it was an experimental guitar I tried some ideas on it that did not quite work out visually. So when each person picked up the guitar they were not ready for the sound that came from it. If it were a thing of beauty from the start would they have been as impressed by the sound? Or would they have been expecting more if the guitar looked spectacular and heard even more from it? I don't know.

But if I could hazard a guess, I would say the probability of someone paying more for a good looking, great sounding guitar might be higher than them paying for a mediocre looking guitar that sounded great.

[justonwo]

A guitar has to look good to me before I will even pick it up (for the most part). I'm sure that is shallow and wrong but that's the reality for me. A beautiful looking guitar increases the enjoyment for me when it is also great sounding. On the other hand, I would rather have a guitar that plays and sounds great than one that looks great. These days, you can have both.

[Christopher Cozad]

Originally Posted by justonwo

...I would rather have a guitar that plays and sounds great than one that looks great. These days, you can have both.

Hear, hear! 'Nuff said. Them's marchin' orders.

[skinnerb]

Many years ago when my Mother was first teaching me to cook she said;" We eat first with our eyes". That said , you can't eat pretty but it does make a difference if a person also knows how to prepare a meal ( or a guitar).

[Guitars44me]

My goodness. We certainly have some Luthier /philosophers here on the AGF!

I must agree with Mr. Hatcher, and with Mr. Sexauer! I believe a truly beautiful Guitar must have it's form follow its functionality. Excess stuff is unnecessary but can be pretty.
However, frequently, to my eyes, the excess stuff detracts from the beauty of a more simple instrument.

Of course, it has to sound fabulous, or why even bother playing it, unless there's nothing else around…

There's also the third leg of the tripod for me. Which is playability! I must say that I am sold on bevels and soundports. And custom neck carves! Since I am 66 now, and still playing for a meager living I find playability is more and more important to me.

Even the best sounding and most beautiful guitar, will not make my team if it is not comfortable to play for three or four long SOLO sets in a day. But fortunately I often find that a super playable and sounding instrument is very attractive visually! Perhaps this has to do with the skills of luthiers who make these instruments. Like you guys! And I must say that for me the skills you two and many other builders are displaying DO qualify you as ARTISTS, INDEED.

Please carry on at top speed! Thanks for you ur work and sharing your thoughts! And, may your herds increase!

Cheers

Paul

[JoeCharter]

Of course, Mark is right. If something pleases our sight, it usually has a positive impact on our other senses, too.

While looks may be more important to some people than others and while beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, unless one is completely blind looks simply cannot be totally ignored.

That being said, no statement is meant to apply perfectly to everyone. If you spend enough years in prison, you may end up thinking your hairy cellmate looks a bit like Marilyn Monroe. But in the end anecdotes and exceptions cannot break the rules of nature.

[Jobe]

Beauty is a two edged sword. It can offer more up front yet let you down on the back end. When you find both ends 'beauty' replies. And, of course, to each their own.

[Mark Hatcher]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

Beauty is what we call informed perception. We learn to appreciate balances of color and form, and some creative persons become adept at arranging these attributes in ways that please us. They are often called artists.

Tone is another form of beauty that we can learn to appreciate. There is much discussion as to just which tone is preferred, and little agreement about adjectives to describe tone, but some luthiers none the less seem to have a handle on preferred tonal flavors, and they tend to be recognized for their achievement by being able to command a decent price for their work, possibly even being able to make a living making guitars.

Even better, a very few luthiers have been able to not only get a tone that guitar players can agree to be beautiful, but they can also balance the woods, finish, and graphics aspects of their instruments to appear beautiful to the eye, beyond the conservative guitar, which is pleasant enough on its own. These luthiers could be called artists, too, more than just competent artisans, but it is an appropriation of the title, and arguably misused.

I believe there is another layer yet where aesthetics CAN play a major part in the making of guitars. As the eye becomes educated regarding what is beautiful and what is not, the eye learns to see beauty in that which works well, and find less beauty in that which is dysfunctional. This is an inversion af the old adage, "form follows function", which become "function follows form". The idea is that when an artisan's eye becomes sufficiently informed about what is working wonderfully, it then becomes possible to make the (guitar, in our case) work even better through the mechanism of making it more beautiful. Analytically, this describes a means of tapping the subconscious database of all experience through the mechanism of aesthetics. When the artisan uses this method, he/she has moved into the realm artist with much greater certainty.

I hope, Mark, that these thoughts build on or at least relate to your interesting post. I have yet to hold your work, but you are at the very least a good photographer, and I look forward to the moment.

I answered this post once and said thanks for your comments. After rereading this with my morning coffee in hand I see these thoughtful words deserve more than a "thanks for your comments". First, yes it does build wonderfully upon my original posting. Guitars44me says we're being luthier philosophers and when we start getting into what defines beauty in guitars I have to agree.

Unlike a painting on a wall there is a functional aspect of guitars that informs and inspires our concept of what is beautiful. This functionality also sets a boundary where at the very least the design of a guitar must not get in the way or inhibit the guitars functionality. When the design is beautiful and contributes to the functionality, that's ideal.

There is also history and tradition that sets certain expectations with the look and sound of a guitar. It's a wonderful challenge to create something new that is original, functional, and at the same time looks like it always belonged.

[invguy921]

Originally Posted by justonwo

A guitar has to look good to me before I will even pick it up (for the most part). I'm sure that is shallow and wrong but that's the reality for me. A beautiful looking guitar increases the enjoyment for me when it is also great sounding. On the other hand, I would rather have a guitar that plays and sounds great than one that looks great. These days, you can have both.

Mark, I agree with you, and certainly one aspect of your guitars over some others is that every one I've seen is visually enchanting. And, tonally they are really really good also.

I deal with this all the time, and I think there are a BUNCH of others that do also from the activity in the classified section of AGF. In the "multitude" of guitars that have passed through my hands (and yes "multitude is the correct term ), I do see a connection of beauty to tone. But, I agree with Justin by saying "A beautiful looking guitar increases the enjoyment for me when it is also great sounding". In fact, I've "coined" a little phrase that I often use which is "it is the looks that get me there, and the tone that keeps me there". I've played AND owned lots of pretty guitars that simply didn't make the grade tonally. In fact, I am preparing to sell a guitar that is amazingly beautiful and sounds phenomenal, simply because I bought one that is equally magnificent tonally, but satisfies my eye more. If my budget allowed, I'd keep both but since it doesn't, the one with the most visual impact on me wins.

So, in the end, whether it "sounds better" or not, a beautiful guitar that is tonally awesome certainly is more enjoyable to own and play.

[stringjunky]

I think exquisite looking guitars can raise expectations of a matching sound that is not possible, leading to disappointment. In more conservative attire they may actually sound very nice.

Mark: 'reality' can be defined as that which has intersubjective consensus.

[Tim McKnight]

Mark, I agree with what you have said in this interesting thread but also bring up an additional path of discussion which may have not been discussed yet. In my experience there are two vastly differing groups of guitar consumers and your OT addresses valid points with the greater percentage of the guitar buying public, amateur and collector musicians.

However, many professional musicians have a different perspective. We have several professional musicians playing our guitars and every one of them have made similar comments to us before making a purchase that "they don't care what the guitar looks like but foremost what does it sound like?" (and I am paraphrasing a generalized statement). Guitars are tools which they rely on to make their living with and they are drawn to guitars more so by tone than visual appeal.

I've seen it every time in the professional guitar players we hire to play our demo concerts at major guitar shows. We typically have multiple guitars on display. It usually goes like this; the pro player comes to our table, spends a few minutes with each guitar and then tells us privately which guitars they would like to play and why. They have songs already in their mind to play and they think this or that guitar will sound the best with a particular song or tuning.

We have several pro players in the Nashville CW & Bluegrass scenes and we always ask them how they found us because its helpful for us to know. Every one of them came to us by referral and after playing "so and so's" guitar. Again this reinforces that they were impressed enough by the sound of so and so's guitar to pick up the phone and call us.

Beautiful wood and unique design aspects are certainly important and they are hooks to get consumers into a booth at a guitar show. Its also a double edged sword in that if the tone didn't inspire them enough then its likely they will move on to the next booth or table.

I had a pastor that used to say "You can dress up a pig and make her look real good but underneath, she's still a pig". Perhaps this has already been said but it bears repeating that while beauty is certainly alluring and important lets not loose sight of the importance of tone as well.

[jaymarsch]

Thanks for starting this discussion, Mark. Interesting topic.

I have always been a very visual person and loved both music and the visual arts growing up. I was told in grade school that I could not sing by an angry nun so my love for music waned and I focused on visual arts for a long time while playing my music alone at night without anyone knowing.

I share all this to say that visual aesthetic appeal is important to me and while I have not purchased an instrument based upon looks alone, I think that it did influence my decision when I was shopping for luthiers. I wanted an guitar that sounded wonderful, felt wonderful to play, and appealed to my sense of visual aesthetics.

I think that neuroscience is fascinating and we are learning so much about the human brain and mind that have all sorts of implications. Thanks for posting the TED talk links. I will check them out.

I feel so fortunate to be living at a time when there are so many beautiful sounding and looking instruments available to us.

Best,
Jayne

[runamuck]

But microphones don't have eyes.

[Mark Hatcher]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

Mark, I agree with what you have said in this interesting thread but also bring up an additional path of discussion which may have not been discussed yet. In my experience there are two vastly differing groups of guitar consumers and your OT addresses valid points with the greater percentage of the guitar buying public, amateur and collector musicians.

However, many professional musicians have a different perspective. We have several professional musicians playing our guitars and every one of them have made similar comments to us before making a purchase that "they don't care what the guitar looks like but foremost what does it sound like?" (and I am paraphrasing a generalized statement). Guitars are tools which they rely on to make their living with and they are drawn to guitars more so by tone than visual appeal.

I've seen it every time in the professional guitar players we hire to play our demo concerts at major guitar shows. We typically have multiple guitars on display. It usually goes like this; the pro player comes to our table, spends a few minutes with each guitar and then tells us privately which guitars they would like to play and why. They have songs already in their mind to play and they think this or that guitar will sound the best with a particular song or tuning.

We have several pro players in the Nashville CW & Bluegrass scenes and we always ask them how they found us because its helpful for us to know. Every one of them came to us by referral and after playing "so and so's" guitar. Again this reinforces that they were impressed enough by the sound of so and so's guitar to pick up the phone and call us.

Beautiful wood and unique design aspects are certainly important and they are hooks to get consumers into a booth at a guitar show. Its also a double edged sword in that if the tone didn't inspire them enough then its likely they will move on to the next booth or table.

I had a pastor that used to say "You can dress up a pig and make her look real good but underneath, she's still a pig". Perhaps this has already been said but it bears repeating that while beauty is certainly alluring and important lets not loose sight of the importance of tone as well.

Thanks for your post and insights Tim. I agree and have experienced that viewpoint especially from folks seeking a living as musicians. I get it, making a living at your art is a big big deal and can be all consuming. Many would not be comfortable attributing any credit to a "pretty" guitar. I do not begrudge their passion. My passion is making guitars and I know how hard it can be to get out of that kind of perspective.

All this reminds me of a guitar instructor I had. I'd offered him a deal with some barter involving guitar lessons. He certainly had that guitar as tool perpective and one day it got the best of him. He took one of my guitars and placed it on a chair and stood back and said, "Play, play" while pointing at the guitar. He then proudly told me, "See, nothing. It's really all about the musician!"
Luckily we were next to my studio and I popped over there and scooped up a top and back set, binding, pieces of mahogany, tuners, and miscellaneous parts. I brought this arm full of parts and dumped them on the coffee table in front of him. I stood there in front of him and pointed at him and said, "Play, play"

Which is more important to sustain our human life? A heart or a brain?