Beautiful Guitars Sound Better than Ugly Guitars

[Nemoman]

Originally Posted by TomB'sox

My comments will be much simpler. If I am going to commission a guitar built from any of the luthiers that I know from this site, I know for me it will not be a mahogany or the like. I just know the tone will be there from a Hatcher, McKnight, Sexuaer, Kinnaird, Doerr, Edwinson, etc. etc. I have complete confidence in that. So what I want in a commission is that tone, but also, the beauty! I could go buy a Taylor or Martin from GC that I like the sound of, but to have a guitar built, I want that and the beauty whether that is in the woods chosen or the fretboard inlay or purfling and really all of these. I want both, beauty and tone. I also do not deny that the beauty probably does add to the tone in my brain...that premise makes perfect sense to me.

The guitar to me is not just a tool (ie. I am not making my living with it), but it is a piece of art that makes music. I am not going to commission a plain guitar even if it sounds better than any I own....I would not enjoy that one as much.

Tom

What he said!!!

[TEK]

Look at a lot of the top female singers on the charts today and tell me people do not listen with their eyes.

[JJI]

Beauty matters. Weather it is beautiful to everyone, someone, or just you...it matters. If a guitar is impossibly beautiful to you and it sounds as good as it looks, it will absolutely bring you closer to the instrument.

[jmagill]

I had my first commissioned instrument built for me by John Monteleone in 1980, so I’ve had at least one foot in the luthier-built guitar world for a long time. For better or worse, luthier-built guitars are all I own and all I’m interested in owning. But, as they say, “So many guitars, so little time…” and with the extraordinary number and variety of wonderful instruments available, some triage is necessary.

In the luthier-built world, beautiful instruments are not hard to find, but ugly ones are. The wood selection, joinery, design and overall finish are usually executed to a very high standard (as befits instruments offered at premium prices) which serves as a first indication to a potential buyer that the builder knows his stuff, not just as a woodworker, but as a craftsman of tone.

So, like most folks, for me to pick up a guitar to try out, it first has to pass the ‘eye test,’ driven by my personal perceptions of what is well-made, well-designed and beautiful, and what I think I could live with. Since I'm only sampling from guitars I consider beautiful, that quality is now a 'given,' and no longer a critical factor in my evaluation process.

Once I decide that a guitar’s pretty enough, and I sit down to give it a spin, a completely different set of metrics come into play. I try to let go of any expectations. I’m not buying an art object and I’m not buying furniture, and now the sound is all that matters if the guitar’s going to come home with me. My shopping mantra is “Doc Watson never cared what his guitar looked like…”

I don't believe beautiful guitars sound better. Beauty is fleeting and the AGF classified ads are always full of beautiful guitars that folks no longer want to keep. However, I have found that the best-sounding instruments that I've played have all been beautiful as well.

As to playability, while it’s undeniably important, a well-made instrument with a great sound can usually be made playable, so I focus on finding a guitar with voice that I would consider truly Exceptional, because that always seems to be the quality that I find most elusive, and the only one that really matters to me.

I’ve never been seduced into buying a gorgeous instrument whose voice was less than extraordinary, or put off by a plainer-looking one that gave me chills when I played it.

Tone Rules All.

At least for me…

[grosskate]

Personally I'm not fooled by beautiful guitars that don't sound right.

I got a very bad experience from a commitioned custom guitar. When I got it, it was beautiful as I wanted it to be, but as soon as I started to play it, I found so much sounding issues that I couldn't bear it anymore. Seriously it was perfecly well crafted one and absolutely stunning, sound aside.

A guitar is not something I'll hang onto my wall for decorative purpose, it's a tool for me to make music. Although i see the point of this thread, I personally totally dissociate looks and sound when I try a guitar.

Just sharing my point of view.

[redir]

Somewhat similar and along the lines of the original posters point is the phenomenon in retail economies, if you will, that the higher the price an item is the better the quality is perceived to be in the minds of consumers. It's the psychology of money. The price of an item can affect the way we experience its value. Consumers may actually experience identical products as being better if they're priced higher. In fact they may think an inferior product is better if it is priced higher.

At the extreme end of this is what is known as Veblen goods which do not follow the economics 101 rule of supply in demand. With a Veblen good the demand for the product actually goes up as the price increases... A luthiers dream!

[tudor.ciocanel]

Just because our eyes influence our brain it does not mean we shouldn't exercise reason to determine if the object is actually better for our purposes or in any way different. Our senses always deceive us, take the hand in hot water and then in cold water experiment. Be smart, use a thermometer like the smart people in project Leonardo did.

[IBKuz]

Interesting info coming to light in this thread. It would seem that as important as beauty is in the decision making process it is used differently when commissioning a guitar and purchasing a guitar that has already been made. A very clear distinction.

The aspects of visual, auditory, and physical properties are all important yet each has a different priority in each case from the comments so far. Individual "beauty" takes precedence when commissioning a guitar, as could be expected, since one can have input into the final product. And "auditory" feedback should become more important when purchasing a used guitar as the aesthetics are all ready established. Yet there still seems to be a "Beauty" threshold that needs to be met before the purchase can be made.

There also seems to be a risk involved when commissioning a guitar, that we want a beautiful looking and sounding guitar, but this "sound" is not guaranteed (actually most luthiers do have a return policy that will mitigate this somewhat). Likely as long as it hits a "nice sound" threshold, the commissioner will overlook this aspect and the perceived beauty could augment any remorse in the loss of expected tone.

If one can not play the guitar and only has visual images, this then would seem to create a paradox for the buyer. Is one willing to take a risk when purchasing a guitar un-played? The answer would seem to be yes, based on the activity on the AGF classified Forum. This would then likely lead us into a discussion on GAS and how "beauty" influences this condition, but I will leave this for another thread. It would also seem from the number of posts where people are asking others for their experience in playing a particular make of guitar because they can not themselves, they are not willing to trust just to their visual senses and want some correlation from other's auditory experiences as backup.

Interestingly, in the case where one can not get the chance to play a used guitar, the perception of individual beauty seemingly does taint ones perspective, giving more credence to Mark's original pretence that beauty clouds our perception of an object. This then demonstrates why companies use highly stylized images to sell their product, and luthiers are no exception, as the drool all over my iPad will attest too ... lol .. no wonder the internet has become such an important part of our lives. Likely stating the obvious here but I did find it interesting writing this info out.

Excuse me now while I go drool over my future Porsche ...

[JoeCharter]

In this small circle, admitting that we may be influenced by anything but tone can be a bit taboo. None of us would want to be the phony poser of the bunch!

I don't want to take words from Mark's mouth but I really don't think he meant that people buy crappy sounding guitars because they look pretty.

We all have different selection criteria (or else we'd all buy the same guitars). And unless we are blind looks are part of the criteria (whether we realize it or not) -- some to a larger extent than others.

To me, that's a non-disputable way of describing normal human behaviour.

P.S.: The best sounding guitars are always those that are in the hands of the best players. For the rest, we're all a bunch of posers, whether we like it or not.

[Mark Hatcher]

Here is a way I think I can restate the premise of this thread. If we could hear or see in an unadulterated objective way a good visual representation of that would look like this; ... . . ...... . ... . . . ......... . . ... .. .. ... .. ....... ..... .... ... ......... .. .
In other words it would just be an intermittent series of electric pulses coming from our eyes or ears. We combine those pulses with our expectations of what they might mean which then becomes our "experience" of sight and sound. So there is no such thing as objectively hearing or seeing. So generally something that effects our expectation (like perceived beauty) effects the way we interpret those pulses. Beauty tends to make us interpret something in a more positive way.
Some have commented that a beautiful guitar that falls far short of the expectation can be a greater disappointment. To that I can only say, good point!

[TBman]

You know what? If we're lucky, the best case scenario for all of us is to die in our sleep with our family around us.

You want to pay more for a great looking guitar because it makes you happy to own it? Go for it.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by Mark Hatcher

Here is a way I think I can restate the premise of this thread. If we could hear or see in an unadulterated objective way a good visual representation of that would look like this; ... . . ...... . ... . . . ......... . . ... .. .. ... .. ....... ..... .... ... ......... .. .
In other words it would just be an intermittent series of electric pulses coming from our eyes or ears. We combine those pulses with our expectations of what they might mean which then becomes our "experience" of sight and sound. So there is no such thing as objectively hearing or seeing. So generally something that effects our expectation (like perceived beauty) effects the way we interpret those pulses. Beauty tends to make us interpret something in a more positive way.
Some have commented that a beautiful guitar that falls far short of the expectation can be a greater disappointment. To that I can only say, good point!

If your guitars are beautiful - which they are - the onus to make sure they sound beautiful as well increases. Here's a point, if one made a guitar that was heavily ornamented with abalone, would one expect a certain sound profile from it as to one that was conservatively appointed? For example, would one tend to expect a shimmering, overtone-laden sound from the abalone guitar and a more fundamental, woody, earthy tone from a plain one?

[IBKuz]

Originally Posted by stringjunky62

If your guitars are beautiful - which they are - the onus to make sure they sound beautiful as well increases. Here's a point, if one made a guitar that was heavily ornamented with abalone, would one expect a certain sound profile from it as to one that was conservatively appointed? For example, would one tend to expect a shimmering, overtone-laden sound from the abalone guitar and a more fundamental, woody, earthy tone from a plain one?

To build on this, when we recognize a specific shape (Gibson Slope Shoulder, Martin OM), does this visual cloud our expectation of what it should sound (and look) like? And then if it doesn't reflect that expectation, it may have a negative or positive impact on us. There are many examples I hear where people have tried a smaller guitar that sounds much larger, and that pleasantly surprises them. If I try a larger guitar that sounds flat, I am somewhat disappointed.

I was checking out a friends son's Yamaha Dred and while I was mainly checking the intonation up the Fretboard (which was very good, a nice starter guitar), it sounded extremely flat for such a large guitar that I had to bring my Eastman OM-20 out for comparison. Therefore, again the visual was my first impression and it clouded my perception to what my expectation for the sound should be. It was actually in good condition and played well, but it did not meet my precieved expectations for the size.

[SJ VanSandt]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

P.S.: The best sounding guitars are always those that are in the hands of the best players. For the rest, we're all a bunch of posers, whether we like it or not.

I want to introduce a perspective that's so different that it's off topic, but maybe it pertains, and Mau's comment leads me to it. I completely see how one of our senses can influence another, but we have feelings as well as perceptions. It matters to me how I look playing the guitar more than how the guitar looks by itself. Mau can play his gorgeous guitars because his playing is gorgeous, but I would be overly self-conscious about it - afraid I would be perceived as showing off my money more than my chops.

Just to give you an example of how my mind works: shopping for a small guitar yesterday, I compared a 1949 Gibson LG-3 to a Waterloo WL-K. I liked them both, sound-wise, but the old guitar was better by a significant amount to my ears (expertly repaired at Austin Vintage Guitars, it played as well as the brand new Collings product). The Gibson looked it's age, same as I do. I love the looks of the WL-K, but I could see people seeing me with the Gibson and not blinking an eye, whereas the Waterloo would (in my imagination) elicit judgmental thoughts. If I could afford the extra thousand bucks, I would definitely spring for the Gibson.

If I were to commission a build from Mark or Bruce or Tim - all builders I admire greatly, along with many others who post here - I would ask them to make the guitar as plain as possible, so as not to draw attention to itself. If the sound drew attention, that would be fine and I would be happy to praise it to the skies.

Just something to consider if you are selling guitars. I'm not saying my perspective is universal or even valid - just real.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by SJ VanSandt

Just something to consider if you are selling guitars. I'm not saying my perspective is universal or even valid - just real.

I remember a friend telling me that if you go out with an OM42, with it being pretty showy, you better be good. You are probably right.