Guitar's appearance important?

i went with this

instead of

i prefer the inlays, but didn't like the textured grey/silver finish. The black one is a little metallic for my liking but for price and playability/sound it came down to a choice between these two. Compromises

Looks are definitly important. We aren't just "playing guitar" we're playing rock 'n roll!

I consider my Gibson Les Paul Classic AAA to be a peice of art in itself. Es muy bonita.

OWA, it definitly WANTS to fall out of your lap! That's the guitars way of saying "Any chance I get, I'll make you regret that $2k!"

But sometimes a guitar just plays and sounds so good, and at the same time it is so incredibly weird or ugly that it is just plain cool. I've got at least one of those:

(Fugly is the one on the left.)

Those guitars are cool, especially the one on the right. And I think the Les Paul I tried wouldn't say in my lap because the body was so tiny, but it was an Epiphone one, so if it fell, I wouldn't have regretted 2K lol.

The weirdest guitars I've seen are the ovation guitars. They are the weirdest electric/acoustics I have ever seen and can't help but want one!

http://www.ovationguitars.com/index.cfm?fa=detail&mid=1268#

I can't play the ovation. The back side of it and the front side of my belly are not a good match. :)

Girl I know and have jammed with - she's tiny too, Angel - plays an Ovation Celebrity and loves it. Sounds very very good too. Hers has a quilted maple top, and a round soundhole.

Looks roughly like this, only midnight blue where this is purple:

Yeah I have that same problem with them Ray :lol:
Seriously though, if you want to hear a good reason to buy a Gibson Explorer Listen to any of Johnny Winters early solo stuff, like 2nd Winter, Still Alive and Well or Saints and Sinners to hear the wicked tones these babies can produce

My bad it's a Firebird he plays. Never could keep those 2 straight

I fit into the category of I don't care what it looks like.

Well, maybe I don't buy a guitar for looks is more accurate.

I hate Ovations. The bowl backs on them guarantee that it won't stay in my lap. I've played them and they all had lots of problems with sliding down into a lap steel position.

Back on topic: Looks are important, but not the deciding factor for me. When I chose my strat I played every single MIM Strat in the shop. While I had color prefrences, I had bigger standards for tone. I played a few E chords on them all unplugged, ruled out many on the spot, more after plugging in because of electrical issues...and was happy with what I ended up with based on tone and playability.

Right now I'm eyeing an Ibanez AS83 semi-hollow body (the picture does it injustice) to be paired with a Hot Rod Deluxe. I knew going in that I was probably going to go with something that had buckers, but that honeyburst finish caught my eye and I went directly to it. It's got some Yummy tone, pretty much everything I've ever wanted. So things do catch your eye, but it's the real meat of the instrument that matters and determines satisfaction.

As for my purchase, I'll think about it.

I play a couple of Ovations, a very nice new deep bowl and an original '67 shiny bowl.

They have bowl backs, I have a bowl front. I don't have any problems with the sliding.

Could be the surgically implanted velcro....

Agh, I couldn't stand it. :o

I remember finding two accoustics at guitar center that I liked. A 575 dollar Takamine, and a 2000+ Gibby Hummingbird. I went with a Seagull S6, and learned to hate Martins based on tone, too. :D

no offense but thats one ugly guitar dont take this the wrong way but dont too caught up in the whole look of guitar and the scene or whatever and forget its about music

lol wtf?
a) The Explorer is a very popular design, has been for a long time, its not some exotic arty limited edition thing...
b) Looks are entirely opinion.
c) You've just proved looks do matter with your comment! You wouldnt be seen dead with it. To many people, it looks too 'heavy-metal-like' or just generally too extreme or ugly. Its like to me an Ibanez Artcore is hidious, but you see many jazz and blues player using em n liking the look. The roots of my playing stem from old school metal, so I really would feel a little odd owning one...Theres nothing wrong with being limited in your likes for guitars, afterall you dont wanna pick up your guitar and everyday think how midiocore it looks.

I think I have to like Ovations. The factory is only 10 miles from me. I want to take a tour someday. I also own a S771 (medium bowl). I almost never play sitting down, so sliding off my lap is not a problem. It is a great instrument with quality workmanship and sounds good plugged or unplugged.

And I like the look. :D

Look is important to most people. I do not like the heavy Metal type guitars because I am not really that type of person. I mean, I like Metal and even play some, but I am not a Headbanger. I don't wear leather, have long black hair and all that. I am more old school Classic Rock and I like my guitars to look the part. Give me a Tele, Strat, or LP. Those are good looking guitars that sound great.

I think the ugliest guitar I have ever seen was Prince's guitar.

Now this is UGLY!

i do think looks are important, but they're not the most important thing. there are alot of times when the guitar you have aids in your image. i like rock, so there's no way i'd ever want to own a Jackson, or an ESP, or a BC Rich, or anything that looks to metally. I don't play metal, i don't want a guitar that embodies metal. it could have great tone and feel great, but i dont want it, cos it doesnt look like me. i'd want a nice strat or tele or LP, cos they do fit the look of the music i like.

but still, if the coolest looking guitar EVER sounded like crap, i wouldnt touch it.

Wes brings up an interesting point. Not only do guitars portray a certain sense of style to their music, but so do the players. I doubt I'd ever pass as a jazz or blues player.

"Blue hair and blues? Get it?" *hears crickets*

I like the BC Rich designs but the ones I've tried were neck heavy.