What am I missing - strats and teles

PonchoGreg

Blueingreen said:

A lot of the response to the aesthetics of guitars is a learned response based on a knowledge of the history and iconography of the instrument.

Try talking to someone who has a sophisticated eye for art and design but little or no knowledge of guitars and rock iconography.  Ask them which of a sample of guitars they think look best and why.  You'll find their taste hardly overlaps with conventional wisdom among guitarists at all.  The tend to find Teles, Strats and SGs plain and uninteresting. They have no idea that a red SG has a different meaning from a blue one, or that a pretty PRS is unsanctified by tradition, or that a middle pickup on a Telecaster Is "just wrong".

One of the ironies of the looks-obsessed guitarist who wants his instrument to be absolutely period correct is that he's up on stage thinking he has a particularly lovely instrument and for about 95.5% of his audience the things he thinks makes it special are totally invisible, and they are looking at the plainest of plain Janes.

So whose taste is to be preferred, the geek who's up to scratch on every period detail or the aesthetically sensitive individual whose response is unmediated by all the bullshit?

Guitarists obviously like to think it's the former, but I suspect it's not.

This is spot on.

For that reason, I'm not sure I get the point someone made earlier about these guitars essentially being pretty because of all the blood, sweat and tears in smoky blues clubs, etc. Give it a few more years and it will be completely irrelevant as that collective memory will have faded away. And I'm just talking about actual guitar players who like gear, too - I would bet the vast majority of, say, Stones fans who are really into music but not guitar players will not give two shits as to what Keef was playing on that particular live album.

You can discuss the aesthetic merits of these guitars without having to rely on the associated iconography.

And I'm saying that as someone who actually finds both strats and teles beautiful

Ironically, I think the most striking and aesthetically pleasing feature of the strat is one that will not be enjoyed in most circumstances, and certainly not by an audience at a gig: it's that three-quarter view of the side of the guitar, with the neck pointing up. There is a specific angle where the belly carve suggests that the body is literally an inch thick and also somewhat curved, with the lines of the top horn and forearm contours accentuating the effect... It really is a lovely "form" byproduct of a very "function" element of design. Just beautiful. But I digress!

Eski

HAL9000 said:

I actually like the fact that they are, on the whole, fairly plain, functional, and workmanlike. I wouldn’t want anything that is too ornate or blingy.

This

HilditchGuitars

Blueingreen said:

A lot of the response to the aesthetics of guitars is a learned response based on a knowledge of the history and iconography of the instrument.

Try talking to someone who has a sophisticated eye for art and design but little or no knowledge of guitars and rock iconography.  Ask them which of a sample of guitars they think look best and why.  You'll find their taste hardly overlaps with conventional wisdom among guitarists at all.  The tend to find Teles, Strats and SGs plain and uninteresting. They have no idea that a red SG has a different meaning from a blue one, or that a pretty PRS is unsanctified by tradition, or that a middle pickup on a Telecaster Is "just wrong".

One of the ironies of the looks-obsessed guitarist who wants his instrument to be absolutely period correct is that he's up on stage thinking he has a particularly lovely instrument and for about 95.5% of his audience the things he thinks makes it special are totally invisible, and they are looking at the plainest of plain Janes.

So whose taste is to be preferred, the geek who's up to scratch on every period detail or the aesthetically sensitive individual whose response is unmediated by all the bullshit?

Guitarists obviously like to think it's the former, but I suspect it's not.

Bang on. 
And also, everyone saying that everyone is different and to each their own etc... clearly everyone is not different, as there has been a far greater defense of the said guitars. Maybe only some are different? 

HilditchGuitars

I'd also like to applaud the mature manner with which this has been discussed. Exactly what I imagined, as it was only intended to be a friendly discussion 

Offset

Hilditch, you're not missing anything.  It's simply down to personal taste.  I'm a confirmed Fender Bender and have been for 45 years.  Gibson have always left me fairly cold and I've avoided them for all these years.  PRS not my thang either.  That said I scratched an itch a year back, gave in and bought a Firebird V.  Flawed, ginormous and you need arms like a gibbon to play one but I love it like you would a wayward child.  They look uber-cool and if their sound is your bag, you'll want one.  But nowt beats the sound of Popa Chubby, Jimi, KWS or SRV caning it through a Strat.

Cranky

Blueingreen said:

A lot of the response to the aesthetics of guitars is a learned response based on a knowledge of the history and iconography of the instrument.

Try talking to someone who has a sophisticated eye for art and design but little or no knowledge of guitars and rock iconography.  Ask them which of a sample of guitars they think look best and why.  You'll find their taste hardly overlaps with conventional wisdom among guitarists at all.  The tend to find Teles, Strats and SGs plain and uninteresting. They have no idea that a red SG has a different meaning from a blue one, or that a pretty PRS is unsanctified by tradition, or that a middle pickup on a Telecaster Is "just wrong".

One of the ironies of the looks-obsessed guitarist who wants his instrument to be absolutely period correct is that he's up on stage thinking he has a particularly lovely instrument and for about 95.5% of his audience the things he thinks makes it special are totally invisible, and they are looking at the plainest of plain Janes.

So whose taste is to be preferred, the geek who's up to scratch on every period detail or the aesthetically sensitive individual whose response is unmediated by all the bullshit?

Guitarists obviously like to think it's the former, but I suspect it's not.

 I honestly started as the "art and design" type and later started playing and learning about the guitars' history and iconography.  This doesn't at all remove the subjectivity from the issue. 

I will never like bling.  I will always think that three p90s or HBs looks bad on a guitar.  I will always dislike pointy instruments and most double cutaway designs.  I've always preferred simple and vintage looks and color schemes; the more metal, especially gold, the worse for me.  I can't stand quilt tops.  The Tele, Strat and LP are simple, accommodating, beautiful and functional designs.  Especially the Tele and LP.  My visual preferences tend to parallel my aural preferences.  And I dress myself similarly.  Every individual has his/her preferences. 

For the first decade that I had my one electric guitar -- a Tele Deluxe -- I could never remember if I had a Telecaster or a Stratocaster.  I didn't know the difference in either body design or pickups.  But I liked the look and feel of my guitar.

Outside of a couple of Strat players like SRV and Jimi, I have no idea which guitars are played by which guitarist.  I know that not everyone is like me, but I have my doubts as to the role that iconography plays when people decide what guitar to play and what they think looks best.

Hattigol

crunchman said:

ICBM said:

Blueingreen said:

Try talking to someone who has a sophisticated eye for art and design but little or no knowledge of guitars and rock iconography.  Ask them which of a sample of guitars they think look best and why.  You'll find their taste hardly overlaps with conventional wisdom among guitarists at all.

Interestingly, the only times I've ever been complimented on my guitar at a gig - and remarkably, nearly every time when I've used one - by women, who I hope it isn't too sexist to describe as probably less likely to be musicians, and perhaps more likely to have an eye for something that just looks nice - has been whenever I've been playing a...








Rickenbacker.

(Seriously.)

When I had one of these:

I had two different women come up to me and tell me it was their favourite colour.  (It's a mid 80's Ibanez Roadstar II).

It wasn't a woman. It was Danish Pete in a wig.

Devil#20

Nobody has pointed out the obvious. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Look at all those guitars out there that are tele or strat shaped. 

BluesLover

A guitar like a Stratocaster has a sculptural quality that can't be judged purely on looks, you have to handle it too. Play it. Maybe this discussion occasionally mixes up responses to looks with responses to feel?

dindude

We all see beauty in different things. 

Take something as simple as a dinning chair - for me something like an Eames (below) is the Strat equivalent, curvy yet functional and unfussy, way more sophisticated than some give it credit for, and more the better for it, and just as likely to find it in dining rooms today as when it was designed in 1950. A classic that still somehow still looks modern almost 70 years later.

Gibson for me are the fussy, staid, over ornate dark wood antique your granny has, probably with an annoying ticking grandfather clock in the background.  Still own a few Gibson types though....

https://i.imgur.com/zAw5Cxn.jpg

HilditchGuitars

Devil#20 said:

Nobody has pointed out the obvious. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Look at all those guitars out there that are tele or strat shaped. 

Or just jumping on the bandwagon and knocking out copies as cheap as poss to make a few quid?

HilditchGuitars

dindude said:

We all see beauty in different things. 

Take something as simple as a dinning chair - for me something like an Eames (below) is the Strat equivalent, curvy yet functional and unfussy, way more sophisticated than some give it credit for, and more the better for it, and just as likely to find it in dining rooms today as when it was designed in 1950. A classic that still somehow still looks modern almost 70 years later.

Gibson for me are the fussy, staid, over ornate dark wood antique your granny has, probably with an annoying ticking grandfather clock in the background.  Still own a few Gibson types though....

https://i.imgur.com/zAw5Cxn.jpg

I agree it's like a strat in that I'd never own one

TTBZ

I wish Fender would just put more modern features on their standard/player series guitars as the standard models just feel a bit clunky to me, even as a Gibson player. I feel like things like a more ergonomic neck heel should be standard across the range and not only on the Ultra series which are stupidly expensive for a fender style guitar anyway imo. Currently I think I'd rather get a Schecter PT which has an improved heel, forearm contour, faster playing neck and frets etc.

stickyfiddle

TTBZ said:

I wish Fender would just put more modern features on their standard/player series guitars as the standard models just feel a bit clunky to me, even as a Gibson player. I feel like things like a more ergonomic neck heel should be standard across the range and not only on the Ultra series which are stupidly expensive for a fender style guitar anyway imo. Currently I think I'd rather get a Schecter PT which has an improved heel, forearm contour, faster playing neck and frets etc.

They've literally just done that in the new AM Pro II range announced this week.

I suspect most buyers don't actually care. There's no money above the 15th fret...

TTBZ

They're about £1500 though. I just couldn't justify spending that much on what's basically the most stripped down and basic way of constructing a guitar - it goes against everything a telecaster stands for imo! That's probably a bit contradictory on my part now I'm asking for these more modern features on a basic guitar but they're not huge changes. I guess if the demand was there they'd do it though as you say most people might not care.

BlueStrat

To my eyes the Strat is one of the iconic pieces of 20th century design, i love just about everything about it. 

Would i improve some things? Sure! And that’s why we have Tom Anderson, Suhr and Ibanez RG, each an evolution on the original

Iamnobody

HilditchGuitars said:

Devil#20 said:

Nobody has pointed out the obvious. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Look at all those guitars out there that are tele or strat shaped. 

Or just jumping on the bandwagon and knocking out copies as cheap as poss to make a few quid?

Or Simply catering to demand? The first image we see of guitars is often a famous artist with a Gibson or Fender and that’s imprinted in the mind and forms our expectation. Particularly for a first guitar. So lots of low end guitars replicate the ‘typical’ shapes that beginners know and expect. 

High end guitars play on the same imagery but take it a step further with vintage correctness and relic work - to please the more affluent and knowledgable who crave the iconic looks and want the detail.

Danielsguitars

I'm very late to the tele strat party, I always played a Les Paul but it was my friends handmade ones that changed my mind, they were lovely to play

I don't like a vintage radius so 7.25 to 9.5 compound works for me or 9.5 to 12 for most other stuff, I've recently built a jazzmaster, strat and tele but I'm still getting used to the scale length but they've turned out lovely, especially the jazzmaster, might make some shorter LP scale necks, otherwise I really like them and the clean tones are great

I also like beat up whiteguard teles and realistically aged guitars in general

Cranky

Gibson = Apple
Fender = Linux