Guitars: Ever gone for function over form?

Offset

Or to put it more crudely, have you ever bought a butt-ugly munter of a guitar either for its' feature-set or because it plays sublimely?  We all know looks are what first draw us in, but have you ever bucked that shallow trend?!

goldtop

^ Anyone who bought a Telecaster

Moe_Zambeek

I bought a Reverend Reeves Gabrels sig once, more for function than form, I always found it an awkward looking shape, especially the section around the controls and jack socket. Not exactly a munter though. 

Lewy

To an extent…in so far as I’ve never been into the look of pointy guitars but I play a Jackson because it does everything I want a guitar to do and feels so effortless to play. And then as a result I’ve started to retrospectively appreciate the aesthetics of it because I associate it with the great feeling of playing it. 

bertie

spooky,  I was thinking of posting a very similar thread in the week...............  personally I dont think I would/could.  

Im also at the stage now where,   aesthetics come first,  then its a set of diminishing compromises. 

Tho I doubt very very much if I'll ever buy another electric. 

fretmeister

Always!

I never buy for aesthetics. I don’t give a crap what an instrument looks like. If it looks nice then that’s a bonus, but I really don’t care.

There are loads of beautiful instruments that I refuse to even consider because their function is compromised.

blobb

sort of. I bought a Hohner g3t cricket bat purely so 1. it could live on an accessible shelf next to my desk for  instant idea grabbing and 2. so I could sling it in the boot of my old car (MR2 so no real boot to speak of) for visits to the beach & festivals (I made a rough portable speaker festival rig for it). Maybe this is form over function but if you call the function 'accessibility' I'll claim it here. It's neither a looker nor does it paticularly sound/feel great to play.

Rowby1

It’s got to be both really. I wouldn’t buy a guitar that looked great but played and sounded bad. Equally if a guitar sounded and played fabulous but was not what I liked looks wise.

S56035

I have never bought one I didn't like the look of. There are so many different types, colours,pickups etc that I can't imagine not being able to find a guitar that does sound, looks and feels good.

Philly_Q

Not really, but I've quite often bought guitars in colours I didn't like, because I wanted that model.  That's about as close as I've got.

stickyfiddle

I will never buy a guitar I don't think looks cool. Mind you I'd also not buy one that didn't feel and sound good. 

I might build one purely to get a specific set of pickups for studio use etc bt I'd still try and make it look cool...

Kurtis

goldtop said:

^ Anyone who bought a Telecaster

Telecasters have neither form nor function 

Kurtis

fretmeister said:

Always!

I never buy for aesthetics. I don’t give a crap what an instrument looks like. If it looks nice then that’s a bonus, but I really don’t care.

There are loads of beautiful instruments that I refuse to even consider because their function is compromised.

Is that why you wear stretchy slacks and work boots? 

Cols

Never.  For me, a guitar has to visually inspire me to pick it up and play it.  There are no headless bodiless monstrosities in the Cols household, and there never will be.

Kittyfrisk

fretmeister said:

Always!

I never buy for aesthetics. I don’t give a crap what an instrument looks like. If it looks nice then that’s a bonus, but I really don’t care.

There are loads of beautiful instruments that I refuse to even consider because their function is compromised.

I agree.
Like my Godin SD24 which came loaded with Seymour Duncan Pearly Gates bridge & STK-S4 in the neck and middle.
Lovely easy playing neck, great tones & I even love the colour   

Offset

Kittyfrisk said:

fretmeister said:

Always!

I never buy for aesthetics. I don’t give a crap what an instrument looks like. If it looks nice then that’s a bonus, but I really don’t care.

There are loads of beautiful instruments that I refuse to even consider because their function is compromised.

I agree.
Like my Godin SD24 which came loaded with Seymour Duncan Pearly Gates bridge & STK-S4 in the neck and middle.
Lovely easy playing neck, great tones & I even love the colour   

Yep, I can certainly see you didn't buy it for it's aethetics :-)

Actually I quite like it, and I definitely like the colour.

TeleMaster

goldtop said:

^ Anyone who bought a Telecaster

Whaaaaaat??? 

fretmeister

Kurtis said:

fretmeister said:

Always!

I never buy for aesthetics. I don’t give a crap what an instrument looks like. If it looks nice then that’s a bonus, but I really don’t care.

There are loads of beautiful instruments that I refuse to even consider because their function is compromised.

Is that why you wear stretchy slacks and work boots? 

Actually I do buy identical sets of clothes when I find something I like. 

Paul_C

TeleMaster said:

goldtop said:

^ Anyone who bought a Telecaster

Whaaaaaat??? 

Telecasters seem to be the current easy target for those who know nothing

HAL9000

Philly_Q said:

Not really, but I've quite often bought guitars in colours I didn't like, because I wanted that model.  That's about as close as I've got.

Same here. I bought a Vintera Strat recently in Seafoam Green which definitely wouldn’t have been my first choice of colour. I played a bunch of others but the moment I picked this one up I knew I’d be taking it home.

As for aesthetics, there are certainly some things that would be deal breakers…

Large-headstock Strats
3TSB
BIrd inlays (probably)
FR-style trems

Grampa

Yes. Bought a Cream T Aurora for the pickup changing system. Guitar turned out to be exceptionally good but I liked the Bangers & Mash HB and Duchess P90 combination so much that I never bothered swapping them out for more than an hour or two.